Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Piracy The Courts Music

Guitarist Eric Clapton Successfully Sues Woman For Posting $11 Bootleg (guitarworld.com) 183

Long-time Slashdot reader kjshark writes: Eric Clapton has successfully sued a German woman who posted an illegal recording for €9.95, about $11 on eBay. The CD was a single-bootlegged recording of a Clapton concert from the 1980s.

After Clapton sent a court in Düsseldorf an affidavit stating the recordings were illegal, the defendant claimed she was unaware the CD was recorded illegally and that her late husband originally purchased the CD at a department store in 1987. Her appeal was rejected by the court.

The court ruled that the woman pay the legal fees for both parties which amount to around $3,500 and that if she continues to keep the recording up on eBay she'll face six months in prison or a fine of around $283,000.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guitarist Eric Clapton Successfully Sues Woman For Posting $11 Bootleg

Comments Filter:
  • by eneville ( 745111 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @12:41PM (#62094405) Homepage

    the exposure for Eric Clapton.

    • I had no idea poor Eric is so hardup that he has to go after a $10 sale.
  • at least it was not 3.5K per download

  • by doesnothingwell ( 945891 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @12:47PM (#62094425)
    The CD was a single-bootlegged recording of a Clapton concert from the 1980s. Hardly seems like its a lost sale(s) or polluting the brand, just mean spirited to sue. Post the cd anonymously on a torrent, 40yr old shit shouldn't be copylocked forever anyway. Media companies have bought up the last hundred years of content and are ransoming it back to us in little pieces.
    • A plaintiff is required to show that they notified the defendant of the violation and made a reasonable attempt to settle. It is up to the court to decide what is "reasonable," but if the defendant rejects what is latter deemed to have been a reasonable offer, it is common for the court to require them to pay the plaintiff's legal expenses, as happened in this case.

      • You appear to quite knowledgeable about German law. How did you get this knowledge?

      • A plaintiff is required to show that they notified the defendant of the violation and made a reasonable attempt to settle.
        Nope. Perhaps you missed the summary: this happened in Germany.

      • it is common for the court to require them to pay the plaintiff's legal expenses, as happened in this case.
        Nope again. This is Germany. Aka Europe.

        The loser pays the legal fees. There is nothing the court can do to change it. As: that is what is written in the law

        No idea why people who have "court law" and juries think they know anything about real courts and real laws.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Actually, he did. He asked that the listing be taken down.

      Unfortunately, the lady basically said "I won't, if you think it's illegal, then sue me" So he did.

      So it's not quite a "ignorant anti-vaxxer celebrity wins lawsuit against innocent lady". She ended asking for the lawsuit by well, asking for it.

      And unfortunately, that's the reality, because as idiotic and ignorant that Eric Clapton is, she basically asked to be sued. Likely if she just took it down that would be all we heard of it. But instead, you ha

  • I had always thought, without any knowledge of them, that German courts were relatively fair. This judgement is obviously hugely excessive, I can think of an incompetent attorney, but still... the judge does not come out very competent either, unless they have severe as well as rigid justice in Germany.
    • by xonen ( 774419 )

      Yes, especially the covering legal fees part. That seems to be a disproportional punishment.

      I can see how copyright holds up, possibly, but unless she sold hundreds of bootleg records on purpose, which apparently she didn't. this seems highly unreasonable to me.

      And as for Clapton, he seem to have forgotten how Metallica's actions were perceived by their fans, back in the days with the napster case. Seems scrooge just got a new name this xmas.

      • Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jsonn ( 792303 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @01:06PM (#62094457)
        For civil law suits in Germany, the loser has to pay for the process, including the lawyer of the winner. That said, the lawyer cost is fixed and based on the expected litigious value. Please keep in mind that this is an article of Bild, the worst kind of rainbow press in Germany. From the original article, this is already the appeal's court and there was very likely an ignored cease-and-desist letter involved, too. So while this is likely an a-hole move by Clapton, the article is very likely not telling the whole truth.
        • Difficulty here is that it is a bootleg of a live performance, and at least for a goodish portion of Europe (I have no idea for Germany specifically) not copyrightable.

          I have tons of live recordings I've bought, all issued from European labels, precisely because of this.

          • I think you miss the point.
            If a label is recording life and selling it, obviously that is legal.
            If you or I record with my phone and then sell it: that is obviously a copyright infringement.

            Or do you not agree?

            • Nope.

              Per here [pitchfork.com], only the mechanical royalty need be paid locally. And even then, Clapton's suit would be against the original issuer of the CD, not some lady after the fact. And if memory serves, Clapton's share from the mechanical royalties would be 9 cents for that one CD.

              And "label" here is kind of a misnomer. They are more akin to a holding company. I have a few recordings that are the same live recording issued by different "labels". In fact, Clapton could take that same recording, issue it himself, an

              • And even then, Clapton's suit would be against the original issuer of the CD, not some lady after the fact.
                Perhaps you want to read up about about German or European copyright law.
                You can sue anyone in the chain of infringement. The unlawfull copy, and every one _distributing_ it.

                Hint _distribution_ does not even mean: sell.

                Sorry, you have no clue about the topic.

                Funny that you think a judge in a german court of law makes a mistake regarding german laws ... hybris ... oh, why do english people spell hybris

                • "I have no idea for Germany specifically"

                  Literacy isn't your strong point, but let's continue.

                  "You can sue anyone in the chain of infringement. The unlawfull copy, and every one _distributing_ it."

                  Not exactly [cnbc.com]

                  Money quote- "could still be held liable if it “has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it,".

                  Her specific defense was she was unaware the CD was recorded illegally.

                  But your preening has b

        • From the original article, this is already the appeal's court and there was very likely an ignored cease-and-desist letter involved, too. So while this is likely an a-hole move by Clapton, the article is very likely not telling the whole truth.

          Washington Post has slightly more. It very much looks like she did not ignore the cease-and-desist but rather actively enticed Clapton's team to sue her. Here is a sum total of all the sympathy I have for her:
          And here is a link to the WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

        • Please keep in mind that this is an article of Bild, the worst kind of rainbow press in Germany.

          What is rainbow press? Google doesn't give me much.

          • That's code for, "Not even far right."

          • Rainbowpress is the German term for Yellowpress.

            Germans like to invent english words that do either not exist or mean something completely different in english.

            E.g. public viewing. In German that means (yes, we use the english word, no idea why, would make more sense to use a German term) "to have cinema canvas at public places and project e.g. a soccer tournament on them".

            Does not really help when a friend had visitors from USA and asked them: "Hey! Wanna join the public viewing this evening" - oh the horr

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It may depend on specific facts of this case.

        If she refused to take it down after being reasonably requested to do so, prior to, or even after legal action began...

        This doesnt necessarily look like a case of "my bad" when it became clear to her that she was doing something wrong...

        Suppose a trespass on your property. Out in your backyard there, at one of the corners. I have a reasonable defense that I did not know that I was trespassing, once. Suppose I trespass on your property every day. Day after d
        • The thing is, she wasn't doing something wrong

          More sensible and honorable musicians are perfectly ok with what she did, even if they might not be totally ok with those who make those bootlegs in the first place (some are even ok with them). After all, people who listen to and buy and sell their bootlegs often are their greatest fans – who also buy all their regular stuff.

          Also, if I read this right, she never was asked to retract the ebay offer, she was sued right away.

      • As far as I remember, German courts have a track record of handing out real punishment for all kinds of copyright cases (especially when connected to filesharing with the complainants being the industry)...

        • German courts have a track record of handing out real punishment for all kinds of copyright cases
          Then you are completely wrong.

          In Germany we do not have "punitive damages".

          You pay the court/legal fees, and the damage to the copyright holder. And thats it.

          As she did not do any damage, she had to pay the legal/court fees. Her fault. Should have appologized and yielded: zero money to pay.

      • Yes, especially the covering legal fees part. That seems to be a disproportional punishment.

        No. That's how the legal system works in most sane countries. The loser pays reasonable legal costs. It goes a long way to eliminating frivolous lawsuits and reducing abuse of the legal system.

        • If the legal costs had been ridiculous, that would be worth complaining about, but $3,500 is really cheap for a copyright lawsuit.

      • this seems highly unreasonable to me.
        And why?

        If she had not to pay, the suing side had to pay their own costs: that makes no sense

    • I had always thought, without any knowledge of them, that German courts were relatively fair. This judgement is obviously hugely excessive

      German courts are fair. This judgement is for $0. The courts asked her to remove the sale. She owes legal fees that she herself generated as a result of telling Clapton's legal team to sod off and sue her. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      The 250000EUR being talked about is the potential fine if she ignores the court order. The German courts don't take kindly to that.

    • that German courts were relatively fair. This judgement is obviously hugely excessive
      I think you missed the fact, that she only had to pay the legal fees ...

      How much more fair can you be?

  • "if she continues to keep the recording up on eBay she'll face six months in prison or a fine of around $283,000"

    Kind of a jerk move by Clapton for the $3500, but at the same time, courts really do not like being ignored. If the court ruled that the sale is illegal and the item is still up on eBay, that additional penalty seems like kind of a different issue altogether. I feel like there must be more to this story if the CD's been sitting out there waiting to be sold all this time.

    • Yep, thought it might be like that .
      I don't know how it goes in Germany, but courts in the USA really hate people who insist on going to trial when they're obviously in the wrong. Lawyers know this, and that's why over 90% of cases and disputes are solved by negotiation

      I'm certain her fighting this has cost taxpayers way more than the $3500 lawyer fees that she has to pay, so not sorry for her.

      The other thing is these cases are not really brought by the artist. These law firms are hired by the recor

      • by Kaenneth ( 82978 )

        Yep, try getting Parole if you continue to correctly insist you didn't commit a crime you were wrongly convicted of.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      Kind of a jerk move by Clapton for the $3500

      It wasn't a jerk move by Clapton. His legal team only asked for the sale to be aborted, nothing more. This German Karen told his legal team to fuck off and sue her, so they did. They asked for no damages. The $3500 was the automatic fee courts assign in a loser pays legal costs system. It would have been $0 had she not been such a shit.

      Good on Clapton's legal team. Stupid bitch got what was coming to her.

  • by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @01:13PM (#62094495) Homepage Journal

    Read this:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    Apparently Clapton's lawyer contacted her. Told her it was a bootleg. Asked her to take it down. She refuses. Told them them to go jump. Then told them to sue her if they didn't like it.

    So yeah. She sorta had it coming.

  • I suspect it was the company that manages his music assets. No artist has the time or expertise to do this.

  • by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @01:35PM (#62094583)

    What's the difference between 5 kilos of coke and a 4 year old?

    Eric Clapton would never let 5 kilos of coke fall out a 49th floor window. :-)

  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @01:38PM (#62094597)

    Even in a world where information - including music from 4 decades ago - was free, I still think a performer should have the sale rights to their performances. Recreate the sheet music, recreate the performance, mix it up, whatever. But you shouldn't be permitted to sell the original performance even if all the rest were permitted.

    If she'd given it away instead of trying to make a buck and telling everyone to jump off a cliff when asked to take down the auction, there'd be no discussion even today.

  • Just post a GoFundMe for... let's see:

    $3,500 of legal fees
    $283,000 of fine
    $10 of 1987 purchase
    TOTAL = $286,510

    So, anything up from there, it's profit.

    Then, open a petition requesting music stores to stop selling Eric Clapton music.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      Then, open a petition requesting music stores to stop selling Eric Clapton music.

      Can we just do this anyway? On humanitarian grounds?

  • ..while Garfield eats right out of the bag of dog food.

  • but she was not selling the album she was selling the disk and forgot to wipe the album from it.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...