What really happened to Ed? Options

[Arizona_Skies]

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

"I had simply come to the end of a chapter in my life and wanted to spread my wings and move beyond what I had been doing, in the same way, for almost 20 years. As far as the allegations that were leveled at me and purported as the reason for the breakup, they were all absolutely untrue. I have no plans to work with those individuals again."

I know there's a lot of speculation on this board, and some of you know the band members personally... does anyone know Ed's side of the story?

[thefunkyredcaboose]

The only bits of his side of the story that we know came from the summons response, which basically stated that he was entitled to the money because he wrote the songs. We don't know any more than that, and we also don't know how much of that came from him or from his lawyer.

[jaybb]

The only bits of his side of the story that we know came from the summons response, which basically stated that he was entitled to the money because he wrote the songs. We don't know any more than that, and we also don't know how much of that came from him or from his lawyer.

It was such a poor defense. The other three guys were listed as co-writers on much of LIVE's early catalogue, including most of the big hits. Ed and his legal team should have known the ASCAP regulations regarding this and paid the other band members accordingly. Just because you are selling bootlegs tracks of a performance where the others weren't involved is unacceptable. It's a blatant violation of copyright law.

In case Nick gets huffy, this is akin to me recoding the song Imagine and selling CDs featuring that track, without paying the estate of John Lennon. It doesn't work that way. The credited songwriters are entitled to the monies owed. In this case, there's more than one, so ASCAP has rules as to how these monies are paid, for both the music authorship royalties and the publishing side.

This post has been edited by jaybb: Sep 30 2011, 4:22 pm

[Arizona_Skies]

It was such a poor defense. The other three guys were listed as co-writers on much of LIVE's early catalogue, including most of the big hits. Ed and his legal team should have known the ASCAP regulations regarding this and paid the other band members accordingly. Just because you are selling bootlegs tracks of a performance where the others weren't involved is unacceptable. It's a blatant violation of copyright law.

So, Ed's lawyers were the ones controlling the band's money?

[jaybb]

So, Ed's lawyers were the ones controlling the band's money?

No, but Ed has to have a business manager/accountant (often a lawyer as well) who is charged with handling these issues. In this case, the other band members, I believe, relied on the same individual that Ed did.

Nevertheless, to be a professional recording artist and to be unaware that monies are owed to credited songwriters for works sold using their compositions is unbelievably negligent. Imagine Ed's response if Chad Taylor was out selling LIVE songs on his own (online and via CD at TGF shows), without any payment back to him. You can bet there would be a lawsuit to recoup the monies owed.

This post has been edited by jaybb: Sep 30 2011, 8:34 pm

[Bremang]

Nevertheless, to be a professional recording artist and to be unaware that monies are owed to credited songwriters for works sold using their compositions is unbelievably negligent. Imagine Ed's response if Chad Taylor was out selling LIVE songs on his own (online and via CD at TGF shows), without any payment back to him. You can bet there would be a lawsuit to recoup the monies owed.

you're not even in the ballpark

[jaybb]

you're not even in the ballpark

How so?

[Bremang]

How so?

I could go on forever.......i'll keep it brief...

Your explanation of Ed being negligent shows to me that you are unaware of what negligence means, legally. In general, you demonstrate that you have no idea how to approach a legal analysis. For one, you are not privy to the contract, so you have no place to start interpreting what Ed was allowed to do.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Oct 1 2011, 2:32 pm

[Hoodstock]

For one, you are not privy to the contract, so you have no place to start interpreting what Ed was allowed to do.

Please privy us then.