| --------------------------------- EDIT: It's inside my edit window and several people have asked for clarification, so I'll try to clarify. If something is unclear, ask, and if it's outside the edit window anymore I will reply. (1) (footnote from above)
The Zynga case is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020462190457701... (there's a search engine friendly url if ever I saw one) this is the rare case where you get to zynga size before the "clawback", which is very formal and unusual for that reason...it's not just a couple of heated skype conversations when you're tiny. usually there is no such thing, and the collaboration breaks down around your first few sales or after the product can actually be finished by someone on a small wage. Conveniently, the founders are left holding the "bag". (2)
Hollywood accounting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump#Author_controversy clarification on "search engine friendly URL" - I meant I think the wall street journal should put the title in the URL so that it's matched in pages such as this one, and so Google gives the article more weight!). (3)
Under marxist theory, anyone who actually owns the means of production (e.g. the web server hosting the content let's say) makes money off of "surprus profit" that workers contribute. If the workers owned the means of production, they would be better off. So, this part of my comment was that it sounds like marxist to talk about ripping off workers, who are voluntarily contributing their labor under capitalist laws. But it only sounds that way -- critics of hollywood accounting do not criticize capitalism, nor that a film distributor can make 500,000,000 worldwide after spending 100,000,000 all told, with the rest being the retained profit. The analogy with marxist discontent is only superfluous, not deep. |