"The destruction of the Freelance Class Action Settlement is my proudest achievement"
---Irvin Muchnick
This is a story how one deranged individual manipulated the legal system and in the process harmed thousands of hard-working writers.
In 2001, Jonathan Tasini prevailed in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case which concluded that publishers violated freelance writers' copyright protection. The publishers posted and re-sold articles to internet databases without compensating the author.
This ruling left the door open for a class action settlement, which was negotiated and finalized by 2005. Ken Feinberg, universally acclaimed for his mediation of the 2001 World Trade Center claims, oversaw the negotiations. In a common sense framework, those who registered their works received more than those who did not. The settlement was divided into three classes (A, B, and C). It was capped at $18 million, including attorney fees.
There were several fairness hearings in District Court in New York. One person, Irvin Muchnick, was vocal in his opposition to the settlement. Mr. Muchnick convinced nine other claimants to join him in objecting to the settlement. The District Court heard all arguments and dismissed Muchnick's claims.
It is critical to note that the objectors were given the opportunity to opt out of the settlement and pursue litigation on their own. Several hundred writers did just that. Muchnick and the objectors did not.
Citing a myriad of reasons, the objectors appealed to the Court of Appeals, setting off a chain of events that as of February, 2013, has prevented writers from collecting settlement money.
After a lengthy delay, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case and instead declared they did not have the jurisdiction to act. That ruling was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which overturned that opinion and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals. After another long delay, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the C-class did not have proper representation and remanded the case back to District Court, where the case is currently stalled.
Mr. Muchnick appealed the settlement on numerous grounds. The one he trumpeted was his self-coined "License by Default." In a nonsensical display of illogic, Muchnick claimed the publishers and internet search engines could not take away authors' future rights. The ironic part of the Court of Appeals ruling was the unanimous dismissal of that concept, as the original settlement gave writers the opportunity to receive more money in lieu of future rights to the product.
The one area where Muchnick won a split decision of the Court of Appeals was the C-reduction, which reduced C-class claims in the event the total claims exceeded $18 million. In the panel, two of three judges decided the onus for the capped amount should not fall entirely on the C-class. The court suggested the District Court provide more suitable representation for the C-class.
The matter has been stuck in District Court for more than a year, while the parties presumably negotiate an amended settlement.
Here's the bottom line. The settlement was specifically for freelance writers, who by definition did not receive benefits. It was designed to punish the publishers for unauthorized re-use.
Muchnick had some grandiose scheme to turn freelance payments into some sort of royalty system. Not only is that idea impratical, but it backfired. As a result of the settlement, writers are now required to sign away future rights when the works are originally purchased. So now, not only did the writers receive no money for past infractions, they are prohibited from future compensation. Good job, Irv.
If you read past posts from his blog, it is obvious Muchnick's main objection was the amount of money the lawyers were to receive. His disdain for the welfare of his fellow writers is painfully obvious.
Muchnick has done his damage and has moved on. He's now crusading about concussions in sports and sex scandals in the sport of swimming. He's trying desperately to be an investigative reporter, but is failing miserably. His "concern" in these two areas obviously is phony, and it shows in his biased writing. No one will talk to him about these subjects and he's reduced to reprinting others' posts.
He should not be allowed to just move freely to another subject after causing so much damage to freelancers. If you are a writer and feel just as strongly about this matter, go to his blog (Freelance Rights) and his twitter account (@irvmuch) and voice your opinion.
Here is Irvin Muchnick's public information should you want to let him know how you feel:
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: CONCUSSIONINC.NET
Created on: 08-Jul-11
Expires on: 08-Jul-15
Last Updated on: 15-Apr-12
Registrant:
Irvin Muchnick
P.O. Box 9629
Berkeley, California 94709
United States
Administrative Contact:
Muchnick, Irvin irvmuch@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 9629
Berkeley, California 94709
United States
510-588-5405
Technical Contact:
Muchnick, Irvin irvmuch@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 9629
Berkeley, California 94709
United States
510-588-5405
Domain servers in listed order:
NS23.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS24.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Please spread the word about this blog.
Thanks for your time.
"Muchnick had some grandiose scheme to turn freelance payments into some sort of royalty system. Not only is that idea impratical, but it backfired. As a result of the settlement, writers are now required to sign away future rights when the works are originally purchased. So now, not only did the writers receive no money for past infractions, they are prohibited from future compensation. Good job, Irv."
ReplyDeleteIrv Muchnick is flat-out stupid. Not only is the above paragraph 100 percent correct, but newspapers have been requiring writers to sign away their rights since the MID-1990s.
It's been 17 or 18 YEARS and the Brainless One is still pressing forward on his nonsensical scheme -- a scheme that was shown to be nonsensical 17 or 18 YEARS ago.
It is metaphysically impossible to be dumber than Irv Muchnick. I suspect that he wrestled for his Daddy and sustained numerous concussions.
Muchnick wrote a radiant review on Amazon.com for an E-book by Anita Bartholomew without disclosing she was a co-objector of the Freelance Settlement. That sums up his integrity.
DeleteI'm a writer, but I was never notified about a settlement. Guess it saved me a lot of anguish. One thing I don't understand is why this Muchnick fellow didn't pursue his own claim instead of involving everyone else. Your post wasn't clear.
ReplyDeleteThat's the $64k question. If he thought the settlement inadequate, why wouldn't he sue the publishers himself for more money. The rest of the class was happy with the settlement. The only possible answer is that Muchnick is mean spirited.
DeleteWhy won't Muchnick reveal the amount of his share of the settlement money? Is he embarrassed? As mentioned in one of the comments, several writers stood to receive life-changing sums of money. With newspapers and magazines going out of business at an alarming rate, the journalism profession has become irrelevant. The money is badly needed by struggling journalists. So how about it Muchnick. How much were you going to collect before you destoyed the settlement.?
DeleteRoberto:
DeleteI don't know The Brainless One personally, but I know numerous people who do -- and several who worked with him.
Here is what I know:
1. Brainless worked for the National Writers Union for a couple of years in the mid-1990s.
2. Brainless' boss was Jonathan Tasini, the president of the National Writers Union.
3. Tasini wanted to sue publishers because they took articles submitted to them and resold them without the writers' permission or even knowledge.
4. Brainless objected to this objective. Brainless conceived in his "brain" that there should be a "royalty system" for writers.
5. Brainless argued so passionately for his royalty system objective and so passionately against Tasini's objective that he scared several of his colleagues. His temper tantrums are legend. His colleagues concluded he was a sociopathic nut and had to be forcibly removed from the premises by the police.
6. Brainless was fired.
7. The union chose Tasini's recommendation rather than Brainless' objective.
8. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in favor of Tasini in the Tasini vs. NY Times case.
9. The 2005 settlement resulted in Tasini himself winning $1,500 for every article he wrote whose copyright was violated. I don't know how many articles he wrote.
10. The 2005 settlement resulted in Brainless winning ZERO because he's a pro wrestling writer and those shady publications are not part of the settlement. Roughly 30 publishers signed onto the settlement. Smaller publishers did not.
11. Brainless was told in the mid-1990s that his royalty system idea was dumb. In fact, it BACKFIRED -- with publishers REFUSING to hire any writer who wouldn't sign an agreement that turned over ALL of our copyright rights to the publishers. Brainless is responsible for this.
12. Brainless is still arguing in his blogs that the royalty system is the answer for writers.
13. Brainless and his attorney have proven for eight years that they don't give a damn about any writers. In fact, they didn't contact any of the hundreds of writers who filed a settlement claim -- and refused to answer any writer who contacted Brainless.
In short, Brainless is a brainless and evil sociopath who enjoys the suffering of others and specifically wants to prevent his archenemy from collecting a dime out of juvenile revenge.
Thank you
Roberto:
DeleteMissed a few points:
* In the 2005 hearing about the settlement, several people testified in favor of the settlement. Judge Daniels listened to this testimony and Brainless and ruled in favor of the settlement.
* One woman testified that she had to take off from work for months to file the paperwork for he claims. (It took me weeks to fill out the forms) She testified that she desperately needed the money to take care of her sick mother and pleaded with the court not to let one selfish jerk destroy the lives of thousands of people.
* In his blogs, Brainless made fun of the woman, calling her desire to keep her mother alive a "trivial inconvenience." Brainless taunted her for months on his blogs.
* Brainless taunted several of the other people who testified for the settlement, repeatedly calling the amount of money they might get "peanuts."
* Dozens of people told Brainless on his blogs that his appeal of the settlement would probably mean everyone would get zero.
As I already said, Brainless was going to get ZERO from this or any other settlement. He is an evil sociopath who enjoys the suffering of others. It's that simple.
Muchnick was going to get ZERO because he writes for wrestling magazines that aren't among the publishers who participated in the settlement.
ReplyDeleteBrainless has ZERO legal standing. He did this because he is an evil egomaniac who is still trying to persuade his ex-boss, Jonathan Tasini, that he is right and Tasini is wrong. And he spends lots of time asking journalists to write articles about him in which he tries to portray himself as a lone hero fighting the odds.
Brainless speaks -- this is part of a column he wrote one year ago. He STILL is arguing for something that publishers proved in 1995 will NEVER happen. He literally has NO BRAINS.
ReplyDeleteMuchnick: "My PW guest column (available online only to subscribers at this point) explains where I think we all should go from here, and adds my longstanding advocacy of a congressionally sanctioned royalty system, including default “compulsory licenses” for public access."
Brainless, free-lancers, by law, don't have the right to collectively bargain with publishers. You think that a Congress which makes it against the law for me and someone else to approach a publisher and ask for a 2 cents raise will sanction a "royalty system, including default compulsory licenses for public access."
You literally have no brains.
Pangs of guilt this morning. Exposing @irvmuch too easy. Shouldn't make fun of the mentally ill.
DeleteCan Muchnick really be that stupid? Nobody is going to cover figments of his imagination like an alleged swimming scandal. He is truly the product of ignorance married to stubborness. How does this guy make a living? Must be on welfare or something. (or inheritance, rich wife?)
ReplyDeleteAfter months of ranting about an alleged (he never reported it as alleged, but as fact), sexual abuse case in the North Baltimore Aquatic Club, the District Attorney found insufficient evidence to file a complaint. Hope this imbecile gets sued for false allegations.
DeleteAttention all freelance writers who have been deprived of settlement money: In an internet interview (obviously with some hard-up juvenile writer), Irvin Muchnick called the destruction of the Freelance Class Action Settlement "My proudest achievement; the freelance writers’ case at the U.S. Supreme Court, Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick." If you don't believe me, here's the link (bottom of interview) http://sci-fiworlds.blogspot.com/2012/12/irvin-muchnick-interview.html
ReplyDeleteAnd of course who could forget the following exchange between noted writer Stefan Fatsis and Muchnick:
ReplyDeleteTO: Irvin Muchnick
FROM: Stefan Fatsis
[No Subject]
Hey Irv,
Just read your piece on the San Francisco alt weekly website. “Breaks wind”? I was going to tell you to go fuck yourself. Instead, I’ll just suggest that before you slag other writers – and willfully take their words out of context – you might want to familiarize yourself with their work.
Best,
Stefan
Tweeted Mr. Fatsis about Muchnick shorter thereafter. His response?:
Delete"Sure seems like a self-important, sanctimonious jackass."
Further proof of Muchnick's incompetence and bias as a writer in this response to Muchnick by Jerry McDevitt from the WWE:
ReplyDelete"I note that it is truly indicative of your existing malice towards WWE and all persons associated with WWE that you would actively assist the Blumenthal campaign to smear WWE by arranging for Michael Benoit to be sprung on an unsuspecting and uninformed press on October 25, 2010 amidst the Senatorial campaign."
Suppose they had a book signing and nobody showed. When Muchnick flew cross-country to Conneticut for a signing of his exploitation book, a total of 3 people showed up.
ReplyDeleteHere are some quotes from actual "coverage" of the event:
Muchnick said he was not disappointed by the low turnout.
"My uncle was a wrestling promoter. He used to say `When you have small crowd, you have to work harder,' " Muchnick said. "I'm happy to get may ideas into the water supply of the political conversation here."
Conneticutbetter check on their water supply.
Another week, another month, another year and still no settlement. Now, the dirtbag Muchnick and his henchman attorney, the same people who are directly responsible for blowing up the settlement, are "representing" the C-class in new settlement negotiations. What could go wrong? IT WOULD BE LIKE ME SUING AN ATTORNEY FOR MALPRACTICE AND THAT ATTORNEY REPRESENTS ME IN THE CASE! The American Bar Association is going to have a field day with all the ethics violations.
ReplyDeleteI brought this up with the jerk during my first contact with him. I told him that I was going to complain to the American Bar Association. His reply was astonishing -- he doesn't have a conflict of interest because he now longer represents Dirtbag.
DeleteThe bigger picture is the US judicial system. How did a judge to this? I brought this up with a couple of attorneys who were flabbergasted that such a thing could happen.
That doesn't mean we can't complain to the ABA. Let's do it.
I am a member of this class stemming from the year I wrote freelance articles for The Boston Globe; do you know how I can find out whether I'm an A/B or C class member, and how many of my works are at issue? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIf you registered your work with the copyright office before the settlement deadline in 2005 you are either an A or B. Never registered works are all under the C category. For more info: http://www.copyrightclassaction.com/
Delete