Cosmo Valdemar Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 34 minutes ago, Bassfinger said: Clapton has a bit of cheek to go all legal at someone when he himself shot the sheriff. Fair play to him though, he did own up to it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimalkin Posted December 18, 2021 Share Posted December 18, 2021 The Domino Effect. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarky Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Cosmo Valdemar said: Fair play to him though, he did own up to it. The shooting of the Deputy, however, remains unsolved 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdown Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Clarky said: The shooting of the Deputy, however, remains unsolved Yes, it does...and, we never found out who's bottom dropped out. Edited December 19, 2021 by lowdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellzero Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 9 hours ago, Grimalkin said: The Domino Effect. Good point Derek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubit Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 On 17/12/2021 at 08:28, Hellzero said: It's about time to boycott him. I'm way ahead of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegs07 Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 (edited) If I had to take a moral stance and ensure musicians I admired lived up to a ethical or even expected standards of social norms I would be stuffed. Just imagine the metaphorical Christmas party. James Brown, Miles Davis and John Lennon in fine fettle. Shane MacGowan, Jim Morrison and Mark E Smith having a festive tipple and sing song joined by Nick Cave on piano with little Richard entertaining the youngsters. Fitting new locks on the bathroom before Chuck Berry rolls in and please nobody ask Mr Hendrix to keep an eye on the Turkey. The man’s a total space cadet. Edit: And I haven’t even mentioned Keith Moon .. Edited December 19, 2021 by tegs07 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassfinger Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 I'm not worried about their morals. So long as I'm not a drug taking alcoholic adulterer who stole just brest friends wife then I'm quite able to criticise him with some moral authority. If I become some or all of those things then I shall remain silent, but until that time I'm happy to tell folk what I think. None of that detracts from his talent, which is a different matter altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegs07 Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bassfinger said: I'm not worried about their morals. So long as I'm not a drug taking alcoholic adulterer who stole just brest friends wife then I'm quite able to criticise him with some moral authority This is true but off the top of my head: ABBA , The Grateful Dead, Fleetwood Mac, The Mamas and the Papas. I think they all would qualify. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimalkin Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 Scrooge Clapton can keep his turkey. He knows where he can stuff it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkgod Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 (edited) On 17/12/2021 at 11:36, chris_b said: If you read his autobiography. . . . sadly. . . . it's all 3 and a few more to boot. It's a shame because I've been going to Clapton gigs since 1965 and am a fan of (most) of his music!! I read it too, and while it was a great in depth account into all that was going on around him, and to be fair a very good read with loads of very interesting facts, but what you get from the theme of the book right through is that he is a cun! and always was and always will be, to the point that even his own autobiography could not hide that, yes he has a right to protect his music no matter how much money he has, i would do the same, but to say common eric... just send her a message to remove it, the answer to that im guessing is prob he has not the time to spend on sending thousands of messages trying to police this all day, so then its down to paying someone to do it as a job because that's what it would take, and not just one person... so by doing this im thinking he will get the coverage he wants in a bid to discourage future attempts. so my message to eric... ok you got the coverage you wanted, now be kind and let it go, but, we will still think your a cun! Edited December 20, 2021 by funkgod 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 5 hours ago, Bassfinger said: I'm not worried about their morals. So long as I'm not a drug taking alcoholic adulterer who stole just brest friends wife then I'm quite able to criticise him with some moral authority. I reflected on that list and on my own history and thought, well, I've no moral authority at all except it wasn't a friend, more a colleague I occasionally had drinks with. . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin Lewis Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Bassfinger said: So long as I'm not a drug taking alcoholic adulterer who stole just brest friends wife then I'm quite able to criticise him with some moral authority. That's me out then. Actually it was my best friend's Uncle's wife, to be clear. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnyman Posted December 19, 2021 Share Posted December 19, 2021 1 hour ago, skankdelvar said: I reflected on that list and on my own history and thought, well, I've no moral authority at all except it wasn't a friend, more a colleague I occasionally had drinks with. . 51 minutes ago, Skin Lewis said: That's me out then. Actually it was my best friend's Uncle's wife, to be clear. As a serial offender, I’d best shut up as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikNik Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 On 17/12/2021 at 22:40, mep said: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/dec/17/eric-clapton-wins-legal-case-against-woman-selling-bootleg-live-cd-for-845 Another article. She instructed her lawyers to refute the case which is why the costs escalated. Interesting to see what the law is in Germany too. Ye, she could have stopped at the 'Quit harrassing me!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikNik Posted December 20, 2021 Share Posted December 20, 2021 On 17/12/2021 at 21:51, Dan Dare said: Good summary and certainly sounds plausible. I couldn't care one way or the other about EC, but I don't see anything terrible in what is ascribed to him here. I'd be surprised if he even knew his lawyers/management/record company approached the woman, certainly initially. He won't be wasting his life scouring the 'net for every possible copyright infringement. He pays people to do that for him. Had she said fair enough and withdrawn the CD, I'm sure that would have been the end of it. However, it seems she (or, as Al points out, lawyers acting on her behalf) decided to pick a fight. More fool them. John Hall of RIC does exactly that, and has a legion of fanbois who gleefully report fakes/infringements without pay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 On 19/12/2021 at 12:31, Grimalkin said: Clapton The least said about him, the better IMO. On 20/12/2021 at 10:36, NikNik said: John Hall The least said about him, the better IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdown Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Rich said: The least said about him, the better IMO. The least said about him, the better IMO. Are pictures okay, though? Edited December 21, 2021 by lowdown 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodinblack Posted December 21, 2021 Share Posted December 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Rich said: The least said about him, the better IMO. The least said about him, the better IMO. At least one of them has now retired though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casapete Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 Recent statement from the EC camp updating stuff, just for anyone who may be interested. GERMAN BOOTLEG CASE: STATEMENT Published // 22.DEC.21 Given the widespread and often misleading press reports about a recent bootleg case involving a woman in Germany, the following provides clarification to set the record straight. Germany is one of several countries where sales of unauthorized and usually poor-quality illegal bootleg CDs are rife, which harms both the industry and purchasers of inferior product. Over a period of more than 10 years the German lawyers appointed by Eric Clapton, and a significant number of other well-known artists and record companies, have successfully pursued thousands of bootleg cases under routine copyright procedures. It is not the intention to target individuals selling isolated CDs from their own collection, but rather the active bootleggers manufacturing unauthorised copies for sale. In the case of an individual selling unauthorised items from a personal collection, if following receipt of a “cease and desist” letter the offending items are withdrawn, any costs would be minimal, or might be waived. Eric Clapton’s lawyers and management team (rather than Eric personally) identifies if an item offered for sale is illegal, and a declaration confirming that is signed, but thereafter Eric Clapton is not involved in any individual cases, and 95% of the cases are resolved before going to Court. 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. However, when the full facts of this particular case came to light and it was clear the individual is not the type of person Eric Clapton, or his record company, wish to target, Eric Clapton decided not to take any further action and does not intend to collect the costs awarded to him by the Court. Also, he hopes the individual will not herself incur any further costs. Eric Clapton Management 22nd December 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cetera Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 In other words, Eric was informed that this whole case was doing even more damage to his already terrible reputation and he thought better of it.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casapete Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, cetera said: In other words, Eric was informed that this whole case was doing even more damage to his already terrible reputation and he thought better of it.... Yup, quite possibly! Guess he can't win either way now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 23, 2021 Author Share Posted December 23, 2021 He seems to have done the decent thing here, but it has shone a fresh light onto his less agreeable traits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 25 minutes ago, casapete said: Yup, quite possibly! Guess he can't win either way now. To be fair, there are also some people (like the defendant) who you just can't help. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dare Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 48 minutes ago, casapete said: 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. 5 minutes ago, peteb said: To be fair, there are also some people (like the defendant) who you just can't help. This 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.