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

[Bremang]

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.

That quote is hardly debatable, he was just the last member to join.

[OutToDry]

Sak, I think the basic premise here is Ed's ego has given him the inability to see the Forest through the trees.

[Bremang]

In these documents it seems that both parties are trying to win the sympathies of the legal authority who would have difficulty ascertaining exactly who contributed what to the music. I think both sides are exaggerating; Ed saying he did everything, CCP leaning towards saying all 4 were equal contributers. Both are likely untrue. I'd bet the lawyers are the ones who push these extreme views.

I think we should take the comments about who created the music in both documents with a grain of salt because I'm guessing it is only meant to butter up the main argument, which should hopefully not play a roll, in deciding the interpretation of the 2005 contract.

[Pokey]

In these documents it seems that both parties are trying to win the sympathies of the legal authority who would have difficulty ascertaining exactly who contributed what to the music. I think both sides are exaggerating; Ed saying he did everything, CCP leaning towards saying all 4 were equal contributers. Both are likely untrue. I'd bet the lawyers are the ones who push these extreme views.

I think we should take the comments about who created the music in both documents with a grain of salt because I'm guessing it is only meant to butter up the main argument, which should hopefully not play a roll, in deciding the interpretation of the 2005 contract.

How exactly is CCP saying that the 4 of them were equal contributors an "extreme view" ?In 95 or 97 or 99 would you have said that Ed is a bigger contributor than the others? He certainly is a bigger visual focal point as most frontmen are in bands, but don't let that distract from the song writing issue.

I also agree with Sak above that I don't think that this has been Ed's plan all along. Probably only of the past few years at least, I certainly dont think that as he was in the making of Throwing Copper that he was thinking "man these guys are so screwed then I take this thing solo!".

Doesn't change the fact that Ed is a shitheel.

[Bremang]

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.

yep

[Bremang]

How exactly is CCP saying that the 4 of them were equal contributors an "extreme view" ?In 95 or 97 or 99 would you have said that Ed is a bigger contributor than the others? He certainly is a bigger visual focal point as most frontmen are in bands, but don't let that distract from the song writing issue.

I also agree with Sak above that I don't think that this has been Ed's plan all along. Probably only of the past few years at least, I certainly dont think that as he was in the making of Throwing Copper that he was thinking "man these guys are so screwed then I take this thing solo!".

Doesn't change the fact that Ed is a shitheel.

Well, to say all 4 were equals... I don't know how that is even quantifiable. Perhaps one member was 23% responsible for all the creation and another was 25.5%

Perhaps if Ed wrote all the lyrics and most of the basic chord structures, that might be a few percent more in terms of creation than Patrick Dalheimer's total contribution....I am not claiming this because I do not know, but it seems difficult to figure out....and I am not even saying that CCP are saying that everyone are equals completely, that is just their tone which is to support their interpretation of the 2005 contract as far as allocating royalties.

To better argue whether the guys were equals, each side could go through every song released, and describe their contribution, and describe their contribution to all other aspects of the band. I would like to read that.

I'd like to see anyone answer the hypothetical Q's I asked Outtodry before they call Ed a shitheel in fact.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 25 2010, 9:50 am

[Rupe]

I think we should take the comments ... in both documents with a grain of salt

Good point - we are reacting just like the lawyers on each side would want a jury to respond. They are playing to drama, emotions and extremes. They obscure the facts in a bunch of BS to try and sway the judge/jury to their side. We shouldn't expect the submissions to be impartial or openly honest.



That being said, who wants to move to NY and volunteer for jury duty....

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Well, to say all 4 were equals... I don't know how that is even quantifiable. Perhaps one member was 23% responsible for all the creation and another was 25.5%

Perhaps if Ed wrote all the lyrics and most of the basic chord structures, that might be a few percent more in terms of creation than Patrick Dalheimer's total contribution....I am not claiming this because I do not know, but it seems difficult to figure out....and I am not even saying that CCP are saying that everyone are equals completely, that is just their tone which is to support their interpretation of the 2005 contract as far as allocating royalties.
I'd like to see anyone answer the hypothetical Q's I asked Outtodry before they call Ed a shitheel in fact.

There isn't any way to know as the contributions can vary from song to song. That is why bands will elect to just split royalties evenly. That is generally the case unless the lead singer really does write all of the songs (chord structure and melody), which we know from the liner notes of the early Live material isn't the case.

This response is written from the perspective that the 2005 contract was legitimate. This case isn't going to be determined based on "who wrote what song" but rather if the contracts that were signed without consent from the other 3 were legal.

I would guess that all the emphasis on songwriting is an attempt to show the legitimacy of that contract, so it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

[Bremang]

This response is written from the perspective that the 2005 contract was legitimate. This case isn't going to be determined based on "who wrote what song" but rather if the contracts that were signed without consent from the other 3 were legal.

I would guess that all the emphasis on songwriting is an attempt to show the legitimacy of that contract, so it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

I think I've repeated this a few times

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I think I've repeated this a few times

Good for you.

[Bremang]

Good for you.

I saw you suggesting it as trying to inform me, thats all. We agree

[TheBeacon]

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! WHY???????? This is the question we all bicker about because its what happened. Ed chose money and power over his friends and the band. You cannot deny that!!! Unfortunately for Ed he thought he could do better on his own and is failing miserably! I agree he didnt start out with the intention to sabotage LIVE but I think that has been his goal since atleast the "V" era.

This post has been edited by TheBeacon: Aug 25 2010, 10:23 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I saw you suggesting it as trying to inform me, thats all. We agree

I know we do, I was just adding some clarification in the direction that you were heading. All this songwriting malarkey is just a distraction from the reason the suit was filed in the first place. EK can claim that he wrote everything all he wants, but if the original contracts say differently then he won't win this one.

If the courts deem the 2005 contract legal then there won't be a leg for the other guys to stand on.

[OutToDry]

to respond to mr bremang,:

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?

If I wrote the songs as principal songwriter under a band arrangement which has been publically stated in recordings as ‘we’re 2/4ths 4/8’s of Live” - ref 99x recordings of 1994, then it means I was 25% of an equal 100% partnership. I would be bound to accept that agreement. Ed’s disillusionment of this partnership, founding in his ego and outside voices tainted what was pure about our band ‘Live’. The 2005 arrangement to get 100% credit is based on greed and bad advice of most probably Levin, as the plaintiff’s state in the claim.

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 band mates?

If they were bound by the earlier agreement, then said person would have no claim to wanting more $$ for royalties when he is getting his fair share. Yes I would harshy criticize an adult for acting like a spoiled child.

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.

The 2005 contract is based on greed, ego and feeling that he’s entitled to more of which happened in the past. The future royalties of 2001 to 2009 don’t amount to much for the works released in that time frame. You can also argue that his disillusionment and move to be the one voice for the band…..’ Ed: “I Have a Plan” – to CT means he was up to no good. I believe he got bad advice everywhere.

Trust me, I am being objective here.

[Bremang]

to respond to mr bremang,:

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?

If I wrote the songs as principal songwriter under a band arrangement which has been publically stated in recordings as 'we're 2/4ths 4/8's of Live" - ref 99x recordings of 1994, then it means I was 25% of an equal 100% partnership. I would be bound to accept that agreement. Ed's disillusionment of this partnership, founding in his ego and outside voices tainted what was pure about our band 'Live'. The 2005 arrangement to get 100% credit is based on greed and bad advice of most probably Levin, as the plaintiff's state in the claim.

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 band mates?

If they were bound by the earlier agreement, then said person would have no claim to wanting more $$ for royalties when he is getting his fair share. Yes I would harshy criticize an adult for acting like a spoiled child.

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.

The 2005 contract is based on greed, ego and feeling that he's entitled to more of which happened in the past. The future royalties of 2001 to 2009 don't amount to much for the works released in that time frame. You can also argue that his disillusionment and move to be the one voice for the band…..' Ed: "I Have a Plan" – to CT means he was up to no good. I believe he got bad advice everywhere.

Trust me, I am being objective here.

I do love that 99x recording...who knows what those fractions were referring to. Maybe he just meant that he was 1 of 4 people, not inferring a partnership. Still...the question was would you WANT to own your songs, and ask for the royalties. Would you be interested in eventually changing the agreement to you were bound? Is it considered greed in the harsh sense to want credit for your songwriting?

To your second response...being bound to an agreement does not always assume fairness.

You might have to reconsider the hypos.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 25 2010, 11:01 am