You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
Curiosity buys are WAY outweighed to their actual numbers.
Mister is right - people who listened on the stream, or illegally downloaded, would've NEVER bought it anyways.
If ANYTHING cost them money, it was the BB exclusive, because i'm sure there were people who illegally downloaded it, because a BB is 3 hours away, unlike a WM, which just about every city in the U.S. has at this point.
Costing sales and costing money are two different things. No way they get 14+ mil for that album without the exclusive.
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
The hits are only the numbers.. from the pre ablum streaming... After album was out they took it of the MYSPACE player, but left it on the Widget.
The Widget player was there since then... no hits data stated there.
Also was confused why they'd take it off myspace player, but still leave the full album there.
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
Pass the popcorn, that's entertainment!
A whole lot of devil in the details, but since the hurly-burly's preoccupied with Bill Bailey, I'll suffice to recite the Slash/Duff v. Axl lawsuit in 2004.
"Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 40 ["W. Axl Rose, an individual"], and sue those defendants by such fictious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when obtained." - CelebrityJustice PDF
Saying W. Axl Rose is a fictious name, but not knowing his former name is Bill Bailey... Go figure.
- lafayettecopssuck
- Rep: 2
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
Saying W. Axl Rose is a fictious name, but not knowing his former name is Bill Bailey... Go figure.
Yeah, its pretty wierd. Although you add the name situation with what I imagine is the case that much of Axl's assets would be controlled through various holding companies and stuff like that and perhaps they wrote that in just so they didn't get told that their action is invalid because Black Frog or one of the other companies controls the assets not Axl himself.
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
S&D could've sued Black Frog if they would've been uncertain of who holds the rights; that information could've been obtained through ASCAP. Also, if it would've gotten down the way you suggest above, it would've also implied S&D consider Axl Rose as a fictitious person, a non-entity serving as a cover-up.
You can read that in two ways:
- The defendant isn't actually called Axl Rose, but we don't know the real name of 'Axl Rose'
- The defendant(s)'s acting behind the name 'Axl Rose', but a person called 'Axl Rose' isn't officially involved, as the name's fictitious
Either way, they imply the 'Axl Rose' name is a 'fake'. I always took that as a sly legal pot-shot.
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
Pass the popcorn, that's entertainment!
A whole lot of devil in the details, but since the hurly-burly's preoccupied with Bill Bailey, I'll suffice to recite the Slash/Duff v. Axl lawsuit in 2004.
"Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 40 ["W. Axl Rose, an individual"], and sue those defendants by such fictious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when obtained." - CelebrityJustice PDF
Saying W. Axl Rose is a fictious name, but not knowing his former name is Bill Bailey... Go figure.
In the current lawsuit the first line of defense is saying that Irving is attempting to sue a fictitious person by suing William Bill Bailey. It acknowledges that his legal name is W. Axl Rose.
If you read it it states that W. Axl Rose is the name that appears on all the legal paperwork he receives and claims that Irving using the name Bill Bailey is an attempt to emotionally harm Axl by using his adopted name. Yes, it leaves some ambiguity as to whether or not he actually went through the whole legal system of changing his name, but it's also clear that Bill Bailey doesn't exist anymore.
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
did axl ever legally change his name to W. Axl Rose? jsut cuz he calls himeself that doesnt mean thats his legal name
Even if he hasn't, if all his paperwork says W. Axl Rose and he is professionally known as W. Axl Rose a legal argument can be made that William Bill Bailey is a fictitious person. I'm sure Axl's lawyer is very well versed, and will have plenty of documentation to prove that fact if his name wasn't ever legally changed.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Axl fires back at Irv with lawsuit
My understanding from stuff i've read over the years is that he legally changed his name in the mid 1980s to "W. Axl Rose" and that it's legal in that form, like despite the w obviously alluding to william, in terms of the actual form of his name it doesn't stand for anything, and his name is legally complete as W. Axl Rose.
I would be shocked if that wasn't true, as its been a factor in almost every article I read on Axl back in the day, the exact time of doing it changes in some stories, but most say it was around when AFD was signed or when he had it tattoo'd on his arm.
But i guess i'm working on like 3rd hand info huh! But I'm pretty sure that it's his legal name, or at least was from 1986 or so unless he's done something recently to it.
