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

[blueschica]

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

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

 

:lol:

[ozzy85]

Hey Clapton, need money? Why don't you sell your music for a beer commercial.

[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.

 

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

[GeddysMullet]

I read both his autobiography, and Patti Boyd’s. Between those two books, an excellent well-rounded portrait emerges of just what a nasty piece of work the guy 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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

[lerxt1990]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

[GeddysMullet]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

This is the guy who told the world in his autobiography that he only married his ex-wife (you know, the one who he seduced when she was still married to his best friend, after telling her that if she didn't go with him he would intentionally become a heroin addict) to distract media attention away from his arrest for drunk driving. I expect that being a total c*** was pretty much the point of the lawsuit.

[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 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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

This is the guy who told the world in his autobiography that he only married his ex-wife (you know, the one who he seduced when she was still married to his best friend, after telling her that if she didn't go with him he would intentionally become a heroin addict) to distract media attention away from his arrest for drunk driving. I expect that being a total c*** was pretty much the point of the lawsuit.

 

I haven't and won't read that book, but she should have called his bluff.

[goose]

I think the full facts of the case matter, and the OP article fell a bit short.

 

"Gabriele claims she was unaware that the CD was pirated and removed the listing a day after posting it.

 

Clapton's legal team, however, stated that recordings were made illegally and without the rocker's consent, to which the woman responded, "I object and ask you not to harass or contact me any further," adding, "feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands," The Guardian reported.

 

The woman appealed after a court ruled in favor of the singer explaining that her late husband had purchased the CD at a store. The judge said that the fact that she didn't acquire the CD herself was irrelevant and ordered her to pay for both parties' legal fees (about $3,900)."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/eric-clapton-wins-lawsuit-against-191507363.html

Edited December 21, 2021 by goose

[LedRush]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

[Maverick]

Eric Clapton is quite the fair and just fellow.

[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.

 

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit.

[goose]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit.

Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press.

[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.

 

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit.

Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press.

 

I was going to try and position Clapton on a rock star jerk spectrum with Dave Grohl at the far nice end, but then I realized Clapton has become my current standard for the far jerk end.

[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 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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit.

Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press.

 

I was going to try and position Clapton on a rock star jerk spectrum with Dave Grohl at the far nice end, but then I realized Clapton has become my current standard for the far jerk end.

 

The Foo Fighters are entirely more entertaining too. Dave Grohl is an awesome front man and seems like a genuinely nice guy. The only person in the big time music business that I know of that is nicer, is Garth Brooks.

[lerxt1990]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

Wasnt aware. That wasnt smart either.

[LedRush]

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.

 

Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean.

 

I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right."

 

Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs.

 

Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt.

 

As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one.

 

I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit.

Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press.

 

It’s getting press as now that Clapton has taken an anti-vax mandate and an anti-lockdown stance, the left wants to make him out to be as big a monster as possible. For a similar example, see Elon Musk and Warren.

[taurus]

Clapton has a lifetime of assholery, the left doesn't need to make him out a monster, he does that on his own. Typical right-wing victimization complex. So weak, only strength the right wing has comes from hatred/nastiness and their psychopathy

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I don't think I ever wanted political opinions from the guy that stole his best friend's wife.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

I was wondering if this thread would transition into political talk. Let's please keep this about the music copyright stuff.

[LedRush]

I don't think I ever wanted political opinions from the guy that stole his best friend's wife.

 

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia:

 

In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorian neo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.^[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.^[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.^{[94][nb 8]} Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.^[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood^[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.^[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw".

[Rick N. Backer]

I don't think I ever wanted political opinions from the guy that stole his best friend's wife.

 

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia:

 

In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorianneo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.^[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.^[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.^{[94][nb 8]} Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.^[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood^[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.^[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw".

 

No question that George bears plenty of the blame for the dissolution of his marriage himself, as is usually true. But, without checking the sources, that certainly reads like it came from Boyd or people sympathetic to her. Clapton didn't break up their marriage, but Clapton definitely made his feelings for her known for a long time before their marriage ended (George once famously asked Patti at a party if she was coming home or going home with Clapton), and in the end, he did end up marrying her. Speaking for myself, if I were single, I would NEVER date a good friend's ex-wife.

[lerxt1990]

I don't think I ever wanted political opinions from the guy that stole his best friend's wife.

 

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia:

 

In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorianneo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.^[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.^[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.^{[94][nb 8]} Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.^[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood^[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.^[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw".

 

No question that George bears plenty of the blame for the dissolution of his marriage himself, as is usually true. But, without checking the sources, that certainly reads like it came from Boyd or people sympathetic to her. Clapton didn't break up their marriage, but Clapton definitely made his feelings for her known for a long time before their marriage ended (George once famously asked Patti at a party if she was coming home or going home with Clapton), and in the end, he did end up marrying her. Speaking for myself, if I were single, I would NEVER date a good friend's ex-wife.

 

Bad form. Indeed.

[LedRush]

I don't think I ever wanted political opinions from the guy that stole his best friend's wife.

 

I won’t deny there is a lot of assholery in Clapton’s life, but you might want to examine whether he actually stole Harrison’s wife. From Wikipedia:

 

In March 1970, a month before the Beatles' break-up, Boyd moved with Harrison to Friar Park, a Victorianneo-Gothic mansion in Henley-on-Thames.^[92] By this point, Harrison's devotion to Indian spirituality, particularly the Hare Krishna movement, had begun to divide the couple.^[78][93] They were also unsuccessful in starting a family, and Harrison would not consider adoption.^{[94][nb 8]} Boyd resumed her modelling career in May 1971, in defiance of Harrison's spiritual convictions.^[96][97] In 1973, she had an affair with Facesguitarist Ronnie Wood^[98] while Harrison romanced Wood's wife Krissie.^[99] Boyd said her decision to leave Harrison, in July 1974, was based largely on his repeated infidelities, culminating in his affair with [Ringo] Starr's wife Maureen, which Boyd called "the final straw".

 

No question that George bears plenty of the blame for the dissolution of his marriage himself, as is usually true. But, without checking the sources, that certainly reads like it came from Boyd or people sympathetic to her. Clapton didn't break up their marriage, but Clapton definitely made his feelings for her known for a long time before their marriage ended (George once famously asked Patti at a party if she was coming home or going home with Clapton), and in the end, he did end up marrying her. Speaking for myself, if I were single, I would NEVER date a good friend's ex-wife.

 

Excuse me, but I don’t want to live in a world where Derek and the Dominos and Wonderful Tonight don’t exist.

 

I think it’s a bit more fair to say that all these people were cheating scumbags, like a majority of the people in their line of work. Rush might be the exception that proves the rule, but even Alex was a bit of an asshole in his youth, as that documentary he was in confirms.