Eric Clapton is quite the _______ (fill in the blank with your own word)

[Fordgalaxy]

In this case, the word I'd use is douchebag. He sued a German woman for a trying to sell a 30 year old burned cd of one of his live shows. Her now dead husband burned it to listen to and she decided to sell it. Now she has to pay $4000 in court fees, including his (he's worth an estimated $300,000,000). Add this to his anti-vaccine crap and his racist rants from many years ago, and it seems like he's just not a very nice person.

 

Bitter, old man

 

Eric Clapton is not happy with the bootleg scene and has gone the extra mile to secure his artistry.

As noted by Guitar World, Clapton has successfully sued a 55-year-old German widow in a copyright infringement case for posting a bootleg live CD on eBay for $11. In court papers, the woman, who is referred to as Gabrielle P, will have to pay court costs for herself and the musician, totaling $4,000.

 

The item up for debate is a burned copy of one of his records called Live USA, which was purchased by Gabriele P's late husband at a department store more than three decades ago. The defendant put the CD on eBay for about $11 in July and was set to profit an estimated $9.30 after fees.

As the story goes, Clapton caught wind of the listing and filed an affidavit with the court over the illegal nature of the album. The Düsseldorf Regional Court has since ruled in Clapton’s favor.

 

Clapton's lawsuit is just the latest headline-making story for the musician. Last year, he denounced state-mandated lockdowns during the COVID-19 outbreaks and even refused to perform in venues where unvaccinated concert-goers were banned from attendance.

[invisible airwave]

wanker

 

He should just pretend the vaccine is his buddy's ex wife and he'll give a damn and with this news he's a Lars Ulrich Napster era wanker as well. Sod off you rich greedy knobhead.

Edited December 18, 2021 by invisible airwave

[blueschica]

I would put something nutty or nasty on since he seems to have lost it lately, but I do admire his playing so I won't.

 

My girlfriend and I were downtown in Pittsburgh in high school to go to a college fair and he was scheduled for a concert that night. We went in the Holiday Inn coffee shop in the afternoon and there he was, eating breakfast! He gave us a smile and wave but we didn't go over as we were like 16 with Mickey mouse t shirts on and his entourage looked so sophisticated and cool. We did get a wave though! Glad for the memory; sad to see he's gotten so goofy now.

[taurus]

petty d-bag..oh but that's 2 words

[Entre_Perpetuo]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

[J2112YYZ]

Quite the overrated guitar player.

[Fridge]

c***

[pjbear05]

I would put something nutty or nasty on since he seems to have lost it lately, but I do admire his playing so I won't.

 

My girlfriend and I were downtown in Pittsburgh in high school to go to a college fair and he was scheduled for a concert that night. We went in the Holiday Inn coffee shop in the afternoon and there he was, eating breakfast! He gave us a smile and wave but we didn't go over as we were like 16 with Mickey mouse t shirts on and his entourage looked so sophisticated and cool. We did get a wave though! Glad for the memory; sad to see he's gotten so goofy now.

This sums it up for me, also. Really sad.

[custom55]

Edited December 18, 2021 by custom55

[78jazz]

Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album.

 

This is what I would do.

 

I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

 

I believe the question is here is recording vs. content. The recording does not happen without the content. I can see why EC went after her, but for the paltry amount I do not think it would be worth it.

 

To each his own though.

[Fordgalaxy]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

 

The Grateful Dead, and maybe other bands, encouraged people to record their shows with the hope of reaching a wider audience, and they seemed to have done okay. Maybe not $300 million okay, but they didn't (or don't) live in a refrigerator box near Haight & Ashbury.

[goose]

This is an instance of Clapton making a stand on a larger issue, but it seems pretty poorly calculated. He's not wrong though.

 

As far as comparisons to the Grateful Dead, Phish, Black Crowes...jam bands need boots as a means of advertising. Traditional radio play artists like Clapton don't, so them being protective males sense in a traditional context.

 

As far as the lady, Ebay is not the smartest platform for engaging in property rights theft.

[Rick N. Backer]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

 

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't.

 

I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see.

 

He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music.

[bluefox4000]

is quite the overrated fella

 

Seriously Cream was fun.......then......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Mick

[bluefox4000]

just talking musically. as a man.......you know i'll just say pass, lol

 

Mick

Edited December 18, 2021 by bluefox4000

[custom55]

is quite the overrated fella

 

Seriously Cream was fun.......then......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Mick

 

I agree but I hung in there until 461 Ocean Blvd. I saw him on that tour because of that album. He disappeared from my radar after that.

[JohnRogers]

If Clapton's team of barristers sent the woman a cease and desist order and she basically ignored it that's on her. If Clapton's first step was to crush this woman like a roach then he is a douchebag.

 

As a vaccinated and boosta injected person I have no issues with Clapton's mandate position. Getting the jab should be a personal choice.

[bluefox4000]

is quite the overrated fella

 

Seriously Cream was fun.......then......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Mick

 

I agree but I hung in there until 461 Ocean Blvd. I saw him on that tour because of that album. He disappeared from my radar after that.

 

i actually don't hate his solo music but after assaulting us with his awesome-ness in cream. he just became so middle of the road. stuff your parents would find acceptable......and this is rock we must piss off mom and Dad, lol

 

Mick

[custom55]

I'm a huge fan of Phish ( I'm seeing them next week at MSG ).

 

They've been recording every show since 2003 ( and most shows before that ) and you can buy those shows on their website for about $9.99 per show. Sure, go ahead and tape a show but you'll never get the same quality from their released soundboard recordings. They also broadcast every show ( aka Couch Tour ) if you can't make a show. That runs about $25.00.

 

It's a win/win for the band and the fans.

 

 

https://www.livephish.com/

 

 

When Phish play MSG, there are no limits to the lighting.

 

[Entre_Perpetuo]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

 

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't.

 

I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see.

 

He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music.

 

But in the cases of both Billy Squire and the Go-Go's those are recordings they made themselves that got sampled and used in commercials. Not bootlegs someone took of the artists at a live show. I don't think it's really comparable. Sure you may have written the song, but someone's going to play it for someone else who hasn't heard it at some point, and that person's not going to go and buy tickets to see your show or their own copy if you slap a lawsuit on them. I understand music copyright law is tricky though, but it also just seems way simpler to let the bootleggers be. They aren't causing any real harm. Not like Spotify is.

[Rick N. Backer]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

 

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't.

 

I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see.

 

He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music.

 

But in the cases of both Billy Squire and the Go-Go's those are recordings they made themselves that got sampled and used in commercials. Not bootlegs someone took of the artists at a live show. I don't think it's really comparable. Sure you may have written the song, but someone's going to play it for someone else who hasn't heard it at some point, and that person's not going to go and buy tickets to see your show or their own copy if you slap a lawsuit on them. I understand music copyright law is tricky though, but it also just seems way simpler to let the bootleggers be. They aren't causing any real harm. Not like Spotify is.

 

Of course it's the same, just not on the same scale as Spotify or Apple Music. But the concept is exactly the same. The woman is selling Clapton's songs, which is what the buyer is paying for, without receiving licensing permission from him. If I write a song, and copyright it, you can't use it for any commercial purpose unless you get my permission. If the bootleggers want to share the music, that's one thing. If they want to sell it, that's another.

[driventotheedge]

She was gonna make a profit of nine dollars and thirty cents selling something Clapton's never sold himself anyway. It's a bootleg in the first place. Sure you played the notes man, but you didn't make that recording or pay anyone to make it for you. Why be so concerned with someone trying to offload it at a fair price? You already played that show, you can't get it back.

 

This debacle has made me realize that artists have no ground to stand on when it comes to bootleg policing. It's far wiser to let the bootleggers do their thing so more people will know how awesome you are live, then they'll buy tickets to your show and t-shirts at the venue (much more valuable, expensive items than bootleg CDs). Heck, you could even tape your live show yourself for anyone who wants a real pro-quality, official recording, and sell it like you would any other album. It can only help boost ticket and march sales, and that's where you're going to be making money anyway, not from CD sales. I believe music has value, and you should have to pay money to own a musical recording, but I don't believe it's the musician's right to request payment for bootleg live shows from decades ago put up for sale on E-bay.

There's reasons The Dead allowed taping of their shows and you just listed a couple.

[driventotheedge]

I'm a huge fan of Phish ( I'm seeing them next week at MSG ).

 

They've been recording every show since 2003 ( and most shows before that ) and you can buy those shows on their website for about $9.99 per show. Sure, go ahead and tape a show but you'll never get the same quality from their released soundboard recordings. They also broadcast every show ( aka Couch Tour ) if you can't make a show. That runs about $25.00.

 

It's a win/win for the band and the fans.

 

 

https://www.livephish.com/

 

 

When Phish play MSG, there are no limits to the lighting.

 

http://youtu.be/95-Z0ZHlAEc

Metallica's been doing this since at least the tour for the shit that was St. Anger

[JohnRogers]

I mean but we all agree Ben Affleck is a bigger douchebag, right?

[driventotheedge]

I mean but we all agree Ben Affleck is a bigger douchebag, right?

Welllllllll......................it's very close