God can forgive, but Clapton can't

[Hellzero]

So a happy ending for something that should not even have surfaced, but a happy ending only due to the bad publicity created by this nonsense greedy operation.

 

The sentence “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands” doesn't mean you have to, except if you are very susceptible, which seems to be the case for EC's lawyers as the case was closed after the withdrawal of the aforementioned bootleg CD.

 

So they didn't need to insist by sending another letter threatening the lady in question as she already did what was asked.

 

I would have done the exact same thing in this exact same situation, except that I don't own any illegal records or films, because I'm a person who think the copyright is really important.

[Grimalkin]

I'm glad that they have come to agreement, before it turned into a full-blown schnitzel show.

[Doctor J]

.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Doctor J

[mcnach]

3 hours ago, peteb said:

 

To be fair, there are also some people (like the defendant) who you just can't help. 

 

 

 

[mcnach]

3 hours ago, Hellzero said:

So a happy ending for something that should not even have surfaced, but a happy ending only due to the bad publicity created by this nonsense greedy operation.

 

The sentence “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands” doesn't mean you have to, except if you are very susceptible, which seems to be the case for EC's lawyers as the case was closed after the withdrawal of the aforementioned bootleg CD.

 

So they didn't need to insist by sending another letter threatening the lady in question as she already did what was asked.

 

I would have done the exact same thing in this exact same situation, except that I don't own any illegal records or films, because I'm a person who think the copyright is really important.

 

Hmmm...

 

She stated on her response she had no intention to withdraw and then waved a red cloth to the bull-lawyers "feel free to file a lawsuit"... While the whole thing seemed silly, it looks like she brought it on herself. I find it hard to have sympathy for her, no matter how much I may dislike Clapton.

[Hellzero]

45 minutes ago, mcnach said:

 

Hmmm...

 

She stated on her response she had no intention to withdraw and then waved a red cloth to the bull-lawyers "feel free to file a lawsuit"... While the whole thing seemed silly, it looks like she brought it on herself. I find it hard to have sympathy for her, no matter how much I may dislike Clapton.

 

Here's what you can read in the Guardian article : "She told the court that the listing was removed after one day."

[mcnach]

11 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

 

Here's what you can read in the Guardian article : "She told the court that the listing was removed after one day."

 

 

And immediately following that we get:

 

Quote

Lawyers for the 76-year-old rock star pursued the case, and sent a Düsseldorf regional court an affidavit stating that the recordings were illegal and made without Clapton’s consent.

In response to a standard letter from Clapton’s German legal team, the woman replied: “I object and ask you not to harass or contact me any further”, and told them “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands”.

 

It doesn't sound like all this would have happened if she had, indeed, removed the listing when requested, does it?

 

Obviously I do not know the exact truth, but with what's on that article, which scenario sounds more plausible to you?

 

1) woman receives cease&desist letter, after a day pulls the listing down and sends the lawyers that response, then the lawyers take exception to the wording and decide to press charges.

 

or

 

2) woman receives cease&desist letter, sends the lawyers the aforementioned response (where she 'objects', and pretty much tells them to go away), listing stays, then lawyers say 'ok' and press charges.

 

I have no doubt the listing was removed after one day. I am just not so certain which day she was counting from.

 

Again, no, I do not know what the exact truth is, but to me it looks like she miscalculated her situation, bluffed, and when it escalated, she bluffed some more and went to court, thus digging her hole further. I just cannot believe that if she really pulled down the listing *a day after* being asked, that she'd be pursued and that the court would not side with her.

 

In the absence of further evidence, if I have to choose, I tend to go with the simplest explanation, the one that leaves fewest questions unanswered. From the two scenarios above, to me, #1 just sounds ridiculous, while #2 fits pretty well the narrative and her belligerent stance. 

 

When is the movie coming out?

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 16, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Bassfinger]

Either way, Claptons lawyers still get paid by someone so they're happy.

[Downunderwonder]

2 hours ago, Hellzero said:

 

Here's what you can read in the Guardian article : "She told the court that the listing was removed after one day."

That'll be the day she got the summons to court. A day late and a buck short.

[tauzero]

On 23/12/2021 at 12:15, Hellzero said:

So a happy ending for something that should not even have surfaced, but a happy ending only due to the bad publicity created by this nonsense greedy operation.

 

The sentence “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands” doesn't mean you have to, except if you are very susceptible, which seems to be the case for EC's lawyers as the case was closed after the withdrawal of the aforementioned bootleg CD.

 

So they didn't need to insist by sending another letter threatening the lady in question as she already did what was asked.

 

Did she? I would take what she said as meaning that she wasn't going to accede to the request to remove the item from sale. The point about the lawyers making the demands was that they were demands, so it's pretty pointless making them unless you insist on them. As it's a translation, though, I may be missing some nuance in the original.