trqster Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 And the hatred for Slash will just keep on'going strong... Truth is the truth hurts and deep down inside Axl knows that Gn'R can't really be taken seriously without Slash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up. On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.LOL Sorry, but what a stupid thing to say. Slash is part of GNR. Why not use his most popular work? To avoid hurting Axls feelings? Hahaha I'm glad they had the Slash character playing GNR songs. His songs. Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up. On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.LOL Sorry, but what a stupid thing to say. Slash is part of GNR. Why not use his most popular work? To avoid hurting Axls feelings? Hahaha I'm glad they had the Slash character playing GNR songs. His songs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up.On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.Or they could use him the right way as the lead guitarist of the popular GNR songs that everyone remembers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laparka Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up.On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.Or they could use him the right way as the lead guitarist of the popular GNR songs that everyone remembers.Okay, but that was kinda like advertising him as a part of GnR, which he wasn't at that time.I'm not saying that it was ok or nok to hurt Axl's feeling, I'm saying that Slash wasn't a member of GnR anymore at that time. Advertising him as such is a lie. Did they advertise him as the current guitar player of GnR? I can't remember.It's like saying his own material was probably not strong enough or appealling to justify portraying him otherwise than as a member of a band he left several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 On the songs nearly everyone cares about, Slash is a part of and no one is going to write him out of it just to satisfy the no longer relevant Axl Rose and his delusional fantasies. Slash is in. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How does everyone fail to see the main issue? Axl said they could use Jungle under the circumstance that they not use Slash or the old incarnation of GNR. It's a reasonable request considering that Axl wouldn't want to confuse casual GNR fans by misrepresenting who's in the band. Then Activision used Slash anyway. That's clearly wrong. Even if you think Axl is just being an unreasonable, immature prick, Activision is still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 There's no confusion. Slash composed WTTJ. People would be confused if Buckethead or Robin Finck were the characters playing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Maybe it's time that he realizes that he can't write Slash out of GNR. Give it up.On an other hand, Activision could have used a Slash song if they really wanted to use Slash as a character.Terrible sugguestion. This was basically what Axl sued Activision for. And... what happened? He lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceguy Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Slash's image was featured on the cover of the game, because slash is a hugely known guitarist. Paul Tobias or whatever was NOT featured on the cover of the game, even though he may have been in GNR at the time. Despite Axl's fantasies, no one gives a shit about robin funk or DJ or Ron or Paul Yoblias. That's the extent of the issue. The game did not say "here's slash, the guitarist from GNR!" Slash was on the cover, and the game featured GNR songs. Axl claims he gave permission to use GNR songs ONLY if slash were not featured in the game. Clearly, there's no legal record of his claims, or else this would be an open shut case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How does everyone fail to see the main issue? Axl said they could use Jungle under the circumstance that they not use Slash or the old incarnation of GNR. It's a reasonable request considering that Axl wouldn't want to confuse casual GNR fans by misrepresenting who's in the band. Then Activision used Slash anyway. That's clearly wrong. Even if you think Axl is just being an unreasonable, immature prick, Activision is still wrong.They were not wrong according to the law. Axl can keep crying somewhere else. He lost time, and money. So funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Activision is still wrong.Actually they aren't. I wouldn't frame my opinion on the matter by what Axl claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Activision's loyalty is invaluable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How does everyone fail to see the main issue? Axl said they could use Jungle under the circumstance that they not use Slash or the old incarnation of GNR. It's a reasonable request considering that Axl wouldn't want to confuse casual GNR fans by misrepresenting who's in the band. Then Activision used Slash anyway. That's clearly wrong. Even if you think Axl is just being an unreasonable, immature prick, Activision is still wrong.They were not wrong according to the law. Axl can keep crying somewhere else. He lost time, and money. So funny. What are you basing this on? I thought the judge sided with Activision based on statute of limitations? And I thought that Axl requested a dismissal which would suggest some type of deal was made in private? That's usually what the case is when a plaintiff requests a dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Or a plaintiff dismisses because he realizes he has no case and is just bleeding money over a lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristmasFnatic Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 All these is just a waste of precious time and money that could have been placed on a new album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Or a plaintiff dismisses because he realizes he has no case and is just bleeding money over a lost cause.That could be true and that's fine, but as I understand it, no one ever disputed Axl's claims, they just said he let time run out. That would most likely mean that he did have a valid case. Am I missing something?EDIT: I'm only saying this because the main argument around here seems to be that Axl didn't have a valid case and that he was just being a whiny baby because they put Slash on the cover. Edited October 23, 2014 by Amish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 How does everyone fail to see the main issue? Axl said they could use Jungle under the circumstance that they not use Slash or the old incarnation of GNR. It's a reasonable request considering that Axl wouldn't want to confuse casual GNR fans by misrepresenting who's in the band. Then Activision used Slash anyway. That's clearly wrong. Even if you think Axl is just being an unreasonable, immature prick, Activision is still wrong.They were not wrong according to the law. Axl can keep crying somewhere else. He lost time, and money. So funny. What are you basing this on? I thought the judge sided with Activision based on statute of limitations? And I thought that Axl requested a dismissal which would suggest some type of deal was made in private? That's usually what the case is when a plaintiff requests a dismissal.You're right, the case was decided on the basis of status of limitations. Had Axl initiated the legal proceedings up until 2009, he would have had a case. Axl's claim was that he delayed legal action as a result of Activision dangling a GNR-based Guitar Hero game up until November of 2010. That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me. If that were the case, why did he release Chinese Democracy to Guitar Hero's rival, Rockband, in April of 2009? Surely he must have known that Activision wasn't going to give him his own game if he were licensing his newest album to the other major player in the music/rhythm genre. I also question the theory that case was dismissed by the plaintiff as a result of a deal. His appeal was based on a technicality, an issue with procedure, and not so much on the merits of the case. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the arguments made in the appeal, it struck me as being a bit of a hail-mary play. Considering a legal verdict had already been issued on the merits of the case, I can't see why Activision would offer a deal to get rid of the litigation (unless the settlement was simply to pay for Axl's legal costs, which might cost Activision less than to pursue/defend the case further). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I also question the theory that case was dismissed by the plaintiff as a result of a deal. His appeal was based on a technicality, an issue with procedure, and not so much on the merits of the case. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the arguments made in the appeal, it struck me as being a bit of a hail-mary play. Considering a legal verdict had already been issued on the merits of the case, I can't see why Activision would offer a deal to get rid of the litigation (unless the settlement was simply to pay for Axl's legal costs, which might cost Activision less than to pursue/defend the case further). This is exactly what I was going to say.Activision already *technically* won the case. Why would they try to work out a solution with Axl or his camp by making them a deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Sad day for integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Had Axl initiated the legal proceedings up until 2009, he would have had a case. How come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Had Axl initiated the legal proceedings up until 2009, he would have had a case. How come?http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/axl-rose-loses-20m-lawsuit-417262"The fatal problem for Rose was not moving soon enough on the allegations."Rose's attorneys pointed to emails to Activision by Wayne Milligan, a licensing administrator at Sussman & Associates who does work for GNR Music, which administers publishing rights to the band's songs. The rock star's position was that there was a written agreement not to include Velvet Revolver songs and that as a result, Rose had four years to file a lawsuit.But Palmer ruled that the agreement relied at least on oral promises and was subject to a two-year statute of limitations. "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."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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncitingChaos Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Like Slash once said, anything and everything will go wrong for Axl at the worst times. He would be the guy to choke on his own toothbrush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts