Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I know there is already a topic started about the Slash/Duff lawsuit, but new information has become available which changes a lot and we probably needed a second topic anyway. The old topic has already gone 13 pages (with a lot of people complaining about having to read through all of the posts to catch up, most of which are irrelevant with the new information).

A copy of the actual lawsuit was posted on this forum by "Will" and answers a lot of questions debated in the original topic.....

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

My response to follow....

It sounds like they CAN prove he left the partnership in '95. Apparently, he had to relinquish his partnership status in order to gain complete ownership of the GN'R name, and losing say in "Old GN'R" decisions was an unexpected corollary to that.

This is not the end of the world though. The lawsuit isn't even over ownership of the songs, it is over who can decide HOW they're used. Axl is still entitled to his portion of the benefits. Slash/Duff could only name five movies; I doubt a judge would grant them anywhere close to a monetary figure that Axl would even notice "losing" (if anything at all) - thus leaving the partnership rights...

If not for publicity, Slash/Duff are probably using this lawsuit so they will be able to undisputedly "approve" permission for Velvet Revolver to re-record the old songs, and then only allow the Velvet Revolver recordings to be used in movies. Thus, they are screwing Axl out of performance benefits the same way that he supposedly planed to screw them. In a worst case scenario in which Axl loses out on all accounts, we will have ridiculous versions of "November Rain by Velvet Revolver" appearing on the Sponge Bob Squarepants soundtrack.

The Greatest Hits album killed off any potential for Axl to release a successful album of re-recorded tracks with the new band. If Velvet Revolver IS declared to have full partnership rights and they do their own re-recordings, it won't hurt the GN'R name anymore than that ridiculous compliation tribute album that tried to make heavy metal remixes of songs like "Estranged" and "Patience." No one is going to make judgments about GN'R based on Velvet Revolver covers, especially with such a dramatically different singer. And that is IF Slash/Duff "win." I don't have any legal background, but I strongly suspect the owner of the Guns N' Roses name might be entitled to some kind of say in what albums/advertisements GUNS N' ROSES songs will appear.

BTW, kudos to MaoAxl for chiming in - your professional opinion is much appreciated. Doesn't look like many people have given you credit, but you have contributed as much to this discussion as the people providing the links. Now that the actual lawsuit is available, does that change anything from what you said before?

Is there anyone on this board that is actually a certified lawyer that can give us some info on what is most likely going to happen now that we have a copy of the petition?

If Axl really did pull out of the partnership as they say he did and claim they can prove, would that essentially strip him of the ability to make GNR based decisions on the back catalog, videos, licensing and other things? Because from what I do know about the law, if that judge rule The original GNR partnership owns that stuff, Axl is up a river without a paddle and will have no legal recourse to get out of this.

It is simple. They will probably settle like Courtney and Grohl did. Money may not even change hands. Slash and Duff probably just want equal partnership with Axl in regards to business decisions made on the old material. Otherwise, we will have to wait for Axl's response. We really need to see the exhibits attached to the Complaint as well. The link did not provide those. I am not a lawyer, but have dealt with lawsuits for the past 12 years and am very familiar with the stages of a lawsuit, etc.

Madagas -

There will be no settling. I think they are going for broke and want to hit Axl where it is going to hurt him most. If a judge rules that the partnership owns that stuff and that Axl pulled out, they are going to give him the Big Middle Finger and make his life as miserable as possible from here on out.

I agree that they may not get that much in punitive damages, but if the judge rules from here on out they control the Original GNR partnership that makes GNR decisions about old stuff like the back catalog and videos or whatnot, that is going to break Axl.....or light a fire under his butt to start a new chapter in his life that involves releasing albums and not trying to live off past glories by wanting to re-record songs.

I think that is an excellent question, and something important to keep in mind at this time. Ninety-nine percent of us do NOT have legal backgrounds. It's better not to jump to any conclusions based on the lawsuit FROM Slash/Duff's side, likely with legal jargon we do not understand or are misinterpreting. The obvious purpose of a lawsuit is to present one side's case in the most favorable matter possible.

justynius-

I totally get we are only getting their side of the story and of course it is designed to make them look good. The thing is though, we never knew Axl pulled out of their partnership, if true, then S/D may actually have a very legitimate right to what they're claiming based on what we do know about legal practice. It is all speculation, but based on what they have provided I would argue this is neither frivilous nor the publicity stunt others had originally thought it to be.  

Naupis, in all lawsuits the plaintiff claims everything, as much as possible. The complaint may not reflect what they ultimately want. It may settle, it may not. Way too early to tell-wait for Axl's response. My gut just tells me that they want equal rights to decisions made on the back catalog.

Surely the worst that would happen is that the judge would also give Slash and Duff (as well as Axl) control on how songs were used - all this would mean is that GNR tunes would never be used again because they would never agree on anything.....

Anyway this all sucks

I want a new GNR album - not a new GNR lawsuit.....

I don't know if I necessarily agree with you here. It would be one thing if they were suing for full property rights, but Axl still gets his portion for wherever the songs are used. There's only so many "bad" decisions they can make concerning the Old GN'R songs to "make Axl's life miserable," and with each bad decision they make they're just screwing themselves out of future money.

I also don't think they plan to "sabotage" the GN'R name if they win; more likely they want to be able to undisputedly re-record the Old GN'R songs with Velvet Revolver and only use the re-recordings in movie deals. Thus, cutting Axl's performance benefits and bringing minor publicity to Velvet Revolver (though I'm guessing most people have already heard all of GN'R's hits, and would associate the songs with a noticeable different singer as "covers").

Greatest Hits was just released, so no one (VR or GN'R) will be releasing an album of re-recorded tracks in the foreseeable future. I seriously doubt anyone is going to be making judgments about a band based on a movie their song is included in - especially when you have monumental hits like the Old GN'R songs which practically everyone has already heard.

There's not a whole lot of artistic potential with the songs - the only thing Slash/Duff would gain is the ability to sell out the old songs to every movie deal that comes along (in which case, Axl cashes in at the same time). Unless they're banking on outrageous punative damages (which seems an unrealistic expectation at this point), this is a rather pointless lawsuit. The only possible benefit is a little cash (relative to the money either side could make off of album sales) and a negliable amount of publicity.

Madagas,

Again I see what your saying, but I don't think they want equal say, they want to stick it to Axl. They might be able to legally do that, and I think that is what they are shooting for. From what the brief said there were provisions about what would happen to one that pulled out of the agreement written into the contract they all signed, so I am going to assume their goal is to cut him out of the decision making process in regard to The Old GNR partnership if they can. This is a blood feud and I just don't think equal footing is what they want if the court says they can do better.

Didn't mean to address that response specifically to you, sorry if it was interpreted that way. Just wanted to point out that you raised a question that everyone on the board should think about, before writing this off for VR.

I am not sure there is so much they want to do with the songs, and they won't re-record them. The thing they want is I think at least, to make it so that Axl can't do whatever HE wants to in future endeavors. That is what I mean by making his life miserable. It would eat at him not to be able to do what he wants, when he wants with the old GNR stuff. If he had to clear anything he wanted to do with them, they would let him do it unless they really stood to gain financially just for the principal of making his life difficult.

I know he is gonna get his money and get paid regardless, I am just arguing from their side, it is just about keeping him from doing what he wants to do whenever he wants to, because that would drive him nuts.

I think alot of this has to do with the Greatest Hits album.

1. Greatest Hits album was released as a "recoupment"
    or "punishment" for the delays on Axl Roses album.

2. Slash and Duff belive that the GH Cd track selection
    was shit and didnt want it released.

3. Slash and Duff belive they should not be punished or
    have thier "old GnR" music be used in that way as a
    punishment for Axl Roses new albums delay..

3. Slash and Duff belive they should have been included
    in the track slections as they were in the Live Era CD.

4. Slash and Duff by using the movie examples are
    trying to show that Axl was thought to be the
    sole member with a say in "old GnR" the intended  
    victim of the Greates hits album and was punished
    and they were also but for somthing they have no
    control over (axls new album)


This will not affect Axls new band or VR.. This is fallout for the GH and they want to be included on all "Old GnR"
releases. like the GH cd, uses of the songs on movies, compalation CD's etc....  

So in sumary Slash and Duff were indirectly punished for the delay in Axl's new CD.  They dont belive that is fair and dont want it to happen again.

Thats what i can gather from reading the Complaint.

So in sumary Slash and Duff were indirectly punished for the delay in Axl's new CD.  They dont belive that is fair and dont want it to happen again.

Thats what i can gather from reading the Complaint.


That is an excellent observation Kockstar. Which is why I am beginning to believe this is more than a publicity stunt, but more about securing their future interests in GNR and the back catalog. I just so happened that this whole greatest hits thing flaired up right as they were releasing their album.

I have been following this board about four years now. I discovered the band in 1986, when I got this japanise ep that was Live like fucking suicide. I have been following the story about 18 years now, so I know the history as well as the present. I have a idea about the future, but that?s not the question now.

I think that Madacasgar and The Blues are simply masterpieces, something that you can not hear these times. The band for me is Hanoi Rocks that I discovered in 1980. That is another story too, but I strongly recommend that band to anyone, who want?s to understand the early GNR. Great rock! Briliant live!

I?m a lawyer.

I have read the complaint once and I have some ideas how it?s gonna go.

Claim. Axl left partnership of GNR in 1995.
 
- I would like to know the paper they made back then. If Duff ?n Slash has got somekind of power to use old GNR stuff, why haven?t they? Axl left as they claim, they should have got the power back then and should have it now.
Is is really so that there is no deal of old GNR cataloque? Is it possible that the didn?t even think about that back then? Hmmm well...? What do you think?

Claim.  Axl got the name.

-This is true. Is it possible that he left the GNR but got the name? Company without the name, what the fuck is that? Was it a company, deal or what? This is very important, because it?s their job to show that they had the power. (that they never used.) Maybe they didn?t even know that they had power.

Claim. Axl left GNR

-Different thing that partenership of GNR. Slash and Duff could no longer perform as GNR? Well, we all know that Slash left 1996 and Duff 1998. They left. That is what they have said many times and in many interviews. Legally it is ofcourse different but they left.

This is question about contracts. Do you honestly believe that Axl haven?t consulted a lawyer in 1992 or 1995? Or now?

There will be a answer from Axl?s side. Then we get to know answers to all above. Anyway, I think that songs that Axl have written will be safe. There won?t be a speedmetal version of November rain or Rocked queen. Rights belongs to one who wrote the songs.

That?s it, by the way there?s  shit loads of legal bullshit on that complaint which made it allmost impossible to read. This means that it?s also possible that I didn?t understand it at all. Also I don?t know anything about US legal system, but I believe that there isn?t big differences about claims and proofs to this system that I know.

Axl, please don?t re-record mr bucketheads parts, ?cause that wait will be to long. Patience is a good quality for GNR fan, but enough is enough. Only way that you are able to hit, is the release of CD. It is the time.

 :rant:I think this is directly related to the success of the GREATEST hits cd. It all comes down to money and I always knew that Slash was full of anger about the money.

HeHe, you crack me up, dude. You Axl people are FOREVER creating scenarios in your heads which in some way  makes the old members look bad & poor, poor Axl looks like an aggreived party.

Axl let Paradise City be used in that piece of crap flick Real Cancun, & yet you bitch & moan about how all Slash & Duff want to do is exactly what Axl did - only you always somehow condemm Slash & Duff, but ALWAYS give Axl a pass.

Again, let me repeat. You THINK Slash & Duff want to release GnR music to be used in crap movies. You condemm them for that, even though Axl did the EXACT SAME THING, which, apparantly is hunky dory to you.

And before someone chimes in that Slash & Duff wanted to release the music for Old School, They Were Soldiers, etc..., I know they wanted to.  Thats not the point I'm making. You all criticize them for wanting to do that, but give your boy Axl a pass on Real Cancun, then make up a ridiculous scenario in your head about VR re-recording GnR songs(something Axl wanted to do & did, BTW) for Spongebob Whatever just to screw poor, poor Axl.

Hypocrites.

They used the phrase "original GN'R" in that document.

Axl owns the name GN'R and it seems like they were trying to show that there are two GN'Rs.  The old/original band which made the records and the new one which hasn't released anything.

Can Axl sue them if he thinks they use the GN'R name, which he owns, to get business advantages or anything similar? They're using "his" name in order to promote themselves or whatever. Can you use somebody else's name to market yourself / your products?  ???



The reason I'm asking is because, didn't Gilby sue GN'R because they used his name?


This whole thing might take a while....   :-\



/jarmo

Well, according to their brief, Axl sent them a written notice that that was effective Dec 30, 1995 which announced his intentions to leave the GNR partnership and start a  new band under the same name. I am not a rocket scientist, but I have to believe such a document if it exists is explicit proof that Axl pulled out of the partnership. This would create both an Old GNR partnership which Axl was no longer part of, and a New GNR corp with Axl as the sole owner. The tricky thing in this case is what party is privy to make decisions about the use of old materials. If it is ruled that the old partnership makes those decisions since Axl is in a new company, then he is going to have some problems.

The document says Axl left the GN'R Partnership in 95, but he owns the GN'R name.

So he owns the name of the partnership that he left?



/jarmo

That about sums it up. What they are alleging is that he owns the name but that he is not privy to make decisions anymore on the back catalog and other licensing issues because he pulled out of the Partnership which is responsible for those decisions.

It sounds kind of messed up, but it would explain why they allege that even though he owns the name, he forfeits all rights and Veto power over those decisions since he pulled out of their partnership.

If what Slash and Duff are saying is true than good for them, but my only question is why did they take this action sooner like say back during the Black Hawk Down situation?

They're not the sharpest tools in the shed and I am not sure they even knew. I suspect when they had their lawyers look into the contracts about filing an injunction to stop the GH release that one of them saw this and brought it to their attention, and then they were like, "Oh really, well lets see what we can do about it." I would be willing to bet any amount of money this is how the whole thing went down.  

So they just forgot that they owned the rights to the GN?R  back catalog, Damn they must be really stupid to forget something like that.  

NO, I am not sure they realized that by Axl pulling out of the partnership, they were now the only two responsible for making those decisions if he indeed left the partnership as their lawyers say he did. They probably figured that because he owned the name he was entitled to continue doing so but legally that may not be the case.

Now that could be , but don?t you think that if they want to use a song on a movie under the GN?R name that they will still have to get Axl?s okay.

Many often bring up the fact that slash, duff, and izzy left GNR willingly.
This whole thing shows how Axl left them. He left their partnership and ran off with the name.

Tim,

That is a very legitimate point, I am not quite sure the answer. I just know that if it is ruled the Partnership owns that GNR stuff, that they will be allowed to license it in any which way they want as they would be the decision making body of such decisions. It is murky situations like this that happen when people all get power hungry and want to habitually screw the other one over.

I think that the judge proceeding over this is going to have a hard time starting this mess out . But I will say that this is one damn interesting situation . :peace:

Exactly how are you jumping to this conclusion?  What evidence is there to even suggest this might be a possibility, let alone a probability?

He is talking out of his ass. ;D

Thanks for the kind words justinyus. : ok:

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said by the very capable board members (Axl and Slash/Duff supporters alike) on this board. It's been said, but bare's repeating, this is only one side of the story and I'm positive Axl's attorneys are readying a very detailed response.

I will say that I always have felt that this issue would ultimately have to come back to Axl's purchase of the name "Guns N' Roses"- not so much that that in itself would be decisive with respect to control of licensing the catalog, but whether there were other specific rights and controls that Axl and his attorneys expected to come along with that purchase and whether they were enumerated in the paperwork re: said purchase of name. There's your case right there. Axl has clearly operated since 12/30/95 under the assumption that his purchase of the GN'R name did entail more than just the name itself. Think about it, would he deliberately excercise his supposed veto powers and market himself as the sole proprietor of GN'R music licenses if he knew that he legally didn't have that power anymore and would be basically inviting million dollar law suits from the "old GNR partnership"? As much as he may hate Slash and Duff at any given moment... I think he's smarter than that. Certainly his attorneys are. There's clearly a disagreement about what EXACTLY Axl purchased when he bought the name "Guns N' Roses". I think the paperwork on that purchase will decide this case if it indeed goes the distance without outside settlement.

Anyway, the Slash/Duff Complaint makes it very cut and dry that Axl purchased the name but forefeited control of the back catalog becoming nothing more than a "Terminated Partner" (Somehow images of the end of YCBM video keep going through my head. :hihi:). If that is indeed true. Then Axl is going to have a hard time with this case. But even if he loses (apart from the damages)- it seems he still stands to gain from "Terminated Partner" status over time- especially if Slash and Duff exercise their newly won discretionary powers and license out old GN'R material (tracks, videos, etc.) like animals. I think people predicting that a loss in this case (which I personally do not foresee) will permanently ruin Axl Rose are way overreacting. I don't see it. In fact, he probably would even gain over time.

Anyway, it's damn sad it had to come to this. I remember them from the SCOM video as a gang that would literally kill for each other. 17 short years later... we have this. Ain't greed a bitch. :no:

If Slash and Duff win, maybe we could see some old GNR stuff that they thought was good enough to release, like that video stuff in UYI tour. I'm really cool with that and would be very happy. I don't see Axl being fucked up if he lost this case, I guess it would force him to release anything new with the GNR name...
It's indeed a shame that a great band has turned down in this shit legal issues...  :-\

You know where he came up with that, Booker. His hero Axl did exactly that with Big Daddy & tried to do that with Black Hawk Down. So in his mind if Axl did it, then everyone else must want to do it, too.

Axl would not be screwed in a monetary sense and in fact he may gainly financially if Slash and Duff started releasing stuff.

He would be screwed in the sense that he is very emotionally fragile and this would just set him over the edge. In his mind he is/was/always will be GNR, and to lose any aspect of control over his baby would send him into a tail spin and anyone who tries to play it off as otherwise is being naive given the mental instability he has shown throughout the course of his life and in particular recently.

Sorry Naupis. I only meant he wouldn't be ruined financially. After being a GN'R and Axl fan for 16 years now... I have learned that there is absolutely NO accounting for Axl's mental state. He could blow Slash and Duff out of the water on this one, get awarded $50 million in punitive damages and have Slash and Duff thrown in the can for 15-20 years and still slip into a deep dark depression. That's where we are with Axl unfortunately. :-\

Exactly...

It seems, from the documents shown, that Axl forfeited his role in the "Original GNR" partnership (the one that has responsibility for licensing issues, etc.) in exchange for ownership of the name "Guns N' Roses," so that he can operate under the name by himself/with other musicians.

So ownership of the name "GNR" is not equivalent to ownership/management of the Original GNR catalogue.

This is definitely an ugly, bitter end to the band, but truthfully, its been ugly and bitter for years.  Were just now seeing it firsthand through this lawsuit...very unfortunate.  I hope this is over soon and it doesnt effect anybodys projects.

I very much doubt it will, but could this knee-jerk the release of CD?

To add to that, Slash has been quoted as saying he'd avoid playing songs that were 'too Guns' (eg Welcome to the Jungle, SCOM) in solo outings...so a VR Nov Rain is unlikely.

Unfortunately, this has the looks of litigation that could go on and
on.

I don't see it affecting anything Slash, Duff/VR related, Axl's project on the other hand....

we need to hear axl's rebuttal brief before making a decison as to who is right and who is wrong. Slash and duff could be completely off base here.

FROM THE LEGAL PAPERS:

"His (Axl's) capricious actions are motivated by a conflict of interest and...deprives the fans of Guns N' Roses music..."

They actually filed the truth through a law court?! Crazy times...

Hell, the band even came to be known on those documents as 'Axl's GNR'...the document calls this Axl's GNR merely an Axl solo project...

I very much doubt this fills the likes of Finck and Stinson with the maximum of faith in Guns N' Roses, does it? They'll be forever known now as 'Axl's GNR'...

I wonder if Slash & Duff will be able to release old footage of the band if they win.

Blues_Rock_Axeman,

Sorry, but I personally see this further delaying Chinese Democracy not speeding it up. Axl's stake in the GN'R back catalog is probably the most valuable thing he owns. Although I don't see even the worst case scenario being THAT detrimental to him... I still think he will want to fight like HELL to preserve the discretionary power he currently posesses. All accounts point to Axl being someone who gets 100% focused/immersed into his legal matters. I also believe Axl's attorneys will advise Axl that it would be unwise to release a new album under the moniker of Guns N' Roses when the terms of the purchase of that very moniker (more specifically other limited rights aside from the name itself) are being debated (and potentially re-interpreted) in court. I could be wrong, but I think this pushes CD back rather than accelerates it. :no:

Ah, point taken and fully understood.  :beer:

Mao, nothing in that Complaint says they are contesting Axl's right to use the name for his new band-NOTHING. Again, Geffen has paid out 13 million to fund a Gnr record. Unless they are complete idiots and did not understand Axl's rights-they may obviously be- then it should have no effect on Chinese, other than taking up Axl's time. God knows, we don't need Geffen jumping in the suit as well. Without reading the exhibits attached to the complaint and having Axl's answer, speculation is futile.

All legal bullshit aside...How can they do this to each other? It's very hurting for a long time fan. I don't even wanna listen to the records anymore. Atleast that's what it feels like on sad day like this :no:

I doubt it...

As you know, the name isnt the issue discussed in the suit.  It seems to be understood that Axl is the owner and manager of post-1996 GNR, so anything released under the name that doesnt involve Original GNR material shouldnt be a problem at all.  The matter pertains exclusively to the old material and its manaegment.

The best thing that would come out of this, however, would hopefully be the release of "new" old material, including video footage (possibly the hours of tour footage Duff discussed) and maybe even the original, less-produced Use Your Illusions.

You get called the "Most Dangerous Band in the World" for a reason. Who knew you could hit the self destruct button more than once.

I think you guys are missing my point. You're right. All parties agree that Axl owns the name "Guns N' Roses". What I'm speculating is that there must be some sort of additional language in that purchase agreement/Axl departure from Partnership Agreement (ie other additional limited rights) that has led Axl and his attorneys over the years to assert that he has "discretionary veto power" over the back catalog- or at the very least has retained a level of discretionary power greater than that of a "Terminated Partner". There must be something there- that's probably full of legal jargon- that has permitted Slash and Duff to seemingly go along with this arrangement for 9 years. If Axl's departure from the partnership and subsequent relegation to "Terminated Partner" was as cut and dry as their complaint portrays then they certainly would have been ALL OVER this in the intervening years when Axl was voting against licenses left and right.

Again, my suspicion is that Slash and Duff are probably working with different lawyers than they were working with in 1995. Their new legal team probably saw an "open window" in the language of Axl's departure/name purchase agreements that Slash and Duff's previous attorneys either did not see or did not deem worthy of pursuing.

I agree with you guys that for the moment- it's not the mere fact that Axl owns the name that's the determining factor- it's what other limited rights if any did he receive or did he in fact receive nothing other than the name and we have a situation that Slash and Duff have been basically sitting around failing to enforce the contract for nine years.

Lastly, this is hardly an ordinary case. I would not be surprised at all if the judge may struggle to find enough appropriate case law to rule on this matter. If that is indeed the case, you better believe that the fact that Axl has owned the name Guns N' Roses for nearly 10 years,  has appeared on stage and released music ("Oh My God") under that moniker and has been a party in other legal proceedings/negotiations (Rock In Rio/Clear Channel/2002 Tour) etc. under that name will appear to create a hell of a lot more substantial claim to at least "preserving" his 1/3's discretionary power than anything Duff and Slash can assemble to say he should be relegated back to "Terminated Partner" status. So the purchase of the name could still factor largely. I just don't have enough of an understanding of CA case law to know if this will be the case though. Just saying keep an eye on it.

I'm gonna bow out for a little while. I think people are tired of my wordy responses. But I think the debate currently on this thread is pretty much how both sides are going to approach this. Slash/Duff will argue Axl vacated his old GN'R partnership rights (including discretionary control of the back catalog) with his departure from the partnership in '95 and Axl defending himself with some clause or language in his departure agreement or name purchase agreement saying that was not entirely true and attempting to supplement his argument with more "extraneous" issues like his subsequent ownership and use of the brand name, the elapsed time that Slash/Duff have not enforced their rights and the potential absence of relavent case law specific to this situation.

As a GN'R fan I'm bummed. As a future law student... I'm fascinated. Enjoyed all your comments guys. This could really go anywhere. Hopefully it gets resolved soon with minimal damage to all parties, whom we all care a great deal about. :beer:

hello, I've been involved with many lawsuits, mostly as the planitiff, and I can veify this:

If we could see the attachments and they say what is claimed...

1)Slash and Duff will be able to use the old music/videos, live stuff any way they want...Axl won't be able to use any of it.

2)They are claiming the gnr "partnership" (which owns all the old stuff), is them.

3)There will be a big punitiver damage award, because the judge will look at what they made from 85- Dec 95, and base the damages on the potentisal they might have made from 95-2004....this could be huge...it could be 100mil, or it could be just the proven times offers were made and falssly represented their "partnership" and turned down $$...Minimum it would be 1 million.  I'm gonna guess 5-10mil though.

4)They will be able to re-record, delete, do anything they want with all the old stuff, and sell it as they wish....

5)They will be able to Sue Axl for using scom on big daddy cause he altered the "partnerships" music and published it without their consent.


6)The only question I'm not sure about is wheather or not Axl will be paid for any selling or licencing the old "partnership" does....


7)The 249.50 on the front is the price to file in cali court for a case of this type.

8)If Slash and Duff win, they get all the old music, rights, says, and axl will have to pay punitive damages, could be huge, and for their lawyers costs for the trial.


9)Axl should leave all the old shit alone..I think from the evidence here he probably is out of the "partnership", which owns all the old stuff...

Axls only hope is to immediatly promote for 2 moinths, then releace CD, and actually show up to concerts....

Hell make millions, have enough to pay the damages from this suit, and plenty left over....

I think however, hell fight the suit, lose, not pay, have all thge old gnr stuff/rights and his personal property repo'd....

then not release CD in the next 5 years....

after that amount of time no one will care....

right now theres only a few hundred thousand internet fans that care...and mabey 2 mil casual fans that might buy stuff...look at greatest hits...

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Somehow, I doubt it? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Why the rolled eyes? The person made sense to me.

Unless I'm missing something. ???

Why is this so far fetched? Especially since he hasn't shown any sign of releasing it at all?

I think whoever said Slash and Duff are working with a new legal team is right on the mark. I am going to bet this was a fresh set of lawyers who recently made this discovery and then went for the kill. And it was probably most definitely discovered when the whole greatest hits lawsuit was filed because they probably had to look through all the old contract/agreements to see what they could have done to stop the GH release.


Frankly I think it would be great if a judge awarded Slash/Duff full control of the partnership they never resigned from and giant punitive damages. Axl has spent his life making sly/sometimes underhanded legal manuvers to get what he wants, and it would be nice to see the tables turn on him. Then maybe he will begin to feel the hurt the other guys see as he trots his version of GNR out there while the others sit idley by and watch. He would then have to sit there and not control his own bands back catalog because his greed for total control went one step too far when he resigned from that partnership. Maybe this is the kick in the ass he has needed and has had coming.

Actually, you and Naupis' posts are much appreciated (by myself, anyway) and have raised the standard of discussion on here substantially.  Theyre infintely better than the "Boycott Contraband"-variety posts.

Is anybody here a Attorney?  Does SLASH AND DUFF have a real case here or not?  I've read through it and I'm not a attorney so I don't know.

You hit the nail right on the head. I think this is probably the case, or darn close to it. It would explain the timing of it all as well. I highly doubt that these guys are two faced bastards (that people are implying) using this suit for PR as well as greed. I just don't believe it. Somebody (ie lawyers during GH) went through all the paperwork and then one day left a message on their machine that said something like "Uh.. I came across something here, mabye we should talk."

My two cents.

I wouldn't object to seeing the 'hours' of tour footage...imagine hours of footage like the Live and Let Die video... :D

Yes Privatereserve,

we have had an attorney who read the brief attached to the celebrity justice case verify that if their claims are true and they prove them as they claim they can, that Axl may be in for a world of hurt. He will effectively lose control of the entire back catalog/licensing/video decision making power for his own band. That might be a first in the history of music, but as Axl likes to remind us, "I'm not sure its really ever been done like this before."

ouch!!!!! :hihi:

I sure that doesn't happen.  I don't want to hear no damn gnr song and a cadillac commercial.  I you people know that will happen with Slash and Duff in charge.  Greedy trolls.

Thanks Booker,

As a student of law this whole episode is fascinating to me. If the VR guys can really prove what they're claiming, I think its amazing there has been such a time lapse between 95 and now with this technicality not being discovered. Not only that but the stakes are extremely high, and whenever Axl and litigation are involved things are bound to get interesting. This has turned into a blood feud and if it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

Call this a waste of a post, as I really have nothing substantial to add to these well thought out posts.  Just wanted to say that I really appreciate the insight of all those who have tried to bring some semblance of order to this disappointing development....I leave for 3 weeks and return to this!!  Again, much appreciated to all involved...

Cheers
Joe

Do you think they just wanted to cut their ties back then and didn't pay much attention to what they were signing? Or what it all meant to them in the long run?

C'mon man you don't know that. How can you make those guys out to be so bad?

If things are indeed like Duff and Slash say they are, they probably found out when the Greatest Hits thing happened. Axl asked them for their help because their help was needed to stop the GH album.
They did not succeed but do have a chance in winning this case. Why? Because of the time aspect???

Axl probably offered to do a rerecorded version of songs (as he did in Big Daddy) because he has nothing to say about the original versions anymore. There is nothing wrong with that, why would he send them to Duff and Slash if can make some money of his own?
Duff and Slash have a product to sell, that is 100% their responsibility. Axl probably did not say anything about the originals, simply because he does not have anything to say about that anymore (well, he could have, but he probably would not put that on paper with his autograph underneeth. i wonder if GN'R management would...)

I think it was pritty generous of Axl to step out of the partnership, losing the commercial rights to orginal versions. But come on Duff and Slash, can you both really aspect him to sell 'your' stuff instead of his?

N ! 3 |(

Theirs no way Axls going to lose the back catalog and licensing.  That would be devasting to Axl and the new guys.  But I'm sure Axls holding the Aces and thats why they are suing them for a chance of getting shit from Axl.  You never know with judges.  Trust me Axl probaly has the ultimate attorneys working at this why we talk.  I bet Axl might counter sue them.  Wouldn't that be hilarious?

Like I said earlier when this came up, I am not quite sure they ever realized that Axl leaving the partnership would legally leave them with all decision making/licensing rights. I think maybe they figured since Axl owned the name that he could still do what he wanted with it, and they figured if they were still getting payed that nothing had changed except Axl starting a new band under the same name. No one would ever confuse them with genius's, so I am going to go out on a limb and say they just never payed enough attention to know better. Its not like you pull your contracts out and look at them on a daily basis. Which is why the greatest hits flare-up probably triggered this ephiphany that hey, Axl might be in some trouble since he signed this thing. Thus the lawsuit. Ignorance the best assessment I can take as to why it took them this long to figure this out and do this.

 I would expect Axl to counter sue. That's the name of the game. A judge could rule in his favor, and then an appeal judge could rule in their favor. It could go on forever. Here in SLC the ACLU won a case against the city. The city appealed, now that judge ruled in their favor. Now the ACLU is appealing that ruling......

Privatereserve-

You've got know clue what you're talking about. The Original GNR Partnership group owns all the decision making rights to all of the old back catalog. Axl signed a document In 95 awaring Duff/Slash that he was pulling out of the partnership to start a new band according to the brief they submitted to the court.


If that is true, there is no Ace in the hole, there is no ultimate lawyer. There is going to be substantial punitve damages and Axl losing control over any decision making power in regard to the back catalog. You need to brace yourself that a judgement in favor of S/D will cripple Axl.


In honor of the Axl lovers:

"If Axl still wanted to be in the Original GNR partnership, he should have never left. Slash and Duff stuck with it, and we should be thankful of that, they continue to care about the Original GNR while Axl turned his back on it. He deserves nothing"  :nervous: :nervous:

Where are you getting this?  I admit that I didn't download the document, but has VR ever expressed interest in re-recording the old GNR songs, or are you just making it up?  
 
Slash has said many times that he would not even play most GNR songs live without the band, so I highly doubt he and Duff have any interest in re-recording them.



Thank goodness.  And on the chance that VR do have any intentions to re-record old GNR songs, I am 100% against that too.



This can't be the case, because Slash and Duff did work extensively on Live Era.  Slash has publically commented on his involvement on Live Era, and so have several others involved.

Well everything that I wanted to say has already been said, particularly regarding Slash and Duff's motives for the lawsuit other than publicity (let's boycott VR!! Gimme a break  ::) )

Big thanks to whoever posted that link at the start, it was an interesting read. I was looking forward to seeing Exhibits A and B tacked on at the end, but we can't have everything!

Cheers  :peace:

Yes that actually happened with a company I used to work for.  We won the first  trial.  Than they appealed and had a second court case with a different judge.  They won the second one and we just said fuck it, because we didn't want to deal anymore because it took so much of my time and our companys.   This is just the tip of the iceberg folks.  Sorry to say, unless they come up with some kind of aggreement out of court, which will probaly happen.  

He would still get his royalties.

For the new guys? You mean when they perform live and put that out on DVD or something?

N ! 3 |(

There will be NO SETTLEMENT. Duff/Slash are out for blood and if there case holds up in court, they will not be settling with Axl. They want to screw and break him. And I am lead to believe whatever lawyer read those contracts told them they have a very good chance of gaining complete control of the back catalog or they would not be doing this. This is a power play as has been said, not "well.....give me a couple dollars and we'll call it even"

NAUPIS

You don't know if there will be a settlement or not so quit your BS.  Yeah you can I have slash and duff I will take Axls concert instead of those drunks anytime.  By the way have you ever been to one of the new gnr shows?  I didn't think so.  

I dont really know what to make of this....I think Axl will win because slash and duff both have publicly said they LEFT the band...and said they were involved in LIVE ERA...i dont think they want competition with the new gnr...i cant wait to see how this turns out

GO AXL GO :rant: : ok:

Cleveland and Columbus, I can even scan my ticket stubs in for you if you would like  :D :D

You can get all hot and bothered that your leader Axl may have screwed himself and his new band, but don't take it out on me. I am just regurgitating what was said in that brief.

And your right, I don't know there won't be a settlement. But why would Slash/Duff do that to help out Axl. Do you honestly think for one second that if a judge tells Axl he is shit out of luck in the future about GNR decision making because he opted out of the Orignial Partnership that Slash and Duff are going to settle with him so he can keep control. If you believe that, then I have a bridge in New York thats for sale.

Again, if Axl loses control over old GNR stuff because he opted out of the partnership it will be because he thought he was too smart for his own good.

Malcom-

Axl left the partnership....not Slash and Duff. The lawsuit alleges that by Axl leaving the partnership (Which owns and controls all old GNR decision making power) that he has forfeited his right to be involved in such process from here on out now that they have made this discovery in the contract. This has nothing to do with leaving the Band, the band name is not an issue. This is a completely separate entity. Hope that helps.

thanks it does...but hasnt slash and duff both said numerous times that they left the band not axl???

The 3 of them from what the brief says had a partnership separate from the band. Like a business, that made all of the business decisions involving GNR and the catalog from 87-94. What they are saying is that Axl sent them a letter anouncing his intention to leave that partnership which owned and made those decisions to start a new band. The partnership did not dissolve strictly because he left, and the gist of their lawsuit is that by him legally withdrawing, he actually forfeited his right to veto and decide anything about how the GNR catalog is used because he was no longer a part of the partnership. They allege he has been acting illegally ever since in regard to how and what GNR has licensed, and they are basically telling him to cease and desist from here on out in terms of acting as a partner in the agreement he left. As said earlier, if they can prove this it is Axl, not slash/duff that turned their back on the partnership.

Malcolm -

Yes, but S/D's angle here is that the contract that Axl made them sign, relinquishing the name all those years ago, stated that Axl would keep the name if he left the partnership of the "old GNR."

The letter that was then sent to S/D in late '95 stated that Axl was doing just that; leaving the partnership of Guns N' Roses.

It doesn't matter what anyone said, that isn't the legal issue here. Slash and Duff clearly believe that they are legally entitled to the benefits Axl has received since he "left", by using the GNR name.

They believe this to be the case because once Axl left, he was no longer a partner, and as such has had no right to deny the others input in how material belonging to the old GNR should be used.

That's what I meant to say, thanks man!  : ok:

hopefully slash and duff win the suit...heres why

1)slash has said there are hundreds of hours of A++ pro shots form live shows, and he wanted to release those to the fans...as he also wanted to use that for live era...

2)we will get perfect quality dvds, instead of crappy mp3 recordings of old shows....they make maney, get get awesome live shows from people who can actually play, patience, ycmb, scow, ect. without messing them up.

3)well get to hear gnr music in future movies which is a hell of alot better than britney spears ect.

4) if axl wins well never hear anything,,,he'll keep it vaulted away til he dies.

Not saying I don't believe you, but do you have a link or scan where I could read that? Especially the part about him willing to release the videos to the fans. Thanx. :)

I really don't understand this idea of fans being against or fore one side.  Fucking grow up!  They are talented grown up musicians. This is not WWF wrestling lol.

They created the music together they were all essential - Izzy too - in creating a band that has still that rare  buzz about it. Even though so much time has been wasted.  It hasn't ruined the interest nor have the sales been harmed in anyway, the Greatest hits is solid proof of that.

To add to the debate i really don't see this as Slash and Duff wanting to re use old material in VR.  For one I don't see Scott Weiland as somebody who would do that.  And I would be suprised if they even thought of that as a reason.  

Someone mentioned a boycott on VR ? Yeh right!  Did you not see the affects of the GH boycott?  Go ahead it's you'r choice but it won't matter one bit.   If anyone here considers themselves a fan and doesn't get behind VR and likewise with CD then don;t really knwo why your here...

This is a sad state of affairs but to be fair; Axl can't just expect to retain all power and control and not do anything with it.  That's how we end up getting a weak GH.  My perseption of the situation is that the guys realised what lack of control they had during the GH case and thought ...it's about time we did something.

And I don't think it will have as dramatic   an effect on Axl's plans as people make out.  I can't imagine they are out to hurt him or damage him - this is not a film-yet lol  and they often show signs of loyalty towards Axl.  But it hasn't been a two way thing and i think that is what has driven them is Axl's ability to seemingly forget any loyalty thing with those guys.  

Whatever the out-come it won't directly effect CD.  It just depends how much Axl will let it effect his creation.  I am behind him just as much as i am behind VR.  I just want to see all these guys being creative and touring- just be active with their talents.  However a reunion has probably reached an all time low lol - might spark another covers album though ... lol   j/k

One thing that I wonder......

How many times have we heard that someone left, and then came back?  Is it possible that he wrote that letter and later was taken back into the Partnership?  Both Slash and Duff left after the '95 letter.  After the last one left, the partnership would be disbanded unless someone else held their shares, at least that's how I understand contract law. (No not a lawyer, but studied contract law as part of insurance studies ;) )

I think they at least have to have a copy of that letter, if neither do, then their claim is harder to verify.

If Axl has anything showing him participating with the others cooperatively after that 12/31/95 date, then he could show that he was an accepted member of the Partnership.  In that case, he would be the sole holder of the Partnership and have rights to it.

I have no idea what documentation either side has, but I'm very interested in seeing that original agreement, Axl's letter, and any documentation that Axl can produce.

I think that Axl is probably gonna want to take them to court, to extend this whole thing as long as possible. He has all the time in the world (as far as we know), they have an album and tour in the works.

I hope Axl wins (Yes I suppose that makes me an 'Axl-luvr') or at least prevents them from gaining control of the back catalogue, if only cuz they let it go for so damn long.

will...I've talked to slash a few times in person, and his guitar tech adam...

also..it was said when Live Era came out..slash and duff wanted to use the hundreds of hours of pro shot live stuff for it instead of the already realease stuff frokm tokyo ect....

He also mentioned releasing those shows on dvd....

I dont have the link..this was few years ago...

I like axls voice and used to like his attitude...but hes been acting like a punk lately.

One more thing;  when this band released an album like Appetite for destruction, they meant every word on that album and that's the difference between them and the other hair metal bands.   How it has all turned out will always be the biggest shame in modern rock but it's the way it is.  

After this though, it would be nice to GNR + related people to be out of courts and on cd's and stages eh? lol

Let me clarify to any who may not understand because I have seen this come up a few times.

Leaving the band and leaving the partnership........two entirely different things. One has no effect on the other. Just because D/S left the band does not mean they left the partnership. Axl handing in a written letter on the other hand that says he is resigning from the partnership effective 12/30/95 is leaving the partnership without leaving the band. The partnership, and not the band is the issue at hand. I hope that clarifies.

I wouldn't mind hearing those raw Use Your Illusion tracks Slash keeps talking about that he has  :D

Dude none of us are involved in the case, and the huge majority are not lawyers.  No need to get shitty about it  :-[

I know I'm just interested in it because A- It's Axl in court, he's just as impressive there as he is on stage and B- it involves my favorite band.

Discussion is a wonderful thing, even if everyone doesn't necessarily agree  : ok:

well privatereserve,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or Johnnie Cochran to read a brief and figure out what is going on from there. You should go do it, its 17 pages long and provided at Celebrity Justice. Once you do that, you will see all of the aforementioned information provided to you, and then you can start to make conclusions based upon what is provided. Again we have been assuming hypothetically that they can provide the judge with the documents they claim they can. THerefore, we are assuming what a potential outcome would be if what they are saying is true. Doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to do so. You can keep getting on me all you want, but read that brief, because if its true Axl could potentially be in a world of hurt. All the mudslinging you do towards me isn't going to change that. :peace:

Naupis,

We've read only one side of the story, so lets wait and see what Axl has to say.  I'll bet any money he will come out swinging.

Exactly.. I await what Axl has to say with interest.. just the one side of this story is already so complicated.

One question.. I havent had time to read through everything with detail.. should Slash and Duff win.. WHO will make the decisions on future past GNR material? The three of them, or just Slash and Duff?

Just Slash and Duff......the stakes are awful high. I am very intersted to see what Axl's counter-claim is going to be. And I am going to believe his lawyers aren't shrugging this off because we got a Big No comment from the management team, and if they thought this was a frivilous attempt at PR and other whatnot, they would have let everyone know so.

Thanks :)

And does this have any implications for Axl's use of the GNR name at all?

Nope......Axl owns the name from now until the end of time and there is no contesting it. He can do whatever he wants with it.

I figured that would just be common sense. If they do get what they want with this lawsuit, and have full control over the Old GN'R songs without any say from Axl, why wouldn't you take advantage of that situation to gain a higher percentage for movies/advertisements and get the Velvet Revolver name out there associated with GN'R songs? Axl DID attempt to do the same thing, but was blocked. There is no point to this lawsuit if they do not get anything from it. I doubt they are suing simply for the money; they want the decision power on the old songs, and that is obviously so they can USE it.

They will not re-record any songs. They will just license the old ones out to movies.....Axl will still make his money and so will they. The only difference between them having control in the future and not having it now is they can ue the songs more often than Axl was so they can make more money even if he is making money to. Also, Wieland would never agree to re-record those songs. That will not happen. Those guys don't get along, but Slash and Duff have been adament about Axl not re-recording those songs because it destroys the integrity of the old material. They won't turn right around and do the same thing.

Most of you guys have no idea what the fuck you are talking about! Naupis, without the fucking agreement made in September 1992, "exhibit A", YOU CAN'T DETERMINE ANYTHING FROM THIS COMPLAINT OTHER THAN SLASH'S AND DUFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT DOCUMENT. We also don't have exhibit B, Axl's notice of intent to terminate. I have read hundreds of complaints filed against the company I work for, a fortune 500 company-actually featured on the most recent Forbes magazine cover, and read contracts daily, ones much more conviluted than this situation. Every plaintiff makes every allegation possible while filing a complaint. People ask for millions and millions of dollars and sometimes, the majority of the time, end up settling for close to nothing-as could be the case here-we don't know. Again, no Answer from Axl yet, so we don't have any idea what will happen. You guys are assuming WAY too much. It is comical reading these posts. ps I don't give a shit if you are a paralegal, going to law school or whatever, I read this stuff daily-in a real business environment-which is what this is, BUSINESS. This is very interesting, but please quit acting like you know whose fault it is and how this will come out-Naupis, because you don't.

How is that common sense?  

They wouldnt do it because that doesnt seem to their interest.  Theres been absolutely no implication that any of the ex-members want to re-record any GNR songs, ever.  And I dont know where all of this commercial business is coming from...the article mentioned movies.  Maybe somebody correct me?  If not, then its nothing more than unfounded jumping to conclusions.


Its pretty clear that what theyre getting is the right to manage their music as they see fit - they doesnt mean theyre going to re-record songs and license them to commercials.  There is no implication of that.  And theyre also seeking punitive damages for potential profit loss.  Thats what theyre getting from the suit.


Not necessarily.  Yes, its likely that they will license the music (however, there nothing to imply its use in commercials, only movies as far I can see), but "USING" it not re-recording it for commercials, or anything for that matter.  Your "common sense" isnt common sense at all.  Its ridiculous.

That's a VERY interesting thought. With all of this Axl vs Slash talk going on, wouldn't it be ironic if they were in on this together to help out the GH lawsuit.

The GH album killed any chance of Axl re-recording the old songs. If Slash's side wins the lawsuit, Axl still receives compensation wherever the old songs are used. I've also never seen Slash complaining about GN'R not being allowed to be on the soundtracks for crappy movies, while he has been openly critical about other things. Axl doesn't have a whole lot to lose without decision control (GH was probably a worst case scenario), and Slash doesn't have a whole lot to gain.

However, if this lawsuit IS successful, the one thing it does do is all but insure that Geffen did not have a leg to stand on in regards to the GH album. If you recall, things are not looking too good for the Axl/Slash/Duff camp in that lawsuit.

It's a LONG stretch, but I could definitely see something like "Sue me for the $1 million I've made off of the GH album, I will put up a weak defense, and the court ruling will all but insure we win the GH lawsuit."

I just want to throw one other thing into the mix...

I'm not dead certain about these dates, but I think they are more or less correct. Slash "left Guns N' Roses in November 1996". Duff "left Guns N' Roses in the spring of 1998". Axl Rose allegedly "left the original Guns N' Roses Partnership" and in effect started a new Guns N' Roses in December 1995. So, would I be correct in assuming that in effect from 12/30/95 to 11/96 Slash was a "contracted" employee of Axl's new Guns N' Roses and likewise for Duff from 12/30/95 to the Spring of '98?

I only bring this up to argue that perhaps at least two other contracts (Slash and Duff's contracts with Axl's new GN'R) may be out there. It is not entirely impossible that some re-negotiation of the terms of the "Original GN'R Partnership" also occured at this time that could have resulted in some sort of restoration of Axl's discretionary rights with respect to the back catalog. In effect, on 12/31/95, if Slash and Duff wanted to continue on as a "member of Guns N' Roses", which they most certainly would have given the fact that though dormant, GN'R was still one of the 4-5 top grossing acts in the world with nothing but mountains of platinum records, record breaking tours etc, the only way for them to do it was to sign on with Axl's new Guns N' Roses. In other words, Axl would have held all the cards (and still does) in terms of continuing on as Guns N' Roses. Is it not possible that Axl and his expert legal team put some language in Slash and Duff's contracts (if they exist) with the new Guns N' Roses restoring Axl's rights (even partially) from the original partnership?

Again, I don't have an f'n clue. I merely raise this to say that the universe of documents in this case is likely to be much LARGER than just the exhibits attached to the Slash/Duff complaint. It is impossible to judge how valid any of the Slash/Duff claims are until we get an answer with exhibits from Rose's attorneys.

See what I mean! Just, the Geffen lawsuit has been dismissed, dropped by the plaintiffs (Axl-Slash). They obviously did have a leg to stand on...quit speculating scenarios and deal in facts. :yes:

Madagas, never claimed to know everything. Just giving a blow by blow of what we have so far and Hypothesizing potential outcomes based on what we know. Thats all, and attempting to clear up discrepancies when at all possible. I frankly can't wait to see Axl's counterclaim if its made available. Do you think we'll get a chance to see it when its filed, as I woudl assume it will be done in the near future as the suit was filed on Apr 28, and I think they have 30 days to respond.

As far as I can tell there are only three possible reasons why Slash/Duff might have behind this lawsuit...

1) To "get back" at Axl
2) To use the decision power to their advantage for Velvet Revolver
3) To make money

In all three scenarios, the most beneficial avenue would be to re-record the songs with Velvet Revolver and license the re-recordings out. This (1) definitely gets back at Axl by doing exactly what he was going to do to them, (2) obviously benefits Velvet Revolver as a source of $ and publicity, (3) earns them more money by cutting Axl out of performance benefits. Keep in mind, I think they're entirely justified in doing this IF they win the suit.

Also, before you attack someone as "jumping to conclusions," maybe it would be a good idea to go through the available information so you know what you're talking about first. "Commercials" is DIRECTLY from the lawsuit...

(page 9)
"Axl has unlawfully interfered with the issuance of synchronization licenses for use of Original GNR performances which were and are requested for various films, commercials, television programs and other projects.

That's exactly the situation.

What the fuck is the problem with seeking a say in how music they helped create is used (or not used)?


That said..

I do find the timing of the whole ordeal a little goofy, to say there's not some ulterior motive is shortsighted at best...

Naupis, I hear you-and Mao too. I just don't like people's bias coming out while trying to be objective and analytical. Axl is in quite a shit storm this time. But, ultimately, I think Slash and Duff are trying to shake him up a little and don't intend to impose "punitive" damages on him. They are not that type. I think they want a fair even shake in the decisions made on their back catalog. The rest is just playing the "game" that lawyers play. It is called negotiation. ;D

Thanks for the info MAO and naupis.

I do however think that we are looking at only one side of this debate and if history had told us anything it's that axl is a complete control freak and so i don't think there's anyway that the documents we've seen are the whole picture.

Can you imagine axl making a decision like giving up his right to be a part of the "partnership" and his right to have a say in how the music is licensed ?

I find this extremely hard to believe considering how zealous axl is about contracts and litigation.  

Axl strikes me as the type of person who has 10 different accountants review his taxes to make sure there's no mistakes and he's getting every last penny  :hihi:

This lawsuit could drag on forever based on whatever discoveries we're not currently seeing.

You really think Velvet Revolver wants to be a GNR cover Band?

Nobody is going to re-record anything.  Axl still owns part of the copyright and song-writing credits for the old songs and even if slash n' duff's gnr partnership decides to re-record a song, they'd have to get axl's permission as a song writer and pay him song writing royalties.  In the same way Axl could never re-release a new AFD as has been rumored for years.  Both groups would be essentially "covering" another artists song, which if fine, but you must have that artists permission to release it and make money off it.

did you read my post??? or did you just want to say the exact same thing that i said....  ::) ::) ::) ::)

What I dont understand is, if Slash and Duff win, then they they can release rerecorded GNR songs as Velvet Revolver? Why do they need to own the GNR back catalog to do this because GNR released covers of KOHD and LALD yet they didnt own those songs.

How about this: can they rerelease the back catalog/old recordings under a different name when they own it eg, Velvet Revolver - Appetite For Destruction.
Or can they release new recordings under the GNR name as well.

They dont want to re release songs under VR.. they just want a say in using the old GNR tunes in movies etc.. as they have been losing income as Axl has been saying no to opportunities to use GNR tunes in movies

If slash and duff are claiming axl left the partnership in 1995 and they have the sole rights to say how the songs are to be used then why did they join axl in the lawsuit against geffen for releasing the GHs album.

If that letter is true then slash and duff wouldnt have needed axl to try and block the Ghs from being released and axl wouldnt have been allowed to bring a lawsuit against geffen since he didnt have any right to.

I think slash and duff will have a hard time explaining that one away.

Maybe I can explain: Slash and Duff probably have new lawyers these days so these new lawyers had to dig up the bands old shit etc and while looking through old documents they came across this. It is probably because of that greatest hits lawsuit that they actually found out about this current situation.

I know they dont. But some people seem to think that Velvet Revolver cant release covers of GNR songs unless they own them.

Technically, they CAN release covers - but (prior to this lawsuit) they would need to go through Axl, which we know obviously isn't happening. If it is declared that Axl has no power in Old GN'R decisions, Slash/Duff can do whatever they want with the songs. That is the primary thing accomplished with this lawsuit.

It is just speculation that VR would re-release covers to be used for movies/commercials instead of the original recordings - but that it IS made easily possible if this lawsuit goes through, VR IS covering GN'R with each appearance, it WAS Axl's strategy, and it WOULD be very beneficial to VR to do so. If the lawsuit goes through, there really would be no practical reason NOT to.

Can they release new material under the GNR name though? Like a DVD with stuff from the Illusions tour or even(I know this is going a little far) new recordings/songs/albums under the GNR name thus having two different GNR's. Or do they only own previously released material.

Damn!  I wanted to be the first to point that out...

Dizzy you old fogey, buy some glasses.   :yes:

Wrong...


Slash and Duff claim to be the only members in the Original GNR partnership, which was three people (Axl, Slash and Duff).  They alledge that he relinquished his position in the partnership in a written document in exchange for the right to operate as "Guns N' Roses" regardless of the lineup.  They have more say because Axl allegedly forfeited his position in the partnership, thus becoming a Terminated Partner.  


No, theyre stating that Axl left the business partnership, not the band.  The fact that they left the band Guns N' Roses doesnt seem to change their roles as members in the Original GNR partnership
(yet), which controls the old material.


1) No...the name is not the issue.  It appears that the nature of the alleged document in which Axl gives up his role in the partnership is so that he can keep the name.  

2) He can "play" any song he wants to.  Re-recording and trying to license or release them however...

3) Nobody can keep VR from playing anything, however theres no reason to believe that they would want to record old songs, and even in the slight chance that was true, they would surely encounter the same problems Axl had with his re-recording scheme if not due to newly limited control, but writing issues.


Actually, it seems to have a lot to do with royalties.  The punitive damages are for the potential profit loss, and the whole licensing issue revolves around royalties.  

Songwriting credits?  I dont believe so.


Well...yeah.  


Theres no indication that they can, or intend to stop Axl from using the Guns N' Roses moniker.  This seems to be strictly about the old catalogue and who controls it.

This thread is full of bullshit. The amount of conjecture and assumptions about the GN'R name, re-recording songs, etc  ::)

Thank you to Booker for talking some common sense.

If you want to understand this case read his post above. That's all there is to it.

@#$%Muther

this is really sad when music gets down to such "materialistic" matters.
we know that it works like that for everyband, but we don't see it, now that we're facing these documents, it really kills the dream and the "rock star", "rock n roll band " image , the " we are friends and we just play music together".

i still think that slash and duff are right , i mean, it's clear that axl (even without these docs) TRIED his best to kill the "old" guns n roses and make it disapear you know ..... he actually wanted the people to forget about that and focus on his new band ... well it's understandable  ....

i guess this forum is gonna live for some 2 or 3 more years ..... waiting for something ....
 ???

Booker's post is pretty much on the money.  I do want to hopefully clear up a potential point of confusion:

Licensing fees are royalties, but not all royalties are licensing fees, if that makes sense.  When conny used the term, I think she was thinking more in terms of "per song" royalties...meaning the money paid out "per song" to the songwriter and the performers of the song, on any published "incarnation" of that song.  THOSE royalties would not be effected...other than the fact that there might be MORE of them, if the material was more widely used.  Booker used the term more widely, I think, to mean ALL the royalties generated by the band/partnership.  They were both right, sorta.

Now, my comments on the mess.
First off, IF S/D are able to "prove" their claims to a judge, it could mean bad things for Axl. IF S/D have all the corroborating proof/paperwork/evidence and Axl has no counterclaim/compelling evidence of his own, then S/D will win a pretty big battle.  But those are pretty big IF's, IMHO.

Having the brief to peruse is a nice piece of the puzzle.  However, without the original Delcaration of Partnership, nor the entire text of Axl's actual letter, nor the original Purchase Agreement for the "name" GnR, it's pretty tough to speculate on any sort of outcome.  I'd also like to see the "wording" in the letters of resignation from GnR written by Slash and Duff....because it's going to be pretty hard to determine intent if their letters of resignation say "I resign as a member of Guns n Roses" without specifying if they are referring to the creative entity or the business entity.  You could argue both sides, and I see VERY valid points on both of them.  The puzzle is FAR from complete, at this point.

All we have right now are claims..not facts.  It remains to be seen if the claims are deemed to be true by the court(s).

Oh, and someone mentioned settlement.  I think there are really only 2 plausible scenarios with this case.  Either the 3 parties DO settle, reforming a sort of "GNR Trust" Partnership to control all the old material, or it goes to trial.  I dont' think this one is going to be settled by throwing money at it....

I also have some questions that are worth pondering, but really can't be answered concretely without, I think, some of the original paperwork I mention above:

1)  Even if S/D garnered the rights to the back catalog, I have to think copyright law would still hold sway...meaning the songwriter of record would still have say over publication.  Now, most of the Appetite stuff has, simply, Guns n Roses (which, I assume, S/D would argue, specifically MEANS GnR, the business entity) listed as the songwriter, so all that would be fair game for licensing and republication.  But, the UYI stuff is pretty specific about songwriter.  Anything Axl is listed on would, I'm pretty sure, still need to be "cleared" with him for publication (at least), if not licensing.

2) IF (and it's a pretty big IF) it is deemed that S/D "resigned" from GnR the business entity when they resigned from GnR the creative entity, where then, would the rights revert to?  Since, if they ALL resigned, the partnership would disolve...that would create a quagmire of a mess...

3) Could ANY material be published if someone else owns the band's "name".? It's a trademark.  Copyright law would indicate not, I would think.  So, if S/D own the back catalog of material, while they could license it, legally...not owning the legal trademark of the bands' name is going to make it REALLY tough to publish, I would think. ESPECIALLY considering the songwriting credits on most of the Appetite stuff.  

What a mess!

This is not my first language so I might interpret this document the wrong way, but I would like to point out a few things.

No one is surprised that Slash and Duff don't know Axl's real name?

"Plaintiffs (ie Slash and Duff) are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein (...) and sue those defendants by such fictitious names."

Unless I'm missing something, I find it weird that they don't know Axl's real name.

As I said, I might not understand this court document very well but when I read: "[Slash and Duff] also seek a judicial declaration and injunction confirming that Slash and Duff - and only Slash and Duff - own and control all partnership assets."
Ok now, by "assets" do they mean everything GN'R did/filmed/recorded from 1985 to 1995? So they want to own and control (them and only them) the whole GN'R's back catalog? Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically they want to sue Axl in order to be able to do (without him) what he did since 1995?

I don't understand something else. If Axl did indeed leave the partnership in 1995, Slash and Duff being the two only remaining members...why didn't they do something about Axl's decisions during the past 9 years? It's not like he put a knife on their throat saying: "YOU won't make me give away that song to that movie/ commercial/ TV show!"
They could have said: "Screw you, it's been xx years that you left the partnership, WE can decide whatever we wanna do, and you have nothing to say about this."

I guess everybody assumes they just discovered that they could actually do that -- otherwise it would be too weird to say nothing for almost ten years and then sue Axl saying "Wait a minute..."
I'm not convinced they have such a solid case...but that's hard to know without reading all the parts of the case, as others pointed out.

To me that's kinda weird that they say today: "Yeah he got the name, I guess he can do whatever he wants to do with it, but we want to own and control whatever the band did from 1985 to 1995."
I've read people saying: "Fair enough, they should have the right to say something about the use fo something they created." 100% true. But isn't that the case for Axl too? Correct me if I'm wrong, but out of Axl, Slash and Duff, no one can say they created 100% of GN'R's back catalog (they don't claim they created it, they (and only them) want total control over that catalog. I mean, Axl created that catalog with them right? So why should he be left out? From what I read in the document, it's basically to get back at him for being so mean to them since 1995. I don't think that's the right thing to do.

I'm not saying what Axl did to them (what they claim he did) is right either, but all that story doesn't seem right to me. There's something missing. Everything is speculation but I'm anxious to hear/ read Axl's answer to that document. That would be very interesting...

Will, they know his name! I already commented on this....does 1-40 refers to future potential defendants unknown at this time. It allows S/d to add people to the suit if discovery reveals new people at fault-Geffen records (big maybe), Axl's management/accountants, etc.

Thanks for explaining a little more, pilferk...

I was wondering, what exactly is the importance of "intent" and "understanding" in the alleged letter from Axl and how the contracts have been interpreted so far. Does the law in California consider that?

I am pretty sure Axl would never sign away his rights on the GN'R partnership "knowingly"... And Slash and Duff would have had more say in what goes on, if they interpreted the contracts in the way they present now, no?

And up to now, did Duff and Slash have no say in how the songs were used (in movies and such) - it wasn't Axl's decision alone, was it?

Another question, wasn't there already legal dispute about GNR name or rights in recent years? (post Slash departure) I think I saw that someplace, but I'm not sure...

on an off topic note - today I head sweet child o'mine used in a Sky News tv ad...

Pilferk, come on! There are infinite possibilities for settlement...alot of money is at stake and by taking this to trial, all parties stand to lose significantly. They will hedge their bets-guaranteed.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I don't see money being the mitigating factor if there IS a settlement.  Now, money might exchange hands as PART of the settlement,  if it were to occur...  I think the 2 scenarios I listed as being the most likely, but I'm rampantly speculating, obviously.  Either the 3 parties come together to control the assets and play nice nice, or the courts are going to decide for them.....of course, supposing Axl doesn't have a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) that blows their claims all to hell.  I just don't see middle ground on this.  The assets are too valuable and, barring something compelling from Axl, S/D are going to be loathe to give up control of those assets if they are entitled to it in some way..no matter what amount of cash gets flashed at them.  Quite frankly, I think they SHOULD have say...but so should Axl.  However, as we all know, "should" and "right" aren't necessarily "legal".

Agree....the speculation is endless.

Thanx for clearing that up.
To me something still doesn't sound right though, in that case...

Pilferk, thanks for your statments.  As usual, you reply with concise and clear objective posts and I appreciate your comments.

Second, I don't see Axl Rose signing anything away that would NOT protect HIM in every angle.  If anyone one here thinks that Axl would be that dumb, then you have issues.

Say he infact did sign away partnership rights.  I am sure there is a CLAUSE in there that protects his decisions.

Whoever on here posted that we need to hear Axl's rebuttal before making any assumptions is correct.  

I don't think you people give Axl credit.  You mean to tell me if you were in Axl's shoes, you would have signed away something and went for 9 years thinking "oh, my ex members will never know that I screwed them".  Come on....Axl protects EVERY thing he does.

I don't see Slash and Duff having a leg to stand on here.  

The timing of this case is too ironic and surely that will play in the decision of any judge.

And whoever said Axl will countersue......damn fucking straight.

This will NOT break Axl at all.  He's probably laughing as we type.

come on, this is not a simple fight in a band, these are official papers,  i dont think slash and duff can play and make up fake documents and all.
if they printed out these stuff, that means they have the proofs.
it is too serious to make up lies.

anyway, all the stories of axl trying to stop the songs to be on movies are sad, specially the one of him trying to re-record for black hawk down, sick.
 :-[

i think that slash and duff are scared,because gh have great selling,and new incarnation of gnr will have a better selling than gh,and that will be great axl success.they are SCARED

Yeah right. A new Welcome to the Jungle, updated to 2002 standards. That sick alright. It's just wrong to be entertained isnt it?

And you don't think that Axl has papers that PROTECT EVERYthing with GNR's interests especially his own?

That is why I said I agreed with the person on here who said we should wait until we hear from Axl's side.

Axl is a smart man.  He's not going to sign his name to ANY document that would screw him over.

He only works with the BEST lawyers.  

I think we will see a countersuit from Axl's camp in no time.

Slash and Duff may have some papers, but I bet they are not the same as what Axl's papers say.

 : ok:

Four key points that axl can attack

1. Letter of termination. there is alot of missing text that doesn't appear in the suit. Who knows what that says, could be alot of ifs and buts. However, .......... blanks always make me nervous.

2. Axl's contract with the duff and slash over his rights to the name IF he leaves. What does it say specifically? Does it mention loss of back catalog materials or loss of business control if he leaves?

3. Axl's business negotiations with the movie people. What did he say to them. Did he act alone as the executer or merely say he wasn't interested and then they went away not knowing that they could ask slash and duff.

4. The letters of resignation from s and d. Did they give up any interests in the old band. Did they garner a salary after Dec 95 and did they and axl make any decisions about the catalog.

Ignorance of one's rights doesn't mean that one is not protected but it could hurt slash and duff in their bids to get monies owed them from lost licensing of songs in movies. I think they could gain the catalog from axl if the intent letter says what it does, but the awarding of punitive damages can come down to proving that axl malicously negiotiated as the soul executer without the knowledge of s and d. Any case where axl vetoed duff and slash would probably not be rewarded because they didn't exercise their rights.

I think this lawsuit is crap.

Slash voluntarily left the original Gnr in 95, and duff in 98. At no time did axl ever leave GNR. To split hairs and call the pre95 the 'original era' is a really wishy washy arguement.

How could axl have left the original partnership if duff still stuck it out with him til 98. Usiing their logic duff and axl had the original partnership from 95-98 when duff left... which would leave axl the only original member remaining... everyone else left because they wanted to.

I totally think duff and slash should have say in whether or not songs get played in movies etc... but to say they own the original music exclusively is really fucking lame... just except the fact you guys made dumb legal decisions back in the day.

The fact this lawsuit come 9 years after the fact shows it futility

I disagree. VR are a band that actually does something. AxlGNR do not.

People bought Greatest Hits to remember the band that GNR were, not the band they are.

Did Led Zeppelin ever need to update Stairway? Did The Who revamp 'My Generation' to adhere to trendy new musical tastes? Did Queen add synth to Bohemian Rhapsody when they played it live in the mid to late 80's? Hell no.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And don't sweep the carpet from under the bloke who wrote the damn riff, either.

They are official papers...filled with allegations...They claim to have all those other papers which are not included in the PDF we got, but it's impossible to say they will be enough evidence to win their case. Because we don't have access to those.

I agree with the fact that it's highly unlikely that Axl and his expert legal team forgot a fine print somewhere saying he could lose everything if he parted ways with his old fellows from that partnership.

Anyways, no one else is surprised that they did not say anything for nine years?? Did Axl send hitmen threatening them in case they would speak? Hmmm, don't think so. We just have one side of the story and that's far from enough to say with certainty: "This is right, this is wrong."

I have one question about all of this...

As I understand it... Slash and Duff are attempting to gain control of how the old catalogue is used.  And they are suing Axl for this.

Now... back when Axl, Duff, and Slash all together filed a suit against Geffen to try to stop the Greatest Hits their lawsuit was thrown out.

To me... that would imply that Axl, Duff, nor Slash have the power to decide what can really be done in terms of the old songs being put out by Geffen... so...

I guess my question is... if Axl had NO power to stop Greatest Hits, how does he all of a sudden have all the power in the world to tell movies to go fuck themselves when they want to use a song?  So... what is this lawsuit against Axl really going to accomplish?

Well, they should have used the original version for historical accuracy since it was the song they listend to in real life. It's sick because Axl refused to let them use the original version because he didn't want the old band to receive the royalties for it. Let's not forget that it's also insulting to the new band to have them be introduced to the world by doing a cover of the old band's work.

So the "partnership" originally included Slash, Axl, and Duff, and no one else?

Yeah, because 2002 really saw a rise in the musical bar...I think we all recognize how much better music is in 2002 is compared to the obviously inferior, outdated Appetite For Destruction.  Its so 1987.  All this time I thought "WTTJ" was perfect the way it is, but Ive come to realize that if it only had synthesizers, keyboards and Fincks guitar-work, it could really be a classic.   ::)

Any way you look at it, re-recording that material against the wishes of the original band and using it as leverage in movie licensing - especially to in any way cheat out the songs other creators - is not a good thing.  If Axl wanted to leak or give out the re-recorded AFD, I personally wouldnt mind (I think Slash and Duff might disagree), but to re-record these classics and actually try to pass them off as being remotely worthy of the original recordings by licensing them...thats not cool.  Add the potentially more shady implications (funny business with royalties, overall disrespect to the old band) and its just a bad situation.

It appears so...

Adler was out in 1990, Izzy in 1991...and the partnership I believe began in 1992.  Since those three were the remaining original members, it became theirs.



Its my generally uninformed guess that Geffen ultimately has the final word in actual releases of the recordings (thats a matter probably determined by GNR/Geffen contracts, who knows what they say?).  But licensing and such is in the hands of the catalogue owners (although they probably stilll need permission from Geffen, however as long as Geffen makes money, theyll agree to anything).

yeah I think so, I remember reading something Axl said back in the day, after Steven and Izzy was out, it was something about that he and Slash made most of/or all the business decisions, and they ran things by Duff to make sure he agreed.
where the hell did I read that? I think I might have it in a mag here somewhere : ok:

i read that also kiedis i think its in the rolling stone what happened to axl rose issue


i dont want any GNR songs in movies unless they are new songs or are one fuckin helluva blockbuster picture

not every movie coming and going

im sure axl will come out on top here

Its sad, whatever happened to a couple of guys (friends) getting together playing some great music and reaping the rewards. I wonder if Axl, Slash etc could have seen in 1985 the animosity and what appears to be downright hatred  that exists between them now would they have still continued?. Probably, good ol money, the one thing that can destroy any relationship.

Because you're talking about completely different "animals".  GnR's contract called for a Greatest Hits album.  That fact gave Geffen the right to use old recordings to compile one.  Had their been no contracted GH, Geffen could not have published the recordings without permission from the band...even though they do technically own the masters.

The rights to control the catalog, in relation to OTHER publication and use (ie: soundtracks, licensing, etc) is what Slash and Duff are suing for....and actually, they're not suing for it, or to reclaim it.  They're claiming they already have it and Axl doesn't, but has acted as though he does.  They're seeking recompense of lost revenue, and "damages", because, they claim, Axl KNEW he shouldn't have them.

Of course, IF S/D respond to questions of "why have you waited 9 years to bring this up" and they respond "Well, our new attorney's just pointed it out to us"...they're going to have a hard time arguing that Axl KNEW when THEY didn't....  

Thanx, that's basically what I've been trying to say for the past few days.
It's not like for nine years they were thinking about what Axl was doing saying: "Man, that's too bad he can do whatever he wants to do with GN'R's old catalog"...then a few weeks ago, their new attorney team goes: "You guys, I might have found something in that contract of yours..."
If it happened like this, I don't how they can win...because like pilferk mentioned it, a good part of their case is based on the fact that Axl did whatever he wanted to do, even though he KNEW he wasn't supposed to.

If that is the issue that someone asks them why they waited 9 years, they might in fact lose any chance they had at punitive damages, but it still wouldn't change the fact they owned what they own if the judge rules in their favor. The ellapsed time hurts their argument about passed damages, but if they win the judge would just enforce that from here on out Axl is not involved in future decision making or representation of the back catalog. So in that sense, the time makes no difference, the only place it potentially hurts their case  is in the procurement of past damages.

So then how do you justify Axl licensing out songs to Real Cancun (as mentioned in the document), Big Daddy, Grosse Point Blank, End Of Days, Cant Hardly Wait...as well as the movies before the breakup?  And he was not only going to license to BHD, but he was going to license a re-recorded version of the classic "WTTJ".  I would imagine that fans, especially those fixated with integrity, would have a problem with that.

So someone rejects the principle of "whoring" out the music when they assume its Slash and Duff behind it, but when they realize Axl has been "whoring" the music out, the principle changes.  Suddenly its okay, as long as it "one helluva fuckin blockbuster picture" - and none of these are.  Terminator 2 is really the only blackbuster (I imagine those so appreciative of Axls licensing integrity have a problem with the band essentially making a 6-minute commercial for T2 with the "You Could Be Mine" video?).  So its okay to license to 8 or 9 movies, but if its 12 or 13, and its Duff and Slashs will, then theres a problem.

I guess Interview with the Vampire was a blockbuster too...  :yes:

A re recorded WTTJ would have FUCKING ROCKED!!!

  WTTF from the 2002 boots sounds better than the 1987 AFD recording... its too bad i have to imagine what a re recorded Studio version would sound like..

now you are talking shit... sort it out

Instead of having your band cover other people's work, release new material. I love New GNR and think they play other people's work reasonably close to accurate, but you do not release covers of timeless legends like Jungle. That and I would not want to hear Axl ruin the song with his higher pitched voice, he can still howl a bit as we heard at spots, but he just does not have the agressiveness and snarl in his voive to have done an 87 version of Jungle justice. Let's stop focusing on trying to cover old songs and give us new ones. I can't believe there are people supportive of this.

You know who Axl sounds like now......Geddy Lee from Rush! "And the men who hold high places, must be the ones who start, to mold a new reality, closer to the heart!"

I cant belive people are not...

Why?

Because I would rather hear some new material. If I wanted to hear a GNR cover band cover Jungle I could go down to the local bar. There is no need for the band to do a cover version of Jungle. Because that is essentially what it would be. Release new stuff and make an identity for themselves, not have there guitarists get up there and mindlessly play Slash's rifts instead of their own. There is no need to cover songs GNR has already released, release something of your own before you worry about cover albums or songs.

While I don?t mind WTTJ by New GNR, I totally agree with Naupis on this.  :yes:
And imagine how boring it must be for creative musicians to redo others work on and on and on?. :no:

Well as usual, Axl does seem to have some selective standards for selling their music.  He does movies (some I had forgotten about!), but has never sold to advertising campaigns, which I'm sure there have been a few offers over the years.  Would Slash and Duff do that?  I don't know.  

I agree - and about the lawsuit, i think Slash and Duff should have input on what the old Gn'R songs are used for, fair enough the name and the new band are Axl's but the old songs are still Slash/Duff/Izyy/Axl/Steven and to some extent Matts.

Well, how would you feel if Velvet Revolver re-recorded WTTJ?  

Excellent point Girl Gunner.....

It's ok though because it's Axl singing, even though the rest of his band can't play the song note for note. If VR did it, they would play the song note for note but the singing wouldn't be right. These are the problems you encounter with cover bands. Anyone playing the old GNR stuff, VR or GNR are covering material that is not theres. Doing it live for the fans is fine, but there should never be actual re-records designed to be released.

You lot crack me the fuck up ::)

It is okay for Axl to do it because AXL ROSE OWNS THE GNR NAME!!!!!!!  So you say this has nothing to do with the GNR name.  The fuck it does not.  Those fucktards left Axl.  Slash and Duff have stated this many times.  So are you lot going to say that they retract that statement now?

IT HAS BEEN PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT SLASH AND DUFF WALKED OUT ON AXL AND GNR.  I DO NOT CARE WHAT SHODDY PIECE OF SHIT LAWSUIT/PAPERS THAT SLASH AND DUFF HAVE CONJURED UP.  IT WILL NOT HOLD UP IN COURT, IT WILL NOT HOLD UP WITH THE FANS.  EVEN SLASH AND DUFF FANS THINK THIS IS STUPID BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING 9 FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Whoever thinks the new band can not do justice to the old material needs to put down the crack pipe.  

Like Mysteron said.  It is a cheap shot on behalf of Duff and Slash.  And that Slash and Duff fans is all that sticks out at the moment.   :peace:

Well of course it is retarded that it took them 9 years to figure this out. Time does not change the potential facts though. If a court rules though they they are the original GNR partnership, and they get to make all old GNR decisions, the time it took them to realize they had that right does not change the fact that is their right. In fact, I don't think this lawsuit would be happening had their lawyers not found something like this while looking through their contracts trying to figure out how to stop the greatest hits. We don't know how this is going to pan out but some of the Axl zealots like Tipsy need to brace themselves that there is at least the possibility this may not turn out in Axl's favor. But that will be determined in time.

And the issue about covering Jungle is not an issue of doing justice. It is having a completely different band minus the singer play other musicians music note for note and pass it off as their own. He can call the band whatever he wants, but at the end of the day that is not Adler on drums, Izzy on rythm, Duff on bass or Slash on lead. Having the knew guys play music they did not right by definition is covering a song, regardless of what you call the band doing it.

I went to a concert and thought they play the stuff great, but leave it there. Don't re-record music already released by other musicians, copy there stuff, and attempt to call it their own. That is embarrassing and humiliating to the new band as musicians. They have their own material they have written and would prefer to be playing I am sure, not playing "Look at me, I can copy what other musicians wrote."

Okay, VR zealot Naupis.

I guess then it is okay for Scott Weiland to do a rendition of "It's so Easy" and try and sound just like Axl then ::)  And do not give me this "well, slash and duff are 2/5 GNR so yeah" bullshit.

I got news for you Mr. future law school graduate----THIS CASE WILL GET THROWN OUT DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT HAS TAKEN DUFF AND SLASH TO FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT.

Furthermore, if you honestly believe that Axl has not had every lawyer rewrite his interests in GNR once Slash and Duff quit on him, then you are stupid as a brick. :peace:

I am sure Axl's got the best lawyer's in the world. But I am also sure that S/D would not have just filed suit for the hell of it if someone hadn't see something that made them think there was a reason to do so. No one knows both sides so we can't speculate. But to assume just because its Axl there is no way this case can have any merit is a little presumtuous.

Also, the case WILL NOT be thrown out just because of the length of time. There is no statute of limitations in regards to contracts like this. It may affect their ability to collect punitive damages from the period of 95-04 that they waited so long if indeed they did have control the whole time, but if the contracts are written in a way that gives them control as the sole remaining partners of the original GNR partnership, they will from here on out be in control. They don't tear up the contracts mearly because a certain amount of years have passed. So if Axl's letter of resignation from the partnership does in the end screw him(merely a hypothetical at this point) the fact 9 years have passed isn't going to make a bit of difference.

And I have no problem with VR covering ISO at their shows because they aren't professionally recording it in a studio with intent to release it and pawn themselves off as the original creators. I told you, I went to a New GNR concert and loved it. I love hearing the old stuff, as long as they are not re-recording it in a studio with intent to distribute as if they wrote it themselves. You yourself even has to see the distinction between playing something live for the fans and actually going through the effort to re-record it in a studio and pass it off as something its not.

And I will tell you what I am a zealot about.....its NOT VR......BUT NEW MUSIC!!!!! :beer: I am beyond excited about VR because it is something new to listen to by good musicians and not the same GNR cd's that have been spinning in my CD player for 12 years now without changing. I would be as if not more excited for a NEW GNR release than I am VR if they would actually give me some new music to get excited about. This whole "It's impossible to like VR if you love Axl" thing is ridiculous because I love BOTH. I could care less about these lawsuits because they don't effect us, interesting yes, but its just business. I wish right now we had albums coming out from BOTH BANDS, I see all the media hoopla around VR and can imagine how excited I would be if that was Axl popping up everywhere too. Its an exciting time to be a fan right now. If you are down on VR out of loyalty to Axl get over it, it is possible to LOVE BOTH. :peace:

Um, Naupis--I guarantee you that when Axl was given the name rights to GNR that it protected ALL his interests with GNR and himself.  Do you honestly think that Axl has not already considered the fact that anyone from his past would try and pull this shit?

I can guarantee you Axl Rose will come out the winner here regardless of what your assumptions are.  :peace:

We're just going to have to wait and see on the whole Lawsuit thing. I am sure Axl covered all of his bases, but I also know he's human....and sometimes People make mistakes or do things that have unintended consequences. I know his legal team is not infallible because Greatest Hits did come out, so maybe this will be another case of them not being able to change the wording of a contract.....you just never know.

Who the fuck cares anymore.. The Re Recorded WTTJ didnt get released... stop fucking crying over it... I personally would have liked to have heard it... but im a selfish fucker who will gladly take any new recording by Axl Rose old or new songs.... If you feel that strongly about it then dont buy it (if he releases it).. maybe he will give it away or put  it up for a download.. who cares.. either way it would rock harder than the original...

Dont try to defend "oh boo hoo the new members dont want to play and record old material"

Then dont fucking join Guns n Roses... start your own band or side project..that doesnt have a catalog of hits and well known songs..

either way for half of you its wrong for Axl Rose to do something, anything related to the old band but you all seem to forget whos suing who here and who claims to have "moved on"...  I have a big mother fucking middle finger for Slash and Duff and thier lawsuit... and I hope Axl Rose does too...  

If they cared soooo much about the old material and how it was used then they shouldnt have quit and walked away from it so easy in the first place....

"oh but Axl made them sign a paper"  Did Axl Rose hold a gun to thier fucking head???  If he refused to perform then fine he refused to perform... Slash and Duff should have worried about it the second it was brought up not 9 years later...

They need to worry about VR and making VR great not about what the fuck Axl Rose is doing....

But who the fuck are you to tell them how they should run their lives/their careers?  We are fans of their music and are here now interested in them enough to put our energy into writing about them because of what they all created. We don't own them though!

Nobody here  has the right to point the finger. You can take - as would be -  the approach in the courts - an objective view of both "sides".  But to insult any of them it's just not our right to. They are grown men with their lives to live how they want, if they feel strongly enough about issues to go to court, then does that really effect us listening and enjoying them as musicians??  
 
 And to an extent They are always asked about Axl and very rarely say anything too negative.  So if they are still speaking on behalf of GNR - because in the eyes and ears of most that's the reality.  Then i think they should have a bit more control.

And i don't think SLash and Duff are as cold as Axl and this is not anti Axl i love the guy admire him so so much.  But he can and be rigth stubborn and would just cut off from them and seemingly not flinch-  if he obtained all the rights ect he would most probably not even bother trying to make them included in ideas for the old material.  

But some how i don't see Slash and Duff being as cold as that.  I think they just want a fair say in what does represent their work.  

Now they have all sobered up i'm sure a nice BBQ and a few beers together would sort all this out lol but not so simple in the world of GNR lol    

All in all, and i know this has been re-run on every fukkin fan forum like a gazzillion times, but if axl didnt use the GNR name and did his own thing, none of this would have EVER happened !

Simple really, keep GNR seperate from solo issues, play a few GNR tracks live as " the axl rose band " ( or whatever he wants to call it other than GNR ) and no one has a problem, not the fans, not the band members .

That way, GNR could have been used to sell out in anyway shape or form, and as long as they are making money from it ( which is what its all about ) all`s good ! :beer:

Untill then, i say good luck to slash and duff, screw axl till his ears bleed, maybe one day hell wake up and realise just what a fukking wanker he really is !

People can change, lets just hope axl can too. :peace:

Um.... no Fuck Slash... Fuck Duff...  
they are the wankers :peace:
they are the ones who are suing for rights they must claim they weren't aware of all these years...  

S/D "You see... your honor... since 1995 we have had all the rights to GN'R's music"


Judge "Really now, hm.  Why did you not excercise your rights?"

S/D: *Shrugs* um... well, you see your honor we didn't realize it til just now.

Judge  "Hm.  I see.  But you claim that Axl Rose knew."

S/D:  Yes, your honor.  You see... he's a really bad, bad man.

 ::)

I don't agree with either of you...  How can you have such strong negative comments about any of thse guys? You are on a web site dedicated to their work!?  I have asked another member on the VR thread the same, to explain how you can be like that, because i don't get it....??

And unless your album's say differently, they are the people who helped create that music.  Or maybe you people weren't around or not into GN'R  when they were together, so maybe you don't appriciate why everyone thinks of them so highly?

I'm just trying to understand it all. How dare any of us call them wankers!? They have had highly successful careers and they are decent guys, they take time out for their fans.  And so gifted and talented,  inspired so many people into music and to pick up instruments.

Untill you or i have done that then can you really be so strong in your comments? Especially as they have or are able to read them?  It's not right by my standards anyway.      

So eva, u dont think slash or duff or any of the appetite crew bar axl has any rights to the music?

Im glad slash and duff are doing this, i really am.

Look, axl had his chance at trying to be GNR, he failed big time, played a " world tour " under the GNR banner as the " chinese democracy starts NOW ! " title and played 90% old tunes, now thats not right now is it?
He even failed to fill out arenas , turn up to gigs or even finish the tour.

again all under the GNR monarch and screwed it up.

What slash and duff are trying to do makes sense to me anyways.

I really do hope that they get to block axls rights , at least untill he has his brain checked out or get rid of the hangers on around him, maybe hell come down from his little cloud and back down to earth. :peace:

huh? No... you are incorrect in stating that I think slash or duff or any of the appetite crew bar axl has any rights to the music.


However, YOU are saying that you hope Slash and Duff obtain sole rights, to the excusion of Axl.

I definitely don't agree with that.
Lets not argue.
You think Axl's gotta 'get his brain' checked out....
Again, I don't agree.  
Do you see a pattern here?
I don't think we are going to agree on much.  
So lets save our breath and not argue.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I am of the mind that Slash and Duff should eat shit, puke it back up, reheat it, top it with a fresh load of steaming shit, pick up a fork and chow down til it comes out their ears.
I can see how you woud tend to disagree with this.
I'm a reasonable person.
Lets agree to disagree.
 ;D

I'm getting pretty sick of hearing speculation, I want to know what the fuck is going on. This kind of shit from both sides of GnR is getting pretty fucking tired.

Anyone have any idea when this goes to court?

hopefully axl's rebuttal will be published online too, but i doubt it. we may not know anything for a long while. Pretty much about the time  we will  hear about this CD record again.

whenever his lawyers respond it'll be a public record, so 'we'll see it.

if slash and duff win it will be horrible

i can already see them selling the rights to EBAY and it get totally fucked over like frank sinatra's My Way

i almost wish it would so all u axl bashers would finally have to say an ill word towards slash and co

welcome to ebay we got fun and games
we got everything u want honey we know the names
we are the people that can find whatever u made need
if u got the money honey we got your disease on ebay welcome to ebay!!!!!

get ready cause if slash and duff had their way this would be the kinda shit that would happen

And you believe this because...

Of course I already know the answer, but Im interested in seeing what you pull out to "prove" your suspicions.

Whats the basis?  Because Slash and Duff possibly wanted to license music to a few more movies?  Hate to break it to you, but under Axls control, GNRs music has been licensed to 9 or 10 movies (Real Cancun being one), not to mention various music compilations (Jim Romes Welcome To The Jungle and Power Ballads being only two)...so because Slash and Duff might have wanted 4 other movies, that somehow implicates they want to put their music in EBay commercials, or any commercials for that matter?  So movies somehow equals commercials?  At least it does when it comes to Slash and Duff... ???

they recieve royalties.... if they wanted a say in how the music was used they shouldnt have walked away from it so easy.... the second they thought about walking away from the biggest band in the world at the time they should have made damn sure what their rights were...

why?? you want to hear an old recording of WTTJ on another movie? or you just want to see "Axl get his"

why not?? Why is it "not right"?? coz you say so?? If you dont like it then dont fucking go to the shows...dont buy it.. dont support it.... stay at home and listen to AFD or the snakeshit albums...

He also managed to sell out MSG in 15 minutes, played a few new songs, and prove that his new band can play the old songs... you  can name negative things and i can name positive....  where was Slash and Duff?? and you know shit about "even finish the tour" you dont know shit about who cancelled it or for what reason.... your talking shit for no reason and about somthing you know nothing about

who screwed it up??? what do you consider "screwed it up" ... what did you want to see 91-92 numbers at a show for a band that had been non exsistent for close to a decade?? it takes time to get back to that level... again more shit talking...

whats that?? VR or suing Axl???

why? so Slash and Duff can have full controll of somthing they walked away from and didnt give a rats ass about untill 9 years later? again shit....


 :drool:

Again i'll say the same here. I can't understand how you can have such a strong negative opinion?  What have they done apart from being talented basterds who have together created Guns n' Roses?  

These are grown fucking men how dare you point the finger!?  When you have created your Appetite for destruction then come back and take shots.  

I have as much respect for Axl, SLash and Duff.  You nor I  know what is behind the decision to sue now, maybe they were hoping things would actually not go that far and Axl would have come around and get Guns going again.  

 Maybe they feel they have given it enough time and things haven't got better, so after the GH. Where they realised how little muscle they had to halt it or weren't even informed about it and if i'm not mistaken, you were among those saying how it wasn't giving value to the fans and we all agreed how it was just geffen reaping money back.  Maybe the guys were aware how certain fans wanted to boycott it and just felt enough was enough? So in a way maybe that was the effect of the boycott ? Who knows?

It's not our band we cannot say what films should and shouldn't have GNR material on them lol It's just  nothing to do with us.  Some of the posters not you in particular are saying unless it's a successfull blockbuster they don't want it being used? well excuse me just because they are blockbusters doesn't mean they are good films!  

I would like to know tho what they have done to give you such a negative view about them ?
 

Okay Mrfarr.  You ask what have Slash and Duff done?

Let me enlighten you if I may.

THEY QUIT ON W. AXL ROSE
THEY ARE TWO HEROIN ADDICTS WHO ADDED TO THE DEMISE OF GNR
THEY LIE
THEY WALKED AWAY FROM ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BANDS IN HISTORY.  AXL DID NOT LEAVE THEM.  SLASH AND DUFF QUIT ON HIM SO WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

And to further complicate matters, not to mention, lessen their credibility, they decide NOW--9 FUCKING YEARS LATER TO SUE AXL ROSE.  ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS BAH HA HA HA HA BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT WIN.

Suddenly, Slash and Duff give new meaning to "double talkin' jive get the money mother fucka', i got no more patience."

Mrfarr, do NOT turn a blind eye to the facts.  If you do that then you are just as much a hypocrit as Slash and Duff.

I can guarantee you that this stupid ass lawsuit will be deemed by the courts as just that--S -T -U -P-I-D

You don't see Axl Rose pulling this shit on people and he has supposedly screwed over so many people, right ::)

Open your eyes fool.  Slash and Duff are fraudlent fucks who do not deserve any success and have to obviously attack Axl Rose whom they have said many times they are through with  ::) in order for them to gain publicity.

Pretty fucking sad and that Mrfarr is a cold reality.

maybe axl needed this to happen everything happens for a reason.it wasn't handled right ,now it can be sorted out.im not on anybody's side but feel it should be worked out.if axl isn't giving rights for movies that can lose money he could have made so that wasn't very smart.cause im sure you would get some cump change for movies with your songs in it.right ?it's called royalties.at least i know about that.

mrfarr u honestly dont think duff and slash have alterior motives here?

u are forgetting one enormous huge fact

slash and duff still are getting paid

everytime an appetite for destruction,a gnr lies an illusion whatever is sold they make money

some of u are confused i think, i think alot of u think that slash and duff arent getting paid

this isnt the case at all

axl is trying to create a new guns n roses

its the same reason he sued not wanting the GH's released, axl wants to create a new GNR and if OLD gnr is on every soundtrack comin and goin they will look like washed up hacks tryin to make a buck by being on a film soundtrack

why cant some of u applaud axl for not exploiting the back catalogue every chance he gets?

i know  i know he put so many songs on soundtracks etc but it was ok cause they were touring,making music for most of those films so they were still in the public eye

but for axl considering he hasnt done shit in 10 years, for him to keep livin off the old by puttin songs on every soundtrack coming and going would be pathetic!

slash and duff dont care about the music, they care about money

cheated out of a million dollars or so, thats what they are worried about

no one will ever change their talent and their contributions to GNR but i sure as fuck dont wanna see GNR music on every piece of shit movie soundtrack comin and goin

so remember slash and duff are gettin paid for their work

axl just chooses to not whore it to every movie, tv commercial etc

they left axl so they have no say in GNR

i loved the whole if u co owned a business with your friend and u all made an empire together, if he sold his share of the company, he would be remembered and appreciated for his help in building the company

but 9 years later he wouldnt be able to walk into the corporate office and try to tell u how to run your shit and what to do

they quit, plain and simple, they quit on axl!

i will believe till my grave that slash thought he was bigger than he actually was, he thought he could power play axl, leave axl start a new band with the material he was holdin back from Guns and make it on his own

he was wrong but thats his fault not axls!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WILL PEOPLE STOP TALKING CRAP!

Nobody here has the right to call slash and duff names
Nobody here has any reason to think that they have less integrity than Axl
Nobody here knows any reason why they are doing this besides the obvious loss of earnings.
Nobody here can say slash and duff will let the songs be used anywhere. There are only a handful of movies mentioned - no ebay/advert/etc bullshit.

There are, however, questions that I'd like to hear the answers to. Why is this happening now? and what changes will happen to the use of GN'R music if they win?

@#$%Muther

[quote author=TIPSY
Okay Mrfarr.  You ask what have Slash and Duff done?

Let me enlighten you if I may.

THEY QUIT ON W. AXL ROSE
THEY ARE TWO HEROIN ADDICTS WHO ADDED TO THE DEMISE OF GNR
THEY LIE
THEY WALKED AWAY FROM ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BANDS IN HISTORY.  AXL DID NOT LEAVE THEM.  SLASH AND DUFF QUIT ON HIM SO WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

And to further complicate matters, not to mention, lessen their credibility, they decide NOW--9 FUCKING YEARS LATER TO SUE AXL ROSE.  ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS BAH HA HA HA HA BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT WIN.

Suddenly, Slash and Duff give new meaning to "double talkin' jive get the money mother fucka', i got no more patience."

Mrfarr, do NOT turn a blind eye to the facts.  If you do that then you are just as much a hypocrit as Slash and Duff.

I can guarantee you that this stupid ass lawsuit will be deemed by the courts as just that--S -T -U -P-I-D

You don't see Axl Rose pulling this shit on people and he has supposedly screwed over so many people, right ::)

Open your eyes fool.  Slash and Duff are fraudlent fucks who do not deserve any success and have to obviously attack Axl Rose whom they have said many times they are through with  ::) in order for them to gain publicity.

Pretty fucking sad and that Mrfarr is a cold reality.

First of all I am not a fool, so an appology would be nice there, we are just debating no?

My point has been that i am not on "a side" i am completely in the middle Because i do not know the facts nobody but those guys know the hard facts.  I admire all of them, Axl is a legend and i will be there the morning CD comes out. To be totally honest, i am more excited by what Axl has going on, more original, fresher sound. Madagascar is amongst the top GNR songs ever in my opinion.  And i also expect VR to kick ass the ingredients are right for a great band.

They didn't just walk out of GNR there was alot of bull shit by all parties.  Let's be honest here ok you say i'm turning a blind eye.  But after the illusions tour they all had over bloated egos, who wouldn't? They were the biggest band in the world!  At least two of them completely stoned, mashed up. And by all accounts - even Izzy-  mentioned how Axl had become power crazy. So that mix = not good for  a band.

You and I know how volatile Axl can be as reported by many accounts- can be right stubborn .  A true artist, a man of genius, but you can't denie the fact he could make things pretty awkward for you if he wanted to.  

So if you think it was as simple as them just walking out - especially if you look back at the time scale that they both left.  I really don't see it as cut and dry as that.  I'm not saying it's all Axl, really not.  I'm saying you have to take a stand back at it all and account for both sides.  Untill we know a fuller realistic account of it all.

  The 9 year wait thing as i have said my guess and hey we are all guessing here.  But as a result of the GH scenario, because none of them were involved and were bascially powerless was a mere shell of what it could have been.  And maybe they thought it was about time someone tried to step in and take some control ?  Some fans were really fuelled over the fact that the GH was coming out and wasn't value for money, maybe they responded to that ?
 

I'm not confused by nothing, I  have been a die hard fan for a long time me.  I know as much as anybody else. As i said that's why i can't take sides, i really can't approach it like that.  If i was to meet any of them tomorrow; i would shake all of them by the hand as they have been a huge positive inspiration to me. I Have had some great times on GNR.  And yeh they must have done something really bad to piss off Axl so much  All those years ago, but i'm sure he did his fair share of pissing off to wouldn't  you agree?

I think your right, my opinion would be that i'm glad they are not on every movie soundtrack.  Infact the only one i ever bought was End of days, because OMG was a new GNR track.  The only time i ever spent ?15 on one track lol as brilliant as it is. But what i'm saying is it's not my or our business  to be so negative about them.  If they walked past you tomorrow i'm sure you would be quite excited say hi - whatever.  Or if there was a reunion (just in theory lol) would u not be excited?

You make the point that they left but what they are now saying is that Axl left first, so where would that leave that argument?  Is it the first to leave or the last to go ?  My point about the business thing has a different meaning to their case because their names are and will always be attached to Guns n' Roses.  And they will always be asked about GN'R even though they don't even know.
So don't you think they should all have equal say in what happens with the material they recorded?

Wouldn't you agree that thats how a weak GH comes out? Because nobody is taking control, so to prevent that happening again, they have to get involved.

I don't agree with the case at all,  it's a sad extra nail to any future reunion.  If they ALL just wised up a bit all this could have been avoided.

 There will always be gaps in whatever they release because we know as fans certain ingredients they are missing ,  The Axl vocal stage presence and songwriting ,  the Slash feel to a solo and dynamic presence,  Izzy's songwriting.  Duff's all out punk rockness lol

That is why i would never want them to read anything negative from me because i hold too much respect for them.

we need to get off the greatest hits thing cause it is a dead issue

the record label decided that and basically the record label owns the masters, they can put out 10 more compilations if they want to, hell look at aerosmith, they arent of geffen anymore and we've had how many compilation greatest hits?

Prince couldnt even stop warner bros from releasing the best of prince, he tried and couldnt so he went on his website and urged fans to not buy it

axl slash duff doesnt matter, the record label did it cause they can and there wasnt anything the band could do

greatest hits was not a waste of money

to a hardcore fan maybe, but the charts and album sells dont lie, this GH's is a major success

ive burnt thousand time better compilation GNR cds but i bought greatest hits for 14.00 bucks and it stayed in my cd player for a long time till prince's musicology knocked it out, but i still listen to it when im joggin etc

it was an excellent greatest hits give or take estranged not bein on there

but it helped me to discover that i actually like aint it fun and sftd

so considering slash and duff are still gettin paid royalties why else would they be pissed cause axl nixed some soundtrack deals?

thats what the lawsuit says, they were robbed of millions in potential soundtrack revenues

bottom line they want to be on as many soundtracks and make as much money as possible axl doesnt wanna whore out the catalogue for wealth

thats how i read between the lines based on the lawsuit

if slash and duff werent getting royalties anymore from their work id be behind them 100 percent but they are still gettin paid! so whats their bitch?

Exactly D....

Whats is thier Bitch now??? They didnt give a rats ass 9 years ago... but now its a big deal to them...

I was watching some past 90's concerts with the old band and remembering how much i missed the old band but when i think about this shit they pull i feel nothing but utter disgust for them and thier new band...

go to hell Slash and Duff... ok you wrote some good Riffs and Bass Lines.. but you walked away...

FACE IT VR FANS ...AXL ROSE IS A SMARTER MOTHER FUCKER AND BETTER MUSICIAN than they are...

CD is more anticipated than Contraband....

Contraband has more "original gnr members"

Contraband is not as anticipated as CD is

CD has taken more time to make...

Contraband has taken just as much time to make...

when was the last time Duff, Slash and Matt made released a CD together???  the same amount of time as Axl Rose has...


Face it.... Axl Rose is and has always been the talent behind GnR(name or not) .....

yes they made good music together but CD, The Blues, Madagascar, are better than anything the VR guys can come up with..

Bash away... Slash and Duff are acting like a bunch of little cunts..

oh and i can "judge them" coz i buy the god damn records, the concert tickets, the T-shirts, The posters, and the DVD's.....

Jeesh...have you read anything here..say within the last 4-6 pages or so.  ::)

um yeah i have ... the shit about the the re recorded WTTJ or the sales of the greatest hits??

have you?? what does your post have to do with the topic??

nothing....

or you need me to summarize it for you????

Velvet Revolver are apparently recording their shows...for future releases...

Since they play GN'R songs..and want to release the shows..it would be easier if they had got the rights to release GN'R songs on live recordings..cause now they don't have the right to do that or ???

I'm starting to think that is why Slash and Duff are sueing .

i just hope these lawsuits will inspire axl to get up and fucking rock!

I didn't read through all the posts, so perhaps I missed something. I don't have a clue about partnerships, usually they do end up badly, by someone paying off a lot of money just to get rid of the undesirable. Maybe, just maybe, there is some loophole  in the contract that would be an advantage. :confused:
I sincerely hope everything works out for Axl!

I hope the answer is on the way! I'll have to turn to a higher power tonight!

u know this could be the same reason axl didnt release the las vegas dvd, he didnt want money he made goin to the old band

u can play any songsu want in concert but if u release something u have to get permission and/or pay royalties

so if vr include gnr songs stp songs nirvana songs those resective parties involved will receive compensation, however it seems vr are mainly usin gnr songs that axl had nothin much to do with, mr brownstone,its so easy etc

hmm, You seem very sensitive to people having an opinion other than your's.  

And don't you think your comments regarding Slash and Duff a little harsh considering you don't know them or the full story?  It's easier to say things like that under a pseudo name and behind your comp. But i'm wondering if you would say that to them and post that in your own name - just interested.

Fucking right!! If I saw Slash and Duff I'd tell em to go fuck themselves!!! What are they gonna do kick my ass??? HA!! ya right they'd go to jail faster than you can say VR! Only Axl Rose would punch me out :hihi:

I just want to state I'm a fan of all 3 men, Axl, Slash & Duff, & I await both parties future releases (I'm more excited for VR, we dont even know if CD is going to coming out) & that I can look at this situation (as well as any other situation) objectively

I dont think its Duff's intention to hurt Axl, as he said he would like to still be friends with him & wishes him the best, & though i'm sure Slash is angry at Axl but he has wished Axl the best in the past, so i dont think he wants to completely shut out Axl as well, I think all Duff & Slash want is what they are owed, which is the royalties to songs they performed on & some role in the decisions regarding how the music they were apart of creating is used, which is fair enuff. Why should it just be Axl? Hell why arent Izzy, Steven, Matt, Gilby & Dizzy involved in some of the decisions regarding material they were apart of since they contributed to the band as well during the times they were in the band.

Ohh & by the way, this TIPSY guy has to be one of the biggest idiots i've seen here so I will not even bother replying to his stuff because he is talking a bunch of BS


& on what night did this dream occur?


& which part of this thread did you even read other than the heading, because if you read it you will know that the 9 year deal wont hurt them that much at all except in trying to get owed royalties


He may come out swinging, but without some muscle behind them (Proof & Evidence), his punches wont sting at all.

By the way, if we waited for Axl to say anything it would be a hell of a long time before we could express our opinions on this matter


Its not that hard to explain, they may have hired new lawyers who went through many documents, & as you know with legal documents it isnt always easy to understand & know your full rights. Duff & Slash might have not known, & as others have already said BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS!!! that the new lawyers found it, brought it to Duff & Slash's & attention & worked with them to plan this lawsuit against Axl.


Exactly what I thought when I read about these latest developements. I'm not gonna insult them like u did with the "not the sharpest tools in the shed", just because they didnt know about it dont mean they were dumb. Not everyone is a lawyer, & I'm sure if they could decifer all the legal mumbo jumbo before they would've acted alot sooner, but since they just found out they have some legal rights, they're taking the appropriate action.


CD is more anticipated than Contraband???? Um maybe on THIS website it is, but many others not just in the GNR fan kingdom, but many people around the world think Axl, the new GNR (if they even know, believe it or not not everyone in the world knows the news on GNR) & Chinese Democracy is a big joke.

Lol so Duff Slash & Matt havent released a cd together since 1993, so i guess that means they've been working on Contraband since then ::). I dont even contest that Axls been working on CD for that long, let alone Velvet.
During those years each man has had some type of project or work, & they've explained why they never got together sooner already. & they only played together in 2002 wasnt it?, well they did over 60 songs without the vocals, probably took a few months to do that, the songs just sat there while they looked for a good vocalist, & they found one, worked on Money & Set Me Free, released them mid 2003, then for 6 months they worked on the album (& it only took that long coz of the they changed producers), & Contraband was ready by the end of 2003, the only thing they have been waiting for is the record label promoting them, & also Greatest Hits delayed the album further

So in basically under a year, hell i'll say 18 months, Velvet Revolver has put together an album that is recieving praise from people who have heard it, has been getting alot of publicity (yes & i'll admit the GNR resurgance on the charts may have something to do with it). They have also played a few performances, a concert, a tour about to begin, a video clip, a tv special & i'm sure theres more

Okay from Axl & from other people involved in CD, they seem to suggest the album began being made in 1997-98 some time. It is now 2004, that is 6-7 years, with no announced release date. All that has happened with Axl N Roses & CD in those years is people joining & leaving the band, a tour that did have some highlights (MSG & a few other packed show), but was halted half way through for a yet to be explained official reason, 2 riots because of 2 no shows, a few shows oversea's, an MTV performance that was horrible & of course no official release date in place for CD.

Now i've heard 5 songs that were rumored to be on CD (The Blues, Madagascar, Chinese Democracy, Rhiad & Silkworms), & while i like 4 of them I just have lost alot of faith. I remember in 2002 when the tours & MTV performance happened I had alot of faith & thought that Axl was going to release it, but obviously that didnt happen & 18 months (even after all the posts where Axl lovers like urself GUARANTEED it would be by certain dates that are well past) after there is still no end to this wait in sight.

& about the 9 years thing, thats already been explained a dozen of so times already in this thread alone, there could be legit reasons behind it. If there isnt then yes you have to ask why 9 years, but as people here said, it is more than probable that Duff & Slash have hired new lawyers who looked through the many legal papers & found out a right Duff & Slash have that they previously had no knowledge on

So I think I made my points & show how your comments are flawed & incorrect & extremely biased.

Did it ever occur to you Slah & Duff haters that they may have not instigated this action? They hire lawyers to represent them in the 'shittiest business in the world' as it is well known. It's those boys and girls that stay up late reading music law learning how to make a living by lawsuits etc.
I bet that the lawyers are re-examining the financial and legal fallout from the GNR collapse probably upon Duffs insistance since he's the finance graduate and probably knows now that some shitty decisions were made on his behalf.
Frankly, if I had been 1/5th of the band that sold 80 million albums, flogged my ass around the world playing shows, blew up my pancreas, practically died and made it out again I would take stock of what happened and with my new found clarity make sure I got my full pay check for the time put in.
Why do some of you ALWAYS side with Axl? He's the most legally trigger fingered rock star known (after Metallica). All that's happening is that financial wrongs are being set to right and if Slash & Duff are wrong the LAW will rule against them, end of story.
To spend the money involved in this action (probably about $400,00 in court expenses) they must feel they are justified in persuing this and I'm sure the lawyers have illustrated clearly to them why they think they are right to do so.
This is not personal, 'personal' is long gone now..what's left is the rotting carcass of the best band ever with the legal vultures picking the last unnoticed pieces of meat from it. The spirit left the body somehwhere around 1993.
peace,
Ruby

^^^

tru shit

Well yippee skippy for you.  Really, its must be nice to live in your world.  In my world, those who make themselves enemies of those whom I support, make themselves my enemies.  I had a certain amount of respect for Slash... and certainly Duff had not previously generated any feelings of illwill from me.  Now it is in Black and White.  Its them Vs. Axl.  I choose Axl's side.  Personally, I find a 'neutral' stance a sign of weakness.  I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact than survive a shitstorm only through failure to commit to any ideals.  To each his own.  I can not support Slash or Duff in this action, I can not and will not claim safe/neutral ground.  This suit is a declaration of war.  I AM BIASED.  I AM ON AXL'S 'SIDE' AND PROUD OF IT.  Thank you.



THATS YOUR OPINION - AN OPINION WHICH THIS LAWSUIT SHOULD GIVE YOU CAUSE TO RE-EVALUATE.


READ IT AGAIN.  YES HE DOES WANT TO SHUT HIM OUT


DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS AXL'S JOB TO ISSUE ROYALTY CHECKS?  OR TO NEGOTIATE TERMS FOR THEIR COMPENSATION?


UM.. NO READ IT AGAIN.  THEY ARE SEEKING SOLE RIGHTS


WHO SAID THAT?! btw... they are saying it should be just them


Doesn't matter... none of the parties you mention are involved in the suit.  


Oh yeah, thats right - Slash and Duff wish Axl the best - yeah right... they hope CD is a big success.... they 'really respect what he is doing' and wish him all the success in the world with CD and are looking forward to its release.... yeah, its like 'he's my bro' yeah  ::)  If you believe this for one minute then you really are living in a fantasy world and may I please borrow your rose colored beer goggles.   Axl's success is not on their wish list.  Hence, its not an unfair assumption that this failure is not something they wouldn't celebrate.


I read the whole thread and the 16 pages of the lawsuit.  


wtf are you talking about?  
Think!  :rant:

I do not find it reasonable to say that Slash and Duff were unaware/ignorant of the terms of the 1992 partnership agreement to which the suit refers.

The suit claims that the 1992 agreement made certain provisions in the event that certain things took place.

I do not believe that those certain things took place...  
If they had - then Slash and Duff would have immediately executed their rights according to certain provisions which they claim were part of the 1992 parntership agreement.  

What I do believe is that recently something triggered a rifling of paperwork....
and that they decided to try and use the 1995 letter to make a case that certain things took place...
regardless of what actually took place.... (yes, I'm calling them liars)
Liars who I believe, would surely be at a loss to explain how, if the things they claim took place actually occured,
how it is that they were unaware of it til now, only now claiming rights under the provisions they claim the agreement allowed for?

This suit, in my opinion is just Slash and Duff at their lowest.
I wish Axl victory and success against these enemies.

and theirs will?  Its amazing how this suit comes out referencing a 1992 agreement which isn't even the issue....   the issue is whether Axl quit GN'R in 1995 and relinquished all his rights at that time OR NOT.
What's amazing is how someone such as yourself who claims to be unbiased lends all the weight to a referenced piece of paper and DOES NOT LEND ONE IOTA OF WEIGHT TO THE EVENTS OF THE ENITIRE PAST DECADE.  

I recited this example before but will repeat it here for your benefit:

If a judge awarded custody of a divorced couple's children to the father however the father never picked the children up nor claimed actual custody of the children and they remained in residence with the mother, could he after 10 years bring charges against the mother for kidnapping?



I prefer his silence rather than the lies and two faced bullshit that spews forth from the mouths of certain former members.  And while I'm on the subject of mouths and bullshit and assholes - someone shut Matt Sorum the fuck up!  Thank you.  ;D



You are saying that the new lawyers, in 2004, discovered that Axl quit in 1995?
Thats bullshit.  :rofl: The new laywers found a letter that they could use to try and make a case that Axl quit in 1995.  Slash and Duff were previously unaware that they could try and make this case.  But IF AXL IN FACT HAD QUIT GN'R THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THAT.
If Axl had in fact quit in 1995 Slash and Duff and GN'R management and Geffen and many other parties would have been well aware of it and would not need someone to advise them of it 9 years later.  :rofl:

Truly however, the only thing they recently discovered is how low they were willing and able to sink for the sake of money and power and a chance to renew their fame.


Again, I am going to say it does not take a rocket scientist to understand whether YOU quit a  band or if you were still in a band or if the lead singer quit before you.  

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING IT TAKES 9 OR 10 YEARS TO REALIZE.
They recently found a way to try and make things appear in a manner which they believe will be favorable to their financial well being.

all of the above is IRRELEVANT

THEY HAD KNOWLEGE OF WHAT THEIR RIGHTS WOULD BE SHOULD CERTAIN THINGS OCCUR EVER SINCE 1992 WHEN THEY ENTERED A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH AXL.  

No one can say they were unaware of actual events that they are NOW claiming took place 9 years ago!  You know why they did not act all this time.  Because the things that were required to them to act did not take place.  NOW they are saying oh wait a minute - such and such did take place....  BULLSHIT.  They are only NOW trying to make it appear that certain things that DID NOT take place, happened.  LIARS.  FUCK THEM.  I have no respect for them whatsoever.


I don't think you made any points what so ever.  And I don't think anyone needed you to point out that my comments were 'biased'.  I AM ON AXL'S SIDE.  FUCK SLASH AND FUCK DUFF.  Do you wanna clarify that?  ;D

Further, you have not shown that my comments are flawed and incorrect.

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.  Slash and Duff know full well what occurred 12 years ago and what happened 9 years ago.  They knew it then.  They knew it 5 years ago.  They knew it 5 minutes ago.  But what really happened doesn't mmatter to them.  The truth does not matter to them.  All that matters to them is what they think their lawyers can (mis)represent in order for them to benefit.

someone please tell me that you think that Axl quit in 1995, but that Slash and Duff were unaware of this.  IF AXL IN FACT QUIT IN 95 - IF AXL LEFT THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND WOULD HAVE KICKED IN THEIR RIGHTS SINCE THEN!!!  

note:  Please do not misconstrue any of my comments as being personally against you.  If any appear that way, I aplogize.  THis subject pisses me off so I admit I am not in the most congenial of moods discussing it.  
:peace:

You've already claimed you are biased to Axl, i do not like to have discussions with people who cannot remain im-partial, so i'm affraid all your reply's wont be answered because even if I provide you with rational answers, you are still too star-struck & stubborn, I wont waste my time on that i'm sorry

It was clear from my first post that I am on Axl's side.  You are the one who CHOSE to quote me in your post so you chose to discuss this with me - someone who is clearly 'biased'.  So you can try and run away now from making valid arguements under the premise that you don't like to have discussions with biased persons... but it seems pretty obvious that you just can not argue the points I made.  If you feel doing so won't sway me then perhaps you should share your wisdom for the benefit of all those 'im-partial' not too star struck members of the board.   ::) If you have such 'rational' points to make in reply to mine that is - how would it be a waste of your time - even if you could not sway me - you could still show everyone the error of my ways...  couldn't ya?  :D

Thats a trip.  Just becuase I support Axl I am "too starstruck & stubborn".  

I think it takes a pretty hard head not to see the following clearly

Slash and Duff are trying to re-write history.  What they claim goes against everything they have stated and acted on for over a decade - it goes against everythng they have acknowledged and everything that the events of the past decade point to.  

Slash himself can be quoted as having his lawyers looking for a "LOOPHOLE"

Lemme define "loophole for ya... A "loophole" is defined as a way around an existing law, a way of doing something that a law was designed to prevent.  A loophole is defined as a situation where individuals and organizations have found a way to circumvent the intent of the original statute.  A loophole is defined as the following: a technicality making it possible to circumventthe law?s intent without violating the letter of the law. A loophole is defined as ?[a]n ambiguity, omission, or exception (as in a law or other legal document) that provides a way to avoid a rule without violating its literal requirements.  Lemme give ya an example of a 'loophole'


------- Eagle Tribune.com
------- Wednesday, June 5, 2002
------- Bishop backs proposed church sex abuse policy
------- By J.M. Hirsch
------- Associated Press

------- CONCORD -- Bishop John B. McCormack said yesterday he supports a proposed national
------- sex-abuse policy for the Roman Catholic Church, even though a loophole could allow
------- abusing priests to serve with children.

My... isn't that lovely...  yeah "loophole's rock
 :rant: #*@%!!

They are not wishing Axl 'the best'... they are not trying to make friends with him!  They do want to shut him out entirely.  They are seeking sole rights.  Regardless of their motivation their actions reek of legal opportunism.  However, one should note* that they are not just seeking compensatory and declatory judgement - they are seeking PUNATIVE damages - that means that they aren't just looking to get what they claim they lost financially - and they aren't just looking for a judge to declare their rights for the furture - they are looking to have a judge PUNISH Axl financially.  Not to mention that they accuse him of fraud - which is a criminal allegation.  So if they have their way Axl would face criminal charges as well.  

Who could believe that they have 'no hard feelings'.... who could still be buying this line?!
Oh... yeah, the 'impartial' are buying it.   :hihi:

Open your eyes!  

And oh impartial wise ones....

1)  Do you know what the process is for obtaining license for a GN'R song?  Surely you don't believe studio executives flip to "Axl Rose" in their rolodex and call him and ask him about it directly?
2) Do you know who deterimines royalties and how they are distributed?  Surely you do't believe Axl is sitting at a desk with a caluculator and a checkbook?
3) No one is yet to explain just HOW Axl has been able to fool the ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT AND RECORDING INDUSTRY.  Is he also responsible for the 'fake moon landing'?

and as a final note:  I'm not wasting my time even if you never agree with me.  I am expressing my opinions on a forum which exists for that very purpose - not for the purpose of converting individuals opinions... ( or lack therof!  ;D )

*modified for typo

Why do those who insist on looking upon all this in the way of taking sides, have to be so aggressive to put their point across? You know there's no point as now one knows how right they are lol so we are all guessing untill we hear more.

It's much easier to be biased in this case because you can just burst out with alot of hot air that you don't really know as fact.  But to take the right approach as they would in court you have to weigh up the positives and negatives on both sides don't you?

Axl is a genius i love and admire the guy.  But it's a safe thing to say he can be right awkward when he wants to.  Likes to have things his ownway.  Can make things very difficult and can seemingly cut off from those who piss him off and not worry too much about them.  Cancels gigs and tours without realising the fans have spent - as he would say - their hard earnt money and get nothing back. And has n't showed any kind of friendliness or respect for the people who grew up with him and created what they all benefit from now.  

With Slash and Duff though you do always get a certain sense of loyalty to the GNR machine. You can't really argue that, because they have always maintained a respect for Axl in interviews ect have even stood up for him.  

 As i have said before i think they realised - we have been too nice for too long and not got any kind of contact or respect from Axl  and feel for what ever reason now they want to stick up for themselves a bit more.  

Maybe they haven't been recieving what they should in terms of royalties.  Just the other day on the news it had a story about artists even as huge as David Bowie not being paid what they are owed in royalties.  So it's not inconcievable that they have not been getting what they are owned - meer speculation on my part, but it's not too far fetched a possibility is it?  

Anyway to be a fan of somebody's work does not mean you have to agree  with everything and anything they do or say do you ?  You don't even have to like the person to like the music.  It would be silly to live that way for somebody else who you will never know.

Anyway hey a reply from Axl must be due so we will get a fuller picture of the truth - i'm sure Axl has alot of valid points to make. Maybe alot of telling - as yet- unknown truths about what went on.

Whatever happens though I'll be buying both Contraband and Chinese Democracy - it won't shade my enjoyment of the music - aslong as the music is  good.

hehe.  I'm an avid Axl supporter and proud of it  : ok:


I'm chill.   :-*


I'm pissed cuz I was honestly warming up to the idea of VR and looking forward to what they had to offer...  I stayed up late two nights trying to catch the damn video on MTV2!  I actually got a bit excited when I heard Slither on my local rock radio station the first time.  I was glad to see them moving on.  

Did I like Slash?  I've kept up my gaurd in this regard.  The way he contradicts himself has made me feel as though he should not be taken at face value.  Now that this has happened - I feel like "Motherfucker!  Urghhh.   Grrrr...  Etc."  I suspected something was going on behind the scenes but hoped there wasn't.
As for Duff...  This sheds a lot of light in the statements Axl has made since HOB, RIR3, in the gnronline press release, and the comments Axl made during the 2002 tour.

Anyhow... To be fair to what I think you are getting at in your question - Axl has always meant more to me in GN'R than Slash or Duff.   :love:


I get what you are saying.  Fair enough.  I do not deny that my emotions have been ignited.  The anger that is manifest in my opionion is a product of the underlying sadness and dissapointment that I feel as a result of this action.  Keep in mind that this lawsuit as we know it right now consists only of an offensive.  I think my presenting a defensive at this point, armed with what we do know up to this point, is understandable and quite fair game.  If Axl were taking action against Slash/Duff, then it would be fair game for anyone to analyze that action.  Same thing here.  There is at this point only one side being presented.  I think its understandable that one may want to formulate 'the other side' at this point.
Especially 'one' such as myself who has a firm belief in Axl's intentions and integrity.


I agree. hehe
Me too.


Thats where believing in someone, trusting thier person as it were, comes into play.  
It has a lot to do with emotion and matters of the heart.  I do not deny that Axl has captured mine.
Through everything he has shared of himself - I have found him to be honest and real - through
actions good and bad exposing characteristics both virtuous and flawed, strong and week, inspirational and comforting as well as disturbing and worrysome - I have always felt that he does not hide nor seek to misrepresent himself nor his intentions.  I respect that a great deal and find it lends itself towards my granting my trust and belief in him.


Who doesn't!  lol  And who in a position to have thier own way, would not indeed have it their way?


Sure, not going along with what others want makes 'things' difficult.  Its part of the aforementioned 'wanting to have things your own way'....  ;D


Why keep negativity in your life?


Thats a hefty assumption.  Anyone can say he doesn't care.  And I can say he does care.  Again, like I said, I can understand this kind of bitterness...   things have not been great for GN'R fans.  We have suffered a lot of dissapointments and inconveniences and frustration.  I say, as much as we feel these things, how can it not be considered that Axl likely  feels these things 10 times more than us?



And what have 'they' shown him?  What have they shown us?  Two faces.  Whatever feelings he has for any of them, he has always been honest about it.  That I respect.

They 'let' Axl believe he had rights that he didn't really have in effort 'to be nice'???
C'mon  :rofl:   Further... they just realized this???  They just realized that they were being too nice??
Sorry... its a pretty sad state when this is presented as some sort of valid explanation for thier lack of action and thier backtracking on a decades worth of actions/ non actions, statements and inherent acknowlegements.  


First of all - Axl does not sit in his kitchen cutting royalty checks.
So he would not be the one to take this 'up' with.

The action complains that he did not grant his consent for deals that would have generated royalties for them.  It also complains that in a case where he did grant his consent for a deal he did so only because he was able to negotiate and procure a separate fee for himself.

It seems Axl is in a financial position where he can afford to negotiate and take or leave an offer and they are not.   Whose fault is this?  They apparently don't have as much money as Axl and are pissed about it.  They apparently don't feel they have the earning potential that Axl has since he has the GN'R name and are pissed about that.  They don't have the 'pull' Axl does.  I can't help but recall Axl's comments in the  Feb 2000 Rolling Stone interview -  "When we were in airports and people are ignoring Duff and asking for my autograph, that didn't go over so well," Rose recalls. "The guys would say, you know, 'What am I? Linoleum? What am I? Wood?' " Things became progressively uglier. "There was an effort to bring me down," he says. "It was a king of the mountain thing."


I am emotionally invested in Guns N' Roses... There were times when I cried watching my old videos... seeing a small simple gesture like one of these guys taking a light off the other ones cigarette or leaning into the other one on stage.  It was like watching old home videos of your parents after a divorce.
It took time and with Axl's return (or should I say returns) and the passage of time and events I felt better.  But this latest development has opened up some old wounds and laid bare some unseemly going ons...   Know what I mean?  No in general I do not have to be 'into' someone to enjoy thier music... but there is a history with these guys and I can't separate it from feelings.  Its not like that with every band and every artist or every music I enjoy.  To me GN'R is something special beyond music.  

To put it simply this has soured my feelings towards Slash and Duff... and I'm in no mood to hear shit from them musically or otherwise.  If its my loss then so be it.  Its how I feel and I'm not going to stifle them for the sake of appearing 'above it all'.  I'm not built like that.


I would love to 'hear' something from Axl.. however, when it comes to pending legal matters the rule is to keep quiet about things publicly.  I'd be very surprised if any of them were to comment publicly about this.


Well, - whatever feels right to you -
obviously for me its a personal decision.
I didn't buy Greatest Hits just on principle.

As for CD... If Slash and Duff have thier way Axl will be mired down in legal bulshit in both civil and criminal courts for years to come...   The release of CD - at any point in the future - is going to be a joyous occasion public vindication of Axl's strength, determination, and integrity.

"I won't be told anymore that I been brought down in this storm and left so far out from the shore that I can't find my way back anymore"

Amen to that Axl.

I am emotionally invested in Guns N' Roses... There were times when I cried watching my old videos... seeing a small simple gesture like one of these guys taking a light off the other ones cigarette or leaning into the other one on stage.  It was like watching old home videos of your parents after a divorce.
It took time and with Axl's return (or should I say returns) and the passage of time and events I felt better.  But this latest development has opened up some old wounds and laid bare some unseemly going ons...   Know what I mean?  No in general I do not have to be 'into' someone to enjoy thier music... but there is a history with these guys and I can't separate it from feelings.  Its not like that with every band and every artist or every music I enjoy.  To me GN'R is something special beyond music.  

To put it simply this has soured my feelings towards Slash and Duff... and I'm in no mood to hear shit from them musically or otherwise.  If its my loss then so be it.  Its how I feel and I'm not going to stifle them for the sake of appearing 'above it all'.  I'm not built like that.


Hey you make alot of sense I'll give you that. ;)  when ur not so hot headed lol  notice how i edited my post so not for u to think i was picking on you? - see polite me lol  

What you said about the emotional investment believe me i know 1000%.  I have fought the GNR corner even at school - this was like 1993 people were turning anti Guns even then!?  But no i stood strong and proud lol  I have been a fan since 1992 have the battle scars too lol

I know what passions GNR raise from me.  I have 4 best mates and we are all obsessed - unique where we live lol  and love GNR so much! I promise u. Hey i'll even admit to pretending to have a mic in my hand doing the Axl moves lol   We have emptied pub Kareoke (? it's late and i can't spell japanese lol) nights  doing our bit for the GNR family lol.

But i know that at least 2 of the guys - actually none of them use the net.  But after spending money on gigs that don't happen on 2 occasions ( the same guy bought everyone elses on his card! owch lol)  it has pissed them off alot - especially after pulling out from Lisbon this year.  That was going to be an investment of time and money and people had to work to get that money u know? So this time around they are getting a little more pissed than they would usually because it hurts it does ur right.  

On this Lawsuit topic though i just try and balance my opinion with a bit of support and question equal to each side you know ?  

I have actually met Slash and that night he spent 3 hours if not more, taking time out for  everyone that wanted an autograph or wanted to shake his hand or just talk to him for a minute you know?  He was really a genuinly nice guy and didn't dissapoint anyone. And so i do feel the sense to stick up for him from my experience you know?  Obviously i can't say i know the guy, but i know how good he made us all feel that night you know?  We even missed our train and crashed out at the gates of the venue.

But not at the expence of Axl's - i have equal respect and when that guy appeared live on stage in the UK in 2002  i felt he rewarded me for every second i had been a fan you know?  And then i saw him again 2 days later in London and he was even better!  Those gigs were so important in my life really were the man is a genius.   Again i even slept outside the venue that bitter cold night lol

I've been buying more new/old bootleg vids and i get even more excited by them all you know which is why i have to remain loyal to all untill at least i know more you know?  

And you know what?  Those magic words " I won't be told anymore"  thats like my motto lol  

And you know what?  Those magic words " I won't be told anymore"  thats like my motto lol  

 : ok:
cool  :)
 :peace:

Eva, dont waste your time. You can think what you want, the fact is i just dont have the time to go through your posts right now. Maybe next weekend i will, if i have the time, but i doubt it.

But even if I did, the point is, you've already stated you are biased, I dont deal with people who are biased because no matter what I say about Axl, you've made up your mind, no matter the amount of proof, you'll turn a blind eye to Axl's errors in his ways, & turn things around to make anyone not in Axl's group look bad.

I'm not biased, I can look at things objectively, & i dont have to choose some stupid side. We arent there to know the whole story, whats the point of choosing sides. I like Axl's voice & his abilities, just like I like VR's abilities, & I'm not going to be immature & stupid & just choose 1 over the other just because neither side get along anymore

Besides I see what happens with my own eyes & be the judge. The difference between a rational thinking person & an unrational thinking person is that we can look at things objectively, because we are not biased. You (& the handful of Axl devotee's) have a bias (you've admitted yours already).

I can look at things objectively. See if Slash or Duff got on the mic & demanded a fan be kicked out for simply taking a few harmless pictures, or if they no-showed & caused 4 riots, I'd say to hell with Slash or/& Duff as people

But with you (& a few others here) If Axl does something, you always give him the benefit of the doubt or turn a blind eye to his actions. But if Slash or Duff did the same thing, you dont give them the benefit of the doubt & you presume things.

The fact of the matter is they havent done anything wrong at all except help make music that was great for all of us.

No matter what Axl does, I will always give him credit for the musician & showman he once was, just as I do for Slash & Duff. But unlike Slash & Duff, Axl's problems are well documented & we've even seen them for ourselfs, we have seen his actions & heard his words, when you guys bring up something about Slash or Duff its usually rumor or theories, Axl's actions & words are fact

We have seen or heard Axl:
* Kick FANS (yes fans like you & me) out of a concert they paid good money for over a few stupid pics. Its not like Axl hasnt been photographed before.
* Cancel or No Show concerts at the very last minute or walk out of concerts early, which in turn caused riots, which a though cant be entirely blamed on Axl, but they could've been avoided if Axl furfilled his commitments & cared about his fans. If he cared about his fans, he would've cared enough to play a full concert & give the people there money's worth rather than calling off a concert 1/3 into the set.

& Thats just a few things we've seen with out own eyes from Axl. What have Slash & Duff done to the fans? Nothing, which is why i dont get the hate & bias against them from yourself & the likes of yourself (Axl devotee's)

I dont even have any hate towards Axl even considering all his actions (I know there not all his fault & that he suffers from manic depression), I'm a fan of his music, just as i am of Slash Duff & any former Gunner (from the original Guns of course), why do you feel to take sides, why so much hate for them what have they done to you

Agghhh damn look i've rambled on & wasted enough time on this, we all know that it will never change, that you will continue to live in your dream world that Axl is holyier than thou, that CD is around the corner from being released, that everybody outside of the GNR fan base knows, anticipates & cares about what Axl's been doing for the past decade, that CD is gonna sell 30 million copies & Axl's going to be a big star again.

Even some of the biggest GNR fans have lost all hope of that happening (including myself, who in 2002 actually still had hope of that happening), but hey, you continue to believe whatever you want, just stop putting out theories & propaganda out there like you know for 100% that Slash & Duff are evil & out for Axl's blood (even thou Axl's done the same thing to them ever since they left "Axl's GNR")

You speak as though you believe what i wrote was intended soley for you?
LOL!  
I'm not wasting my time - believe me.  ;)  Don't worry about my time. Thanks.  : ok:


oh yippee...  I can think what I want!   :D  
 ::)


what the fuck is that?  :rofl:
You tell me about wasting my time?
You however - you "Post Reply" to posts that you say you haven't even read
what do you call that?   :rant:
Surely you can't believe that makes any sense?    :confused:

You don't have time to read the posts.. but you have time to make a post to attack the poster.  Interesting.


you keep telling me how I can not possibly hold a rational discussion because I'm on Axl's side....

and use that as an excuse to ignore everything I pointed out

you say you didn't even read my posts
so why are you responding!? :rant:

what would the discussions be like if everyone posted in the manner which you have?

----  "In reply to your posts I must say that I did not read your posts...
----  BUT I must reply anyway and say that whatever you said must be
----  all fucked up and contain no valid or sincere expressions becuase
----  I already know you are (an Axl fan/a Slash fan)."----


You are one confused individual.  You say you are objective.  
Then you say we weren't there so we don't know the whole story...
Then you say that you see what happens with your own eyes and therefore can 'be the judge'.

You say you 'don't have to choose some stupid side'...   I can almost picture a small boy crossing his arms in front of him, head down, pouting with tears rolling down his rosy little cheeks.  "I don't HAVE to choose some STUPID side!" he proclaims as he stamps his foot down.

So you do recognize there are sides then, eh?  You should because whether you meant to or not you have chosen a side.  Dont' believe me.  Watch in amazement as I demonstrate.



From this statement we can deduce that you have said "To hell with Axl as a person".


Lets get something straight.  This thread is about actions that Slash and Duff have taken.  Not Axl.  So you should address the things that you feel Axl has done in a civil manner in a thread pertaining to that.  Not turn try to turn this thread into an anti-Axl thread by making make all these generalizations and assumptions about me (and whichever others you refer to).  You are the one in this thread turning a blind eye.  Blind eye! Ha! Someone who posts how he didn't even read the posts he is replying to should not use the expression "Blind Eye"!  :hihi:

anyhow, I digress.. back to my demonstration...


so who is this "they" you refer to that hasn't done 'anything wrong at all'?

This becomes clear as you continue....
note in the parts that i underline and otherwise highlight...

SO YOU DON'T THINK IS ANYORE.. .INTERESTING


Those are the same things you mentioned above...
*sigh*
First of all if you want to discuss St. Louis or Montreal or Vancouver or Philly you should do so in a separate thread.  I will not respond here because its going way off topic and would be rather lengthy.  I will say that unlike you stated above - these events have not caused me to write Axl off as a person...  BUT ITS EVIDENT THAT YOU HAVE.. You said so yourself.  You said and I quote... "if Slash or Duff got on the mic & demanded a fan be kicked out for simply taking a few harmless pictures, or if they no-showed & caused 4 riots, I'd say to hell with Slash or/& Duff as people"
so you have done so with Axl... yet claim to be objective.


You keep talking about not taking sides.  Yet the only way you can rationalize being a fan of Axl's is that you like his music.  

You point out all these horrible things you say Axl has done to his fans - things you say show that he doesn't care about his fans.  Then you say you don't hate him cuz you know its not all his fault and that he's manic/depressive.  So do you believe he cares or not? Or do you believe his some asshole who just wants to throw out fans from shows for no good reason and who wants to cause riots?  To hell with Axl or not?
What do you believe?  
You dont' seem to know what you believe.  :no:

Well, I do.. and for this you want to condemn me?
For this you want to mock me?
You do not understand it?  If not.. okay then... like I said its a personal thing.  If you could understand it; however, you would understand why I am hurt, angry, and dissapointed in Slash and Duff's actions.


Yeah, its a real dream.  Every GN'R fan has been living a fucking dream for the past decade.  Its peachy i tell ya. ::)  


Hm... so you don't believe anymore.  And misery loves company, eh?
Its clear that you have some issues..
bitter, dissapointed, jaded, etc....
Its not uncommon in the GN'R world
These symptoms usually include an urge to bash Axl fans and those who are deemed "stupid enough to still believe in Axl and the new band"


Again with the giving me permission to believe what i want...?  
C'mon dude.


No I will not stop saying what I believe and what I think and what I feel!  
Ha! What are you worried about?  That others may believe it also.
Whats it to you?
Anyway, I thought you said you didn't read what i posted!  :hihi:


Like I know?  How can you use the words "theories" and "propaganda" and then say I've presented that I "know"?  
I KNOW how to read.  I KNOW what they are asking for in that law suit.
The facts of what the lawsuit asks for is INDISPUTABLE... its fact.
They are claiming criminal intent on Axl's part.  READ IT.  They claim "FRAUD" "MALICE" & "INTENT".  

and finally..


ahahahah!  you say you haven't picked sides but I can't help but wonder if you aren't full of it!
First off I love how you quote the fucking suit ... "Axl's GN'R"....  

what you just said reveals so much on so many different levels!

You want to condem me for what you call "making out that Slash and Duff are out for Axl's bloold"
and then you turn around and yourself claim that
Axl in fact has 'done the same thing to them ever since (they parted ways).'

How's that?

How can you say I am wrong for saying Slash and Duff are doing something and then turn right around and say  (in parenthesis no less!)  Axl is doing/has been doing the same something. ?

what happened to 'we weren't there'?!
Its fucking hilarious.
Its just so riduculous.
Even if you never read this either (lol!)
I'm sure others will enjoy the humourous display of denial.

 : ok:

pssst...  someone tell eNgleS that his bias is showing  :hihi:

These posts make me woner whats wrong with us GNR fans. Aswell as being obsessed it seems some of us are getting senile too