Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I wonder if this lawsuit was intentionally designed to steer attention away from the fact that these guys can't write music anymore, and/or because the singer sounds like crap live.

Edited by todreamofwolves
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

And my answer to that counsel would be, ''I couldn't give a toss''. 

Because it is rock and roll to not protect one's IP? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'd let it pass but that is just the way I am wired. 

I am not sure you are being completely honest here or if this is just the automatic anti-GN'R-bot in you who is typing, you know, the one who is inherently opposed to whatever the band does no matter what. Anyway, it is easy for kids with no business or real-world experience to be all punk about branding and IPR and brag about how they don't care about these things, but in the real world, when you are in charge of a band with revenues of more than $200 million per year, and you employ dozens of people who rely on your decisions for their livelihood, you tend to wise up. It becomes irresponsible to not care about these things. I am not saying that opposing any potential trademark infringement is the right decisions to make, but at least any decision should be part of a consistent strategy and be thought out, not just a silly knee-jerk response to anything that smells of "business". And through decades of being in the business (yes, it is a business) you tend to wise up (that being said, GN'R seems to have had more business acumen back in 1986 than most bands had in their beginning). It is an educational journey where you simply can't afford to be a punkish rebel anymore who wear your ignorance like some kind of badge of honor. What would have given you social points when you were a kid with little experience suddenly becomes ignorant and irresponsible. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at this point, GNR in fact became a patent troll. zero own creative output, just living off stuff they made 30+ years ago, starting lawsuits wherever they can. sad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the worlds biggest cover band are worried about people copying them LOL.

wait till TB hear about that cheese in Aldi, there will be hell to pay. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lio said:

I can't believe how unworldly some of you are. Or just instantly feel the need to criticize anything GNR, disregarding any common sense while doing so.

We have some PHDs specialized in the “art of criticizing” over here...And I have to admit these guys n girl are fkn’ PRO! For example..They can transform something normal and expected from who owns something in pages and pages of unprecedented catastrophe. :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, beer will taste excellent, fresh, new and dangerous. But than after few great shipment brewers will split claiming it is the other fault. So the main brewer will produce new shipment with some strange wannabe brewers which will be great for die hard beer fans but meh for the other ones. Rest of the brewers will make their own beer but not that successful. At the end they forget about feud and make peace. So now we are waiting for another great beer shipment. Cheers. :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a band who couldn't organize a piss up at a brewery they moved in pretty quick on this one 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lio said:

I can't believe how unworldly some of you are. Or just instantly feel the need to criticize anything GNR, disregarding any common sense while doing so.

that's because this legacy nostalgia rip-off "act" only deserves to be treated the same way as it treats its most faithful fans - like utter shit and without any respect.

many and many fans spent huge part of their life doing enthusiastic wok in their free time in doing free promotion of the band. 

all they got for that was threats, lawsuits, takedowns and loony tools in the wild, trying to destroy all they did, with official approval of the band, its management or the record label.

so fuck them and their attitude. I can only 100% support the brewery, because what they're doing, is just a mirror image of how GNR acts toward its fanbase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I consider myself a pretty out-of-the-ordinary fan, yet how come I don't feel the band has treated me like utter shit? They haven't released as much music as I would like, true, and they could definitely have a management that is better at communicating, but none of these, or the combination, makes me think they treat me without any respect. They haven't threatened me, they haven't sued me, they haven't taken down any of my videos (nor any videos that weren't theirs to take down in the first place?), and nor can I see they have officially approved any such actions.   

And to the extent that I have done any free promotion for the band, that was my decision alone and not something that makes me entitled to anything from the band. I never said anything positive about the band or its music to anyone with the assumption that in some quid-pro-quo transaction the band now owed me anything. In fact, not only have I realized that any good deeds from my side would likely go unrewarded, I have done everything under the assumption that a smack on the head is a more likely reaction from the band than any praise.

Regardless, a brewery infringing on GN'R's IP is very different from GN'R (even if we can prove it really is them doing it) taking down illegal content on the Internet that infringes on their IP. It is actually the opposite. If people don't see this then I would suggest that one's position on either the receiving or giving ends of the takedowns might skew the perceptions somewhat, because I think it would be pretty obvious to anyone having the most rudimentary understanding of intellectual property and not being emotionally involved in the issue.

 

Exactly this.  These things are just a business and quite frankly they were never really that much about art in the first place, thats kind of the root of these sorts of mentalities, these old ideas that used to exist about rock musicians that they were artists and as such one should expect some sort of puritanical behaviour from them or in their approach to the art.  This just isn't the case though, same goes for cinema, these things are about business and money and turnover, they supply a product and you purchase that product and thats about the extent of your relationship with them.  Furthermore, in a day where pop music has kind of fallen from prominence as a cultural force these things become all the more about money because its not the inexhaustible stream of money that it was for a period there, therefore these guys are a lot more stringent in their approach to protecting their investment.  And the older they get the worse it gets.  Would I LIKE it to be more about art?  Yeah, I would but its not and it won't ever be so why piss and moan about this shit?  Either deal with it or go listen to Beethoven, you want art and purity of intent and expression, there it is folks, distilled genius...but if you want rock stars that sing about sex money and fast cars you can't expect Van Gogh type behaviour from them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I resent aspects of the current GNR, this is standard business practice, if someone is copying or stealing something off you then you sue, don't know if it would have been my decision as it's all pretty inconsequential but I can see why they did it. Maybe that's what I resent GNR becoming commercialised, who knows 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

you can't expect Van Gogh type behaviour from them.

I can see a correlation between Van Gogh and rockstars.

2 hours ago, zombux said:

that's because this legacy nostalgia rip-off "act" only deserves to be treated the same way as it treats its most faithful fans - like utter shit and without any respect.

many and many fans spent huge part of their life doing enthusiastic wok in their free time in doing free promotion of the band. 

all they got for that was threats, lawsuits, takedowns and loony tools in the wild, trying to destroy all they did, with official approval of the band, its management or the record label.

so fuck them and their attitude. I can only 100% support the brewery, because what they're doing, is just a mirror image of how GNR acts toward its fanbase.

Bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EwXI32qh.jpg

Its not in Guns official font. Its a completely different word roses/rose. Different 'N.' Thats why Guns claim wasnt about any of their tm'd material being reproduced, the claim was about a likelihood of confusion leading to brand damage.

Thing is, that suggests we are all idiots. I know that breweries make fun names and references on their bottles and cans. Its very common. Most of what I know about Canadian history is off the back of a series of beers that are named after people and events. Don't mean I assume the beer was produced by the Canadian History department at the University or the Heritage Ministry. 

If Guns had their own beer out, this lawsuit would make perfect sense to me. But as it is it is clearly over reach. This is just a bit of culture, directly relatable to naming and singing an entire song about a Trademarked wine called Night Train (and using night train imagery on merch no less).

Sometimes in law and business one might be tempted to pull every lever at ones disposal. This is the old 'baby with a hammer' concept. Just because they can sue doesnt mean they need to. Thats technocracy, not business acumen.

Wonder if Tracii gets the "Guns" portion of the settlement? Its all so fucking tedious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, soon said:

If Guns had their own beer out, this lawsuit would make perfect sense to me. But as it is it is clearly over reach. This is just a bit of culture, directly relatable to naming and singing an entire song about a Trademarked wine called Night Train (and using night train imagery on merch no less).

It is really up to the band to decide on whether they want to be associated with that beer or not, or any other product that willfully exploits someone else's brand to sell a product. They don't have to demonstrate economic loss, just that it hurts the brand, and a brand is a very intangible thing. Basically, if they don't like the product or whatever it does to the public's perception of their brand, they can litigate, and that is their right.

The producer of Night Rain could have done the same to GN'R after the release of Appetite, but, contrary to GN'R and the beer, apparently they felt they benefitted from the association so they decided to let it be. And I am sure that was the right decision by the producers of Night Rain. It wasn't just free advertisement for them, if was fantastic endorsement.

I am not taking a stance on whether it makes sense to litigate in regards to this particular beer, I can't possible say, just that I understand the decision, that I don't have an issue with it, and that this is just another day in the office for those handling assets worth as much as GN'R's brand.

I think what could be interesting is to discuss the basis for this, the underlying intellectual property laws, but that is not for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

apparently they felt they benefitted

Objection! Attribution.

Sustained. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can see a correlation between Van Gogh and rockstars.

So can I now I think about it :lol:  But I was speaking specifically about his commitment to art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am not sure you are being completely honest here or if this is just the automatic anti-GN'R-bot in you who is typing, you know, the one who is inherently opposed to whatever the band does no matter what. Anyway, it is easy for kids with no business or real-world experience to be all punk about branding and IPR and brag about how they don't care about these things, but in the real world, when you are in charge of a band with revenues of more than $200 million per year, and you employ dozens of people who rely on your decisions for their livelihood, you tend to wise up. It becomes irresponsible to not care about these things. I am not saying that opposing any potential trademark infringement is the right decisions to make, but at least any decision should be part of a consistent strategy and be thought out, not just a silly knee-jerk response to anything that smells of "business". And through decades of being in the business (yes, it is a business) you tend to wise up (that being said, GN'R seems to have had more business acumen back in 1986 than most bands had in their beginning). It is an educational journey where you simply can't afford to be a punkish rebel anymore who wear your ignorance like some kind of badge of honor. What would have given you social points when you were a kid with little experience suddenly becomes ignorant and irresponsible. 

None of that stuff matters to me nor is particularly interesting. It is all just a load of bollocks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So can I now I think about it :lol:  But I was speaking specifically about his commitment to art.

He was somewhat of a rockstar, wasn't he? Alcohol, prostitutes, not taking responsibility and doing whatever he wanted. I suppose he was committed to his art but he was very much a failure in life... spending most his of adult life living off his family's money and that is why he could paint all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, EvanG said:

He was somewhat of a rockstar, wasn't he? Alcohol, prostitutes, not taking responsibility and doing whatever he wanted. I suppose he was committed to his art but he was very much a failure in life... spending most his of adult life living off his family's money and that is why he could paint all day.

Which is exactly my point, he was committed to art to the exclusion of money (and often common sense), he was 100% an artist, whereas your rock stars are kinda well invested smart businessmen at the head of a brand selling you lucrative product.  Van Gogh forsook shit for his art, forsook just about everything.  THATS a fucking artist, someone committed to the work, which isn't to say you can't be an artist and make a comfortable living at it but when you get off into that scented candles and beach towels territory then, well...

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they don't want to be associated with beer after their problems, and Duff and Slash writing extensively about it?

I don't think Guns N' Rose is a very good name for a beer anyway.

As Iron Maiden called theirs Trooper I think a Guns beer name would be better named after a song:

Such as Rocket Queen (pale) or November Rain (dark).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

 I think a Guns beer name would be better named after a song:

 

Nightrain maybe ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×