not logged in
| re: What I MEANT to say was... | |
Posted by:  |
Wilbury 09:22 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| In reply to: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:16 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| No, I'm not asking anything at all!? But think about what you're saying! You're seriously saying that the out of court settlement for jim consisted solely of the right to use his own copyright, the inability to stop Meat using his copyright on Bat 3: The Monster is Loose, and forfeiting the right to comment publicly. All to avoid a contest on the ownership of the trademark. Use your head! Not a chance in hell is that the deal that Jim took. He took this deal with a bucket load of cash I'm sure. > > When I mentioned the record deal that Jim was offered, > that happened before TMIL and any of that period. That was > when Meat still wanted to record "Final at Bat". If that's > what you're asking? As for Jim getting that money out of > court, I doubt it. If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want > that money. I'd rather get my money's worth on my epic > rock spectacular. > > > > > That is exactly my point. Nobody knows. > > > > Why then is everyone assuming that the settlement consists > > of that which they have heard, and nothing else!? > > > > Are we really so naïve as to think that Jim's lawyers > > settled out of court for "We get to use your trademark and > > you're not allowed to comment on it publicly, then you get > > to go back to using it as normal" ?? All just to avoid > > another lawsuit? Methinks Meat had a poop-load more to > > lose than Jim. > > > > > > > > > > > > All we know is that they reached an agreement. The > > > > contents of that agreement won't be known until long after > > > > their deaths. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:16 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| Next: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - Pudding 10:07 pm UTC 06/15/08 |
| Thread: |
|