| [tasnam1] Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:30:56 PM | |
|
Totally agree.
But why then was Ian Hill present?
I think it is because he is part of the "corporation" you mention.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Scottzilla from Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:10:30 PM)| |  | Scottzilla wrote: | | | If you do a copyright search for Judas Priest (The band, not the corporation) , the SR (Sound Recording) rights are almost always Downing, Tipton, and Halford. So it;s possible since Judas Priest was named as the defendant, nobody else (except the lawers and judge) had to show up. Since the trial was ridiculous maybe the drummer(s) just said "Screw this!" and stayed home. |
|
|
| [Scottzilla] Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:10:30 PM | |
|
| If you do a copyright search for Judas Priest (The band, not the corporation) , the SR (Sound Recording) rights are almost always Downing, Tipton, and Halford. So it;s possible since Judas Priest was named as the defendant, nobody else (except the lawers and judge) had to show up. Since the trial was ridiculous maybe the drummer(s) just said "Screw this!" and stayed home. |
|
| [tasnam1] Friday, July 10, 2009 3:39:42 PM | |
|
Not sure what you mean skyrider, please explain...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by SkyRideR from Friday, July 10, 2009 10:44:57 AM)| | | SkyRideR wrote: | | well first of all the lawyers HAD to be there and the judge... |
|
|
| [SkyRideR] Friday, July 10, 2009 10:44:57 AM | |
|
| well first of all the lawyers HAD to be there and the judge... |
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:23:52 PM | |
|
Yes, that makes sense. Except that Dave Holland did not drum on that album and was not in the band at the time of the recording, so I don't think they could sue him for something he had no part in. If they could have, I'm sure they would have.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:54:41 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | I can kind of buy the fact about Les not being in Nevada at the time.
I think it has more to do with the performers and writers.
But then again DAVE HOLLAND would have been in Nevada when they were served.
Which brings us back to the fact that maybe only full time employees and not contractors would have been sued.
make sense at all?
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK not trying to stamp out the Scott is great run, but that was not the intent of my original question.
I think Scott is the BEST drummer in the world and I do not want him to leave the band either, so no need to continue down this path.
The intent was, why was Dave Holland or Les Binks not at the trial. I do NOT have much legal experience but would guess that both of them were contractors and not vested members.
Someone posted that Les may not have had money, trust me that is not the reason. They sued the band as a unit and not personally. I bet my monet Dave and Les were NOT legal members.
As far as Scott is concerned, my hope is that he is a vested member with voting rights, but perhaps he is not.
As would also guess that Tim Owens was not a Vested member. |
|
|
|
| [tasnam1] Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:54:41 PM | |
|
I can kind of buy the fact about Les not being in Nevada at the time.
I think it has more to do with the performers and writers.
But then again DAVE HOLLAND would have been in Nevada when they were served.
Which brings us back to the fact that maybe only full time employees and not contractors would have been sued.
make sense at all?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:35:33 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK not trying to stamp out the Scott is great run, but that was not the intent of my original question.
I think Scott is the BEST drummer in the world and I do not want him to leave the band either, so no need to continue down this path.
The intent was, why was Dave Holland or Les Binks not at the trial. I do NOT have much legal experience but would guess that both of them were contractors and not vested members.
Someone posted that Les may not have had money, trust me that is not the reason. They sued the band as a unit and not personally. I bet my monet Dave and Les were NOT legal members.
As far as Scott is concerned, my hope is that he is a vested member with voting rights, but perhaps he is not.
As would also guess that Tim Owens was not a Vested member. |
|
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:31:12 AM | |
|
HI Vail!
Good point! I totally forgot about the subliminal message thing - probably because it's just so STUPID! Maybe they just sued the guys in the band working the boards and mixing the album? Since obviously that would be put in during the mixing process - NOT THAT IT WAS, but you know what I mean. But then, shouldn't the producer also have been included in the lawsuit? Or maybe those were the only members making the final decision about the album before its release?
I still like what KK said about that subliminal message thing: why would we tell our fans to kill themselves???? Wouldn't you put in a message that says buy 5 copies of this album? OOOOOOH KK, there you go making sense again! You should know better than that when talking to lawyers!! 
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:43:35 PM)| | | Vaillant 3.0 wrote: | | OK...here's my stab at it:
Maybe the court only wanted the main songwriters of the band (Rob, Glenn, KK, and Ian...Ian did help with the songwriting at some point). The plaintiffs must have thought those four wrote the song (even though it was done by someone else) and therefore were the ones responsible for putting in that subliminal message. I don't know...it's just a guess... 
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK,
I know this is a 'Who Cares' question, but I'll throw it out;
The Trial in Denver seemed to be missing Dave Holland. Why? He was a member of the band.
Obviously he was NOT a member when the album was recorded, so I would assume perhaps that is why he did not have to be present.
But if that was the case shouldn't Les Binks have been called? He was a member at the time of recording.
Which brings me to my next point, if Les Binks wqas not called perhaps it was because he was a 'contractor' or NON-Vested member of the band.
Maybe Dave Holland was a contractor as well and NON-Vested member all along.
Question #2 - Do you think Scott Travis is a contractor or is he a Vested member?
Thoughts on all of the above?
Tasnam
I know, I know who cares about this past crap....... |
|
|
|
| [Vaillant 3.0] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:43:35 PM | |
|
OK...here's my stab at it:
Maybe the court only wanted the main songwriters of the band (Rob, Glenn, KK, and Ian...Ian did help with the songwriting at some point). The plaintiffs must have thought those four wrote the song (even though it was done by someone else) and therefore were the ones responsible for putting in that subliminal message. I don't know...it's just a guess...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Monday, June 22, 2009 10:56:06 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK,
I know this is a 'Who Cares' question, but I'll throw it out;
The Trial in Denver seemed to be missing Dave Holland. Why? He was a member of the band.
Obviously he was NOT a member when the album was recorded, so I would assume perhaps that is why he did not have to be present.
But if that was the case shouldn't Les Binks have been called? He was a member at the time of recording.
Which brings me to my next point, if Les Binks wqas not called perhaps it was because he was a 'contractor' or NON-Vested member of the band.
Maybe Dave Holland was a contractor as well and NON-Vested member all along.
Question #2 - Do you think Scott Travis is a contractor or is he a Vested member?
Thoughts on all of the above?
Tasnam
I know, I know who cares about this past crap....... |
|
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:36:47 PM | |
|
I still say it's because of the law in Nevada - you had to be in the state to be served. They made a point of saying this many many times and that's why it took so long for them to get sued over it - they had to wait until they did a show in Nevada and then BOOM, the cops showed up with the papers. Les was NEVER present in Nevada with them so they couldn't get him. I'm betting that is the reason Les was not included, because he didn't set foot in Nevada in order to be included in the lawsuit.
As far as Scott goes, I just wanted to be clear how I felt about him because it appeared that maybe what I said was taken the wrong way.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:35:33 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK not trying to stamp out the Scott is great run, but that was not the intent of my original question.
I think Scott is the BEST drummer in the world and I do not want him to leave the band either, so no need to continue down this path.
The intent was, why was Dave Holland or Les Binks not at the trial. I do NOT have much legal experience but would guess that both of them were contractors and not vested members.
Someone posted that Les may not have had money, trust me that is not the reason. They sued the band as a unit and not personally. I bet my monet Dave and Les were NOT legal members.
As far as Scott is concerned, my hope is that he is a vested member with voting rights, but perhaps he is not.
As would also guess that Tim Owens was not a Vested member. |
|
|
| [tasnam1] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:35:33 PM | |
|
OK not trying to stamp out the Scott is great run, but that was not the intent of my original question.
I think Scott is the BEST drummer in the world and I do not want him to leave the band either, so no need to continue down this path.
The intent was, why was Dave Holland or Les Binks not at the trial. I do NOT have much legal experience but would guess that both of them were contractors and not vested members.
Someone posted that Les may not have had money, trust me that is not the reason. They sued the band as a unit and not personally. I bet my monet Dave and Les were NOT legal members.
As far as Scott is concerned, my hope is that he is a vested member with voting rights, but perhaps he is not.
As would also guess that Tim Owens was not a Vested member. |
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:30:45 PM | |
|
Scott is definitely my favorite drummer of all time! He definitely took Priest to a new level, something they wanted to do but couldn't do with Dave. I so hope Scott does another drum solo on this tour! I remember how my teeth rattled in my head during his drum solo on the Painkiller tour - God that was incredible!! And I couldn't agree with you more - I NEVER want to see anyone else behind that drum kit! Scott is THE MAN
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Cobras-Aura from Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:23:16 PM)| | | Cobras-Aura wrote: | | | Scott may not be a vested member, nor is the guy an original member. But he is the definitive and true Judas Priest drummer (and I wouldn't wanna see anyone else behind the Priest drum set), he's one of the greatest heavy metal drummers there is and without him there would be no Painkiller, or Angel of Retribution. He's made this band so much better and took them to intensity levels never achieved before his arrival. We're very lucky to have him as a drummer for Judas Priest. Next record I hope that we may hear some more spine crushing drumming (as well as screaming and growling vocals by Rob, searing guitars by KK & Glenn and heavy bass by Ian) |
|
|
| [Screamin' Demon] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:23:16 PM | |
|
| Scott may not be a vested member, nor is the guy an original member. But he is the definitive and true Judas Priest drummer (and I wouldn't wanna see anyone else behind the Priest drum set), he's one of the greatest heavy metal drummers there is and without him there would be no Painkiller, or Angel of Retribution. He's made this band so much better and took them to intensity levels never achieved before his arrival. We're very lucky to have him as a drummer for Judas Priest. Next record I hope that we may hear some more spine crushing drumming (as well as screaming and growling vocals by Rob, searing guitars by KK & Glenn and heavy bass by Ian) |
|
| [guitardude] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:02:07 PM | |
|
| Considering this was so long ago, I haven`t given it a bit of thought, as for Scott, he kicks ass behind the kit and is obviously happy where he is. So why bother? |
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:39:53 PM | |
|
Hmmmm..... interesting...........
I wonder if it's because Nevada had a law that you could only legally serve someone if they were present in the state (or was it county/city?). Anyway, I know that they had to wait until Priest did a concert in Nevada in order to serve them with the lawsuit. So if Les was not in Nevada, maybe they couldn't serve him and therefore he was not involved in the lawsuit. Hell, if I'd been him, I'd stay as far away as I could from that bullshit. Thank God it turned out the way it did. It's also possible that the ambulance chasing lawyer didn't think Les was a cash cow and not worth going after since the entire thing was about money in the first place.
As far as Scott being a NON-Vested member...... again interesting question...... I have heard Rob say many times that the "founding members" will meet and decide this or that. So I know that he doesn't have a big say in things but I think he is more than a contractor. Afterall, he has outlasted EVERY drummer they have ever had - 20 years now!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Monday, June 22, 2009 10:56:06 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | OK,
I know this is a 'Who Cares' question, but I'll throw it out;
The Trial in Denver seemed to be missing Dave Holland. Why? He was a member of the band.
Obviously he was NOT a member when the album was recorded, so I would assume perhaps that is why he did not have to be present.
But if that was the case shouldn't Les Binks have been called? He was a member at the time of recording.
Which brings me to my next point, if Les Binks wqas not called perhaps it was because he was a 'contractor' or NON-Vested member of the band.
Maybe Dave Holland was a contractor as well and NON-Vested member all along.
Question #2 - Do you think Scott Travis is a contractor or is he a Vested member?
Thoughts on all of the above?
Tasnam
I know, I know who cares about this past crap....... |
|
|
| [tasnam1] Monday, June 22, 2009 10:56:06 PM | |
|
OK,
I know this is a 'Who Cares' question, but I'll throw it out;
The Trial in Denver seemed to be missing Dave Holland. Why? He was a member of the band.
Obviously he was NOT a member when the album was recorded, so I would assume perhaps that is why he did not have to be present.
But if that was the case shouldn't Les Binks have been called? He was a member at the time of recording.
Which brings me to my next point, if Les Binks wqas not called perhaps it was because he was a 'contractor' or NON-Vested member of the band.
Maybe Dave Holland was a contractor as well and NON-Vested member all along.
Question #2 - Do you think Scott Travis is a contractor or is he a Vested member?
Thoughts on all of the above?
Tasnam
I know, I know who cares about this past crap....... |
|
