Axl Rose Close to Losing $20M Lawsuit Against Activision for Featuring Slash

[Rustycage]

With nothing to document Axl's claim, how could it ever be said that he had a case?

I believe that was the big issue. It was just he said/she said.

Nothing in the public domain, but there was definitely emails and contracts sent back and forth, the case would have been thrown out had it just been based on "he said, she said" I don''t think Axl actively seeks lawsuits so if he did go in for this one it was because he felt it was necessary to protect himself and GnR. The case would not have reached court if there was no evidence is all I'm saying, Axl's attorneys would have strongly advised him against the suit. It was a bit of a hail mary in as far as they knew the statute of limitations was up. GH did in fact break the conditions and they would have likely lost the suit had he followed up sooner, seems likely the GnR GH game was a possibility though, Axl has never been too shy in suing so if he delayed it, it was because of a claim from GH that they were willing to work things out, outside of the courts.

It wouldn't necessarily be thrown out on he said/she said in a civil court.

It's even said that the evidence doesn't support Axl's claims.

[downzy]

With nothing to document Axl's claim, how could it ever be said that he had a case?

I believe that was the big issue. It was just he said/she said.

Nothing in the public domain, but there was definitely emails and contracts sent back and forth, the case would have been thrown out had it just been based on "he said, she said" I don''t think Axl actively seeks lawsuits so if he did go in for this one it was because he felt it was necessary to protect himself and GnR. The case would not have reached court if there was no evidence is all I'm saying, Axl's attorneys would have strongly advised him against the suit. It was a bit of a hail mary in as far as they knew the statute of limitations was up. GH did in fact break the conditions and they would have likely lost the suit had he followed up sooner, seems likely the GnR GH game was a possibility though, Axl has never been too shy in suing so if he delayed it, it was because of a claim from GH that they were willing to work things out, outside of the courts.

It's even said that the evidence doesn't support Axl's claims.

Where does it say that?

The dispute seemed to be over the statute of limitations, not on whether verbal or written agreements were broken.

[Rustycage]

With nothing to document Axl's claim, how could it ever be said that he had a case?

I believe that was the big issue. It was just he said/she said.

Nothing in the public domain, but there was definitely emails and contracts sent back and forth, the case would have been thrown out had it just been based on "he said, she said" I don''t think Axl actively seeks lawsuits so if he did go in for this one it was because he felt it was necessary to protect himself and GnR. The case would not have reached court if there was no evidence is all I'm saying, Axl's attorneys would have strongly advised him against the suit. It was a bit of a hail mary in as far as they knew the statute of limitations was up. GH did in fact break the conditions and they would have likely lost the suit had he followed up sooner, seems likely the GnR GH game was a possibility though, Axl has never been too shy in suing so if he delayed it, it was because of a claim from GH that they were willing to work things out, outside of the courts.

It's even said that the evidence doesn't support Axl's claims.

Where does it say that?

The dispute seemed to be over the statute of limitations, not on whether verbal or written agreements were broken.

Regarding what the claims were; from your article source:

- Originally, Rose sued for fraud and breach of contract, and in August, the judge struck the fraud claim because of the statute of limitations issue.

Then:

- What was left was deciding the contract issue -- and the parties disputed the form that contract took.

Just because they were disputing the type of contract, that doesn't mean they were conceding that they breached the contract. I'm sure their lawyers were smart enough to know that you don't have to fight a guaranteed win against Axl's claims because at best, too much time had passed. The emails being considered a verbal contract that default the decision of the statute of limitations so why try to raise anything else? Axl was already in a hole by trying to excuse the wasted time by, something I find amusing, blaming Activision.

Also from your post:

- "The only extrinsic evidence supports Activision's interpretation and does not support Rose's interpretation," the judge ruled in a tentative order that was later affirmed.

[magisme]

Yeah, I took it the way Rusty is saying when I read it through quickly.

[Kosonen]

Axl should lose 20 pounds

[downzy]

With nothing to document Axl's claim, how could it ever be said that he had a case?

I believe that was the big issue. It was just he said/she said.

Nothing in the public domain, but there was definitely emails and contracts sent back and forth, the case would have been thrown out had it just been based on "he said, she said" I don''t think Axl actively seeks lawsuits so if he did go in for this one it was because he felt it was necessary to protect himself and GnR. The case would not have reached court if there was no evidence is all I'm saying, Axl's attorneys would have strongly advised him against the suit. It was a bit of a hail mary in as far as they knew the statute of limitations was up. GH did in fact break the conditions and they would have likely lost the suit had he followed up sooner, seems likely the GnR GH game was a possibility though, Axl has never been too shy in suing so if he delayed it, it was because of a claim from GH that they were willing to work things out, outside of the courts.

It's even said that the evidence doesn't support Axl's claims.

Where does it say that?

The dispute seemed to be over the statute of limitations, not on whether verbal or written agreements were broken.

Regarding what the claims were; from your article source:

- Originally, Rose sued for fraud and breach of contract, and in August, the judge struck the fraud claim because of the statute of limitations issue.

Then:

- What was left was deciding the contract issue -- and the parties disputed the form that contract took.

Just because they were disputing the type of contract, that doesn't mean they were conceding that they breached the contract. I'm sure their lawyers were smart enough to know that you don't have to fight a guaranteed win against Axl's claims because at best, too much time had passed. The emails being considered a verbal contract that default the decision of the statute of limitations so why try to raise anything else? Axl was already in a hole by trying to excuse the wasted time by, something I find amusing, blaming Activision.

Also from your post:

- "The only extrinsic evidence supports Activision's interpretation and does not support Rose's interpretation," the judge ruled in a tentative order that was later affirmed.

The form of the contract matters, since the form of the guarantees regarding Slash not being in the game were expressed verbally by Activision, hence the statute of limitations on those obligations are only two years. The emphasis should be on "extrinsic evidence," as it precludes the emails that were sent by GNR via their publisher relating to the matter of Slash. The verbal expressions by Activision were not made after the release of the game (obviously, since Slash was in the game), hence Axl had two years to make a claim. He didn't, likely as a result of bad legal advise. But had Axl filed his grievance say, in 2008, he would have been within the two year period of those verbal commitments by Activision.

[Val22]

God whether they want it or not, it seems that Axl and Slash will forever be tied together by GNR.

I think Axl should just let it go. He should also agree to allow any GNR songs to be in movies, tv shows or anywhere else. Make some more money off the GNR name and maybe more people will again become aware that GNR and Axl Rose are still alive and well.

[GUNNER PT]

Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up.

He doesn't need to do that. Slash did it by himself when he abandoned the ship.

On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.

Maybe Slash doesn't have a (solo) song, epic enough ... or maybe Slash isn't relevant enough outside of GN'R.

Activision wanted to sell his product ... so they did what they thought it was the best to achieve that. Simple.

It seems as though Activision isn't arguing that they breached their contract with Axl, but that his ability to file litigation expired after the two year window. At least that's my take.

That's pretty clear but, you know .. .there's some people who doesn't lose a chance

[Val22]

Well it seems to me that every original member of GNR is still referred to as "member of GNR".

Even Matt and Gilby. It seems once you're in GNR, you will forever be mentioned as such.

I honestly think Duff, Slash, Izzy, Steven and even Matt should be known now for themselves and not always mentioned as "member of GNR".

I mean they have done things since those days. Does the ex-members get some kind of paycheck if they are mentioned as "former member of GNR". That would be cool

Edited October 23, 2014 by Val22

[Rustycage]

The form of the contract matters, since the form of the guarantees regarding Slash not being in the game were expressed verbally by Activision, hence the statute of limitations on those obligations are only two years. The emphasis should be on "extrinsic evidence," as it precludes the emails that were sent by GNR via their publisher relating to the matter of Slash. The verbal expressions by Activision were not made after the release of the game (obviously, since Slash was in the game), hence Axl had two years to make a claim. He didn't, likely as a result of bad legal advise. But had Axl filed his grievance say, in 2008, he would have been within the two year period of those verbal commitments by Activision.

I know it matters and I know which evidence they're referring to but at best, Axl has a verbal agreement (the substance of which most likely would have been debated) which is already a losing battle for him at that time. The emails are obviously a verbal. Activision never admitted to the breach of contract as far as I've read it. Why? Because they never had to. Why? Because it never got that far. Who has seen the emails here? To dismiss the claim wasn't to validate that the emails were indeed what Axl says they were. That's taking a big short cut.

Your quote:

It seems as though Activision isn't arguing that they breached their contract with Axl, but that his ability to file litigation expired after the two year window.

^That's the short cut. They didn't need to yet because the technicality did all of the work for them. Activision's people are big boys and I'm sure they were on top of it. Axl claims they made a verbal agreement and is slapped with the statute. GG Activision.

My point is simply that it was stated that no evidence showed Activision were in the wrong. Again, it's too big of a shortcut to omit the now moot debate over the emails.

He doesn't need to do that. Slash did it by himself when he abandoned the ship.

Uh, no. Leaving a band doesn't forfeit your credit.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Rustycage

[Nosaj Thing]

Yeah, I took it the way Rusty is saying when I read it through quickly.

Same here. I basically agree with everything Rusty is saying here.

Thanks for the link, downzy.

[downzy]

The form of the contract matters, since the form of the guarantees regarding Slash not being in the game were expressed verbally by Activision, hence the statute of limitations on those obligations are only two years. The emphasis should be on "extrinsic evidence," as it precludes the emails that were sent by GNR via their publisher relating to the matter of Slash. The verbal expressions by Activision were not made after the release of the game (obviously, since Slash was in the game), hence Axl had two years to make a claim. He didn't, likely as a result of bad legal advise. But had Axl filed his grievance say, in 2008, he would have been within the two year period of those verbal commitments by Activision.

I know it matters and I know which evidence they're referring to but at best, Axl has a verbal agreement (the substance of which most likely would have been debated) which is already a losing battle for him at that time. The emails are obviously a verbal. Activision never admitted to the breach of contract as far as I've read it. Why? Because they never had to. Why? Because it never got that far. Who has seen the emails here? To dismiss the claim wasn't to validate that the emails were indeed what Axl says they were. That's taking a big short cut.

Your quote:

It seems as though Activision isn't arguing that they breached their contract with Axl, but that his ability to file litigation expired after the two year window.

^That's the short cut. They didn't need to yet because the technicality did all of the work for them. Activision's people are big boys and I'm sure they were on top of it. Axl claims they made a verbal agreement and is slapped with the statute. GG Activision.

My point is simply that it was stated that no evidence showed Activision were in the wrong. Again, it's too big of a shortcut to omit the now moot debate over the emails.

I agree that Activision didn't need to argue the merits of the contract, as a result of their verbal commitments/obligations, but that doesn't mean they would have won that battle. And it isn't the emails per se that matter, there could have been further evidence put forth that illustrates that verbal commitments were made by Activision that Slash would not be part of the game.

Also, the judge seems to be giving the verbal commitments consideration since their statute of limitations were the determinative factor and not so much on whether Activision was in breach. If Axl had no case, why did the judge immediately dismiss the allegation of fraud but gave consideration to the breach of contract complaint?

Had the judge ruled that the window was indeed 4 years, then I'm sure Activision would have argued that the verbal obligations should not be considered part of the contract, but that's a hell of stretch since in the state of California verbal/implied contracts are enforceable under law (see here). If it could be established that Axl/GNR had a verbal contract with Activision in which they committed to not having Slash represented in the game, then absolutely Axl had a case. But again, that's not what the case came down to.

[Rustycage]

I agree that Activision didn't need to argue the merits of the contract, as a result of their verbal commitments/obligations, but that doesn't mean they would have won that battle. And it isn't the emails per se that matter, there could have been further evidence put forth that illustrates that verbal commitments were made by Activision that Slash would not be part of the game.

Just because there could have been doesn't mean there was.Which leads me to...

Also, the judge seems to be giving the verbal commitments consideration since their statute of limitations were the determinative factor and not so much on whether Activision was in breach. If Axl had no case, why did the judge immediately dismiss the allegation of fraud but gave consideration to the breach of contract complaint?

Giving consideration to the claim =/= siding with Axl. If there is a debatable area in the mind of the judge regarding the emails, that =/= that Axl's claim is immediately validated.

Had the judge ruled that the window was indeed 4 years, then I'm sure Activision would have argued that the verbal obligations should not be considered part of the contract, but that's a hell of stretch since in the state of California verbal/implied contracts are enforceable under law (see here). If it could be established that Axl/GNR had a verbal contract with Activision in which they committed to not having Slash represented in the game, then absolutely Axl had a case. But again, that's not what the case came down to.

It didn't come to that stage because it didn't reach that stage. From what I've seen of your posts on this subject, you're basically saying that because they didn't dive that deep into the case, they are admitting that they breached and only went for the technicality as their defense. That's kinda backwards and a subjective short cut.

In the end, nothing is validated from Axl and we have nothing to show that Activision was truly in the wrong. Everything right now regarding who was right and wrong is more speculation.

[downzy]

I don't agree. Again, if the judge immediately dismisses the allegation of fraud but entertains the issue of breach of contract, obviously the judge must have considered merit was present. Why does the judge dismiss one charge immediately but consider another? I'm not saying that because the judge allowed for arguments on the breach of contract that Axl would have necessarily won on this front, but to argue that Axl had absolutely no case goes against what the prevailing judge seemed to think.

I don't consider Activision not taking issue with the verbal nature a subjective shortcut. If Activision's legal defence truly took issue with the verbal nature of their commitments, they would have raised them, along with all of their other defences (including the statute of limitation defence) within their argument summary. Maybe they did, but I haven't read anything that indicated that was the case.

Moreover, do you honestly believe that Axl's legal team couldn't establish the verbal commitments made by Activision in regards to the issue of Slash? You keep harping on the fact that it never got to that stage, but let's assume it had. Let's assume that Axl didn't fuck up and had filed his litigation in 2009, making the technicality issue moot. I would have to assume that Axl's legal team isn't bring this case to court without a solid bevy of evidence that clearly outline the verbal commitments made by Activision. Moreover, Axl's legal team could have subpoenaed Activision employees to testify, meaning that Activision employees would likely have to purger themselves were Activision to argue that no such commitments were made.

Activision is basically left with three defences. One, that no verbal commitment was offered with respect to Slash. Sorry, but they're probably going to lose that on the simple basis that Axl isn't filing this lawsuit without documented proof (or testimony from Activision employees). The second defence they could have employed was to argue that the written contract should be considered binding and that anything expressed outside of the written contract should be ignored. Maybe they win on this defence, but again, and this is just my opinion, I doubt it. The third, and probably most outlandish argument, is that the verbal commitments should not be viewed upon as a legal contract. And at that point Activision is arguing against established jurisprudence. Good luck with that.

[Rustycage]

Well, trying to argue about what the judge is thinking is just more of the same.

If you haven't read what's Activisions total rebuttal was, then why try to speculate on it?

Axl's legal team probably does everything Axl tells them to as their client. Just like every other employee of his. If Axl says jump, do you think his lawyers have the cajones to say no? The point is no one can say for sure. Speculation.

As for the last paragraph, why do we have to assume that Axl was acting rationally when taking someone to court? This is the same guy that thought that just because the OKC bombing had recently happened, the case against him shouldn't be of concern. He's out there in La La Land.

There's nothing really to argue. The case was pretty much DOA due to the technicality. What may or may not have transpired while debating what may or may not be in the documents about something Activision may or may not have promised. That's a dead end for anyone trying to declare what truly happened. I just don't immediately assume that because Axl took it to court, and the judge gave some leeway, that we should assume that he was right. What we do know is Axl's demands and expectations were once again...insane.

It's probably best that he dismissed it because articles all over the place about him trying to do that with Activision over Slashgate would only further paint him as a pathetic bitter man that is spiraling down to his retirement.

Could it be more ironic though? Axl was late again.

[wasted]

It's about what Activision agreed to. Axls demands were in the contract, or so they thought. The verbal agreement wasn't binding.

[downzy]

It's about what Activision agreed to. Axls demands were in the contract, or so they thought. The verbal agreement wasn't binding.

Yes, verbal agreements are binding (with exceptions) in the state of California. If they weren't binding, the case would have been dismissed the moment it was put before the court. It wasn't.

[wasted]

It's about what Activision agreed to. Axls demands were in the contract, or so they thought. The verbal agreement wasn't binding.

Yes, verbal agreements are binding (with exceptions) in the state of California. If they weren't binding, the case would have been dismissed the moment it was put before the court. It wasn't.

There was something about a verbal or in an email but it was too late. Like after the contract maybe? I can't remember. I thought it was done a few years ago. I guess could delay, fight it. Basically they scammed him. Didn't care about what he agreed too.

[dalsh327]

It sounded like Axl was making a point in how artists can be taken advantage of in contracts and wanted to deal with it publicly.

At that time, Activision and Universal had the same parent company, Vivendi. Since then, Activision's bought themselves out from Vivendi but they can't legally be completely free for another year and probably have to resolve any existing lawsuits against the company. The game is no longer being made and they lost a lot of money.

Activision is far from broke, they spent half a billion on Destiny.

May 2014 -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-21/vivendi-to-sell-half-of-activision-stake-for-about-866-million.html

The sale of 41.5 million shares is being made under an existing agreement, Santa Monica, California-based Activision said yesterday in a statement. The sale is equal to 5.8 percent of Activision and the sale price will be announced today before Nasdaq trading starts, Paris-based Vivendi said today.

The sale frees up cash for Vivendi, which has been restructuring and sold most of its stake in Activision last year in a deal led by Bobby Kotick, chief executive officer of the leading U.S. video-game publisher. The French conglomerate has announced more than $30 billion of asset sales to focus on units including pay-TV business Canal Plus and record label Universal Music Group.

Vivendi will be left with 41.5 million shares, or about 5.8 percent, of Activision, the maker of Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. Vivendi is barred from selling additional shares until 2015 in accordance with terms of last year’s agreement, according to an April 4 filing. The company’s intention is to eventually sell all its Activision shares.

[downzy]

Well, trying to argue about what the judge is thinking is just more of the same.

But aren't you doing the same thing? You've made up your mind that Axl's case had no basis on the merits of the argument when that is not what the verdict says. Our debate started with you stating this:

It's even said that the evidence doesn't support Axl's claims.

But that's not what the judge in this case is saying. He ultimately denied Axl's claim of breach of contract due to a technicality, not as a result of evidence.

If you haven't read what's Activisions total rebuttal was, then why try to speculate on it?

True, in fairness they could have very well included arguments against the legality of the verbal commitments by Activision, but again, no where in any of the articles I've read has it been mentioned. Again, not saying that they didn't, but that I haven't seen it.

Axl's legal team probably does everything Axl tells them to as their client. Just like every other employee of his. If Axl says jump, do you think his lawyers have the cajones to say no? The point is no one can say for sure. Speculation.

Few, including myself, know of Axl's litigation history, but as someone else pointed out in this thread, he seems to be on the defensive more than he goes on offence. His lawyers, who I understand are some of the best in the business, have a fiduciary responsibility to inform their client of the likelihood of the case. If they do not, they themselves can be liable for misrepresentation or failure to adequately advise their client.

As for the last paragraph, why do we have to assume that Axl was acting rationally when taking someone to court? This is the same guy that thought that just because the OKC bombing had recently happened, the case against him shouldn't be of concern. He's out there in La La Land.

Who knows, but considering that the judge didn't dismiss the breach of contract allegation, rationally or not, there was some merit worth pursuing. And I think you're taking his comments on the Oklahoma bombings and his legal issues with Erin somewhat out of context. I wouldn't consider him crazy simply because he felt the superficiality of her legal claims in light of the terrorist attacks. I took his comments more as a indignation of Erin, not that he was somehow above the law because he was sensitive to those who died as a result of the bombing.

There's nothing really to argue. The case was pretty much DOA due to the technicality. What may or may not have transpired while debating what may or may not be in the documents about something Activision may or may not have promised. That's a dead end for anyone trying to declare what truly happened. I just don't immediately assume that because Axl took it to court, and the judge gave some leeway, that we should assume that he was right.

Yes, I agree that it was DOA as a result of Axl's decision not to pursue his legal rights earlier. But again, are you seriously trying to tell me that Activision didn't verbally commit to Axl that Slash wouldn't be in the game? Do you honestly think that Axl would sign off on the inclusion of WTTJ had assurances not been provided? Knowing all that we know about how much Axl detests Slash, and how close Axl was to releasing Chinese Democracy at the time, do you really think that Axl and his business/legal team didn't bring up the issue of whether one of the most famous guitar players would be associated with one of the biggest games of the year? Come on dude, let's move past being stubborn on this.

Don't try to tell me that Activision was honest on this one particular matter. It's not as though Activision has a clean rap sheet when dealing with other musicians. Other artists, including Courtney Love and No Doubt have sued Activision over shady dealings relating to Guitar Hero. This isn't a company noted for its integrity when acting on good faith with other artists. Regardless of what you might think of Axl and his sanity, he's not alone in taking Activision to court.

What we do know is Axl's demands and expectations were once again...insane.

Again, that's besides the point. Did Activision provide assurances (verbal or written) to Axl's camp regarding Slash's involvement in the game? That's all that matters. Whether you think Axl is a saint or a demanding piece of shit is irrelevant.

It's probably best that he dismissed it because articles all over the place about him trying to do that with Activision over Slashgate would only further paint him as a pathetic bitter man that is spiraling down to his retirement.

Could it be more ironic though? Axl was late again.

I do agree with some of the points you raise here. Ultimately, Axl was either the victim of bad advise from either this management or legal team or he was trying to walk a fine line and he eventually fell off. I get why he didn't file the civil complaint prior to the release of Chinese Democracy. As much as Slash appearing on the game might have hurt the GNR brand (in Axl's mind), Axl suing Activision over the matter just prior to Chinese Democracy's release would have been a PR nightmare. And as I noted earlier, I very much doubt Axl thought his own game with Activision was in play until late 2010, since he had already sold the rights to Chinese Democracy to Guitar Hero's rival, Rock Band. So that argument, for me, doesn't hold much water. He had to have know at some point during 2008 that he wasn't getting his own Guitar Hero game, since he licensed Shacklers with Rock Band. If I had to guess, Axl and/or his legal team thought they had four years to file litigation, when really they had two.

And I agree with the irony of it all.

[hitmanhart408]

reading opinions in this thread is giving me a headache. Honest question, how many of you have actually read all (or at least some) of the briefs?

Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the argument Axl was making was promissory estoppel. It was a question of when does the clock start running when Activision continued to offer/promise/persuade Axl different things in order to NOT file suit. Axl also claimed Azoff and Doc kept delaying his filing of the suit by wanting to wait to see what Activision would give him.

Another thing people here do not take into consideration is that there was an oral agreement between Activision and Beta. Beta was an agent on behalf of Axl. Beta asked Axl and Axl OK'd the deal after Activision orally told Beta there would be no Slash (Or Velvet Revolver) represented in the game. Then there was a follow-up 'confirmation' email by Activision to Beta but that email left out a lot of details which left a lot of room for argument in favor of Activision. In court, you HAVE to look at both the oral agreement and the follow-up email.

One more thing to note, the summary judgment was argued and granted for something Beta had said. She basically contradicted herself. I don't remember what it was.

Edited October 24, 2014 by hitmanhart408

[downzy]

reading opinions in this thread is giving me a headache. Honest question, how many of you have actually read all (or at least some) of the briefs?

Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the argument Axl was making was promissory estoppel. It was a question of when does the clock start running when Activision continued to offer/promise/persuade Axl different things in order to NOT file suit. Axl also claimed Azoff and Doc kept delaying his filing of the suit by wanting to wait to see what Activision would give him.

Another thing people here do not take into consideration is that there was an oral agreement between Activision and Beta. Beta was an agent on behalf of Axl. Beta asked Axl and Axl OK'd the deal after Activision orally told Beta there would be no Slash (Or Velvet Revolver) represented in the game. Then there was a follow-up 'confirmation' email by Activision to Beta but that email left out a lot of details which left a lot of room for argument in favor of Activision. In court, you HAVE to look at both the oral agreement and the follow-up email.

One more thing to note, the summary judgment was argued and granted for something Beta had said. She basically contradicted herself. I don't remember what it was.

Yeah, not many, including myself, have read the proper briefs so arguments are made on mostly speculation. Thanks for the insight.

[alfierose]

I guess he should have had a lawyer on this in the first instance ensuring the original agreement was watertight. Surprised he didn't or if he did they massively screwed up re their clients wishes.

[Intercourse]

Bottom line, (legal or not), was that Axl showed his mean small-minded side by trying to keep Slash & Velvet Revolver out of the picture.

VR was none of his fucking business and loosing this case is karma for taking his petty war so far as to try to deny a completely different band using their own songs the same commercial opportunities as he sought to enjoy.

I am a massive fan of the man's work, I'd buy an album of him singing in the shower.

However this case, and the open display of such an enormous ego and malevolence by Axl in his attempts to interfere with the lives, legacy and post-GNR success of his old mates was when this man was lost to me as a person.

Its fascinating, car crash stuff but its shitty and deserved the end it reached.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Intercourse

[wasted]

Axl doesn't want Slash earning money off the GNR name he hasn't worked to keep alive? Just as Slash wouldn't help Axl make money as GNR. So if he wants to stop that he can, or should be able to if Activision are on the level, which they aren't.

Maybe it's in a way pay back for Slash suing Axl and blocking other things. Then there was the blu ray stuff. It goes back and forth.

I guess to Axl, Slash has tried to ruin his career and for GNR to be left behind. So to Axl, he shouldn't the one to be the image of GNR.

Bit petty, but so it suing Axl over the name.

Rock n roll is high school with money.

Edited October 24, 2014 by wasted