Eric Clapton Successfully Sued A Woman Who Tried To Sell A Bootleg CD On eBay

[12barBill]

Originally Posted by 12barBill

Now, I haven't read the link provided in another post, but did Clapton do this on his own or was some other financial entity involved? It just seems strange that Clapton would go after this.

Originally Posted by Inyo

Calm down.

There's more to the story. Here's the last paragraph from the full story over at German Bootleg Case: Statement:

Pretty much what I expected.

[RvrDxn]

There’s always more to the story but people love to jump up on their high-horse and get all worked up.

[dnf777]

Looks like his PR people realized he was being a schmuck, and backed down. I still don't care to spend a red cent on his wealth, due to reasons forbidden here.

[KevWind]

As usual emotions can cause snap judgements, and often miss the actual point

The point was not about the money, it was about the law

The point was and is totally valid which is,, simply because it's easy to do i.e break the copyright law (particularly in the new digital age) ,people have no right to sell, publish, or distribute, UNAUTHORIZED copyrighted material PERIOD .... it's against the law PERIOD ..

Anyone who considers themselves as "Law abiding" is being a bit hypocritical getting upset at this .
Also although I imagine those expressing it are not really aware of doing so ,,,one background or subtext notion being floated here is at its core the fundamentally flawed. That being because someone is wealthy, their rights do not deserve to be protected like the rest of us . Which is in reality simply the other side of the same coin as the notion that those who are poor , rights do not deserve to be protected.

"It was only one copy
it was only $11
Some artists release their own Bootleg's"
Etc.etc.etc.---- ad nauseam.

Are all specious arguments

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by dnf777

While he remains one of the greatest guitarists of my life, I give him an F as a human being, and he will not see one penny of mine. Im sure he won’t miss it, but if others feel the same way, he might. I predict this post gets locked soon.

I never thought he was that good. His Mayall year was his only high point. I agree with you on the rest of your post. He was a star that had a bankable brand and has a dozen or so albums that no one would care to listen to. He had allot of promotion money behind him.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by dnf777

Looks like his PR people realized he was being a schmuck, and backed down.

Just lately they've had their hands full with other Clapton schmuckitude; don't need this piled on top, for sure.

[12barBill]

It appears that some people are not capable of separating their personal, pre-established bias from the facts of the full story here.

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

As usual emotions can cause snap judgements, and often miss the actual point

The point was not about the money, it was about the law

The point was and is totally valid which is,, simply because it's easy to do i.e break the copyright law (particularly in the new digital age) ,people have no right to sell, publish, or distribute, UNAUTHORIZED copyrighted material PERIOD .... it's against the law PERIOD ..

Anyone who considers themselves as "Law abiding" is being a bit hypocritical getting upset at this .
Also although I imagine those expressing it are not really aware of doing so ,,,one background or subtext notion being floated here is at its core the fundamentally flawed. That being because someone is wealthy, their rights do not deserve to be protected like the rest of us . Which is in reality simply the other side of the same coin as the notion that those who are poor , rights do not deserve to be protected.

"It was only one copy
it was only $11
Some artists release their own Bootleg's"
Etc.etc.etc.---- ad nauseam.

Are all specious arguments

Blind, unthinking, lock-step adherence to The Law assumes that all laws are automatically just, ethical, and moral, which they clearly are not, and results in abuse of The Law, which is exactly what happened in this instance.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

Blind, unthinking, lock-step adherence to The Law assumes that all laws are automatically just, ethical, and moral, which they clearly are not, and results in abuse of The Law, which is exactly what happened in this instance.

I can see where you might have misinterpreted the words PERIOD ::: But No one is suggesting extenuating circumstances should never be considered in the adjudication of law.
But in this case "abuse of law" is only your interpretation and likely based on a mis founded assumption,
(that the defendant in question did not contribute to outcome.)


https://www.whereseric.com/eric-clap...case-statement
This case could have been disposed of quickly at minimal cost, but unfortunately in response to the German lawyers’ first standard letter, the individual’s reply included the line (translation): “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands”. This triggered the next step in the standard legal procedures, and the Court then made the initial injunction order.

If the individual had complied with the initial letter the costs would have been minimal. Had she explained at the outset the full facts in a simple phone call or letter to the lawyers, any claim might, have been waived, and costs avoided.
However, the individual appointed a lawyer who appealed the injunction decision. The Judge encouraged the individual to withdraw the appeal to save costs, but she proceeded. The appeal failed and she was ordered to pay the costs of the Court and all of the parties.


But I will not assume you are saying "individuals should not be held responsible for the actions they bring on themselves " But Rather assume that you replied from not knowing the facts ..

[Gordon Currie]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

Blind, unthinking, lock-step adherence to The Law assumes that all laws are automatically just, ethical, and moral, which they clearly are not, and results in abuse of The Law, which is exactly what happened in this instance.

Because you say so.

[RvrDxn]

What’s that? His stance on freedom and personal choice?

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Just lately they've had their hands full with other Clapton schmuckitude; don't need this piled on top, for sure.

[upsidedown]

Edit.
Like Eric Clapton’s legal team, I’ve had a change of heart about my participation in this thread.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by upsidedown

Edit.
Like Eric Clapton’s legal team, I’ve had a change of heart about my participation in this thread.

Well besides the self admitted racist remarks , which were indeed high level "schmuckitude" but they were much earlier in his life, not an excuse just the reality .. Currently I don't really see promoting ignorance of science and forwarding crackpot conspiracy, as being a legit stance for freedom.

As far as his legal team ? don't know if was a change of heart so much as shock at the defendant self inflicting needless penalty on herself, over which the court, not the legal team had control, and not wanting to pile on additional over that .

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I can see where you might have misinterpreted the words PERIOD ::: But No one is suggesting extenuating circumstances should never be considered in the adjudication of law.

"The point was and is totally valid which is,, simply because it's easy to do i.e break the copyright law (particularly in the new digital age) ,people have no right to sell, publish, or distribute, UNAUTHORIZED copyrighted material PERIOD .... it's against the law PERIOD .."


I "misinterpreted" nothing. Your use of "PERIOD" (your ALL CAPS, not mine) clearly indicated that in your opinion the law is all there is to be considered. Nothing else. So saying that no one is suggesting extenuating circumstances should never be considered is odd because that's exactly what you did. That's exactly what it meant when you added "PERIOD" to the ends of your sentences. Simple English.

I do agree that she mishandled her end of the affair, but I repeat what I said at the top of the thread, the offering of a single CD for sale in no way posed any threat to Clapton's income or wealth. Going after her was overkill and disproportionate to the offense. IMO.

[TomB'sox]

As often is the case, this thread has gone of course and will be closed.