[SteveFord]

And then I sued a German widow

https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/eric-clapton-sued-a-woman-who-listed-a-bootleg-cd-on-ebay-for-11-she-now-owes-thousands/

[FullRangeMan]

This looks April Fools but this Kafkian event will be the new reality from here on with the proverbial indispensable help of Windows 11 in informing all copyrighted audio and video files you have in your computer and the suckers keep installing W11 

He should capitalize positively on this event and make a show in the city of this lady and invite her, who surely doesnt even know who he is, one of the most disturbing news items I have read in recent years.

[Letitroll98]

Clapton is a first class a-hole.  I never liked his music all that much and he's far from the best guitarist around.  Now with his antivaxer status and suing elderly widows he can kiss my ass.  I've never bought any of his work, but I'm sure I've got a few gifts or garage sale aquisitions I can burn in the back yard.

[SteveFord]

Jeff Beck he ain't.
You'd think he'd have more important things to worry about but guess not.

[MttBsh]

Not to mention there are plenty of parties out there whose websites list hundreds of bootlegs available for sale including lots of Clapton concerts. Clapton is no doubt aware of these sites yet he chooses to go after an innocent widow instead. There’s gotta be more to the story….

[charmerci]

She was sent a message to not sell it and her lawyer replied, go ahead and sue me.

[mix4fix]

Are we sure it is him doing this, and not his record company/manager?

[Phil A]

While I appreciate his music (and can appreciate any artist, actor, etc., for their talent), and although he is not my personal favorite, it is not a secret as to him not being the most perfect human being in the world.

https://dankennedy.net/2021/10/18/the-ugly-truth-about-eric-clapton-and-the-line-between-the-art-and-the-artist/

https://www.fark.com/comments/11828152/Was-Eric-Clapton-always-this-awful-of-a-person

https://chriszappa.com/i-cant-even-with-eric-clapton-anymore-c3ac144de07e


There's plenty of more stuff.  It's just the way it is.  I think sometimes people either miss the facts ("got the attention of Clapton, who sued the woman for copyright infringement") or just don't like a particular artist for their views about something.  It's just the way it is.

[Zuman]

Sorry for the hijack, but "this Kafkian event will be the new reality from here on with the proverbial indispensable help of Windows 11 in informing all copyrighted audio and video files you have in your computer..."
???
Did I miss something? I hadn't seen anything about Windows 11 policing our computers' libraries before. I also did a one-minute Google search and didn't see anything jump out at me. Is there something going on with Windows 11 I should know about?

[Phil A]

Sorry for the hijack, but "this Kafkian event will be the new reality from here on with the proverbial indispensable help of Windows 11 in informing all copyrighted audio and video files you have in your computer..."
???
Did I miss something? I hadn't seen anything about Windows 11 policing our computers' libraries before. I also did a one-minute Google search and didn't see anything jump out at me. Is there something going on with Windows 11 I should know about?

There's stuff out there.  I'm not going to lose sleep over any of it - e.g.

https://www.reddit.com/r/windows/comments/o3r7wc/i_will_not_get_windows_11_period/

https://www.komando.com/technology/windows-11-waiver/808670/

I have a non-Windows music server in the main system that reads files off my NAS.  I have JRiver on three Windows 10 PCs (and it also reads files from my NAS), my main one, my back-up PC, which was upgraded from Windows 7, and a small fanless PC (which is old) I use in a secondary audio system.  It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to change the small fanless PC to a non-Windows music server (the usual Windows PITA stuff drove me from it in the first place). I have an Oppo 103D in that secondary system which can read most of the files on my NAS (DLNA) and I have a Panasonic 9000 and 820 in two other systems which can do the same.  I also have an old Mac G5 tower sitting around which I could easily use as a back-up PC at some point and it's not that expensive for a license upgrade in JRiver to include the Mac.

My main PC (running Windows 10) is super fast.  I'll look at the options when Windows 10 is no longer supported. Some people  have to have the latest.  I use the main PC most often to search the web.  If it gets too crazy, it doesn't bother me to install Linux or look at other options.  Computer audio can be enough of a pain (and that's why I got off Windows for the main system in the first place) and anything Microsoft will end up doing to make it more of a pain is going to be their loss.  All I really need music wise for the main system is to be able to sample tracks from where I intend to purchase downloads and there are other options for me after I do that.



Windows 10 retirement date is set at October 14, 2025 and I don't need to start looking at stuff now.

[DannyBadorine]

I'm not interested in defending Clapton but bootlegs shouldn't be sold.  I recently had some of my live in-ear mixes posted on Reddit.  The only way that someone could have gotten them was by hijacking into one of the wireless frequencies that I was using then recording it.  The problem is that I could be liable to the band for not protecting the mixes.  So, my point is that bootlegging can effect more than just the artist.  I could have been fired or sued for it if the band didn't trust me.  So, if you're going to sell something that was illegally acquired then you're asking to get sued. 

[WGH]

Did I miss something?

No, didn't miss anything. I've been using Windows 11 for 36 days on two computers, so far, so good. Best OS ever.
I'll let everyone know if anything happens to my files and downloads.

You all have run into an opinionated crazy old person, probably at family gatherings. Eric Clapton finally crossed that line.
Clapton claims the AstraZeneca vaccine caused his peripheral nephropathy, a disease he has had since at least 2013.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/13/eric-clapton-reveals-nerve-damage-that-makes-playing-guitar-hard-work/

He is now an adamant antivaxer but is also well protected wherever his rants take him since he has both of the vaccine shots.

Clapton vowed never to play a vaccine-mandate show again (7/19/2021)
“I wish to say that I will not perform on any stage where there is a discriminated audience present. Unless there is provision made for all people to attend, I reserve the right to cancel the show.”
and then played in New Orleans on Sept. 18th at a show that mandated vaccines. He now allows a negative test into his shows, his anti-discrimination fudge factor.

Family holiday discussions must be fun "Eric was at my house last Christmas, it's your turn."

[Phil A]

  So, if you're going to sell something that was illegally acquired then you're asking to get sued.

I agree totally. The case of the original post involved the widow of the purchaser, who, per the story (assuming it is correct), did not know it was a bootleg.  We also don't know the specific statutes where the problem occured nor if there was an attempt to send something to the seller to cease operations.  Here's a story.  With an old girlfriend many moons ago (more than 15 years), we took a train to visit someone. I'm not going to disclose the locality.  We got out of the station and there was a vendor selling movies and music that to me looked like obvious bootlegs.  I told the girlfriend and she bought a movie anyway (and later watching it she noticed it was obviously grainy, filmed inside of a theater and at one point she indicated someone got up out of their seat at the movies and that showed up on the DVD).  There were two police officers from the locality talking to the vendor when she bought it asking him when he would get particular items in.  It was obvious from the conversation they bought things from the vendor before and I find it hard to believe they did not know they were bootlegs.  Being in the hobby, I could tell by looking at them.

One can go to many street corners in many cities and find the same thing going on.  With cameras and undercover law enforcement everywhere, it still goes on (and I realized there are more serious crimes which keep them busy).  Also many moons ago, when I had LD Players, I bought a copy of 'The Phantom Menace' on LD imported from Japan.  The LD was only released in Japan.  I paid $120 for it.  At the same time, there were DVDs of the movie (which was not yet available on DVD) being sold on various popular online sites (just like the Clapton CD) and obviously were bootlegs.  So while I agree with enforcing copyright infringement, there also comes a point when enforcement is either not practical due to other more serious crimes or it is enforced in a manner that really doesn't equate to justice.  Allegedly, the Clapton bootleg was bought in 1987.  In the example I gave, how many customers around 20 years back bought bootlegs ourside the train station?

The article notes "Michael Eaton, Clapton’s business manager, told The Washington Post last month that “given the depressingly bad standard of journalism reflected in certain recent articles, Eric Clapton has no desire at the moment to engage with the US Press.”"  To me, it seems obvious that they made no attempt to just stop the sale and just wanted to set an example without knowing or caring about the circumstances of how the item was acquired.  I've been to local music shows where some artists have sold self made CDs before they had record deals.  I'm sure there are lots of copies for sale of many of these and I'm sure that not every single listed is a legit copy.  It's just the way of the world.  I'd be curious to see what the actual (Clapton) item being sold by the lady looked like and whether looking at it the average consumer would readily identify it as a bootleg vs. just condemning her as commiting a crime.

[Phil A]

I'll let everyone know if anything happens to my files and downloads.

 

[SteveFord]

Sounds like Get Off My Lawn guy meets Frau Blutcher from Young Frankenstein, recent law school graduates submit bill for hourly services over unwanted $11 item left over from garage sale.
Just crazy.

[DannyBadorine]

I understand the complexity of the situation.  I definitely don't advocate that we arrest people for selling bootlegs as that's just a power struggle that leads to problems.  And maybe this woman didn't know better.  The only reason that this is even in the news is because the media is going after Clapton more due to his anti-vax stance. (I am pro-vax and disagree with Clapton but I tolerate opposing opinions). So it's probably just a case of sensationalism and a sort of hit piece against him.  On the other hand, he's asking for the criticism if he's actually suing one person with one bootleg.  Why is he wasting his time with it?  Maybe there's more to the story. 

[Phil A]

My take on it (and I could be off base - wouldn't be the first or last time) is that the laws in Germany were favorable for this type of action.  It doesn't sound (from the tone of the article and it could be as noted above an agenda against Clapton) from the article and the quote from his manager that they weren't interested in getting down to even look at a potential source of the bootleg vs. just punish someone who doesn't have much power (I don't think the amount of money in the form of court costs means anything to Clapton).  If I was concerned about the bootleg (and granted I don't have much talent - if I did artwork the proper place for it would be hanging on the fridge with a magnet), I'd want the thing off the market and demand the copy of the CD to see if there was anything that could be ascertained about its origin.

Also, we (on this site) tend to be way more educated about legit copies of things vs. the average (or less than average consumer).  If there was something for sale on this site, someone would likely look at a site like - http://www.bestlivealbums.com/tag/eric-clapton-live-albums/   where it shows:

"1970 to 1979 Crossroads 2: Live in the Seventies
1973 Eric Clapton’s Rainbow Concert
1974 E. C. Was Here
1979 Just One Night
Time Pieces Vol.II Live In The Seventies
1990/91 24 Nights
1992 Unplugged
2001 One More Car, One More Rider
2008 Live from Madison Square Garden (with Steve Winwood)
2011 Play the Blues Live from Jazz at Lincoln Center (with Wynton Marsalis)"   

It is likely if a live concert not listed anywhere else was being sold here, someone would ask an appropriate question and I'm sure it would be promptly taken care of via moderation.  While this is a small and specialized site, it also begs the question what about the site where the item was listed on (eBay).  I realize they can't possibly police everything listed.  However, that being said, most major companies would have an internal audio staff and would do some type of limited testing for various things, which due to the size of the company, would be a very small sample.  It seems that this was more of the laws are favorable in the locality to go after the individual seller with no intent to get the copy of the CD or take on the site (which obviously would be much harder) that listed the item to try to discourage them from not doing anything to prevent it.  The agreement the seller had with eBay is easy enough to find - https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-policies/images-text-policy?id=4240   and addresses copyright infringement.  The question should be that the site has to know that there won't be 100% compliance.  Were any of the same type of transactions tested internally (even a small amount of them) for such occurences?  So I'm sure that this was just the easiest path to take some kind of action vs. really about protecting the copyright (as apparently there are stiff consequences laid down by the judge for the woman re-listing the item and obviosly the woman still has the disc and can do whatever else she wants with it - listen to it, just leave it somewhere or throw it away, and that doesn't mean someone can't take it out of the garbage or take it).

[charmerci]

I understand the complexity of the situation.  I definitely don't advocate that we arrest people for selling bootlegs as that's just a power struggle that leads to problems.  And maybe this woman didn't know better.  The only reason that this is even in the news is because the media is going after Clapton more due to his anti-vax stance. (I am pro-vax and disagree with Clapton but I tolerate opposing opinions). So it's probably just a case of sensationalism and a sort of hit piece against him.  On the other hand, he's asking for the criticism if he's actually suing one person with one bootleg.  Why is he wasting his time with it?  Maybe there's more to the story.

I forgot where I read it. She's a widow whose husband bought it new from a big store. She was trying to sell it used online when she contacted by Clapton's lawyer who threatened a lawsuit. Her lawyer then responded "go ahead" and the lawyer did.

[Phil A]

I forgot where I read it. She's a widow whose husband bought it new from a big store. She was trying to sell it used online when she contacted by Clapton's lawyer who threatened a lawsuit. Her lawyer then responded "go ahead" and the lawyer did.

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

'Lawyers in Germany had sent a letter to the woman about the listing, and she had replied: “I object and ask you not to harass or contact me any further. Feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands."'

This also is apparently not the first time Clapton has done this per the original article posted '“Along with a number of other major artists and record companies, over a number of years Eric Clapton has, through German lawyers, successfully pursued hundreds of bootleg cases in the German courts under routine German copyright procedures,” Eaton said.''

So she did have her chance to address the issue and chose not to.  Also, it is apparent this is routine under German copyright.  Given the fact it continually happens, it doesn't seem to resolve the issue.

[DannyBadorine]

Fair enough then.  If you're given warning and respond like that....
The music business is full of lawsuits for many things, especially between bands and record companies.  I think artists get used to (and for good reason) using lawyers to protect their music and ultimately protect their income.  It's just a reality.  While I may disagree with Clapton on a number of things, this action might be warranted to set a precedent.  Metallica got a bad name for fighting Napster, but really they were protecting their interests.  Yeah, they're richer than they need to be but I don't think we should all get free music.  It's not just the band members that this effects.  I happen to make a living in the music business and when artists make less money, their crew often suffers.  So I think as connoisseurs of music, we should be willing to pay for the time and effort that goes into it.  How would we all feel if someone was making money and/or engaging in transactions for our music that we wrote and played, but we don't get any money from it?  At what point is it ok?