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

[Bremang]

The clock on the 30 day time limit starts after they have been served. So let's say the suit is filed on the 10th of the month, but a process server doesn't actually hand them the papers until the 30th for whatever reason (they can't locate him, etc), the 30 days don't start until the 30th. If they are unable to serve in person, most states allow for "substituted service," with the courts permission, meaning the papers can be either mailed via certified mail and must be signed for by the parties named or they can be handed to somebody at the person's regular residence or place of business.

"YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer on the Plaintiffs’ attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if
this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York);"

If Ed has moved, maybe they'll never find him and they'll have to serve him on stage at one of his show. But Levin works in NY, hes gotta be easy to find. I bet some folks here would pay for an EK ticket, and serve him during Drink.

[Bremang]

Either way, the fact remains that Ed did not meet his contractual obligations and even acknowledged this by paying them something even though it was a fraction of what they deserved.

Seems logical, but ain't a fact yet.

[PurdueSteve]

"YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer on the Plaintiffs’ attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if
this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York);"

If Ed has moved, maybe they'll never find him and they'll have to serve him on stage at one of his show. But Levin works in NY, hes gotta be easy to find. I bet some folks here would pay for an EK ticket, and serve him during Drink.

Drink is SFBM-ish tolerable, for me at least.

I'd serve his ass during "The Great Beyond." That has to be the worst song he's ever made.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: Jul 1 2010, 7:47 am

[+Ed+]

I missed that show (purposely)

Maybe Levin will respond

If he isn't busy with HIS solo music by then

[lovemachine97]

Long-time lurker, and hardly ever post...

Songwriting royalties can actually kill a band. Typically, those who write accompaniment, melody, and lyrics will get credit. Since singers often create the melody and the lyrics, it seems fair that they would get a larger percentage of writing credit. On the other hand, would a song like "Pain Lies on the Riverside" be the same song without the bass line? How much is that worth in a song? But what if the bass part isn't as important, or even existent, such as "Overcome"?

But who wants to hash out credit for every single freaking song? Some bands do this successfully, such as Stone Temple Pilots. The writing is credited to a combo of 2, 3, or even all 4 members of the band. For their newest record, though, Scott Weiland wanted to be separately credited for writing the melodies and lyrics. This was likely a demand on his part, but if it is true, and you are writing the melodies and lyrics and NOT the music, then that separation doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. I don't know what percentages are drawn, but it seems fair. It is also nothing that should kill a band--unless someone else is contributing melody and/or lyrics, of course.

This is why bands often come to an agreement. Van Halen comes to mind. Every single song is credited to all four current members of the band. But even this can get contentious. Edward Van Halen, who had been trying to get rid of Michael Anthony as far back as 1982, finally did so in 2007. However, he wanted to get rid of him in 2004 for a tour with Sammy Hagar. Anthony was given an ultimatum--in order to tour with the band that year, he had to take a smaller percentage for the tour than every band member, and he had to relinquish all of his rights to the Van Halen name, as well as future royalties. This was non-negotiable with Edward. Further, Michael hadn't even been allowed to play on the 1998 album 3, nor the 3 new songs in 2004 from Best of Both Worlds.

Michael Anthony agreed, and the band toured. He wanted to give the fans what he thought they wanted--the original members. He also loves to play, so getting out on the road for the first time in 6 years was worth it. But that wasn't enough for EVH. Anthony found out on the internet in 2007 that he had been replaced by Edward's son, Wolfgang. Nice.

EVH had always wanted a "better" bassist, and finally just started doing the bass lines himself. The problem was that Anthony' steady, pocket bass playing was the perfect compliment to Edward and Alex's unorthodox guitar playing and drumming.

But, guess what? The average fan didn't know the difference. Most people don't give a shit that it wasn't Anthony on the albums or at the 2007 tour. The internet community cared--but that's about it.

The sad part is that the average fan, when hearing "Grace", will have absolutely no idea that it is not +Live+. And THAT is why lead singer is a position that can give musicians the ability to make ultimatums like Ed K did. Most people will think that "Honest Man" is new Candlebox. That's just the way it is.

Ed K's power play is nothing new. I think we'd be surprised if we knew how bands that have been together for a long time get along. I'd bet many of them don't, and I'd bet many singers make more money than they do. While big-time fans of the band will understand the contribution of each member, the vast majority do not. The vast majority of +Live+ fans would likely not even notice if they had replaced their drummer. I think Eric Kretz's ability to lay back on the backbeat is a huge part of STP's sound...but when his dad died, and agressive drummer Ray Luzier filled in, most of the audience did not know.

And so goes the life as a non-famous member of a famous band. Sometimes, you know where your bread is buttered, and I think with the ultimatum, the guys new that it was within their financial interest to continue as +Live+. Part of that is not alienating your fan base. With a situation like this, the fan base is being split. Some take Ed K's side, others take the others' side, some will buy both--and MOST will not purchase albums or attend concerts of either, and THAT is why the guys would have wanted to keep +Live+ alive.

As far as the contractual stuff--we don't know the truth. What we do know is that it seems likely Ed K wanted to go solo. Why he couldn't do that while still being in +Live+, we don't know. I think that had more to do with the other guys finally reaching a breaking point with the $1 million. But, we don't know. I think history tells us it is likely the singer getting too big for his britches. On the other hand, that's what people thought about David Lee Roth. But then Sammy Hagar couldn't handle being in a band with EVH...or Gary Cherone...or Sammy Hagar again...and EVH wanted to fire band members for 20+ years, and wasn't very secretive about it. As much of an egotard that DLR probably is, I think it has eventually come clear that EVH was the problem. So, in this situation, we may never know, and while it seems intuitive that Ed K was/is the problem, we have no idea what we don't know.

Just my $0.02...

[Aitkens]

The vast majority of +Live+ fans would likely not even notice if they had replaced their drummer.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Gracey is the backbone of Live's sound. There aren't many drummers that can play his specific style.

[jayda]

I disagree with you about the average Live fan not knowing that Grace is EK's and not Live's song. That was proven to me on the weekend.

[Sakhmet2]

Songwriting royalties can actually kill a band. Typically, those who write accompaniment, melody, and lyrics will get credit. Since singers often create the melody and the lyrics, it seems fair that they would get a larger percentage of writing credit. On the other hand, would a song like "Pain Lies on the Riverside" be the same song without the bass line? How much is that worth in a song? But what if the bass part isn't as important, or even existent, such as "Overcome"?

Very true. And it's not only the money, it's getting the credit for good or bad songs and for how much one puts into songs. Look at The Doors. They credited everything to all 4 members until about their 4th album. By that point, both Morrison and the musicians wanted separate attribution - although to the fans it didn't matter one bit.

As far as the contractual stuff--we don't know the truth. What we do know is that it seems likely Ed K wanted to go solo. Why he couldn't do that while still being in +Live+, we don't know. I think that had more to do with the other guys finally reaching a breaking point with the $1 million. But, we don't know. I think history tells us it is likely the singer getting too big for his britches. On the other hand, that's what people thought about David Lee Roth. But then Sammy Hagar couldn't handle being in a band with EVH...or Gary Cherone...or Sammy Hagar again...and EVH wanted to fire band members for 20+ years, and wasn't very secretive about it. As much of an egotard that DLR probably is, I think it has eventually come clear that EVH was the problem. So, in this situation, we may never know, and while it seems intuitive that Ed K was/is the problem, we have no idea what we don't know.
Just my $0.02...

And we *still* don't what happened unless some court documents appear. It's all very well to assert that CCP are*wonderful* guys who really care for the fans etc but we don't know what other things went into this mess.

Long-time lurker, and hardly ever post..

As much of an egotard that DLR probably is,

I love this word! I intend to use it often
And you should post more often.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: Jul 4 2010, 5:59 pm

[swami]

The vast majority of +Live+ fans would likely not even notice if they had replaced their drummer.

?!?!?!? Sorry......what? WHAT?????

http://www.swamilive.com/stuff/tsufl/drums.mp3

[+Ed+]

The vast majority of +Live+ fans would likely not even notice if they had replaced their drummer.

Huh?

How many of this majority was writing this post?


omg... this is sooooooo retarded

[Pokey]

He has got a point about the drumming .. I am in no way comparing Ramy to Gracey, but if idiots like Nick literally can't tell the difference, well then the EK can get away with it.

[OutToDry]

Most causual non invested fans wouldn't notice. The core fanbase yes, absolutely.

Good Van Halen story love, although I will tend to believe the plaintiffs in this case regarding Live.

Most people could see that Ed VH has/had substance abuse problems, control issues etc. Roth has had his own demons. But the band's name is VH for a reason. Ego and actions said forth from that ego are always the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Hoodstock]

Gracey and his beats are very unique (at least they were before Ed drug the band into the gutter). It would be obvious - at least on the earlier albums.

[Merica]

I'll be honest, I probably couldn't tell the difference if someone swapped Gracey. That's not a knock to him; I'm just a bit of a musical numb nut.

[lovemachine97]

And that's the point I'm trying to make. Millions of people have bought albums from Live, hundreds of thousands have seen them in concert, but only a select few are "active" listeners, and only a select few are engaged enough to go online and discuss bands at length. Only a select few are musicians themselves.

But the majority of fans aren't.

These are the same fans that, unbelievably to you and me, didn't notice when Oasis toured the US without Liam.

These are the same people that don't notice when Wolfgang Van Halen was the bass player.

You couldn't get two more opposite rock drummers in Ray Luzier and Eric Kretz. Luzier is so on top of the beat he's playing the next song; Kretz is so far behind the beat he's playing yesterday's gig. Yet most people at STP shows didn't know one was subbing for the other.

Further, those that did know that buy the albums and go to the shows didn't care.

If Aerosmith tours/records without Steven Tyler, it would be difficult. Same with Joe Perry. but Tom Hamilton takes time off, they continue with a sub. Most people wouldn't know the difference and those that do still went anyway.

To the average fan, there are members that are replaceable, even if the hardcore fans don't think so.