not logged in
| re: What I MEANT to say was... | |
Posted by:  |
Wilbury 10:03 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| In reply to: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:50 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| Jesus fucking Christ Ryan, listen to what I'm saying... i KNOW that noone here knows what the settlement was. I'm asking you WHY you think that Meat being allowed to use Jim's copyright for a one-off was the EXTENT of the settlement. Because I can virtually guarantee that that WASN'T the extent of the settlement. For Jim's lawyers to agree to that as a SETTLEMENT, it is OBVIOUS he got something in return as compensation, otherwise Jim can give his lawyers a swift kick up the arse and fine some new representation. MY guess is a whole TRUCK load of money was the said compensation. Does anyone have ANY reason to suspect that this ISN'T the case? Why are you and Smeghead suggesting that it isn't the case? > > I have no idea what they decided upon. Jim seems to allude > to it in his entries but that's all > > > You're seriously saying that the out of court settlement > > for jim consisted solely of the right to use his own > > copyright, > > Again, I don't know, no one does, but Jim is most > definitely using "Bat Out Of Hell" for his stage > spectacular. Meat hasn't used it since TMIL. Notice how > the DVD was called 3 Bats etc. etc. > > > the inability to stop Meat using his copyright on Bat 3: > The Monster is Loose, and forfeiting the right to comment publicly. > > Meat DID release TMIL with the Bat III name on it. He also > commented a great deal about the project, being a Bat III > album also (which it isn't. Everyone knows that it isn't a > Bat album. It's like how everyone knows a Mona Lisa fake > when they see one.) > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:50 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| Next: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:25 am UTC 06/16/08 |
| Thread: |
|