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

[OutToDry]

Yep I saw that the other day, but no new real information other than the efile and the 'secured info'

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Aug 20 2010, 8:53 am

[LanceManion]

I just looked and now there is a response from the defendants in the court case. Basically, Ed and his lawyer are denying everything.

[OutToDry]

This is them saying prove it. You'd think Ed would want to look to the olive branch, he's too far gone up the suit chute to try to preserve his friendships. They agree to enter into the secret contract but state they deny it was done to circumvent the other 3....what a bunch of shit......stated with attorney speak.

Let the games begin!!!!

[OutToDry]

This response is weak stating that C & C & P have no claim on the revenues of Live material. Ed is basically stating in 16 pages that he is Live and has all legal claims to all monies as a higher percentage.

I rest my case that Ed's goal all along was to push himself into the forefront. Ed's denial that the other 3's contributions mattered to the success of the band are emphasised that his work carried more weight. This may partly be true but he's going to be taken to task in a jury trial here as they were a 'group' and not a solo artist with a backing band. Perhaps this was Levin & his crutch to force the band into this situation to fight any future legal dealings with a band dissolutionment.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQ...xNo=601267-2010

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Aug 24 2010, 9:03 pm

[OutToDry]

Lets call a spade a spade here, Ed got crazy paranoid when Chad's name came under a myspace music player as composer for a song.....remember the Ed blog. Ed's crazy and paraniod. Only the other 2 backed CT up when it was discovered to be a bug in a computer software program.

Ed's a fool

[OutToDry]

Might as well re-release or call his second solo effort this:

[TheBeacon]

Really sad! It seemed Ed had a plan all along and it wasen't a very smart one! Let's see, take control of the band that gave him a good living and fame at its prime and run it into the ground in order to boost himself and start a big solo career as he trashed 3 lifelong friendships along the way! To each his own I guess! We see how well his solo career is now! Nice plan Ed! Dumbass!

[OutToDry]

Good synopsis Beacon. Sounds about right to me.

[+Ed+]

You guys, I do not seem to be able to find the doc there. Anyone willing to re-post it for me?

[Bremang]

"...defendants request and pray that this Court enter judgement in their favor..."


Ed's Answer says "pray" for the religious audience reading this complaint.



Looks like its he said she said so far. I don't know much about civil procedure but I imagine the next step would be to go to court if all requirements are met, because both sides seem adamant about their opinion.

I hope the 2005 contract is interpreted by legal authority so we can see whether one side was completely lying.

[Bremang]

You guys, I do not seem to be able to find the doc there. Anyone willing to re-post it for me?

PM'd ya

[+Ed+]

Thanks!

[Bremang]

I rest my case that Ed's goal all along was to push himself into the forefront. Ed's denial that the other 3's contributions mattered to the success of the band are emphasised that his work carried more weight. This may partly be true but he's going to be taken to task in a jury trial here as they were a 'group' and not a solo artist with a backing band. Perhaps this was Levin & his crutch to force the band into this situation to fight any future legal dealings with a band dissolutionment.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQ...xNo=601267-2010

The idea that Ed was trying to push himself into the forefront all along seems unlikely when you consider that he hadn't asked for more royalties until 2005, with almost the entirety of their great material (and financial success probably) behind them. You've actually said you believe that rinkydink MTV clip of Ed jesting about "taking over one day" is sure proof of him being evil from the beginning...if thats the case then I say let him have his post 2005 royalties, since he was so cunning to devise a 20+ year financial plan for himself formulated in his mind when he was 13....or whenever "all along" began to you.

Ed does say that he "authored" practically all the material in this Answer. I suppose maybe from a songwriters perspective that might be true, but in the end that doesn't really even matter in terms of winning the case. I hope we get an objective decision from a court. It is unfortunate that it all went down this way though.

Like I said before, and I'm not trying to side with Ed on this, but rather be objective.

If you wrote practically all the songs in your band, of which the other members were friends of yours who were doing a good job at performing and recording for the most part, would you want to own your songs and collect a greater amount of the royalties, or would you be OK with, say, 25% of everything you wrote?

Or another question would be, would you harshly criticize someone for wanting to have royalties to their songs after 20 years of giving most of the royalties away to their performing bandmates?

Of course if you were to apply these hypotheticals to Ed it would assume that Ed's Answer is telling the truth regarding the contract in 2005.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 25 2010, 1:16 am

[Bremang]

Lets call a spade a spade here, Ed got crazy paranoid when Chad's name came under a myspace music player as composer for a song.....remember the Ed blog. Ed's crazy and paraniod. Only the other 2 backed CT up when it was discovered to be a bug in a computer software program.

Ed's a fool

Thats also all coming from Chad T. I don't think that one incident would have triggered much anyway. I would say it was more likely to be the thousands upon thousands of dollars Ed sought to gain.

[+Ed+]

Just started reading...

"author of virtually all of the group's compositions"???

WTF???

VIRTUALLY?

Is it an official paper or smth horrendously funny?

VIRTUALLY!

Are they nuts or smth? Where are the legal and professional figures? Where are the counted amounts?

GFDI