**FAQ UPDATE IN FIRST POST 6/16** Guns N' Roses Appetite For Democracy 3D Concert Film/DVD/Blu-Ray

[gunnari]

Hey guys why was the 3D concert on cinemas cancelled?????? I need answers!!!

[Axl_morris]

Actually, slash blocking this is just to be awkward to Axl. He's giving up a paycheck to say "fuck you"

[Young_Gun]

Can't say i blame Slash at all. If you throw stones at the milk man, eventually the milk man will stop delivering milk. It's fine for Axl to talk shit about Slash and block him from using Guns songs on live DVDs but then Axl has the fucken audacity to ask Slash for permission to do the same? Please... Call Slash a sell out or say his solo music sucks(I personally think it does) but Axl had this coming from a long time ago.

[Lim666]

I still don't understand how any of the original members can stop something that has nothing to do with them.

I mean Slash and Duff and others signed over the GNR name to Axl, so I don't get how they can get involved with any projects that don't involve them physically in any way.

I guess it's "rock music" politics. What shit.

just watch the DVD cover: it's purely Appetite!! noone in the current Axl line-up had anything to do with it! the promotion trailer had songs from 1987-1991 in it, the promotion for the shows and the setlist was mainly from the Appetite album. so much about "moving on", huh? Axl and TB are milking the old band without giving credits where it has to be. and thats why old band members have veto rights when it comes to crappy ambarassing marketing techniques like this!

[Lio]

Hey guys why was the 3D concert on cinemas cancelled?????? I need answers!!!

Rockfuel said 'original members' blocked the release. UK Subs heard from two sources it is in fact Slash blocking the release because (a) he wants more money or (b) he just does this to spite Axl.

[saber_]

Hey guys why was the 3D concert on cinemas cancelled?????? I need answers!!!

Ask your boy on twitter.

[gunnari]

Hey guys why was the 3D concert on cinemas cancelled?????? I need answers!!!

Rockfuel said 'original members' blocked the release. UK Subs heard from two sources it is in fact Slash blocking the release because (a) he wants more money or (b) he just does this to spite Axl.

Interesting..

Fernando: "3 hour meeting is now inevitable."

Edited March 12, 2014 by gunnari

[Cosmo]

they are both the same, no small wonder why they do not get along. they just go about it in different ways. axl is the more straight forward grab a gun and rob a convenience store type while slash is a politician in a three piece suite who steals from you with a smile. both in the end are the same type of snake.

Difference is Slash gives his fans what they want most of the time while Axl does NOTHING. I mean... NOTHING that requires the least amount of effort for fans. I do prefer Axl as an artist by a long shot but Slash keeps his fans spoiled.

[kanudo19]

Axl must be so mad about this, i wouldnt be surprised if the tour gets cancelled.

[IncitingChaos]

I'm surprised Slash is doing this. I'm not mad or think he's dumb. If he feels he is justified in blocking a GNR release then that's fine.

It sucks, I was hoping for a release in hopes that it set groundwork for future releases. I hope Axl has a rant to clarify this situation on his upcoming tour.

Maybe Duff can act as a middle man to work out this situation.

[DieselDaisy]

• • Chinese Democracy

  • Welcome to the Jungle

  • Sweet Child O' Mine

  • Another Brick in the Wall Part 2

    (Pink Floyd cover) (with Axl on piano)

  • November Rain

  • Objectify

    (Bumblefoot cover) (Bumblefoot on lead vocals)

  • Knockin' on Heaven's Door

    (Bob Dylan cover)

  • Jam

  • Nightrain

  • Encore:

  • Jam

  • <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.setlist.fm/stats/songs/neil-young-6bd6b662.html?song=Don" href="http://www.setlist.fm/stats/songs/neil-young-6bd6b662.html?song=Don" t+let+it+bring+you+down"="">Don't Let It Bring You Down

    (Neil Young cover)

  • Used to Love Her

  • Jam

  • Patience

  • Jam

  • Paradise City

Counting 26 songs (discluding jams/guitar solos, but, including covers/solo songs), there are 8 songs there in which Slash has a publishing credit (essentially all the Appetite songs and 'Civil War').

Incorrect. Slash has a publishing credit on all the old stuff.

Incorrect. He only gets mechanical royalties from the songs he did not write/co-write.

[GUNNER PT]

Difference between "Appetite for Democracy" and "Stoke":

- GN'R should be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs. Why, not?

- Why should The Conspirators be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs?!

Anyway, Axl has been a nice guy for not suing certain people who, 2 years ago, acted (unduly) under the name of GN'R @ HoF.

[ohlovelyrita]

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/02/axl-rose-guitar-hero/

Thanks. Haven't read that in a while but still unclear. The merits of the case is Activism had a breach on contract.

Why did they agree in the first place? The system is corrupt if a contract can't be reinforced.

I am also remembering that the image being used was an issue because there was a Velvet Revolver

song or a Slash song used in the game. I'm guessing Axl's lawyers didn't want Guns N' Roses name

to promote Slash's band since most fans (believe it or not) don't know about the riff. On the other hand,

why didn't Axl's side include a CD song? Maybe a further addition was to include CD song but then the

contractwas breached.

Would anyone here who owned the GnR name want an estranged ex-member to be seen as the face

of the band? I do realize that it was good opportunity for Slash to get a younger fan base. I'm not taking

anything away from anyone but it shouldn't have been the edition with "WTTJ" based on why the song

was licensed. It's just business.

[DieselDaisy]

Difference between "Appetite for Democracy" and "Stoke":

- GN'R should be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs. Why, not?

- Why should The Conspirators be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs?!

Anyway, Axl has been a nice guy for not suing certain people who, 2 years ago, acted (unduly) under the name of GN'R @ HoF.

Legally, Nugnr are no different from the Conspirators considering Axl actually dissolved the band Guns N' Roses and formed a new one with the same name, 'Guns N' Roses'.

[Guest NGOG]

they are both the same, no small wonder why they do not get along. they just go about it in different ways. axl is the more straight forward grab a gun and rob a convenience store type while slash is a politician in a three piece suite who steals from you with a smile. both in the end are the same type of snake.

Difference is Slash gives his fans what they want most of the time while Axl does NOTHING.

Here's the difference: When Slash decides to release something, he doesn't have to deal with the legal baggage presented by an extremely controversial brand. Every time Axl proposes that something be released under the GNR name, it is rigorously scrutinized. Interscope don't want to be associated with anything that doesn't sound like Welcome to the Jungle, and people like Slash are extremely uncomfortable with the traditional image of GNR being distorted.

By comparison, Slash would face very little negotiation in trying to release a product.

Edited March 12, 2014 by NGOG

[Apollo]

Difference between "Appetite for Democracy" and "Stoke":

- GN'R should be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs. Why, not?

- Why should The Conspirators be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs?!

Anyway, Axl has been a nice guy for not suing certain people who, 2 years ago, acted (unduly) under the name of GN'R @ HoF.

Seriously?

GnR is allowed to release DVD with GnR songs. But they have to be financially responsible for the people who wrote the songs that Axl is attempting to make money off of. While Axl might own the name GnR, he doesn't have sole ownership of songs that Duff and Slash helped create. So legally, Axl can release the old stuff. As long as he pays the people who helped create those songs. HOW do you feel about Axl going to court to prevent the Kevin guy from releasing his old demos? If that guy legally owns those songs, why is Axl using his high priced lawyers to prevent him from releasing them? LOL - bit of irony there. If you guys support Axl in suppressing those tapes, then you shouldn't have a problem with Slash doing the same thing. And surely you aren't a hypocrite and you also had a problem when Axl prevented Slash from using old GnR songs in his live DVD.

LOL, do you actually know how the court system works? Axl couldn't sue Slash/Duff/Adler for accepting an award and playing a couple songs. A judge would laugh that out of court.

Maybe you should start wishing your idol Axl stopped suing everybody and instead concentrated on his FANS for awhile. You know, the people who support him and his current version of GnR. That should be more important than feuding with Slash. Then maybe he'd be able to release live DVDs without old band members blocking it, and he'd be able to release a new album every couple of years.

The way people blindly support everything Axl does is just weird.

[bran]

the fact of the matter is both slash and axl created the music in gnr. slash should have every right to play songs he helped create and release. axl should every right to do the same. by both of them doing this, it is utterly childish and a slimy fucking move. in the end both of them hurt the fans and stop them from getting to see what they want to see.

Edited March 12, 2014 by bran

[Young_Gun]

Difference between "Appetite for Democracy" and "Stoke":

- GN'R should be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs. Why, not?

- Why should The Conspirators be allowed to release a DVD with GN'R songs?!

Anyway, Axl has been a nice guy for not suing certain people who, 2 years ago, acted (unduly) under the name of GN'R @ HoF.

Seriously?

GnR is allowed to release DVD with GnR songs. But they have to be financially responsible for the people who wrote the songs that Axl is attempting to make money off of. While Axl might own the name GnR, he doesn't have sole ownership of songs that Duff and Slash helped create.

Most logical post in the whole fucken thread. Maybe if Axl actually put out NEW music, he would not have to go through this process. But of course, the is more money in Sweet Child of Mine than there is Shacklers...

[Apollo]

I still don't understand how any of the original members can stop something that has nothing to do with them.

I mean Slash and Duff and others signed over the GNR name to Axl, so I don't get how they can get involved with any projects that don't involve them physically in any way.

I guess it's "rock music" politics. What shit.

Axl owns the name Guns n Roses, he doesn't own sole possession of songs that other people helped write.

If Axl is going to make money off of songs that other people own a part of, then he has to compensate those people.

Imagine if you owned a used car lot. Your official agreement with people was that you and them split the proceeds of their car's sale 50/50.

But when you sold their car, you decided that since it was YOUR car dealership, you were only going to give the car owner 20% instead of 50%.

The car owner has the right to say "Uhhh, no. You can't sell my car if you are going to only give me 20%. The original deal was 50%."

It might be your Car Lot - but you have to compensate the people who own the cars that you are trying to sell. They deserve their rightful share of the profit.

Val, did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to Slash with his live DVD? Because I didn't see you complaining about that. And did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to the Kevin guy last month? Axl suing the guy so he couldn't release music that HE legally owned. It just seems weird that you have a problem with Slash doing the exact same thing that Axl has done twice now to other people. Why the double-standard?

[Young_Gun]

I still don't understand how any of the original members can stop something that has nothing to do with them.

I mean Slash and Duff and others signed over the GNR name to Axl, so I don't get how they can get involved with any projects that don't involve them physically in any way.

I guess it's "rock music" politics. What shit.

Val, did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to Slash with his live DVD? Because I didn't see you complaining about that. And did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to the Kevin guy last month? Axl suing the guy so he couldn't release music that HE legally owned. It just seems weird that you have a problem with Slash doing the exact same thing that Axl has done twice now to other people. Why the double-standard?

Of course not! Axl is god!!!

[Bards]

Incorrect. Slash has a publishing credit on all the old stuff.

Incorrect. He only gets mechanical royalties from the songs he did not write/co-write.

Check ASCAP. He's got publishing rights on all the old songs.

[Apollo]

I still don't understand how any of the original members can stop something that has nothing to do with them.

I mean Slash and Duff and others signed over the GNR name to Axl, so I don't get how they can get involved with any projects that don't involve them physically in any way.

I guess it's "rock music" politics. What shit.

Val, did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to Slash with his live DVD? Because I didn't see you complaining about that. And did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to the Kevin guy last month? Axl suing the guy so he couldn't release music that HE legally owned. It just seems weird that you have a problem with Slash doing the exact same thing that Axl has done twice now to other people. Why the double-standard?

Of course not! Axl is god!!!

Weird, isn't it.

I think if it is true, it is a dick move by Slash. I would have loved to see Slash say: "You know, Axl blocked me from releasing some GnR songs that I helped create. That hurt the sales of my DVD. But I'm not going to go the same route with his release. Music is for the fans, and if the fans want to see this - I want them to get what they want. Lots of people told me I should give Axl the same respect he gave me. Eye for an eye. But that's not the type of guy I am. I'd rather the fans get to see and enjoy this DVD or great songs, rather than two old rich rock stars fighting it out in court. Hope you all enjoy the music. Looking forward to releasing my new album later this year."

[DieselDaisy]

Incorrect. Slash has a publishing credit on all the old stuff.

Incorrect. He only gets mechanical royalties from the songs he did not write/co-write.

Check ASCAP. He's got publishing rights on all the old songs.

But the ASCAP credits are demarcated on Use Your Illusion, e.g, 'Rose', 'Slash', 'McKagan'. The song in question would be registered to the said songwriter. Why would, say, Slash have a publishing credit for a Rose composition?

[DieselDaisy]

I still don't understand how any of the original members can stop something that has nothing to do with them.

I mean Slash and Duff and others signed over the GNR name to Axl, so I don't get how they can get involved with any projects that don't involve them physically in any way.

I guess it's "rock music" politics. What shit.

Val, did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to Slash with his live DVD? Because I didn't see you complaining about that. And did it bother you when Axl did the same thing to the Kevin guy last month? Axl suing the guy so he couldn't release music that HE legally owned. It just seems weird that you have a problem with Slash doing the exact same thing that Axl has done twice now to other people. Why the double-standard?

Of course not! Axl is god!!!

Weird, isn't it.

I think if it is true, it is a dick move by Slash. I would have loved to see Slash say: "You know, Axl blocked me from releasing some GnR songs that I helped create. That hurt the sales of my DVD. But I'm not going to go the same route with his release. Music is for the fans, and if the fans want to see this - I want them to get what they want. Lots of people told me I should give Axl the same respect he gave me. Eye for an eye. But that's not the type of guy I am. I'd rather the fans get to see and enjoy this DVD or great songs, rather than two old rich rock stars fighting it out in court. Hope you all enjoy the music. Looking forward to releasing my new album later this year."

I am more upset by the fact that it seems just a money thing, getting extra money out of Axl for the licence. If Slash took a moral stand against Nugnr based on, anything other than financial gain, I think this would be understandable. Look at the things to provoke the guy...

- Axl stole the name through duplicity

- Axl called the guy a 'cancer'

- Axl's sycophants booted him out of a gig

- Axl's sycophants refused him when he turned up at Axl's gate to sort out the legal stuff

- Axl refused the sync rights on Stoke

- Axl snubbed the HoF

- The Activision thing is the most childish thing ever done by a major rock star - and this is, fact.

But Slash seems to be doing it just for extra money. Unless Slash is being seriously shafted on royalties by TB, I cannot support his stance.

[D-GenerationX]

I am also remembering that the image being used was an issue because there was a Velvet Revolver

song or a Slash song used in the game. I'm guessing Axl's lawyers didn't want Guns N' Roses name

to promote Slash's band since most fans (believe it or not) don't know about the riff.

Time-out.

I'm to believe that people in 2014 are not aware of this? Seriously?