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

[thefunkyredcaboose]

This isn't a murder trial.

If the 3 and their lawyers had access to the contracts discussed in the summons then this isn't complex at all and neither is the issue with Ed's bootlegs.

We can't know that for sure, of course, but it seems likely if they filed a suit to begin with that they had all of the evidence they needed.

And yes, signed contracts are facts.

[Sakhmet2]

This isn't a murder trial.

You'd never know that from some of the drama here

[jclive]

This isn't a murder trial.

If the 3 and their lawyers had access to the contracts discussed in the summons then this isn't complex at all and neither is the issue with Ed's bootlegs.

We can't know that for sure, of course, but it seems likely if they filed a suit to begin with that they had all of the evidence they needed.

And yes, signed contracts are facts.

Signed contracts are indeed a fact. But the interpretation of said contracts is not. I'm no expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.. And I had to sit on a jury once; we heard a businss law case. It was over a contract dispute between a property management company and the building owner. It dealt with the fiduciary responsibility of the management company in relation to a sum of money that they earmarked for soemthing to which the property owner didnt agree. Could have gone either way. That's the interesting part about contracts - they arent always as black and white as you'd think/hope they are.

My thought is that this is simply an avenue for CC&P to quickly collect money that Ed know's is owed to them. I guess where I differ from everyone else is that I'm not assuming the level of ill-intent on Ed's behalf that is being presented here as fact. If it comes out that way, then so be it. But I don't believe that we the casual fan really know the actual details of how this all played out.

[OutToDry]

I'll be sure to keep everyone abreast of the situation

OJ ended up getting his.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Signed contracts are indeed a fact. But the interpretation of said contracts is not. I'm no expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.. And I had to sit on a jury once; we heard a businss law case. It was over a contract dispute between a property management company and the building owner. It dealt with the fiduciary responsibility of the management company in relation to a sum of money that they earmarked for soemthing to which the property owner didnt agree. Could have gone either way. That's the interesting part about contracts - they arent always as black and white as you'd think/hope they are.

My thought is that this is simply an avenue for CC&P to quickly collect money that Ed know's is owed to them. I guess where I differ from everyone else is that I'm not assuming the level of ill-intent on Ed's behalf that is being presented here as fact. If it comes out that way, then so be it. But I don't believe that we the casual fan really know the actual details of how this all played out.

Having actually been involved in a music publishing contract, I know how complex it is. This is a pointless debate without actually being able to see them. I think I am over-simplifying the issue and you are over-complicating it, because that is what serves each of our perspectives. Truth is, it is probably somewhere in the middle.

Being able to produce a contract that gives the rights to their music to someone else, without their signature on it, would go a long way in proving their case. That much we can agree on I'm sure.

Honestly, my biggest beef is the sale of bootlegs on Ed's website. If he didn't pay the guys their portion then that is stealing even according to the hidden contract. There isn't much wiggle room there, and that money is rightfully theirs (all $20 of it).

[jclive]

Having actually been involved in a music publishing contract, I know how complex it is. This is a pointless debate without actually being able to see them. I think I am over-simplifying the issue and you are over-complicating it, because that is what serves each of our perspectives. Truth is, it is probably somewhere in the middle.

Being able to produce a contract that gives the rights to their music to someone else, without their signature on it, would go a long way in proving their case. That much we can agree on I'm sure.

Honestly, my biggest beef is the sale of bootlegs on Ed's website. If he didn't pay the guys their portion then that is stealing even according to the hidden contract. There isn't much wiggle room there, and that money is rightfully theirs (all $20 of it).

True words about this being a pointless debate. We all skew our arguments to our own POV. The guys know where the middle ground is, and I assume that they'll find it, and at the same time hope that we are left out.

Definitely agree with your comment about a contract giving away someone elses rights too. I just dont see any of these guys as being smart enough to draft their own contracts. I see Levin telling Ed, CCP, etc to 'sign here'.

And if Ed owe's them money from those boots, I sure hope it gets taken care of. Wouldnt surprise me if Ed knows that he owes them, but is just holding out any payment while all this gets settled out. Personally, I view this split as sort of a nasty divorce, and that's pretty much how those play out as well. It doesnt mean that you're intentions are in the wrong place, its just business at that point.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

True words about this being a pointless debate. We all skew our arguments to our own POV. The guys know where the middle ground is, and I assume that they'll find it, and at the same time hope that we are left out.

Definitely agree with your comment about a contract giving away someone elses rights too. I just dont see any of these guys as being smart enough to draft their own contracts. I see Levin telling Ed, CCP, etc to 'sign here'.

And if Ed owe's them money from those boots, I sure hope it gets taken care of. Wouldnt surprise me if Ed knows that he owes them, but is just holding out any payment while all this gets settled out. Personally, I view this split as sort of a nasty divorce, and that's pretty much how those play out as well. It doesnt mean that you're intentions are in the wrong place, its just business at that point.

I doubt they drafted their contracts, but I'm quite sure they read them. CG and CT both own their own businesses, after all.

You can certainly say that about Ed, and since you clearly enjoy his music I have no problem with it. I think those of us who were disappointed when the band's sound began to change, and Ed began to change, have a lot to point to that shows Ed to be less than a saint.

All I need to know about all of this is that I wasn't shocked at all to hear it. If this had happened ten years ago, or came out about someone I respect (Matthew Good, for example), then I would be absolutely shocked and would try to defend them at every turn. I used to defend Ed too, after all.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Also, I didn't mean the entire argument was pointless. I just think trying to discuss the contracts specifically is pointless. This thread is too much fun to die.

[jclive]

I doubt they drafted their contracts, but I'm quite sure they read them. CG and CT both own their own businesses, after all.

You can certainly say that about Ed, and since you clearly enjoy his music I have no problem with it. I think those of us who were disappointed when the band's sound began to change, and Ed began to change, have a lot to point to that shows Ed to be less than a saint.

All I need to know about all of this is that I wasn't shocked at all to hear it. If this had happened ten years ago, or came out about someone I respect (Matthew Good, for example), then I would be absolutely shocked and would try to defend them at every turn. I used to defend Ed too, after all.

I read contracts for the guys who own my business. Sometimes we interpret them in different ways. We try to make the best informed decisions. Hopefully we're always right.

I'm trying not to defend Ed as much as I'm trying to keep an open mind about there being 2 sides to the story. Devil's advocate so to speak. Its not up to me to judge who did what. That's between the guys. I want their personal lives (contract disputes, fights, politics, etc) to stay out of my mind so that I can enjoy their music. For example, I used to enjoy Green Day until they turned too political for my taste.

To me, Ed lost it after SS, if not just before. Strangely enough, I still like Live since then, and Ed solo, and hopefully TGF.

[jclive]

Also, I didn't mean the entire argument was pointless. I just think trying to discuss the contracts specifically is pointless. This thread is too much fun to die.

I understand.

Absolutely, I like this one.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I read contracts for the guys who own my business. Sometimes we interpret them in different ways. We try to make the best informed decisions. Hopefully we're always right.

I'm trying not to defend Ed as much as I'm trying to keep an open mind about there being 2 sides to the story. Devil's advocate so to speak. Its not up to me to judge who did what. That's between the guys. I want their personal lives (contract disputes, fights, politics, etc) to stay out of my mind so that I can enjoy their music. For example, I used to enjoy Green Day until they turned too political for my taste.

To me, Ed lost it after SS, if not just before. Strangely enough, I still like Live since then, and Ed solo, and hopefully TGF.

The issue for me, having been involved in band business for over ten years now (hard to believe), is that there was any kind of hidden contract to begin with. What that contract said or did isn't really my concern. Transparency is essential for any band to stay together, so for that to happen is a very serious breach of band etiquette and friendship, not to mention business ethic.

As has been discussed before, you can compare band business to other business, but there is always going to be an "it" factor with band business that makes it different.

For me, Ed lost it after TDTH, and the band seemed to lose it after V (with the exception of Like I Do). The 3 guys seemed to have gotten their energy back, so maybe Ed can too?

[jclive]

The issue for me, having been involved in band business for over ten years now (hard to believe), is that there was any kind of hidden contract to begin with. What that contract said or did isn't really my concern. Transparency is essential for any band to stay together, so for that to happen is a very serious breach of band etiquette and friendship, not to mention business ethic.

As has been discussed before, you can compare band business to other business, but there is always going to be an "it" factor with band business that makes it different.

For me, Ed lost it after TDTH, and the band seemed to lose it after V (with the exception of Like I Do). The 3 guys seemed to have gotten their energy back, so maybe Ed can too?

I hope that having their energy back translates into something I enjoy. I suspect it will.

[ItchyTriggerFinger]

Innocent... not guilty.. youre splitting hairs there my friend. And just as it means the prosecution didnt successfully make their case, it also means that the defense actually did their job.

Not splitting hairs. It's specifically why they are found "not guilty". Guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The "proven" is the key.

And yes, you're correct that it also means that the defense did their job.

[Bremang]

A little bit of movement over at SCROLL....

Seems like the case has been filed over at NYSCEF.

There is a stipulation filed by CCP's lawyer which is secured, and we do not have access. 8/13/2010.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 20 2010, 4:46 am

[Wambangalang]

oh yes, that whole court thingy...