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.

[mfitz804]

Not only did Ed violate the trademark for the name "Live", he also violated the copyright by selling bootlegs of Live-owned music without paying the other three guys who are 3/4 owners of the copyrighted material.

Of all of the claims, the bootleg claim seems to be the best one to me.

The $1,000,000 advance issue seems weird to me. It may just be that I am not familiar with how he allegedly got the $1M, but in general, if an advance is supposed to be paid to the band as a business entity, it would have been made payable as such, deposited into the corporate account, etc.. If it was supposed to be paid to the 4 guys individually, there would be a check issued to each. So how did Ed get a hold of the entire $1M? It doesn't make sense. I'd need more facts to know for sure.

A trademark violation requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. There is no requirement that actual damages be demonstrated. The "likelihood of confusion" is the issue IMHO. Advertising your solo show as "Ed K. of Live" kind of puts a foot on either side of the line. He mentions Live, but also its pretty clear that its not a Live show, its a solo show. I'm no trademark lawyer but I would think that a defense could be formulated out of that.

The copyright violation is a slam dunk. I assume the Live material on the bootlegs is copyrighted by Live, 3/4 of which are not Ed. They are entitled to a certain royalty for every copy of those songs that is sold, and that includes these sold by Ed. The fact that Ed alone is performing them is irrelevant, as there are TWO copyrights, one for the writing, one for the performance. He can sell his performance all day long, but he still has to pay for use of the copywrittn song that was performed. He recorded them, advertised them, and sold them. If he didn't pay Live (i.e. CCP's 3/4), then he is clearly in violation of the copyright. Assuming anyone bought the bootlegs, I am sure someone did.

I don't know what the royalty rate is nor the amount of copies sold, so I can't say whether this is a $5 claim or a $500,000 claim, but liability-wise, I think its the strongest argument.

[Bremang]

Not only did Ed violate the trademark for the name "Live", he also violated the copyright by selling bootlegs of Live-owned music without paying the other three guys who are 3/4 owners of the copyrighted material.

Of all of the claims, the bootleg claim seems to be the best one to me.

The $1,000,000 advance issue seems weird to me. It may just be that I am not familiar with how he allegedly got the $1M, but in general, if an advance is supposed to be paid to the band as a business entity, it would have been made payable as such, deposited into the corporate account, etc.. If it was supposed to be paid to the 4 guys individually, there would be a check issued to each. So how did Ed get a hold of the entire $1M? It doesn't make sense. I'd need more facts to know for sure.

A trademark violation requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. There is no requirement that actual damages be demonstrated. The "likelihood of confusion" is the issue IMHO. Advertising your solo show as "Ed K. of Live" kind of puts a foot on either side of the line. He mentions Live, but also its pretty clear that its not a Live show, its a solo show. I'm no trademark lawyer but I would think that a defense could be formulated out of that.

The copyright violation is a slam dunk. I assume the Live material on the bootlegs is copyrighted by Live, 3/4 of which are not Ed. They are entitled to a certain royalty for every copy of those songs that is sold, and that includes these sold by Ed. The fact that Ed alone is performing them is irrelevant, as there are TWO copyrights, one for the writing, one for the performance. He can sell his performance all day long, but he still has to pay for use of the copywrittn song that was performed. He recorded them, advertised them, and sold them. If he didn't pay Live (i.e. CCP's 3/4), then he is clearly in violation of the copyright. Assuming anyone bought the bootlegs, I am sure someone did.

I don't know what the royalty rate is nor the amount of copies sold, so I can't say whether this is a $5 claim or a $500,000 claim, but liability-wise, I think its the strongest argument.

Thanks, I was hoping you would respond!

I forget just about everything I learned in IP. How do you figure out which law is applied? I have access to westlaw & nexus