Live have shown little loyalty to their fans Options

[SJN1279]

The lawsuit makes CCP look petty and is utterly ridiculous. Ed wrote a piece of all of the band's material, and to the masses will always be the lead singer of Live. However, no where on the billing for his tours, did it say that Ed was the current lead singer of Live. As far as anyone was concerned, Live was on hiatus at that point anyway.

Now that Live is back with a new singer, Ed is billing himself as the former lead singer as to not cause confusion. The lawsuit is a mute point.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Apr 21 2013, 10:14 am

[SJN1279]

Exhibit A(item still being sold in Live's official store):

100% cotton Army Green t-shirt with distressed Live cross logo with band members names and large cross graphic on the back.

https://missinginkshop.com/live/store/appar...d-cross-t-shirt

If anyone is currently causing confusion, its CCP and Art Alexakis.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Apr 21 2013, 10:21 am

[themaestro]

The lawsuit makes CCP look petty and is utterly ridiculous. Ed wrote a piece of all of the band's material, and to the masses will always be the lead singer of Live. However, no where on the billing for his tours, did it say that Ed was the current lead singer of Live. As far as anyone was concerned, Live was on hiatus at that point anyway.

Now that Live is back with a new singer, Ed is billing himself as the former lead singer as to not cause confusion. The lawsuit is a mute point.

You continue to make their case for them.

[themaestro]

Exhibit A(item still being sold in Live's official store):

100% cotton Army Green t-shirt with distressed Live cross logo with band members names and large cross graphic on the back.

https://missinginkshop.com/live/store/appar...d-cross-t-shirt

If anyone is currently causing confusion, its CCP and Art Alexakis.

So should they stop selling all their recordings too because that could be misleading with this logic. The difference of couse is that Ed is getting compensated and CCP are not. If Ed wasn't he'd be suing them too.

[SJN1279]

So should they stop selling all their recordings too because that could be misleading with this logic. The difference of couse is that Ed is getting compensated and CCP are not. If Ed wasn't he'd be suing them too.

All recordings have a copyright date. That t-shirt does not. It is being billed as having band members bands(Ed included).

[SinfulEyes]

All recordings have a copyright date. That t-shirt does not. It is being billed as having band members bands(Ed included).

Move on Nicholas.

[themaestro]

All recordings have a copyright date. That t-shirt does not. It is being billed as having band members bands(Ed included).

Now you're confusing copyrights with trademarks.

This post has been edited by themaestro: Apr 21 2013, 11:15 am

[SinfulEyes]

Now you're confusing copyrights with trademarks.

Gym teacher. Don't forget it.

[themaestro]

Gym teacher. Don't forget it.

Anyone can educate themselves on trademarks. Instead he prefers to spew heavily biased opinion. That's his way. The funny thing is, he keeps making their case for them.

[Bremang]

I haven't heard a legal argument from anyone yet.

[themaestro]

I haven't heard a legal argument from anyone yet.

Followed with no legal argument. I read the law, he appears to be in violation of it. You can do the same. You also might want to look up the Beach Boys and Deep Purple cases for further presidence if you want it.

[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.

[themaestro]

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.

Great points. To add on the trademark point, confusion includes whether it appears as if it was endorsed by Live. With his prominent usage of Live in his promotion it's reasonable for there to be confusion on whether his show was some facsimile of Live or endorsed by Live. Including former could have alleviated that.

[SinfulEyes]

Stop using big words and facts. It's going way over the trolls head!

[Hoodstock]

Windy day today.