I pity da fool !!!!

This is a big story. It's about time someone did something about Ed infringing on the Live brand to fill his pocketbook!

If he can't use the Live brand to promote his shows, you can bet only a couple of dozen will actually show up to them!

I don't even know if he'll get booked in the same manner. Those venues and promotors know he's not the same draw without the Live association.

The fact that Live isn't just Ed Kowalczyk you might say that CCP had an obligation, if only to themselves, to take action on behalf of the name and brand of Live. Ed's sudden case of phone-amnesia only served to exacerbate the situation. And, unless I'm mistaken and this is just a late-bloom article, isn't this a separate lawsuit from the earlier lawsuit? Or is this the original lawsuit finally coming home to roost?

This post has been edited by PillarOfDavidson: Jul 17 2012, 6:43 pm

I think when a venue hosts LIVE and the same 4 guys show up hundreds of times it only makes sense that when he says he doesn't want to hang around those guys anymore he doesn't want to have anything to do with the brand. He is not a one man band. When he showed up to the 99x sessions, he said "we're half of the band live" so he knew very well that he can't just call himself LIVE.

If I misread your question and you meant "did he not want a reunion?", CC&P were willing but Ed wasn't willing. Now the tables have turned now that they have shinn.

You are correct. I think they got him by the balls on this one... especially if it is a separate lawsuit.

The bad news is that there really won't be a reunion after this. This is a lot of bad blood and will financially cripple Ed.

If I were ed, I'd get out of music and start a small business and live simply... it's the best he can do after the lawyers gut him for way more than his "lead singer bonus" ever got him. Serves him right for being so greedy.

This post has been edited by Badman: Jul 17 2012, 6:48 pm

His next show is simply:



"Ed Kowalczyk"

Now let's see how recognizable baldie is.

Could he say "formerly (or original) lead singer of Live" or something like that?

The trademark is Live so I doubt it unless he wants to compensate them.

Don't know but I am sure former or formerly has to be used in some sub context, perhaps not. We'll see.



no poster with the Live logo anymore. I wonder if this the accord. I do know he can't use that deathstare with LIVE in it anymore.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 17 2012, 7:01 pm

If Ed were to try and say that he is/was Live then he would be blatantly contradicting himself because of the many instances, which are well-documented in both print and audio/video format, of him expressly saying that the band was made up of all four of them.

I wonder if those videos "The History Of Live" etc. will make their way into the court room...



I wouldn't want to see Ed crippled financially. If you've ever been in that situation you wouldn't wish it on your enemies. For all of his bullshit, he still has a wife and kids he has to help provide for.

That being said, Ed still has his songwriting credits. He's still a co-writer on those hit songs/albums, so I assume he will still be able to put food on the table.



I don't understand why he wouldn't want to just embark under his name and stop referring to Live every chance he gets. Unless I'm right in assuming that he really didn't want a solo career. But at this point what other option does he have? Start another band? Yeah, how retarded and ass backwards would that look?

This post has been edited by PillarOfDavidson: Jul 17 2012, 7:02 pm

I'm no trademark expert here but I believe if the name Live is used it has to be done so legally, with agreement from the trademark owner. He's been using it without agreement so if he were to continue using the name Live in any fashion I would think they worked out an agreement. I wouldn't surprise me if they worked out something to let him use it as "former lead singer" but I think they, meaning the trademark owner, will have to approve it and with that I'd expect them to be compensated. Just my guess.

I never thought of that. He could start another band but it wouldn't be easy and you can bet his past fans would be begging him to play other stuff. He doesn't have a name following at all. If he called his solo band "lightning crashes bald guy" he would have more recognition.




Oh that would be devilish if Ed had to pay ccc&p to use the name he helped come up with. I'm practically getting off on this thread lol

This post has been edited by Badman: Jul 17 2012, 7:14 pm

He can perform the songs no problem, as he's the main author in credits. He gets his cut of those and anything Live re-records going forward. Just the systematic use of the name and all the other things he's done....it's just not legally right.