He's not in Live. He can't bill himself that way regardless of whether Live is touring or not.

He's cashing in on deceit and someone else's name.

Ed knows exactly what he's doing and he'll get every last cent he can out of Live's name until someone tells him different.

Oh, and I couldn't care less what you would expect - its got nothing to do with you so don't pretend it does.

Ah nevermind. Then maybe CCP would end up getting a piece of those profits(but end up losing money on the lawyers).

Just like CCP taking 75 percent of the songwriting credit and money for songs they didn't have a hand in creating?

Ed had as much to do in building the LIVE brand as CCP did, and he deserves to cash in as much as they do.

He doesn't "Deserve" anything except getting his arse sued.

What don't you get? He's not in Live. He left. He's a failed solo act trying to make money out of someone else's brand.

A brand that he helped create and wrote all the songs for(all the lyrics and a large percentage of the music). The lawsuit is as petty as Chad Taylor's FB posts.

Listen, for the 1,000,000th time. Ed gets and will continue to get his royalties on merchandise and songs. But he wanted 100%, this is what's is intrinsically evil about it. The rest of them wrote the musical progressions and made the songs what they are today. No one is discounting what Ed's contributions were, you keep going there like a broken record. What's happened whcih is wrong, Ed, wanted it all, He wanted to be Live by himself. You just look foolish in these threads and rants. He's being prevented from trying to continue his solo work as LIVE. It's all there for the human eye to see. Again, if he wasn't so bent on his control and fame complex all of this would have never happened.

A brand that he walked away from but decided to then use for his own advantage after his solo career started failing.

yes this is the right place to talk this, thanks for redirecting.

i can't comment on these matters to the extent of what has been discovered. Perhaps 'a trail of deceit' is the only analogy that comes to mind.

Now CCP are trying to be LIVE without Ed.......how is that any different?

they can't be when Ed want's total control, can't you see? No you cannot. Control is a word that has only one meaning to you.

It's easy, When ed stopped collaborating or taking input from them, the orginal reasons for LIVE ceased. Now that they want to move in new direction with a singer who isn't bent on controlling the situation, you're saying it's not Live....... It really hasnt' been in 12+ years

Let the public be the ultimate judge of the music. It was about the music, not rock personna and fame, when the ambitions of one person were put ahead of the collective....there you go. Live's music from 2001 to 2009 was total shit. I was saddened that it went downhill. I feared Ed's mania ruined it, I am so right on the mark. Yes C&C&P should have ended the band 10 years ago. We've rehashed it 1,000,000,000 times. When are you going to look in the mirror and be honest with the facts??

Shouldnt you be preparing your players instead of being delusional here? Who's got lack of focus? I remember you lobbed that at me earlier this week!!!

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Oct 6 2012, 9:48 am

And round and round we go. Nick will never get it so why bother arguing with him? Also isn't odd he is the only one who doesn't get it?

He gets it. He's in denial but he gets it.

There's no belief in it.. it's a fact! It is absolutely deceptive practice. Ed of Live is a typo. Ed from Live is also a typo. Let's be real here. Chris is the current singer of the band Live. If anything people should walk around with a bumper sticker that says "formerly of" and slap that on all the deceptive promotional material around Ed's shows. It's not a wonder certain parties are upset about the use and violation of branding rights.



Surely that's a rhetorical question. A better question is to ask oneself the true motive behind a setlist and whether or not it caters and tailors itself to make money. "Moving on" takes the money out of the equation and that is CERTAINLY not the case here. Money motivated? Yeah, I think the answer is clear.



Absolutely.. it's factually correct.



Of course. And he has a right to to that's not the issue here. It's HOW it's used.. I think the title of this thread says it all.. if you need help - the word "deceptive" should be a clue into the marketing aim.



We all know where the buck stops... at the top.



Well we can start with a street team full of bumper stickers that correct the typos! That's always a good start

-Jimmy

i heard Nick has got some sweatshop printer in Nutley NJ working overtime printing up new Ed of Live posters, stickers and Ed Street Team Propaganda posters, not to mention Free Hulkamania T shirts