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

[Pokey]

Can anyone else pm me a link to Ed's reply? I can't seem to find it either..

don't worry, found it

This post has been edited by Pokey: Aug 25 2010, 4:56 am

[Pokey]

"Defendants deny that the level of success achieved by the group was allocable equally to the hard work, musicianship, and creativity of each member of the group; in fact, it was Kowalczyk who was the moving force behind the Group and it's success and who authored virtually the entirety of all compositions that were that were recorded by the group"

That just about makes me sick. Ed was the driving force later in the career because he took away all the power the other guys had i writing songs. But before that, fuck that, it was a proper band with not just his name plastered all over it. If he truely was the driving force, why would he need to make them sign a contract stating he had control? Surely the driving force would have that kind of control without needing others to sign anything for it. I call bullshit.
He seems to be trying to blur the lines, to make it appear that how the band worked in later years was how it always worked. As if TC and SS were written the same was SFBM were ... it's pathetic. Hell just from our point of view as listeners you can tell the difference and the influence. Fuck Ed.

[Rupe]

Defendants deny that the level of success achieved by the group was allocable equally to the hard work, musicianship, and creativity of each member of the group; in fact, it was Kowalczyk who was the moving force behind the Group ..."

That just about makes me sick

My feelings exactly. Ed denies that CC&P had anything to do with Live's success?! Are you kidding me?!?!!? What a jackass. When I bought a Live album, I was looking for the whole group. When I went to see Live in concert, I went for the whole group. Ed and his new "rock band" are not Live and will never be (and never would have been) the talent of Live. Ed (by his own admission in the Awake interviews) would not have made it without all 4 sticking together. I guess all that "brotherhood" talk didn't really mean too much to him. I feel sorry for him that $$ became more important than the love and one-ness of which he once wrote.

As much respect that CT earned from me by his "Live history" blog, Ed has lost twice as much with me due to his continual ego shit.

I will always be a fan of Live; never a fan of Ed's.

[sh4rpz]

[i][/i]



My feelings exactly. Ed denies that CC&P had anything to do with Live's success?! Are you kidding me?!?!!? What a jackass. When I bought a Live album, I was looking for the whole group. When I went to see Live in concert, I went for the whole group. Ed and his new "rock band" are not Live and will never be (and never would have been) the talent of Live. Ed (by his own admission in the Awake interviews) would not have made it without all 4 sticking together. I guess all that "brotherhood" talk didn't really mean too much to him. I feel sorry for him that $$ became more important than the love and one-ness of which he once wrote.

As much respect that CT earned from me by his "Live history" blog, Ed has lost twice as much with me due to his continual ego shit.

I will always be a fan of Live; never a fan of Ed's.

+1

Shocking from Ed, I have to say.

Edit: Shocking even by his standards.

This post has been edited by sh4rpz: Aug 25 2010, 5:57 am

[OutToDry]

My feelings exactly. Ed denies that CC&P had anything to do with Live's success?! Are you kidding me?!?!!? What a jackass. When I bought a Live album, I was looking for the whole group. When I went to see Live in concert, I went for the whole group. Ed and his new "rock band" are not Live and will never be (and never would have been) the talent of Live. Ed (by his own admission in the Awake interviews) would not have made it without all 4 sticking together. I guess all that "brotherhood" talk didn't really mean too much to him. I feel sorry for him that $$ became more important than the love and one-ness of which he once wrote.

As much respect that CT earned from me by his "Live history" blog, Ed has lost twice as much with me due to his continual ego shit.

I will always be a fan of Live; never a fan of Ed's.

All of those interview's Ed did stating peace & brotherhood will most likely be used against him to show his rebuttal is full of donkey shit.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

While the document may claim to deny, it confirms everything I thought about Ed in the first paragraph.

There it is, for all the world to see. There might be two sides to the story but one side is clearly an asshole.

[OutToDry]

This can be called into question right in the first paragraph:

"was a founding member of 'LIVE'. ...from the date of it's formation".

This can be debated and questioned, as he was asked to join after the core band (although called other names) was established.

If you want to get technical with a fine tooth comb.

[Pokey]

This can be called into question right in the first paragraph:

"was a founding member of 'LIVE'. ...from the date of it's formation".

This can be debated and questioned, as he was asked to join after the core band (although called other names) was established.

If you want to get technical with a fine tooth comb.

If that gets brought up he'll probably play some shit where he was asked to join by the others because they needed him and wouldn't have done anything without him.

Not to mention the fact that without the other guys we'd not be having this convo as no one would have heard of Eddie K without the other 3.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I'm ready for the "two sides to every story" crowd to chime in. I hope they realize that what Ed is claiming here is exactly what tore the band apart and why so many of us think he is a pompous jackass.

[+Ed+]

More sadness from my side.

I often think of Ed's forgiveness. Each day it gets closer to me never forgiving him even if Chad T does.

[Nobody Knows]

Ed can have all the credits he wants for the SHIT he made such as You're Not Alone and All I need, but seriously just fuck him!

[FishOutaWater]

I've seen come complaints and answers before, and an answer is generally stated in straight forward terms as either affirming or denying factual claims and preserving legal claims for the course of the litigation. It is usually just denied, denied, denied... This thing certainly seemed to be unnecessarily snarky and insulting to the plaintiffs. There will be plenty of briefs in which the parties can state their case and make arguments. The complaint and answer are just the beginning, and the parties should usually "keep their powder dry" and refrain from getting into mud-slinging at this stage - which is basically a perfuntory step. I was a little surprised by the self-aggrandizement in the first paragraph and the little shots about how the other band members are not songwriters in any meaningful way. I think the TGF album and Live's earlier work prove that to be false. Those kinds of statements are just unnecessary in an answer to a complaint. Of course, Ed didn't write this and you can't blame the tone and content on Ed - it is his lawyer's work and he appears to have an antagonistic lawyer. Not all lawyers take the dirty, street-fight approach. Was it at all necessary for Ed's answer to state that Chad, Chad and Pat are not songwriters? I think that all Chad, Chad and Pat need to do to refute the insults and allegations in Ed's answer is play Alive for the judge and then play TGF.

Anyone who has followed Live as closely as some of us know much of the content of this answer to be false. Notwithstanding a few irrational, unaccountable opinions by a very small collection of musically illiterate fools that Live's later work after 2000 can be counted as its best work - it is obvious that Death of a Dictionary, Four Songs, Mental Jewelry, Throwing Copper, Secret Smadhi and The Distance To Here were by far the best (if not the only good) work that Live put forth and was, indeed, among the best music ever created. It is also clear that those works were the product of all four band members putting their heads and their creative energies together and producing music as a BAND - the result of which made Live the popular and successful band that it was, and gave the band the platform on which they could continue their careers. The entity that became Live was the product of the hard work and creativity of all four members fo the band. It was upon the reputation of their previous work and the loyal fan base that it generated, that carried Live's commercial viability through the last 3 albums. Ed's last 3 Live albums would have never made it to a record label and the cd's would have never been opened from their boxes if it wasn't for the work of the entire band years before. It is also clear that the Live albums that were created after Ed took total control evidenced an enormous, obvious, precipitous drop-off in quality and commercial success. If Live started in the year 2000 and only produced the albums that were created after that year, I dare say that no one would have ever heard of them and none of us would even be here to discuss this.

If Ed was the primary, driving force behind Live, then why am I not even willing to drive up the street to see him and his new band, even though they will play some Live songs and if I close my eyes, I might be able to pretend that I am seeing Live one more time? Yet I will drive to Baltimore one night and then Philly two nights later to see TGF. I'm not that biased - I just follow good music. I've got two really great tickets to see an Open Wings, Broken Strings show. Anybody want to buy them?

I'm guessing Chad, Chad and Pat's blood pressure go through the roof when they read this. I wouldn't be surprised if Chad's foregiveness gets retracted after this. I know I would have a hard time continuing my forgiveness and reconciliation after this one.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Aug 25 2010, 8:48 am

[OutToDry]

Good stuff as usual Fish.

Ed's ignoring of TGF was certainly coming from his attorney so as to not give any credit to their amazing artistical talents.

[Bremang]

"Defendants deny that the level of success achieved by the group was allocable equally to the hard work, musicianship, and creativity of each member of the group; in fact, it was Kowalczyk who was the moving force behind the Group and it's success and who authored virtually the entirety of all compositions that were that were recorded by the group"

That just about makes me sick. Ed was the driving force later in the career because he took away all the power the other guys had i writing songs. But before that, fuck that, it was a proper band with not just his name plastered all over it. If he truely was the driving force, why would he need to make them sign a contract stating he had control? Surely the driving force would have that kind of control without needing others to sign anything for it. I call bullshit.
He seems to be trying to blur the lines, to make it appear that how the band worked in later years was how it always worked. As if TC and SS were written the same was SFBM were ... it's pathetic. Hell just from our point of view as listeners you can tell the difference and the influence. Fuck Ed.

Not sure what you mean being "a contract stating he had control". Wasn't the contract to keep the royalties? Even if the rest of the band played a huge role in making their instrumental parts, if Ed originated the basic song structure for most of the songs (chords, melody and lyrics), then his point might be valid, although the way it looks on paper certainly undermines the rest of the bands contribution. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what either party says about who did the most work in terms of who wins this.

[Sakhmet2]

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!

This is the possibly most ridiculous theory ever. Why would anyone take something that was giving them a good living and run it into the ground? You could never be sure that your follow-up would give you the same financial reward.

You can argue Ed is a shit. Your opinion can be that his work is shit. You can argue Ed is a fool. But since he's being accused to financial chicanery, he's a fool that cares about money. So why would he deliberately ruin his source of income.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: Aug 25 2010, 9:14 am