Jump to content

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


rockfuel

  

159 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hundreds of bootlegs on youtube are fine, but not one released by mygnr. Pfffft.

Perhaps it was the ostentatious way it was presented and the way they seemed to be insistent on drawing attention to themselves.

They felt they had a good product, fine. So do drug dealers. But they don't put their name up in lights, given the product they are offering the people.

I also don't think the comments like "this is better than the Rock Fuel night anyway" or "fans step up when Rock Fuel drops the ball" helped the cause.

Edited by D-GenerationX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well adelaide has downloaded. The lawyers couldn't stop me... and yes im seeding. Got the day off tomorrow. Gonna run round my house like Axl, bandana on with mic in hand. Who's me with me?

I'm not gonna do that, but I love the enthusiasm. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well adelaide has downloaded. The lawyers couldn't stop me... and yes im seeding. Got the day off tomorrow. Gonna run round my house like Axl, bandana on with mic in hand. Who's me with me?

I'm not gonna do that, but I love the enthusiasm. :lol:

You could come round with your ashba swag on!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well adelaide has downloaded. The lawyers couldn't stop me... and yes im seeding. Got the day off tomorrow. Gonna run round my house like Axl, bandana on with mic in hand. Who's me with me?

I'm not gonna do that, but I love the enthusiasm. :lol:

You could come round with your ashba swag on!!

Maybe stroll over to the local grade school before hand in your Ashba swag and get bullied for a few hours first, just to get in his frame of mind. If you're going to dive into a role, do it DeNiro style or go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What doesn't make any sense is that GNR would go ahead with producing a video that they hadn't secured the rights to. Why would they pay out of pocket to make a video if they didn't have the permission of those who must give their consent to its production?

If Slash had initially agreed, and signed something to that effect, there would be no way for him to block this video. I suppose he could delay it, saying that the potential financial upside was misrepresented and therefore is owed more money, but that argument isn't something that would take too long in the courts to figure out (look how fast the court threw out Axl, Slash, and Duff's lawsuit regarding the Greatest Hits album).

But if this was something they made in the hopes of getting Slash and former members to sign off on it later, then they only have themselves to blame for this. These issues should have been settled a long time ago, well before any of us had ever heard of a potential Las Vegas DVD/Blu-ray.

Unless, of course, there never was any intention to release the disc. Perhaps all of this is some sort of House of Cards/Machiavellian strategy to paint Slash in a bad light. Obviously this theory isn't a serious one, but it's far more logical than someone simply forgetting to get Slash's approval prior to the production of this disc.

Finally, apart of me is glad Slash is blocking the disc. If Axl wants to continue with the name then he should be forced to make his fortunes off what the band has done since the departure of the classic lineup. Release a disc with only performances of CD songs or covers if he and his current business (i.e. GNR) wants to make off the name so badly. Nobody except a few people on here are dying to have a video recording of Bumblefoot playing riffs written and recorded by Slash. If Axl can't succeed with the GNR name and music he's produced after the split, then that's how it should be. He can't have it both ways: turn down his acceptance into the R&R HOF all the while making money off the very work that got him in there.

I don't think they forgot to get Slash's approval... I think Slash got cold feet and backed out after giving his word or his management's word. The film was delayed for months getting approvals, they had it and that's when they went public and announced the release. To get approvals percentages would have been discussed so everybody knew then and there, what monies they would receive from the project - so I don't know how that could be the sticking point.

You're whole Axl should be able to release the dvd without slash/izzy material doesn't hold any water, does Slash not still use old Guns songs for his own promotion? superbowl anyone!? How many people would like to go to a Slash concert and not hear GnR songs, or a VR concert? He uses the material and Axl should be allowed to do just the same, and if he's paying synch rights there shouldn't be an issue as Slash's rights are mute IMO as he quit the band. You don't see Jason newsted or marty friendman blocking releases... if you quit a band you're rights should be zilch! I still think he deserves his money but I don't think he should be able to block a current band release even if it has old band material. I preferred Slash a whole lot more before all this, I'm still hoping there's another explanation and Slash isn't as petty as he looks right now.

That's insane. Considering the history between Slash and Axl, there is no way any sensible business manager would or should accept a verbal or vague commitment from Slash. What would be the point of getting Slash to agree to the project if the terms hadn't been hashed out prior to the disc's production? Any manager worth their salt would have the details locked down and agreed upon prior to the disc's production. Unless you're an idiot, you're not going to work on good faith regarding some sort of vague agreement between two parties that haven't got along in almost twenty years. It's called due diligence, something that was clearly forgot by whoever was supposedly managing this project.

An artist is not required to get licensing rights for performing a song. He/she/they need rights if they wish to sell a recording of that performance, but they aren't legally required to obtain the rights if they simply wish to perform the song. What, do you think every bar band out there is going out and getting the rights to play those songs? There is a financial obligation on behalf of the venue to pay for the rights to have those songs played, but any artist is within their legal rights to perform a song so long as the venue is paying a royalty to the rights holders.

"If you quit a band your rights should be zilch:" says who? You? Are you an entertainment lawyer or a judge now entitled to make up your own laws. Nonsense. Artists do not lose their publishing/recording rights simply because they leave the band/business. Your evaluation of Slash is based on a faulty understanding of the law with respect to publishing rights.

Excellent post. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets make this thread about adelaide just to piss them off.

Watching Adelaide now, even though I always knew 2010 was a great year, it just reminds me that Axl could go toe to toe with any other rock singer.

Edited by Axl_morris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking down that bootleg was a big mistake, and a really dumb move.

They have deliberately antagonized what was already going to be a pretty limited market for their product.

Risky.

Don't know who's behind this stunt, but you are right. They took something really nice by the fans for the fans, something that was calming the waters after the Slash blocking thing.

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...