Weekly Standard Article About the Settlement
On the eve of tomorrow’s hearing in New York for new-and-improved preliminary approval of the hastily rejiggered UnSettlement 2.0, the conservative opinion magazine The Industry Standard has an essay in its current issue by writer Charlotte Allen entitled “Freelance Writers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your copyright fees.” The link to the teaser for the article is http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?idArticle=5872&r=jqxrs. The full text currently is available online only to subscribers or via your friendly neighborhood electronic database.
Charlotte’s piece gave rise to an email exchange. I thank her for permission to share her end of it.
+++++
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Irvin Muchnick
Subject: Copyright class action
To: Charlotte Allen
Ms. Allen:
Your Weekly Standard piece is an amusing ideological tirade and exercise in general cynicism. It's not very well informed about the copyright class action case, however.
A lot of people agree with you that the class action system too often doesn't serve anyone's interests except the plaintiffs' lawyers'. Some of us think this particular case is an egregious example, in part because the electronic database industry -- which has expanded well beyond the public library market -- is huge and growing. In April I filed a motion to vacate the preliminary settlement. Earlier this month six co-objectors and I filed objections to the settlement. The settlement parties have asked the court to postpone the scheduled final fairness hearing originally set for this Thursday, July 28. For more information, see my website, http://freelancerights.muchnick.net/, and my blog, http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/.
Irv Muchnick
*****
From: Charlotte Allen
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:26:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Irvin Muchnick
Mr. Muchnick:
I'm delighted that there are other writers out there who think the settlement in the database suit is an outrage, even if our reasons for thinking so may not completely overlap. In my opinion, the class-action itself was an abuse of the litigation process, filed with no intention of ever going to trial, where even the issue of whether there is a genuine class would be problematic to prove.
And kudos to you and the other six writers for filing a formal objection to the settlement. I couldn't afford to do so, so I filed an informal objection: I faxed a copy of my article to Judge Daniels.
The real problem for free-lance writers, in my opinion, is the abysmally low pay we all must live with unless we write for the New Yorker. It strikes me as an insoluble problem, however, for we writers live for the glory of seeing our names in print as well as the money.
Charlotte Allen
*****
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Irvin Muchnick
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Charlotte Allen
Ms. Allen:
Thank you for your measured response. We do disagree about whether the class action itself was an abuse of the litigation process. If you’ll review my entire website, and especially the long history at http://crassaction.muchnick.net/, you’ll see that I was an architect of copyright class actions on behalf of freelancers. “My” first case, against the now-defunct UnCover fax service, settled five years ago for $7.25 million and got dozens of writers more than $30,000 each. That case, along with the Tasini case, laid the foundation for the current consolidated class actions (the first of which also was originally “my” project).
We agree on the problem of abysmally low pay for writers. But I think you’re entirely too dismissive of the potential of the secondary-rights issue to improve our lot. The problem is that the plaintiff associations and attorneys didn’t know how to use the leverage they had. In the case of the associations, they had no business representing the class for damages, because their main interest is in looking tough while staying in the good graces of the industry. The long-term solution is, in my view, a “kinder and gentler ASCAP.” No one is saying that I’m Victor Herbert and you’re Irving Berlin. But article database text is now a big, big business, and our indispensable piece of it needs to be acknowledged with a dignified royalty system, not a regime of all-rights contracts. And incidentally, this is better for the public as well as for writers, for reasons which I won’t belabor here but which are fully developed in various trade press articles of mine republished at my website.
Best regards,
Irv
*****
From: Charlotte Allen
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:28:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Irvin Muchnick
Irv:
I completely agree with you that the main goal of the writers' unions associated with the suit was to make themselves look good to their members and thus justify their existence.
Charlotte
Charlotte’s piece gave rise to an email exchange. I thank her for permission to share her end of it.
+++++
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Irvin Muchnick
Subject: Copyright class action
To: Charlotte Allen
Ms. Allen:
Your Weekly Standard piece is an amusing ideological tirade and exercise in general cynicism. It's not very well informed about the copyright class action case, however.
A lot of people agree with you that the class action system too often doesn't serve anyone's interests except the plaintiffs' lawyers'. Some of us think this particular case is an egregious example, in part because the electronic database industry -- which has expanded well beyond the public library market -- is huge and growing. In April I filed a motion to vacate the preliminary settlement. Earlier this month six co-objectors and I filed objections to the settlement. The settlement parties have asked the court to postpone the scheduled final fairness hearing originally set for this Thursday, July 28. For more information, see my website, http://freelancerights.muchnick.net/, and my blog, http://freelancerights.blogspot.com/.
Irv Muchnick
*****
From: Charlotte Allen
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:26:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Irvin Muchnick
Mr. Muchnick:
I'm delighted that there are other writers out there who think the settlement in the database suit is an outrage, even if our reasons for thinking so may not completely overlap. In my opinion, the class-action itself was an abuse of the litigation process, filed with no intention of ever going to trial, where even the issue of whether there is a genuine class would be problematic to prove.
And kudos to you and the other six writers for filing a formal objection to the settlement. I couldn't afford to do so, so I filed an informal objection: I faxed a copy of my article to Judge Daniels.
The real problem for free-lance writers, in my opinion, is the abysmally low pay we all must live with unless we write for the New Yorker. It strikes me as an insoluble problem, however, for we writers live for the glory of seeing our names in print as well as the money.
Charlotte Allen
*****
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Irvin Muchnick
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Charlotte Allen
Ms. Allen:
Thank you for your measured response. We do disagree about whether the class action itself was an abuse of the litigation process. If you’ll review my entire website, and especially the long history at http://crassaction.muchnick.net/, you’ll see that I was an architect of copyright class actions on behalf of freelancers. “My” first case, against the now-defunct UnCover fax service, settled five years ago for $7.25 million and got dozens of writers more than $30,000 each. That case, along with the Tasini case, laid the foundation for the current consolidated class actions (the first of which also was originally “my” project).
We agree on the problem of abysmally low pay for writers. But I think you’re entirely too dismissive of the potential of the secondary-rights issue to improve our lot. The problem is that the plaintiff associations and attorneys didn’t know how to use the leverage they had. In the case of the associations, they had no business representing the class for damages, because their main interest is in looking tough while staying in the good graces of the industry. The long-term solution is, in my view, a “kinder and gentler ASCAP.” No one is saying that I’m Victor Herbert and you’re Irving Berlin. But article database text is now a big, big business, and our indispensable piece of it needs to be acknowledged with a dignified royalty system, not a regime of all-rights contracts. And incidentally, this is better for the public as well as for writers, for reasons which I won’t belabor here but which are fully developed in various trade press articles of mine republished at my website.
Best regards,
Irv
*****
From: Charlotte Allen
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:28:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Copyright class action
To: Irvin Muchnick
Irv:
I completely agree with you that the main goal of the writers' unions associated with the suit was to make themselves look good to their members and thus justify their existence.
Charlotte
posted by Irv Muchnick at 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home