Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

I Sued The Sheriff


SteveFord
 Share

Recommended Posts

This has been raging all weekend on one of the UK guitar forums.  The actual facts AFAIK are;

- The lady put a bootleg CD (belonged to her late husband) up for sale on the net.  It is a live concert from 1985 which is on youtube (audio only). Link below.

- Someone close to EC brought it to his attention.

- She then received a 'cease and desist' letter from the copyright lawyers telling her to remove it from sale or face legal action.

- She refused, told them to stop harassing her and also said go ahead and sue me then.

- So they did.

 

Edited by jdgm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kidblast said:

well poor obviously Eric needs the money,,  like he needs another hole in his head..

 

what a d*ck..

 

Could be his reps acting alone... You never know. 

OT, he should of course have bought the CD off her and then kept it in a gilded safe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pinch said:

Could be his reps acting alone... You never know. 

OT, he should of course have bought the CD off her and then kept it in a gilded safe. 

true, but at some point you think he'd weigh in.  OTOH, if they approached the person, and she told em to F off, then ok,.. all bets are off. and she gets what's comin.

besides.. if you've heard one Clapton boot leg recording,  you have probably heard em all!

!LOL!

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, jvi....

If you mean the story behind this thread I don't think it's BS.  Saw something about it on the CBS news last night, but was on the phone with my daughter and the sound was turned down so I lost the details. 

But what I caught was the widow was selling the bootleg for $11 and Clapton was suing her over it.  Seems a bit overkill, wot?  [wink]

Whitefang

Edited by Whitefang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

 

But what I caught was the widow was selling the bootleg for $11 and Clapton was suing her over it.  Seems a bit overkill, wot?  [wink]

Whitefang

yea,, it did  until we also read about people from "Clapton's" entourage asking her to remove the auction.   that's when she got belligerent about it

at that point,  it escalated.  that's on her, not any one from Clapton's side.  

ya know...  that whole thing with don't poke the bear and all?

 

Edited by kidblast
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a message involved as well, a message to eBay, Reverb, Etsy, all of them.  The day is coming when somebody will have to go first, somebody will have to make somebody responsible.  You can't just buy "illegal" things to get them off the market, that's not how it is supposed to work.  Clapton is just nutty enough these days to make tentative steps to being one of the first to push it to what is the inevitable.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jdgm said:

This has been raging all weekend on one of the UK guitar forums.  The actual facts AFAIK are;

- The lady put a bootleg CD (belonged to her late husband) up for sale on the net.  It is a live concert from 1985 which is on youtube (audio only). Link below.

- Someone close to EC brought it to his attention.

- She then received a 'cease and desist' letter from the copyright lawyers telling her to remove it from sale or face legal action.

- She refused, told them to stop harassing her and also said go ahead and sue me then.

- So they did.

Yeah, I have to agree, not as simple as a rich person suing a less rich/poor person... Of course she is going to claim ignorance.. Her husband bought it in a shop... Well years ago loads of small record stores had bootlegs.. I bought a few in my day.. Of course most of those shops are just gone now...  But anyway, she was warned off, told them where to go and that they could sue her.. What did she really think was going to happen after that... 

Just another story to  get clicks and stir s**t up.. I doubt before this story made the news that Clapton even knew about it (if he even does now).. Record companies and lawyers generally see to that sort of thing..  (unless you are in Metallica, then its the drummer 🙂 ).

Edited by Rabs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Clapton's manager, he's done this hundreds of times before.

https://www.timesnews.net/living/arts-entertainment/eric-clapton-successfully-sues-over-bootleg-cd/article_be11b317-c3f0-5f6b-8972-d4c37d0c3331.html

I suppose this instance made the news due to the disproportionate legal fees and his whining over getting vaccinated which made people think about him again for a couple of minutes.  He's no Dua Lipa, ooh la la.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rabs said:

Yeah, I have to agree, not as simple as a rich person suing a less rich/poor person... Of course she is going to claim ignorance.. Her husband bought it in a shop... Well years ago loads of small record stores had bootlegs.. I bought a few in my day.. Of course most of those shops are just gone now...  But anyway, she was warned off, told them where to go and that they could sue her.. What did she really think was going to happen after that... 

Just another story to  get clicks and stir s**t up.. I doubt before this story made the news that Clapton even knew about it (if he even does now).. Record companies and lawyers generally see to that sort of thing..  (unless you are in Metallica, then its the drummer 🙂 ).

Think about it.

Makes no matter she kept it on the market after being told to desist.  We're talking about a 36 YEAR OLD BOOTLEG of a 36 YEAR OLD CONCERT!  It's tantamount to some old fart shaking a cane at some kid and yelling , "Get off my Lawn!"   And as the CD was her late husband's CD, it's now considered HER property, and not CLAPTON'S, and she does have a right to sell anything she owns by any means she chooses, it's a teapot tempest.  And only makes Clapton look like a bigger *** than before. 

Whitefang

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whitefang said:

Makes no matter she kept it on the market after being told to desist. 

On the contrary - this is the crux of the whole legal biscuit.  

If she'd withdrawn it from sale as requested, there could have been no prosecution; which is the way these things usually go.

It is irrelevant whose property the actual CD is, the owner is breaching copyright law by trying to sell it.  

Plus she was warned and chose to defy it, which made it inevitable she would face legal action. 

See rct's post; this would happen a lot more often if artists and their lawyers followed up every possible breach.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jdgm said:

On the contrary - this is the crux of the whole legal biscuit.  

If she'd withdrawn it from sale as requested, there could have been no prosecution; which is the way these things usually go.

It is irrelevant whose property the actual CD is, the owner is breaching copyright law by trying to sell it.  

Plus she was warned and chose to defy it, which made it inevitable she would face legal action. 

See rct's post; this would happen a lot more often if artists and their lawyers followed up every possible breach.

 

Kind of with you here,  the rule of law is the rule of law.  when they are selectively enforced, criminals can selectively break them. 

Look at the lunacy going on here in the USA in some of the cities run by some of the most liberal governors.  Smash and Grab crimes are up historically.  There's no one stopping it.

The "Defendant" in this case was given the chance to withdraw, and walk away clean.  Instead, she flipped em the bird,  unwise on her part.

Don't give people with plenty of money to pay a team of lawyers a chance to prove to you how bad things can go.

She can cry "FOUL" all she wants, she screwed up.   Nothing else really matters.

 

 

Edited by kidblast
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Whitefang said:

Think about it.

Makes no matter she kept it on the market after being told to desist.  We're talking about a 36 YEAR OLD BOOTLEG of a 36 YEAR OLD CONCERT!  It's tantamount to some old fart shaking a cane at some kid and yelling , "Get off my Lawn!"   And as the CD was her late husband's CD, it's now considered HER property, and not CLAPTON'S, and she does have a right to sell anything she owns by any means she chooses, it's a teapot tempest.  And only makes Clapton look like a bigger *** than before. 

Whitefang

I would recommend you attend Basic Law 101 at your local community college.

rct

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kidblast said:

Kind of with you here,  the rule of law is the rule of law. The "Defendant" in this case was given the chance to withdraw, and walk away clean.  Instead, she flipped em the bird,  unwise on her part.Don't give people with plenty of money to pay a team of lawyers a chance to prove to you how bad things can go.  

 

 

Gee, Isn't that taught in Law 101?   Lol.    Money  buys the best lawyers and todays world  seems to operate for those who have the most money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'll run upstream here....but I think it was handled correctly.

If she was given a 'cease and desist' letter and she refused...she SHOULD have been sued.

There is no other way to protect one's own intellectual property.   Not just this one person....but ALL people!

I had two recordings bootlegged may years ago....(on two albums:  Pebbles 10 & Pebbles 11).

And a band called The $hitbirds actually recorded one of the songs....I contacted the singer, (April March) and told her I enjoyed her arrangement (MUCH faster than ours).

She was very nice (real name Elinor Blake)...I think she was worried that we'd slam her....but it's all water under the bridge now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, kidblast said:

Kind of with you here,  the rule of law is the rule of law.  when they are selectively enforced, criminals can selectively break them. 

Look at the lunacy going on here in the USA in some of the cities run by some of the most liberal governors.  Smash and Grab crimes are up historically.  There's no one stopping it.

The "Defendant" in this case was given the chance to withdraw, and walk away clean.  Instead, she flipped em the bird,  unwise on her part.

Don't give people with plenty of money to pay a team of lawyers a chance to prove to you how bad things can go.

She can cry "FOUL" all she wants, she screwed up.   Nothing else really matters.

 

 

Sounds like you're all OK with someone with the financial means browbeating someone for trying to sell THEIR OWN PROPERTY.  And considering the asking price, the woman was obviously not trying to cash in on a big payday in the sale.  And think about something else.....

There are plenty of pawn shops and thrift shops also selling well aged recorded material.  From vinyl to CDs.  Why then, O wise ones, aren't THEY being considered as "breaching copyright law"?  And if not,, WHY not?    And kid------

I'm not aware of ANY cities being run by ANY governors.   Usually, the MAYORS usually run them.  Make a deal with ya---

I'LL take Law 101 at my local community college if YOU sit in a a few 8th grade civics classes.  [wink]

Whitefang

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Whitefang said:

I'm not aware of ANY cities being run by ANY governors.   Usually, the MAYORS usually run them.  Make a deal with ya---

 

Whitefang

You might be naive here thinking Governors don't 'run' some cities.

In my 'Golden State' Governor Hairdo has a heavy hand on ALL the big cities, (San Diego might be an exception).

But that's really not the point.

If a person is allowed to pirate your recordings and sell them for profit...what's to stop a company from setting  up shop to pirate ALL music and sell them leaving out the artist with zero?

If Clapton simply jumped on this woman and took her to court...I'd think that's too heavy-handed, (although legal)...so the correct thing to do is tell her to stop selling bootlegged material.

Then, whatever happens after that is on her.

Clapton is already under fire for refusing to play concerts where the Vax was required, (or something like that).

His choice....I'm glad I'm not forced to get vaxed or get fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...