PDA

View Full Version : Some points about the legal contract.


Descencia
04-21-2006, 05:23 PM
All of the secrecy and legalese and Tool freaking out over the Andy King review seems to be all for naught because:

1. The (leaked) album is not so magnificent that it was really worth all the secrecy.

2. It leaked the day after Vicarious went to radio. All these efforts to control leaks backfired on them and it leaked anyways. At least it appears that way for now.

3. The legal contract may have contained something to the effect of: The record you will hear today is a work in progress, ie: some tracks are subject to change between now and the official release date. Under no circumstances will you release any review of what you heard until after the release date because your review may not be representative of the final product.

4. This would explain their reaction to the Andy King review. Reading it over again and comparing it to the leak, he heard what we have. But this may have been the plan, to play a fake album at listening sessions not to protect the fake, but to protect THE BAND. Because playing an album that may not be the genuine article and deceiving music press could get them sued and not the other way around, so they would have to provide some sort of contract for journalists that this may not be the real thing.

svet-am
04-21-2006, 06:27 PM
All of the secrecy and legalese and Tool freaking out over the Andy King review seems to be all for naught because:

1. The (leaked) album is not so magnificent that it was really worth all the secrecy.

2. It leaked the day after Vicarious went to radio. All these efforts to control leaks backfired on them and it leaked anyways. At least it appears that way for now.

3. The legal contract may have contained something to the effect of: The record you will hear today is a work in progress, ie: some tracks are subject to change between now and the official release date. Under no circumstances will you release any review of what you heard until after the release date because your review may not be representative of the final product.

4. This would explain their reaction to the Andy King review. Reading it over again and comparing it to the leak, he heard what we have. But this may have been the plan, to play a fake album at listening sessions not to protect the fake, but to protect THE BAND. Because playing an album that may not be the genuine article and deceiving music press could get them sued and not the other way around, so they would have to provide some sort of contract for journalists that this may not be the real thing.

interesting thoughts and perspective. however, this is the album tool intended to release, and a might fine one it is.

9th Phoenix
04-21-2006, 07:49 PM
#3 is standard NDA fare all across the board, rendering your conspiracy theory thar moot.

DemiGodRaven
04-21-2006, 07:51 PM
that and with rule 1, what type of band actually says to themselves "This album sucks, lets keep it secret"

heavensblade23
04-21-2006, 07:53 PM
that and with rule 1, what type of band actually says to themselves "This album sucks, lets keep it secret"

One that wants to sell as many copies of that album as possible.

HolyReality
04-21-2006, 07:53 PM
All of the secrecy and legalese and Tool freaking out over the Andy King review seems to be all for naught because:

1. The (leaked) album is not so magnificent that it was really worth all the secrecy.

2. It leaked the day after Vicarious went to radio. All these efforts to control leaks backfired on them and it leaked anyways. At least it appears that way for now.

3. The legal contract may have contained something to the effect of: The record you will hear today is a work in progress, ie: some tracks are subject to change between now and the official release date. Under no circumstances will you release any review of what you heard until after the release date because your review may not be representative of the final product.

4. This would explain their reaction to the Andy King review. Reading it over again and comparing it to the leak, he heard what we have. But this may have been the plan, to play a fake album at listening sessions not to protect the fake, but to protect THE BAND. Because playing an album that may not be the genuine article and deceiving music press could get them sued and not the other way around, so they would have to provide some sort of contract for journalists that this may not be the real thing.
that is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.

Descencia
04-21-2006, 08:51 PM
It is still a possibility.

DemiGodRaven
04-22-2006, 03:23 AM
One that wants to sell as many copies of that album as possible.


*TINFOIL HAT!*