Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[OutToDry]

I've been searching for public notes on what may be happening in the courtroom, here's one of them. I suspect the selling of bootlegs on Ed's website are not legal as they appear.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/New_Complaints.htm

Rock and RollThree members of the band Live claim their former lead singer Edward Kowalczyk owes them $225,000 for music he sold on his Web site, in New York County Court.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 14 2010, 2:59 pm

[OutToDry]

Wrong, you said his MO from the beginning was to "Pull this shit" referring to how you said Ed wanted to figuratively "Fuck his friends" That means hurt them, not just become over influence.

Its not syntax buddy. Its just logic, and trying to keep you rational in the face of your assumptions and exaggerations.

In this whole Live history, I would say that I would support everyone, because they have created alot of my favorite music, and I think this in invaluable to me. I love so much of their vision and rockingness, since I first saw the lightning crashes video and bought TC in 1995. I'm still here hanging on their news, and I'd say I'd be considered amongst any Live fan. 7 shows, meet and greet, trivia out the ass, you name it.

Every album that came after TC I was at first disappointed with. Many times the music would grow on me, and I would really change my mind and love the music, to my surprise even for V. I definitely realize that Live, particularly Ed, has become more disappointing musically as time goes on, with fewer gems in the mix.

However, I realize that talent does not always last. I realize that decisions can be made to make more money. I am of the opinion, which I do not like to use a reason for making arguments, that if Ed or any of the band wanted to make money in any way, sell out, that I would be fine with that, as I am very grateful for all they have done. If this means they only had 10 good years, I am grateful that it is more than most any other band has done for me.
They owe me nothing.

As per Ed vs. the band, even if Ed screwed them, I cannot know how to quantify who deserved what. I wouldn't be surprised, if Ed deserves more money than the rest of the band, and I don't want to assume anything about this summons, especially since nothing has come to a close.


I am tired of reading jaded, exaggerated, assumptions on this board. In some ways its an obstacle from trying to figure out what really happened with the band, and can only hinder ones honest opinion about how they might feel. I don't hide the fact that I dislike Ed's music recently, or that the quality has been worse over the past 10 years (though I will say the 2003 concert of mine beat all the shows from the 90s). I will argue any point for or against Ed or the band, if I see that it is annoying senseless jaded drivel.

I think that alot of these assumptions come from being jaded, most likely from having too much faith in the band in the first place. While I believe Live has always had some sense of marketing, and lies about them, the important thing is that their music was inspiring in some way, to either a rebellious rocking extent, or to a vision of love, and that Ed's ability to inspire so many, is part of the reason why I think he shouldn't be so hated here. Hes done way more good than bad, and his bad things we can only speculate over.

Ok easy does it. I simply stated my opinion about Ed, that being said, I never said it was a fact, it's simply my opinion that it was his MO to become the end all be all. This is what I believe regarding his makeup.



You make good points with the above regarding what Live's history meant to you, but stop harping on my Ed's MO thing. My senseless jaded drivel is my opinion.