Some Questions and Answers
I got the message below from an anonymous reader and offer the following answers.
What is your time frame for deciding whether to take this to the Supremes? Since the appeals court ruled the Cs do not have standing, is this the one point you would be pursuing? If not, what else? Do you know if any discussions are now taking place on amending the original agreement to include only As & Bs? Since the objectors seem to be more interested in setting legal precedent than actually receiving money, might this be the time for you to opt out of this settlement and then pursue these issues on your own? You are,after all, interfering with the rights of As and Bs (with legal standing that already is well established) to recover substantian sums of money that are due. I understand that you have legal points that you want to make. I just wish you could now find a way to do it in a way that isn't so harmful to other people who are perfectly happy with the settlement.
Taking the questions in order:
1. What is your time frame for deciding whether to take this to the Supremes? Since the appeals court ruled the Cs do not have standing, is this the one point you would be pursuing? If not, what else?
An appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed within 90 days, or by July 15. The basis of the appeal would be the standing of the C's. As I said, the objectors are unlikely to take this costly and uncertain step by themselves. The parties -- especially the National Writers Union -- have said they would, but I don't know whether they intend to follow through.
2. Do you know if any discussions are now taking place on amending the original agreement to include only As & Bs?
No. That is, I do not know of any such discussions.
3. Since the objectors seem to be more interested in setting legal precedent than actually receiving money, might this be the time for you to opt out of this settlement and then pursue these issues on your own? You are,after all, interfering with the rights of As and Bs (with legal standing that already is well established) to recover substantial sums of money that are due. I understand that you have legal points that you want to make. I just wish you could now find a way to do it in a way that isn't so harmful to other people who are perfectly happy with the settlement.
The objectors were and are interested in stopping a settlement that binds everyone the world over -- English-speaking or not, dead or alive, aware of the settlement or not, avid students of fine-print legalese or not -- to a regime that gives all rights away to the publishers in perpetuity. So methinks the questioner has this one backwards.
If the settlement is declared dead by the district court, or if the court approves a new settlement that includes only A's and B's, removes the License by Default, and gives a new opt-out deadline, then you can sure that I, personally, will proceed to opt out and let all who wish to do so have the unimpeded opportunity to settle for dimes or pennies on the dollar.
At this moment, the objectors are members of the class. We chose to remain as members of the class, rather than opt out, so we could stop this awful settlement, which presumed to impose bad terms, including especially the License by Default, on "absent class members." That's not "a bad legal precedent"; it's a global negotiation of a prospective royalty system -- at the whopping rate of 0% royalties -- by a few named plaintiffs who illegally appointed themselves to represent everyone.
What is your time frame for deciding whether to take this to the Supremes? Since the appeals court ruled the Cs do not have standing, is this the one point you would be pursuing? If not, what else? Do you know if any discussions are now taking place on amending the original agreement to include only As & Bs? Since the objectors seem to be more interested in setting legal precedent than actually receiving money, might this be the time for you to opt out of this settlement and then pursue these issues on your own? You are,after all, interfering with the rights of As and Bs (with legal standing that already is well established) to recover substantian sums of money that are due. I understand that you have legal points that you want to make. I just wish you could now find a way to do it in a way that isn't so harmful to other people who are perfectly happy with the settlement.
Taking the questions in order:
1. What is your time frame for deciding whether to take this to the Supremes? Since the appeals court ruled the Cs do not have standing, is this the one point you would be pursuing? If not, what else?
An appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed within 90 days, or by July 15. The basis of the appeal would be the standing of the C's. As I said, the objectors are unlikely to take this costly and uncertain step by themselves. The parties -- especially the National Writers Union -- have said they would, but I don't know whether they intend to follow through.
2. Do you know if any discussions are now taking place on amending the original agreement to include only As & Bs?
No. That is, I do not know of any such discussions.
3. Since the objectors seem to be more interested in setting legal precedent than actually receiving money, might this be the time for you to opt out of this settlement and then pursue these issues on your own? You are,after all, interfering with the rights of As and Bs (with legal standing that already is well established) to recover substantial sums of money that are due. I understand that you have legal points that you want to make. I just wish you could now find a way to do it in a way that isn't so harmful to other people who are perfectly happy with the settlement.
The objectors were and are interested in stopping a settlement that binds everyone the world over -- English-speaking or not, dead or alive, aware of the settlement or not, avid students of fine-print legalese or not -- to a regime that gives all rights away to the publishers in perpetuity. So methinks the questioner has this one backwards.
If the settlement is declared dead by the district court, or if the court approves a new settlement that includes only A's and B's, removes the License by Default, and gives a new opt-out deadline, then you can sure that I, personally, will proceed to opt out and let all who wish to do so have the unimpeded opportunity to settle for dimes or pennies on the dollar.
At this moment, the objectors are members of the class. We chose to remain as members of the class, rather than opt out, so we could stop this awful settlement, which presumed to impose bad terms, including especially the License by Default, on "absent class members." That's not "a bad legal precedent"; it's a global negotiation of a prospective royalty system -- at the whopping rate of 0% royalties -- by a few named plaintiffs who illegally appointed themselves to represent everyone.
posted by Irv Muchnick at 11:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home