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

[Bremang]

Because Ed wanted total control over the artistic process but wouldn't do the one thing that would give him total control, simply going off to do his own thing. Instead he pushed his lifelong friends out of the picture in terms of collaborating on the songs.

In the end, they had to make the decision for him.

It seems that there was actually more than one thing Ed could have done to get more control over his songwriting credits. One would be to go solo, and another would be to write songs for Live, but only by demanding credit for it. Despite saying he could only do one thing, you list two. So we agree on that in a way I guess.

The guys did not make the decision for Ed to go solo directly based on his ultimatum and pushing them out of the picture artistically. They did it based on the deal he made behind their back, and their claims that they were not paid. That is a different issue.

My question basically was, would it be unethical to ask for credits for your songs, and have your friends play the songs, even though they used to get more credit for songs you used to write, as well as more credit for parts they would write?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 7 2010, 1:15 am

[VoodooLady]

My question basically was, would it be unethical to ask for credits for your songs, and have your friends play the songs, even though they used to get more credit for songs you used to write, as well as more credit for parts they would write?

since i brought up the issue of ethics first, let me answer your question, and perhaps offer some clarity as to my use of the term "unethical" as it refers to ed.

1. NO- asking for credits for your songs is not unethical
2. NO- getting them to sign an agreement changing how the $ is split, not unethical
3. Trying to weasel out said agreement -unethical

[crazy1]

Your second paragraph is nonsensical. If he wanted to have an album with all the song writing credits, he should have gone solo earlier. If he couldn't stand being in the band and not having all the song writing credits, he should have had the courage to quit the band.

Instead, he chose a path of passive-aggressive bullshit until they were finally forced to kick him out.

yup....this is what I was saying!!

[Bremang]

since i brought up the issue of ethics first, let me answer your question, and perhaps offer some clarity as to my use of the term "unethical" as it refers to ed.

1. NO- asking for credits for your songs is not unethical
2. NO- getting them to sign an agreement changing how the $ is split, not unethical
3. Trying to weasel out said agreement -unethical

Thanks for that.... Just to propose another question, if Ed's actions are found to be legal, would it be unethical?

And since we don't know the outcome of the complaint yet, do you think Ed is definitely unethical regarding this right now?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 7 2010, 8:33 am

[OutToDry]

What matters is he did something he should have not done.....he alienated the whole Live family with his passive aggressive actions.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 7 2010, 8:39 am

[Bremang]

yup....this is what I was saying!!

Okay...what about all the responses to what you were saying. Could you quote any and say why you still disagree?

I don't understand why folks think it would have been so much less douchebaggy for Ed to just go solo.....because it would probably mean he was either going to stay solo, effectively giving no options to the rest of the band, or he was going to go solo and come back and propose the same ultimatum.

So why would going solo, and not giving the band an option, and not telling the band his intentions, be a better way to go?

Maybe it would be a better way to go, its hard to tell at the time as its probably hard to tell now. How is it so douchebaggy that his course of actions weren't best? Isn't it hard to figure out in any case?

Meanwhile, some say Ed should have had the courage to leave...what does courage have to do with it....it was a business decision....

And what about the rest of the band, they totally went for it...where was their "courage?"

If you were to say that its unethical for Ed to ask for credits for his songs, then I would have no argument here. But since you says it OK, I'd appreciate if you addressed my explanation.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 7 2010, 8:46 am

[Bremang]

What matters is he did something he should have not done.....he alienated the whole Live family with his passive aggressive actions.

What did he do that was passive aggressive prior to 2005?


Would there be any way he could get his songwriting credits and not alienate the Live family?

[Aitkens]

If Ed goes solo, then hypothetically he can go on his own ego trip without dragging down the quality of Live's music. Many artists have done solo side projects, all while maintaining the original band. Ed ends up doing his solo stuff, the rest of the band can also focus on side projects, then after some time they'd be able to come back and make music collectively. Instead, the band were forced to take a step back, and we were forced to listen to inferior music.

[Bremang]

If Ed goes solo, then hypothetically he can go on his own ego trip without dragging down the quality of Live's music. Many artists have done solo side projects, all while maintaining the original band. Ed ends up doing his solo stuff, the rest of the band can also focus on side projects, then after some time they'd be able to come back and make music collectively. Instead, the band were forced to take a step back, and we were forced to listen to inferior music.

No, the band was not forced into playing inferior music....they chose to follow Ed's music.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 7 2010, 8:49 am

[OutToDry]

Thanks Aiktens for answering, this is spot on.

They were forced and wanted to keep things amicable....perhaps they weren't ready to accept the bands demise. These guys livelihoods depended on it.

[Aitkens]

No, the band was not forced into playing inferior music....they chose to follow Ed's music.

I don't believe there was much of a choice.

[crazy1]

What did he do that was passive aggressive prior to 2005?
Would there be any way he could get his songwriting credits and not alienate the Live family?

The whole lawsuit is not just based on him wanting his songwriting credits....please read it.. you are missing other points and you remain stuck on the songwriting credits. I am just stating...in my opinion...he would have come off as less of a douche in my eyes if he just went solo and didn't give them an ultimatum. He knew he had the upper hand and he took full advantage. He also wasn't able to stick to the ultimatum.

[Pokey]

No, the band was not forced into playing inferior music....they chose to follow Ed's music.

They did true, at the risk of losing their life long friend and their band and everything they'd worked for and built since they were kids.

[OutToDry]

Bre, youre grandstanding on writing credits and unthethical motives is getting silly. Read the complaint, re-read it and you will see the root of the whole thing.

[Bremang]

They did true, at the risk of losing their life long friend and their band and everything they'd worked for and built since they were kids.

Yeah, the preciousness and the longevity argument works both ways.