Grimo85 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I cant see it happenin. Why would Axl wanna make his comeback on what the old band did, and then expect to be a success with the new band?? Makes no sense.Grimo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl-rocks Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I don't see it happening at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basketzero Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I really can't see that they will release this....or maybe after the realease of CD. But if they will release something like this before the come with something new than it's real stupid. And by the way, why re-record something that alredy is a masterpice......can't imagine that it will sound better with th new band than the original recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottRose Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 What about selling it on the net, so that the Hard-Core fans could get a chance to get it. I, for one, would enjoy hearing it. Forget releasing it worldwide and marketing it, just post it on the net.Could this be something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sexib Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Can someone explain to me what the copyright law is? loli wouldnt want to hear a re-recorded version of AFD. To me its absolutely perfect the way it is.Instead of re-releasing appetite i think Axl should release something else......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 If any of you are confused,.. we call this copyright infringement..Do you understand copyright law?R.I was thinking that , doesn't a Mr Rose or geffen own the copyright/ rights to the music ?Sanctuary owns the rights, and Rose joint owns them. He can license them and things like that. If the worst came to the worst, he could just cover the songs, and escape all infringement.The basis of the lawsuits filed by Slash and Duff is that Axl does not own the rights to the songs since they contend he left the partnership, and depending on the outcome, the sale of the back catalogue to Sanctuary may be void since it was not approved by Duff and Slash. Therefore until the matter is resolved I don't think Axl could release a re-recorded AFD without their permission.Then just cover it. Escapes all problems.No it doesn't.Oh yeah, because then Slash and Duff'd get some too..Alright then, take the songs, and edit them slightly, but so they are recognisable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickingthehabit Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 If any of you are confused,.. we call this copyright infringement..Do you understand copyright law?R.It's amazing..This goes for anyone who doesn't understand copyright laws..Realize that Slash and Duff own an equal percentage of the original Guns N' Roses' music catalogue. This means that the original music by the original band cannot be re-produced and released for outside commercial purposes without their consent. Prior to Axl's agreement with Sanctuary,.. he, Slash and Duff were all under a Guns N' Roses 'partnership'. Despite what many of you may believe,.. Axl only owns the name to the band - he is not sole possessor of the Guns N' Roses music catalogue. However, since he has signed off his rights to Sanctuary, he does not have full control under his percentage of the partnership. I won't speculate on what provisions were put into that agreement.If Axl wanted to re-release any Guns N' Roses material that was not recorded with the original band, he would have to receive consent from both Slash and Duff.While Axl may cover song's live,.. he is not entitled to release cover songs of the original material without the consent from both Slash and Duff. Do you see the pattern?Without the abiding consent of the owners -- Axl can do absolutely nothing unless he's interested in a class action lawsuit.It doesn't matter how the material is released,.. be it a cover album, on the internet, whatever. It all comes down to who owns the material.You guys can reach for any excuse to merit releasing it,.. however, none will hold up in any court. And, to the individual who suggested 'slighlty editing' the original material -- I hope you're not serious in that assumption. Think about it for a few minutes..-Kickingthehabit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiLLy"The Kid" Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 hopefully not...but if they do that...I think it will be better to leave Axl's voice in peace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excalibur Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Do you people even follow GnR? The AFD re-record with the new Band Axl had was about well... five years ago. Even then Axl said it was for rehearsal and "quality" reasons only. It's not to be released!! Bear in mind Buckethead and Paul Tobias and several others did this AFD re-recording that are no longer GnR. Keep the faith but stop silly speculations ok? Chinese Democracy will come this year!!, Look forward to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 If any of you are confused,.. we call this copyright infringement..Do you understand copyright law?R.It's amazing..This goes for anyone who doesn't understand copyright laws..Realize that Slash and Duff own an equal percentage of the original Guns N' Roses' music catalogue. This means that the original music by the original band cannot be re-produced and released for outside commercial purposes without their consent. Prior to Axl's agreement with Sanctuary,.. he, Slash and Duff were all under a Guns N' Roses 'partnership'. Despite what many of you may believe,.. Axl only owns the name to the band - he is not sole possessor of the Guns N' Roses music catalogue. However, since he has signed off his rights to Sanctuary, he does not have full control under his percentage of the partnership. I won't speculate on what provisions were put into that agreement.If Axl wanted to re-release any Guns N' Roses material that was not recorded with the original band, he would have to receive consent from both Slash and Duff.While Axl may cover song's live,.. he is not entitled to release cover songs of the original material without the consent from both Slash and Duff. Do you see the pattern?Without the abiding consent of the owners -- Axl can do absolutely nothing unless he's interested in a class action lawsuit.It doesn't matter how the material is released,.. be it a cover album, on the internet, whatever. It all comes down to who owns the material.You guys can reach for any excuse to merit releasing it,.. however, none will hold up in any court. And, to the individual who suggested 'slighlty editing' the original material -- I hope you're not serious in that assumption. Think about it for a few minutes..-KickingthehabitSo what about SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack?R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickingthehabit Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 If any of you are confused,.. we call this copyright infringement..Do you understand copyright law?R.It's amazing..This goes for anyone who doesn't understand copyright laws..Realize that Slash and Duff own an equal percentage of the original Guns N' Roses' music catalogue. This means that the original music by the original band cannot be re-produced and released for outside commercial purposes without their consent. Prior to Axl's agreement with Sanctuary,.. he, Slash and Duff were all under a Guns N' Roses 'partnership'. Despite what many of you may believe,.. Axl only owns the name to the band - he is not sole possessor of the Guns N' Roses music catalogue. However, since he has signed off his rights to Sanctuary, he does not have full control under his percentage of the partnership. I won't speculate on what provisions were put into that agreement.If Axl wanted to re-release any Guns N' Roses material that was not recorded with the original band, he would have to receive consent from both Slash and Duff.While Axl may cover song's live,.. he is not entitled to release cover songs of the original material without the consent from both Slash and Duff. Do you see the pattern?Without the abiding consent of the owners -- Axl can do absolutely nothing unless he's interested in a class action lawsuit.It doesn't matter how the material is released,.. be it a cover album, on the internet, whatever. It all comes down to who owns the material.You guys can reach for any excuse to merit releasing it,.. however, none will hold up in any court. And, to the individual who suggested 'slighlty editing' the original material -- I hope you're not serious in that assumption. Think about it for a few minutes..-KickingthehabitSo what about SCOM on the Big Daddy soundtrack?R.Do you see Guns N' Roses- Sweet Child 'O Mine anywhere on the Big Daddy soundtrack?http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000JBE...v=glance&n=5174No. A live version by the original band was used during the credits. Axl pieced the end together with the cover version.. Slash acknowledged this in the press,.. but since it stood to make no commercial profit, and there were no principal damages against the original recording, no lawsuit was filed.The original members who are credited on the live version were paid. Those who contributed to the cover, received nothing from Sony.Obviously, Slash and Duff made the decision to not sue,.. but I can guarantee you that this incident will be mentioned in their case against Axl Rose.-Kickingthehabit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 AHA! He could parody them, then he cannot be sued! But he actually means it as serious work. That'd escape issues. Unless we see Mr.Whitestone, it's so sleazy and Rocket King being released...But, that does look bleak if he'd wanted to stall Chi Dem by releasing that. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.3b9273675bb56ba9200a15075ecf190a.jpg)
Recommended Posts