Thursday, September 22, 2005

'A Great Example of Disingenuity And Fudging'

ASJA has posted the class representatives' lawyers' brief in support of the proposed settlement as a link at http://www.asja.org, and the negative reviews continue to pour in.


TODD PITOCK:

I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the ASJA brief supporting the settlement as a great example of disingenuity and fudging.

One highlight among many is in section B under mediation. The first part lists the information that the plaintiffs asked for. It then says, "All information that was available was provided," which suggests that all the information the plaintiffs asked for was provided. In fact, the lawyers who represented us, one of whom has since accepted a job working for the other side, accepted at face value the claim by d-base companies that they did not have most of the requested information. Therefore, in a staggering omission that would seem to call into question the attorneys' very competence, no discovery was ever done. Almost none of the requested information was provided....

There are other nuggets, such as the claim that this suit is supported by a "vast majority of the class." The vast majority of the class has no friggin' clue that any of this is going on, despite the lawyers' assertion that it has been widely publicized ... in "7 magazines." No joke. Seven. It's also been in newspapers. As the number of writers making claims will attest, the vast majority neither support nor oppose: they don't even know the game's on. As for the rest, the lawyers, whose goal for a long time has been to protect their interests (i.e. their fee, not us) characterize the opposition as limited to the 12 who took the considerable trouble to actually file and voice their opposition.

In other words, in their view silence is assent, just as the failure to file a claim by September 30 is, they say, affirmation that writers want or agree to give up all future rights by default. It's galling. But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself.

2 Comments:

Anonymous kautilyachanakya@yahoo.co.in said...

Irving - v. good.
BUT - this default clause.
My reading of the elements on cpoyrightclassaction.com was that They are paying me for illegal past use.
If I want to deny them future use of the same used material then I can - by still getting paid but forfeiting five per cent of my C claims and blocing re-use of old stuff.
Have I missed something? - because yr denial forms do not seem to take this 5 per cent reduced elementinto account.
So by agreeing to lose 5 cents in the 100 I can also make them take stuff off system and they will have to pay for any future anyway.

7:33 PM  
Blogger Irv Muchnick said...

Thanks for your comment. Our suggested "takedown forms" do not address money -- only whether the infringers would get future rights to our works (and under the terms of the settlement, they *would* unless we tell them otherwise). It's true that if you're filing a claim and you refuse to grant future rights to that particular work, your claim award will be reduced by 35 percent (not 5 percent).

9:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home