Jump to content

"Axl Rose Suing Guitar Hero Makers".


Chinese Destruction

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11. Rose is Currently the only original member of Guns N' Roses. Rose is the majority owner of and controls (i) Guns N' Roses business and assets; (ii) the rights to the Guns N' Roses name, (iii) trademarks and copyrights associated with the band; and (iv) the right to license and exploit the Guns N' Roses name and music. Rose's permission, consent and authority are required to use Guns N' Roses intellectual property.

Item 11. is very vague. As far as I've read, Axl was allowed to start a new band called "Guns N' Roses". Axl doesn't control Guns N' Roses outright 100%. The way he implies this will hurt his case. I really wonder what limited scope he has with respect use of Guns N' Roses name himself. He makes no mention of Slash or Duff's involvement in this section and I think the omission is problematic, vague and against the spirit of his own lawsuit.

Item 23. ? Axl didn't tell the European company not to play a commercial for the concert in Europe that featured Slash. I suggest Activision use this hypocrisy against him.

You know, I'll go through each item one by one and make a whole thread detailing how Activision can defeat Rose.

Edited by maximum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11. Rose is Currently the only original member of Guns N' Roses. Rose is the majority owner of and controls (i) Guns N' Roses business and assets; (ii) the rights to the Guns N' Roses name, (iii) trademarks and copyrights associated with the band; and (iv) the right to license and exploit the Guns N' Roses name and music. Rose's permission, consent and authority are required to use Guns N' Roses intellectual property.

Item 11. is very vague. As far as I've read, Axl was allowed to start a new band called "Guns N' Roses". Axl doesn't control Guns N' Roses outright 100%. The way he implies this will hurt his case. I really wonder what limited scope he has with respect use of Guns N' Roses name himself. He makes no mention of Slash or Duff's involvement in this section and I think the omission is problematic, vague and against the spirit of his own lawsuit.

Item 23. ? Axl didn't tell the European company not to play a commercial for the concert in Europe that featured Slash. I suggest hypocrasy Activision use this against him.

You know, I'll go through each item one by one and make a whole thread detailing how Activision can defeat Rose.

But if he made the deal with Activision based on their promise to represent him in a certain way, and it was repeated, and then they didn't honour that promise, isn't that the basis of the suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if he made the deal with Activision based on their promise to represent him in a certain way, and it was repeated, and then they didn't honour that promise, isn't that the basis of the suit?

You mean the "verbal" agreement with Riley? lol That's not a big fish here. Isn't Axl going to use the statute of Frauds against Azoff in that case? Burning a candle at both ends I might say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11. Rose is Currently the only original member of Guns N' Roses. Rose is the majority owner of and controls (i) Guns N' Roses business and assets; (ii) the rights to the Guns N' Roses name, (iii) trademarks and copyrights associated with the band; and (iv) the right to license and exploit the Guns N' Roses name and music. Rose's permission, consent and authority are required to use Guns N' Roses intellectual property.

Item 11. is very vague. As far as I've read, Axl was allowed to start a new band called "Guns N' Roses". Axl doesn't control Guns N' Roses outright 100%. The way he implies this will hurt his case. I really wonder what limited scope he has with respect use of Guns N' Roses name himself. He makes no mention of Slash or Duff's involvement in this section and I think the omission is problematic, vague and against the spirit of his own lawsuit.

Item 23. ? Axl didn't tell the European company not to play a commercial for the concert in Europe that featured Slash. I suggest hypocrasy Activision use this against him.

You know, I'll go through each item one by one and make a whole thread detailing how Activision can defeat Rose.

you can't never remove the moral right of a song owner, Slash and all the former members will always be tied with it, the moral right is not negotiable, you can't renounce to it and it last for eternity..

i really wondered what contract he signed with activision, if activision can prove that the contractual obligations Axl requested where impossible to comply, then Axl just got anal pounded and he can't do jack for that...

it's funny though, this might be pissing Axl real bad... first he sues activision because they use Slash and GNR and now the sue is tying them more than ever with a lot of publicity... i know, bad publicity is publicity and he might be doing it to promote his ChiDem tour, but punching another photographer would've probably done it instead of tying Slash with GNR name all over again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.

How do any of you know Activision breached the contract? Have you read it? You guys do realize a lawsuit is usually the last course of action, right?

Something tells me that the boys at Activision, think they might be ok.

yes because axl's lawfirm, one of themost powerful in the US(i used to play WoW with a guy who was one of the lawyers) would lodge the suit without first knowing whether or not they had a case? you're so fucking stupid.

Edited by Atlas Shrugged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

Edited by Atlas Shrugged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.

How do any of you know Activision breached the contract? Have you read it? You guys do realize a lawsuit is usually the last course of action, right?

Something tells me that the boys at Activision, think they might be ok.

yes because axl's lawfirm, one of themost powerful in the US(i used to play WoW with a guy who was one of the lawyers) would lodge the suit without first knowing whether or not they had a case? you're so fucking stupid.

it happens everyday, where there's monet there's lawyers, even if it is to fuck your own client........

now i'm not saying they don't have a case, there's some details we don't have, but nothing guarantees that the "most powerfull firm in the US" will win, nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fucking stupid on Axl's part. I don't see any reason how Guitar Hero has hurt the name of Guns N Roses in anyway. It helped to draw people back to Axl and the old lineup. However if Axl is so fucking concerned about the image of GnR and knowing he has moved on maybe he should tour the states, do media, and release more music instead of promising an album and having it take 10 years.

This is just another reason for the media to rip Axl for his drama queen bullshit. This is coming from someone who has been a fan since the late 80's and have never once turned my back on Axl and his band. I am just sick and tired of all the bullshit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fucking stupid on Axl's part. I don't see any reason how Guitar Hero has hurt the name of Guns N Roses in anyway. It helped to draw people back to Axl and the old lineup. However if Axl is so fucking concerned about the image of GnR and knowing he has moved on maybe he should tour the states, do media, and release more music instead of promising an album and having it take 10 years.

This is just another reason for the media to rip Axl for his drama queen bullshit. This is coming from someone who has been a fan since the late 80's and have never once turned my back on Axl and his band. I am just sick and tired of all the bullshit!

But then why didn't they just tell Axl what they were planning when they had the discussion about what Axl's concerns were. He could have just said no thanks, they could have used Slash and the VR songs. Or are you saying they were justified in lying to be able to use the song the way they wanted to and do whatever it took to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

Who are you calling Mongoloid? Who? You aren't presenting any argument.

So Axl can sue Activision based on Riley's verbal agreement under Item # 33 of the lawsuit but Irving Azoff can't win his lawsuit based on his verbal agreement with Axl? Which lawsuit does Axl want to lose?

Edited by maximum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to say uncle Axl, but that's just stupid. You can't win this.

Guitar Hero III had sales over one billion dollars. Odd that Axl is only suing for $20M.

Activision will gladly pay. This is just an expense of doing slimy business.

You can't be serious.

Edited by marlon_brando15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

It's a moot point, slash is not being sued,Activision is,and the reason is not for money,it's for thier blatant misuse and contractual obligations that were intentionally misused and abused,what is so difficult to comprehend that this is in no way about money,it's about drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what you believe in, to some people integrity still matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

It's a moot point, slash is not being sued,Activision is,and the reason is not for money,it's for thier blatant misuse and contractual obligations that were intentionally misused and abused,what is so difficult to comprehend that this is in no way about money,it's about drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what you believe in, to some people integrity still matters.

:rofl-lol: :rofl-lol: :rofl-lol:

Look at their site, Axl is already there: http://www.millerbarondess.com/our-clients/

Edited by marlon_brando15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

It's a moot point, slash is not being sued,Activision is,and the reason is not for money,it's for thier blatant misuse and contractual obligations that were intentionally misused and abused,what is so difficult to comprehend that this is in no way about money,it's about drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what you believe in, to some people integrity still matters.

If it is not about the money why 20 million. Why not sue for principal and legal fees. Or better yet make a statement now that if the suit is won the money will go to the poor. There are valid arguments on both sides here but come on is all about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

You call someone stupid and then use a term like mongoloid. Mongoloid is an insentive and outdated term. While some of us are trying to get over the fear of Axl's all powerful law firm why don't you attempt to try and get some social education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of Axl nut-swinging by 2 people here in this thread in particular is absolutely insane... Seriously that kind of fan devotion and defense is downright scary..

Funny how all of Axl's bitching about litigation that he seems more then willing to want to go after this. Not to mention the Irving Azoff case, and the Dr Pepper thing...

so if you own something anyone can use it for profit? Ok cool!

I aint swinging myself I see the mans point, I also now see why he is so careful with the band name and imagery. At the end of the day though I don't care much really it is a battle fought between lawyers about something that does not involve me except for the fact that this likely destroys any chance of a cool game with the current line up :shrugs:

I highly doubt there will ever be a game featuring the current line up. They're just not that well known to the general public.

What about the Chinese Democracy DLC on RB2? The whole album....

Yeh, because those songs featured the current line up yeh??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

It's a moot point, slash is not being sued,Activision is,and the reason is not for money,it's for thier blatant misuse and contractual obligations that were intentionally misused and abused,what is so difficult to comprehend that this is in no way about money,it's about drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what you believe in, to some people integrity still matters.

If it is not about the money why 20 million. Why not sue for principal and legal fees. Or better yet make a statement now that if the suit is won the money will go to the poor. There are valid arguments on both sides here but come on is all about the money.

No, unfortunately a slap on the wrist would not suffice to quell Activision from further actions like this,so you hit them where it hurts,in the pocketbook,the legal firm knows this and is proceeding with punitive damages because of contract contradictions on Activision's part,which were openly perpetrated, this action doesn't come as a surprise,it was mentioned a while back that it would have to be sorted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of Axl nut-swinging by 2 people here in this thread in particular is absolutely insane... Seriously that kind of fan devotion and defense is downright scary..

Funny how all of Axl's bitching about litigation that he seems more then willing to want to go after this. Not to mention the Irving Azoff case, and the Dr Pepper thing...

so if you own something anyone can use it for profit? Ok cool!

I aint swinging myself I see the mans point, I also now see why he is so careful with the band name and imagery. At the end of the day though I don't care much really it is a battle fought between lawyers about something that does not involve me except for the fact that this likely destroys any chance of a cool game with the current line up :shrugs:

I highly doubt there will ever be a game featuring the current line up. They're just not that well known to the general public.

What about the Chinese Democracy DLC on RB2? The whole album....

Yeh, because those songs featured the current line up yeh??

Yeh ,For the most part Yeh!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Axl??!! Slash being associated with WTTJ and GNR.... 20 mill??!! I'll usually be the first to defend axl but this is complete and utter bullshit.. this is as much bullshit as the techno guy suing axl for 3 seconds of sound effects in Rhiad...

Not cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

You call someone stupid and then use a term like mongoloid. Mongoloid is an insentive and outdated term. While some of us are trying to get over the fear of Axl's all powerful law firm why don't you attempt to try and get some social education.

Mongoloid was probably a mistake, the categories are idiot,imbecile and moron,feel free to choose the one that most describes your IQ, and what does it matter if Axl is listed as a client? That is not misleading in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone debating the merit, or axl's chances in this case is a fucking mongoloid. lawfirms don't sue companies as powerful as activision on the off chance that they might win, or that their claim just might hold up in court - activision breached the contract and as a result is liable to be sued, since they did breach the contract they will be paying $20 million to our friend Axl.

"hey axl man, so you wanna give that activision lawsuit a shot? its a 50/50 chance we'll win and if we don't you're looking at millions of dollars in legal fees, costly court proceedings that could possibly drag on for years, and if we do lose you might be liable to a counter-suit. so what do ya say, wanna give it a shot? one last hoorah?"

You call someone stupid and then use a term like mongoloid. Mongoloid is an insentive and outdated term. While some of us are trying to get over the fear of Axl's all powerful law firm why don't you attempt to try and get some social education.

Mongoloid was probably a mistake, the categories are idiot,imbecile and moron,feel free to choose the one that most describes your IQ, and what does it matter if Axl is listed as a client? That is not misleading in any way.

It's sad and shows alot about your mentality that you cannot have a discussion without calling someone names. And for the record I never said anything about Axl being listed as a client anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...