Highlights From Today's Reply Brief (Part 6)
Regarding our argument that plaintiffs ignore several issues:
There are several issues raised by the motion that the opposition either ignores, or avoids.
1. The Settlement and the Notice use different definitions of the Categories, and the differences are significant in light of copyright law. The opposition does not discuss this. Why would the definitions not be exactly the same?
2. The single infringement theory of the settlement is contrary to copyright law. The motion raises this point, but the opposition does not address it.
3. Class Members don't know how to identify themselves. The opposition ignores this issue.
4. The motion raised two questions about releases, neither of which is addressed by the opposition. The first was the use of numerous vague references to parties being released, by words like licensees, nominees, etc. There is no explanation of why this is justified. The second was to question why non-parties are being allowed to buy into this settlement by paying a share of the set price of $18 million. The response is that the law allows the release of non-parties. Muchnick agrees with the legal point, but the issue is one of fairness. This settlement is for $18 million even if just the sued defendants settle. But additional parties, different infringers, are allowed to obtain releases by sharing that cost. Equity suggests the additional infringers should pay something additional to obtain their release.
The full brief can be viewed at http://freelancerights.muchnick.net/. Comments can be posted here or emailed to me at info@muchnick.net.
There are several issues raised by the motion that the opposition either ignores, or avoids.
1. The Settlement and the Notice use different definitions of the Categories, and the differences are significant in light of copyright law. The opposition does not discuss this. Why would the definitions not be exactly the same?
2. The single infringement theory of the settlement is contrary to copyright law. The motion raises this point, but the opposition does not address it.
3. Class Members don't know how to identify themselves. The opposition ignores this issue.
4. The motion raised two questions about releases, neither of which is addressed by the opposition. The first was the use of numerous vague references to parties being released, by words like licensees, nominees, etc. There is no explanation of why this is justified. The second was to question why non-parties are being allowed to buy into this settlement by paying a share of the set price of $18 million. The response is that the law allows the release of non-parties. Muchnick agrees with the legal point, but the issue is one of fairness. This settlement is for $18 million even if just the sued defendants settle. But additional parties, different infringers, are allowed to obtain releases by sharing that cost. Equity suggests the additional infringers should pay something additional to obtain their release.
The full brief can be viewed at http://freelancerights.muchnick.net/. Comments can be posted here or emailed to me at info@muchnick.net.
posted by Irv Muchnick at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home