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

[Wambangalang]

thats been pretty much my position through all of this. I just cant see anyone, especially ed with the kind of artist he is/was, doing something like that without some kind of reason. Maybe what comes from ed's side of this legal thing will help make some sense of it all, because i doubt its as simple as this thing makes it out to be. It would mean ed is just an evil cunt. And he just never came across that way. And yet thats what the neighbours always say about serial killers so...

[Merica]

The answer is expected in a MONTh after the doc is signed as I recall. That makes it only a couple more days for Ed to surface

If indeed he decided to answer. He should do, of course.

[Merica]

thats been pretty much my position through all of this. I just cant see anyone, especially ed with the kind of artist he is/was, doing something like that without some kind of reason. Maybe what comes from ed's side of this legal thing will help make some sense of it all, because i doubt its as simple as this thing makes it out to be. It would mean ed is just an evil cunt. And he just never came across that way. And yet thats what the neighbours always say about serial killers so...

Yeah I get your point of view, Wam. I'm sure we'll learn something that'll shed some light somewhere.

Remember kids, a one sides story is not a complete story.

This post has been edited by Merica: Jun 15 2010, 4:44 am

[Pokey]

No mention of the lead singer bonus thing, which I figured was left out for obvious reasons. All this alienation from Ed......why? I've said in the past......had to be part of his MO from the beginning......my opinion of course.

I'm guessing because nothing really came of that. He never actually got the lead singer bonus as we know because they didn't play the gig. And even if so, it may have been still something he could legally ask for, doesn't mean it's not a complete dick of a thing to ask for, but not against legal rules per say.
The lead singer bonus is one of the worst cases, when they perform on stage, no matter who wrote the songs, they're all doing the work, it should be shared equally.
I remember Nick saying that he thought the only reason Ed would ask for the lead singer bonus is because he knew it would break up the band and they could go their own ways hahaha .. if the man actually did what was in point number 29 and gave the band that ultimatum then I doubt he would have to come up with such an elaborate plan to get out of the band, the dick would have just said "LOL dudes, im going".

[OutToDry]

Perhaps Levin is the slimebag in all of this as it states he went against his fiduciary duty to be impartial....which is a total conflict of interest.

This is damning: (and Nick will eat this up as it's Ed's damn right to demand it)

Even though Levin owed fiduciary duties to each member of LIVE, he demonstrated disloyalty to Plaintiffs and favored Kowalczyk - whom Levin believed would have the most profitable career in the years to come, and whom Levin wished to continue representing after Kowalczyk embarked on a solo career. Through the conduct alleged herein, Levin made clear he was in the “Ed Kowalczyk business” rather than the “LIVE business,” and interested in furthering Kowalczyk’s interests ahead of Plaintiffs’ interests.

[Merica]

In a little bit of fairness to Ed, I suppose he can't help it if there's a manager sniffing around and giving him more attention. That's just luck of the draw I suppose. But if Ed ate it up and went along with it, then that's crap.

[Wambangalang]

when they perform on stage, no matter who wrote the songs, they're all doing the work, it should be shared equally.

When i work at work, we're all doing the work, it should be shared equally. But it never is.

[Pokey]

When i work at work, we're all doing the work, it should be shared equally. But it never is.

Exactly, it should be, but it isn't .. so whilst Ed could ask for the bonus, and possibly could have got it if the others went along with it, it doesn't mean he should. I don't see his job on gig day being any harder than Gracey's for example. I'd like to hear how he approached them and justified that he should be getting a bigger paycheque for the performance than the rest.


Also, Ed's side of it could be something like "Well I think I am a better song writer on my own than with the rest so I demanded I write alone for the good of the band". Whether he really believes that or not is up for debate. He probably actually does believe it.

[Wambangalang]

its just so bizzarely fucked up. follow the money and the power bound to lose your way.

[SJN1279]

I

Perhaps they didn't consider the bootleg nature of the Paradiso album a true LIVE album. As many of the other songs on Paradiso were also written by other members of the band, as they had been written earlier in their career and therefore not covered.

Then why did Ed agree to Believe, which would have been on Live's next album? There is more to the story than this document.

[OutToDry]

I am sure there is and we prob wont hear about it. Hopefully Ed's album does well so he can repay what he owes so he doesn't lose all he owns

[Pokey]

Then why did Ed agree to Believe, which would have been on Live's next album? There is more to the story than this document.

"29. In 2005, Kowalczyk presented the Plaintiffs with an ultimatum: Kowalczyk would quit the group LIVE unless Plaintiffs agreed to give Kowalczyk (or Kowalczyk’s designee) sole writing credit for all songs embodied on hture LIVE albums."

So maybe I'm wrong here, but this but does the designee part mean that Ed gets sole writing credits unless he nominates someone else to write with and share the credits? If so then Believe and Purifier would be perfect examples, Ed is in total control of who he accepts to take part in the writing credit.

[OutToDry]

Ed designated himself ...................as others pointed it out many times.....himself. Selfishness.

[SJN1279]

"29. In 2005, Kowalczyk presented the Plaintiffs with an ultimatum: Kowalczyk would quit the group LIVE unless Plaintiffs agreed to give Kowalczyk (or Kowalczyk’s designee) sole writing credit for all songs embodied on hture LIVE albums."

So maybe I'm wrong here, but this but does the designee part mean that Ed gets sole writing credits unless he nominates someone else to write with and share the credits? If so then Believe and Purifier would be perfect examples, Ed is in total control of who he accepts to take part in the writing credit.

So it gives him the power to hand out writing credit. The rest had a choice to sign it, and they did. And the simple reason was for money, not friendship.

[OutToDry]

Nick......(your attorney like way to dumb down the details is maddening.)

Section 29 also states....

Although the Plaintiffs were shocked by this ultimatum, they acquiesced to Kowalczyk’s
demand, both out of respect for their decades-long friendship with Kowalczyk, and because the
Plaintiffs placed a high value on keeping the classic lineup of LIVE together, after the many
years of hard work they had put into building up the band’s following and reputation.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 15 2010, 5:31 am