Slash & Duff to sue Axl! part 2 (New info in Slash/Duff lawsuit)

[Death Cube K]

specially the one of him trying to re-record for black hawk down, sick.

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

[insupportofaxl]

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

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.
 

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.

 

[killingvector]

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.

[Crashdiet]

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

[blues_rock_axeman]

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

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.

[blues_rock_axeman]

specially the one of him trying to re-record for black hawk down, sick.

Yeah right. A new Welcome to the Jungle, updated to 2002 standards.

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.

[Will]

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.

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."

[Neon Mobil Horse]

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?

[Acquiesce]

specially the one of him trying to re-record for black hawk down, sick.

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

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.

[the dirt]

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

[Booker Floyd]

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

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.

[Booker Floyd]

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

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.

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?

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).

[Butch Français]

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

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

[D]

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

[Dr H Lecter]

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.

[pilferk]

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?

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....  

[Will]

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.

[Naupis]

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.

[Booker Floyd]

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

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.

[Voodoochild]

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