-
Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.
This makes no sense because the attorney has to sift through the evidence anyway. The more stuff she throws at her attorney, the more time the attorney has to spend combing through it. If she truly were concerned about money, she'd drop the suit, especially since there are now even more issues in dispute than when EC filed. As Courtney Milan says, though, she's economically irrational.
ETA: However, DA's counterclaim now makes it harder for EC to extricate itself because if it tries to drop the case now, it still has to address the counterclaim. EC can't end this without DA's say so anymore. Also, dropping the case now bolsters DA's abuse of process argument. In other words, EC *really* stepped in it.
This is all my opinion and TINLA.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 313
I don't. It's a lawyer's job to tell his client if her law suit is frivolous and without merit and will waste the court's time and resources.
If Chris Klewe files that law suit he's been threatening on Twitter I probably won't feel sorry for his lawyer either. And while Klewe, from what I can tell, doesn't have a good case, it looks better than EC's.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Southern US
- Website
- www.voireylinger.com
Tina needs to stop posting about this case, period. No updates, boasts, threats - she needs to go on radio silence at least until the TRO hearing. People I know in similar situations, plaintiff or defendant, were told by their counsel to basically shut the hell up. Because the opposing side is watching, and every new post is potential fodder for *their* case.
Reading all this makes me even angrier for the EC authors. Every step forward in this case lessens the likelihood of them seeing money and/or rights reversions. Even in legal fees alone, not to mention DA's fully merited counterclaim.
Reading all this makes me even angrier for the EC authors. Every step forward in this case lessens the likelihood of them seeing money and/or rights reversions. Even in legal fees alone, not to mention DA's fully merited counterclaim.
Racking up charges by the hour to a client who's being accused of non-payment...I see no problem with that logic
That may sound like a lot, but it's really only 3-4 per author.
As I said in a comment on my blog, in order to prove that they've had increased reversion requests, they'd likely need proof of what the reversion rate was before. That requires better record keeping than I believe EC has.
Then, they'd have to prove that that's actually damages (rather than potential damages). The fact that they're asking for $$ for reversion requests works against them, I think.
None of those things matter unless what Jane published was defamatory, which is a difficult thing to prove.
Proving that all authors were paid over even the last year is a far more involved affair involving tens of thousands of pieces of information.
Example: I did a chart of Cat Grant's May royalties, and that was 128 pieces of information (16 rows x 8 columns). For one author. For one month.
Last edited:
Captcha
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 637
Do we have an actual statement of what their payment schedule currently IS?
Like, I'm pretty sure my last payment was for a single month - April. So if they're paying monthly, that's way behind, but if they're paying quarterly, why is it for a single month?
And that cheque arrived more than a month ago, so again, if they're paying monthly, even with a long delay, I should have gotten another by now?
I'm wondering if they're going to give up paying royalties altogether and blame it on the DA article? Or maybe not pay authors who've requested rights reversions?
I don't know, I'm just guessing. Has anyone gotten a cheque lately?
Like, I'm pretty sure my last payment was for a single month - April. So if they're paying monthly, that's way behind, but if they're paying quarterly, why is it for a single month?
And that cheque arrived more than a month ago, so again, if they're paying monthly, even with a long delay, I should have gotten another by now?
I'm wondering if they're going to give up paying royalties altogether and blame it on the DA article? Or maybe not pay authors who've requested rights reversions?
I don't know, I'm just guessing. Has anyone gotten a cheque lately?
I've felt for a while that they're abusing the term "quarterly." It seems like they think that saying "we pay quarterly" means that it's okay to hold royalties for 3 months, instead of "we pay quarterly" meaning we hold your royalties and pay you 4 times a year.
But who knows.
Two outstanding questions I have:
1. Has any author received payment for January 2014? I've heard several claims folks *never* received royalties for that month.
2. When EC pays for, say May -- are they paying for Amazon sales IN May (for which they receive money in July)? Or are they paying for Amazon monies received by EC in May?
I thought it was the latter, in which case there's zero reason to pay that in a check dated 8/29 and mail it late enough that it's received in October.
1. Has any author received payment for January 2014? I've heard several claims folks *never* received royalties for that month.
2. When EC pays for, say May -- are they paying for Amazon sales IN May (for which they receive money in July)? Or are they paying for Amazon monies received by EC in May?
I thought it was the latter, in which case there's zero reason to pay that in a check dated 8/29 and mail it late enough that it's received in October.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 46
- Location
- Steeler Country
- Website
- www.barbarasheridan.com
I received a January payment in April, but nothing since early August. (both were in the $6 range--2 older novels, non-erotic and one m/m quickie)
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Southern US
- Website
- www.voireylinger.com
1. I have received payments for sales through April. My last check was cut in July. May and June payments will be out of contract on January 1, 2015.
2. EC pays according to what payments they received in that month.If they receive first quarter payments from Amazon in May, then I will get the first quarter payments with my May royalites... which, according to their traditional monthly schedule, I would get in July, by a quarterly payment schedule, I'd get by December 31.
I've said it before but I think it bears repeating, EC's quarterly contract terms give them more time to pay, so it would make sense for them to fall back to a contract terms payment schedule. If this is what they've done, they need to inform authors, otherwise it appears checks are simply not being cut.
Thanks Barbara and Voirey.
Color-coded, links-to-all-interesting-docs, Ellora's Cave v. Dear Author lawsuit. With emoji. And blog post links.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11698292/ecda/index.html
Color-coded, links-to-all-interesting-docs, Ellora's Cave v. Dear Author lawsuit. With emoji. And blog post links.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11698292/ecda/index.html
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,834
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
I feel sorry for the attorney's STAFF. Since that's what I do, I know full well what a PITA a poor case can be to polish out the scant gems of causation out of the solid rock of crap the client brings in.
Courtney Milan's latest summary:
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2014/10/26/dear-authors-opposition-to-the-remand-notchilled/
Footnote 2 of DA's Motion Opposing Remand:
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ecda/motionopposingremand.pdf
Yes, exactly.
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2014/10/26/dear-authors-opposition-to-the-remand-notchilled/
Footnote 2 of DA's Motion Opposing Remand:
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ecda/motionopposingremand.pdf
Yes, exactly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,595
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Southern US
- Website
- www.voireylinger.com
Honestly, I'm kinda waiting for a FRCP 11(b)(2) ruling sooner or later. I'm glad Randazza actually used frivolous in one of his filings because that's really what a lot of this IS.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 46
- Location
- Steeler Country
- Website
- www.barbarasheridan.com
Quick update: Just got a check for payments received in June (May is MIA).
Check dated 9/30. Postage meter stamp dated 10/24. Postmarked 10/25.
Check dated 9/30. Postage meter stamp dated 10/24. Postmarked 10/25.
Sounds like someone forced their hand on the postage meter using its time stamp, and it shows the post office isn't the reason for it being three and a half weeks late!
[FONT="]Excellent day for putting Slinkies on an escalator.[/FONT]