Live have shown little loyalty to their fans Options

[Beardan]

I dont know all the details of Live's break up. I have seen and read a few different things over the last year or two. Although the details for me are not totally clear, I cant help but feel these four blokes have let people like you and I down.

I also think the time has come for things to change. For things to become clearer and for the four original Live members to stop the nonsense.

This is what i understand to have happened. I could be wrong and i may not know details. So this is from my perspective from what i know.

*Ed said he quit Live to refresh and put new energy into his music.
* There were reports Ed wanted more money cause he was the lead singer before they split at one particular concert.
* Ed went solo, TGF released an album. Chads and Pat suid or are still suing Ed over something childish.
* Chris Shinn is now Ed. They may be called Live but he is singing Ed's lyrics. That just seems wrong to me.

I could be wrong but i think these blokes owe us more. Ive seen Live/Ed 12 times. I own all their albums. I dont expect anything more than the simple truth on what happened to my favourite band. I dont think that has ever been said. If it has then I havent heard it.

It looks like they will go their separate ways from here. Which happens. Friends from school now not being friends isnt a first in life, and wont be a last. But the foolish suing each other thing is embarrassing.

I dont know if it sounds weird but you feel that following this band you are part of the community that makes up its support. You show them a loyalty through your support and I dont think its too much to ask for some back. Right now I think the band has shown little loyalty to their fans.

[Hoodstock]

Windy day today.

[themaestro]

In HEC Enterprises, Ltd. vs. Deep Purple, Inc., [6] the management company for the rock group Deep Purple brought suit to enjoin a former member of the band from using the names DEEP PURPLE and NEW DEEP PURPLE in connection with live musical performances. Notwithstanding the fact that the “original” Deep Purple had ceased performing several years prior to the former member’s resurrection of the name, the court found that the mark DEEP PURPLE was still in use given that the group’s recordings remained in distribution. Having established that the original group’s management owned valid rights in the name, the court enjoined the defendants from making further use of the names DEEP PURPLE and NEW DEEP PURPLE, and awarded damages and attorneys fees to the plaintiffs.

In Brother Records, Inc. vs. Jardine, [7] a corporation (BRI) formed by members of the Beach Boys and which owned the rights to the THE BEACH BOYS trademark sued Beach Boy Al Jardine to stop him from using the following names: Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends; The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”; Beach Boys Family & Friends; The Beach Boys, Family & Friends; Beach Boys and Family; as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. This case provides an example of a situation where a band used an agreement to create a corporation, the corporation owned and licensed the rights in the band’s name, and the corporation was able to stop an unlicensed band member from using the band’s name.

Most notably, the Brother Records court addressed the issue of nominative fair use, which Jardine raised as a defense. This doctrine allows a defendant to use a plaintiff’s trademark to refer back to the plaintiff’s goods and services in situations where (1) the product or service at issue is not readily recognizable without use of the trademark; (2) only so much of the trademark is used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and (3) the user does nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. [8] The court held that Jardine’s use of his former band’s name infringed BRI’s trademark because Jardine’s use indicated that the Beach Boys sponsored or endorsed his concerts. For example, some of Jardine’s promotional materials displayed “The Beach Boys” more prominently than “Family and Friends,” and Jardine’s management testified that they recommended using the THE BEACH BOYS name to create or enhance the value of the concert tour. Finally, the fact that some promoters and concertgoers were actually confused – they could not differentiate between a Jardine concert and Beach Boy Mike Love’s nearby, licensed “The Beach Boys” concert – worked strongly against Jardine’s case.