There's an interesting court case happening in Dallas right now between two former radio hosts and their former employer. Basically, the hosts were unsatisfied

There's an interesting court case happening in Dallas right now between two former radio hosts and their former employer. Basically, the hosts were unsatisfied that they didn't own their own material and that they couldn't get corporate to bump the pay of the producers and board operators who helped make their show work. So they proposed a solution where they would record additional content in the form of a podcast and use a subscription to that material to pay these other guys more money. While the hosts were slated to make ~$250K each for 3 hours of airtime a day, producers usually make around $35K, and board ops less. The corporate side said no, and thus the hosts resigned. This began the enforcement of a non-compete agreement that the hosts thumbed their noses at, immediately starting up a podcast in the same format as their radio show, with a similar name. They were promptly sued for violation of the non-compete and currently have a TRO until they have mediation next Monday. They had accumulated around 4000 subscriptions at $6.90 a month in about a month's time. Twitter-adherent people might be familiar with one of their lawyers Matt Bruenig, who is a socialist lawyer with a strong internet presence and has been involving himself in NLRB related matters since he was in college. He's a friend of one of the hosts and is apparently using this as a test case to try to at least limit what non-competes in the entertainment industry can enforce. At one point, two of the drive-time show hosts went to corporate and asked to have their current contracts rewritten to have their contracts end at the same time as the proposed new contract of these hosts. They were shot down. This will be brought up in court as a strike against collective bargaining. For example, it's standard in radio non-competes that you do not broadcast within the listening area of your market for the duration of the non-compete. The format and name of the show is owned by the radio corp. And should you decide to negotiate with any third party during the course of your contract or non-compete for better pay, you are required under the terms of the contract to disclose these to the company because they have the right of first refusal. The argument of these hosts is that they are not technically competing with the radio station because they took their show online and do not release the show until late in the evening after the station's unsyndicated content has run its course. The hosts claim that the non-compete is unfair. The station claims that they've spent considerable money promoting the hosts and would suffer financial injury if hosts could just roll off of a contract and directly into a podcast. IMO they both have valid points.