# Eric Clapton is a Jerk



## Guncho

Eric Clapton wins legal case against woman selling bootleg CD on eBay


Eric Clapton has won a legal case against a German woman who attempted to sell a bootleg CD of his on eBay.




www.nme.com


----------



## Jim Soloway

Sigh ...


----------



## Guncho

Jim Soloway said:


> He is a jerk but not for doing this. Surely an artist (any artist) has some right to control what recorded material of theirs is made available to the public.


Sure but this isn't some illegal company pumping out thousands of bootlegs. It's some woman selling her dead husband's cd collection in eBay.

He's a cumulative jerk.


----------



## David Graves

I love his music. But he has clearly shown, over many years, that he is far from a role model for anyone.


----------



## Jim Soloway

Not ....


----------



## Guncho

Jim Soloway said:


> And what's stopping me from buying it and selling 10,000 copies? Intellectual property rights don't end just because you think someone is a jerk. How would you feel if I sold bootleg copies of an old performance of yours? Would you be a jerk for trying to prevent that?


He's a jerk for a variety of reasons as the articles lays out. This is obviously opinion and you are free to have your own.


----------



## Fred Gifford

we had a girl at work selling current movie DVD copies, quite a few of them actually, all the time. Word got out and she got a visit at work from the RCMP to give her a little "Warning" I kid you not, the law is the law


----------



## JBFairthorne

If you don’t defend your rights you often lose them.


----------



## Fred Gifford

I believe all he is doing is setting precedent, a warning to others to stop selling his shit illegally, besides, EC has become the media's new Whipping Boy, seldom a day goes by when they are not moaning about something he has done, sooo sick of it


----------



## Okay Player

David Graves said:


> I love his music. But he has clearly shown, over many years, that he is far from a role model for anyone.


I find it very odd both that people are surprised artists are jerks and that someone who was a full blown degenerate drug addict at his peak might not have the best judgment.


----------



## Wardo

JBFairthorne said:


> If you don’t defend your rights you often lose them.


yeah, adverse possession is just one example.


----------



## mhammer

I doubt Mr. Clapton himself pursued this. The amount of time and effort required to simply know about it exceeds what he has available to him. Rather, lawyers and web-crawlers did the dirty work, in his name. Bassist-supreme Leland Sklar has been running a Youtube channel over the past 20 months in which he posts recordings he played on, often playing along with them on the video. Sometimes, they are tunes he performed thousands of times, live, as part of the backing band for the musician in question. And sometimes, he will get cease-and-desist orders from the record company to take a video down. Those orders are not coming directly from the musician, but from the legal representatives of the company who somehow feel that ANY unauthorized posting of that music is somehow a threat to the company's revenues, rather than good marketing. Not to paint lawyers with too broad a brush, but there are many in that profession who are knowledgeable about the specific *letter* of the law and contracts, but bereft of perspective and sometimes common sense and fair play.


----------



## SWLABR

Jim Soloway said:


> He is a jerk but not for doing this. Surely an artist (any artist) has some right to control what recorded material of theirs is made available to the public.


I'm kinda leaning this way too. He's shown in the last few years he's a bit of a douche, but if he turns a blind eye to a small thing (like this) then where does it end? A few bucks for one CD, becomes a box, becomes a trailer. Sometimes you need to squash the little stuff to prevent setting president that could bite you later. 

Gotta wonder why she appealed? Throw the disc out, and move on.


----------



## Chito

Thing is the woman was not even aware that it was a bootleg. Her late husband bought it from way back and I guess she was just trying to make a little money. Yeah I agree, intellectual property should be protected. But how about instead of suing, sent her a letter telling her to desist from selling it. Geezus effing spotify makes money from artists like crazy and they pay the artists cents while the spotify makes billions of dollars. Maybe the racist dude should focus on the bigger "fish".
BTW this is just my opinion, if you think otherwise well again its my opinion.


----------



## Rollin Hand

I'm on the side of "Clapton is a jerk, but not for this." So many of us complain about counterfeit or copy guitars from China, but free music is just fine.

Think of how this would go if he sold his rights to some company, as many now are. They would probably have been even more aggressive.


----------



## Jim Soloway

missing...


----------



## Alan Small

@Always12AM ??🙃


----------



## SWLABR

Alan Small said:


> @Always12AM ??🙃


I know, right??


----------



## tomee2

Im guessing this part of the story is why they appealed.

"The 55-year-old said that her late husband told her he had purchased the CD in 1987 at a well-known department store."

This is not someone burning thousands of CDs in her basement, just a person selling something her husband bought, not knowing it was a bootleg.

Why didn't Clapton just buy the cd and destroy it? Problem solved


----------



## Mooh

Well, the lawyers acting for Clapton make him and themselves come off looking like petty douchebags. A gesture of, "Hey, let us help you out by compensating you for the misunderstanding and being caught up in this" would make both parties look a lot better. 

Not ALL publicity is good. They're obviously not gifted in the spin cycle.


----------



## HighNoon

So, Clapton is a jerk and a racist and a mean person. Better shuffle him down the ladder on the playlist.


----------



## CDWaterloo

I don't like his music.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man

So... reading this article. WTF? Why on earth would Eric Clapton, who is nearly 80 years old, give a rat's ass about a concert bootleg from the 1980's? How is this any different than the 1000's of concert videos on youtube shot with cell phones? 

She was selling the CD for $8.95. Now she owes thousands in legal fees. The court ordered if she goes ahead and sells the CD she'll be fined $250,000. 

First thing I'd do is go home, rip it, and then anonymously upload the entire shebang online for free.


----------



## Diablo

He always seemed unlikeable to me. Lot of unflattering stories about Jeff Beck as well.

This seems like a publicity stunt of some sort. I dont see how the legal fees would be worth it.
Im surprised a complaint to ebay wouldnt have solved it.


----------



## Rollin Hand

Jim Soloway said:


> Spotify grosses billions of dollars but they their first profitable quarter was just earlier this year and the profit was only $2.3 million on over $2.9 billion in sales. They have mostly been a money burning machine eating up investors' cash.


So where's the money going? It should be going to the artists. Their overhead can't be THAT much.


----------



## Jim Soloway

But ...


----------



## FatStrat2

It's just a hyped story, probably picked up and spread by his PR wing as a warning to others. It's not just from him, but from the industry as a whole.

Problem is, stories like this don't help. Vengeance & retribution are two very human traits triggered in many ways. Stuff like this makes more people determined to download his music in 'other' ways just to eff them all over.


----------



## Diablo

FatStrat2 said:


> It's just a hyped story, probably picked up and spread by his PR wing as a warning to others. It's not just from him, but from the industry as a whole.
> 
> Problem is, stories like this don't help. Vengeance & retribution are two very human traits triggered in many ways. Stuff like this makes more people determined to download his music in 'other' ways just to eff them all over.


Ya, not sure Lars Ulrichs reputation ever fully healed.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man

Rollin Hand said:


> So where's the money going? It should be going to the artists. Their overhead can't be THAT much.





Jim Soloway said:


> By far their largest outlay is on royalties to artists. That's been the big problem. They've been dedicated to building the size of their audience but the larger the audience becomes, the more they have to pay out in royalties. It may not seem like a lot to most people because what we see is the pay out for a single play or even for 1000 plays but when you multiply that by the number of plays, it's an enormous number. In 2020 they paid out over $5 billion in royalties.


By far their largest outlay is on royalties to artists *record labels/publishers*. The labels and publishers have been bleeding the artists dry on streaming revenue. Mostly because pretty much ALL record and royalty deals were not structured to include streaming revenue. And even the newer deals are designed to absolutely screw over the artists. Notice how in the last 10 years we've completely stopped hearing about how much financial trouble the recording industry is in and that all the talk about how the major labels are dying has ceased? They're richer than ever right now!

Spotify/Apple Music/and the like do not pay artists directly (except the independent ones). They cut a cheque to the record labels and it's up to the label to dole out the money to the artists - which they don't.


----------



## Diablo

Jim Soloway said:


> *By far their largest outlay is on royalties to artists.* That's been the big problem. They've been dedicated to building the size of their audience but the larger the audience becomes, the more they have to pay out in royalties. It may not seem like a lot to most people because what we see is the pay out for a single play or even for 1000 plays but when you multiply that by the number of plays, it's an enormous number. In 2020 they paid out over $5 billion in royalties.


artists or record labels?
My understanding was, unless you are at the superstar level and thus have leverage to better negotiate (or start your own label), the artists will get pennies on the dollar vs the label.


----------



## Alex

mhammer said:


> I doubt Mr. Clapton himself pursued this. The amount of time and effort required to simply know about it exceeds what he has available to him. Rather, lawyers and web-crawlers did the dirty work, in his name. Bassist-supreme Leland Sklar has been running a Youtube channel over the past 20 months in which he posts recordings he played on, often playing along with them on the video. Sometimes, they are tunes he performed thousands of times, live, as part of the backing band for the musician in question. And sometimes, he will get cease-and-desist orders from the record company to take a video down. Those orders are not coming directly from the musician, but from the legal representatives of the company who somehow feel that ANY unauthorized posting of that music is somehow a threat to the company's revenues, rather than good marketing. Not to paint lawyers with too broad a brush, but there are many in that profession who are knowledgeable about the specific *letter* of the law and contracts, but bereft of perspective and sometimes common sense and fair play.


On a side note, I watched on Youtube yesterday, Sklar playing along a live track of Susudio and telling the story behind the original studio recording. Monster player.


----------



## teleboli

Why can't he be more like Paul McCartney?

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## TVvoodoo

I made a couple of tribute straps a few years back, Ricky, trailer park boys theme in houndstooth etc, to sell. Each had a Rush embroidered patch on them, purchased online. 
got a rather unfriendly note from the "representation". Hence, Rush too, are jerks. Todays modern warriors


----------



## Jim Soloway

Ummm ...


----------



## Always12AM

I am neutral on Clapton as a person, in fact, I find his behaviour is the most entertaining thing about him.

But his music makes me feel uncomfortable in the same way that one might assume an older male relatives hand on ones inner thigh might make one feel.


----------



## SWLABR

Always12AM said:


> I am neutral on Clapton as a person, in fact, I find his behaviour is the most entertaining thing about him.
> 
> But his music makes me feel uncomfortable in the same way that one might assume an older male relatives hand on ones inner thigh might make one feel.


I was almost disappointed in your response, but you finished strong.


----------



## Prsman

I just hope this guy smartens up by throwing away his ugly strats. Dude needs a 335 sewn to his body.


----------



## mawmow

Well I guess I would try to gently settle the matter if an artist ever let me know the CD I offer on eBay is an outlaw copy.
But, who would pay the lawyers ? Me, I "guess"... :-(


----------



## Permanent Waves

This reminds me of those file-sharing lawsuits against everyday people, when artists and record companies were trying to make a few examples to scare the rest into not downloading illegally. I get that it's wrong on general principle, but I think this is overly aggressive as it doesn't' seem like this person even knew the recording was a bootleg and this was not an attempt at wide distribution of an illegal recording. Bootlegs are illegally-obtained recordings of live performances not available otherwise in commercial releases, but they are not ripping commercially-available CDs. I remember when I visited a CD shop in a market in Jordan, all the commercial released CD's there were obviously burned from CD roms and the artwork cheap reproduction photocopies of the original CD's. 

In the early 90's there was a CD shop on Crescent Street in Montreal called "Rock En Stock" which specialized in bootleg CD recordings - it was pretty much all they had, and they were pretty open about it. Bootlegged recordings were typically 2-3 times the price of regular new CDs, depending on quality and rarity. These were professionally made and printed from actual bootleg Record Label companies (not basement-burned CDs) and often had typos (deliberate or not) in song titles. Eventually the RCMP raided the place in 1999 and that pretty much ended the business. The ability to reproduce digital recordings with no loss pretty much ended the bootlegging business. I've used Rush bootlegs as reference material for songs that were never released on commercial live recordings.


----------



## guitarman2

To me Eric Clapton is one of those artists, like the Eagles, that has something just about every one can like. As for liking them personally, I don't ever get in to any artist on a level where I think I'd like them personally or not. Unless you really know them how do you know whether you'd like him or not. As for what you read in the news or hear as rumor, why pay attention to that. 
I guess if I had to like the personality of every artist I listened to my play list would be pretty thin.


----------



## Sneaky

guitarman2 said:


> To me Eric Clapton is one of those artists, like the Eagles, that has something just about every one can like. As for liking them personally, I don't ever get in to any artist on a level where I think I'd like them personally or not. Unless you really know them how do you know whether you'd like him or not. As for what you read in the news or hear as rumor, why pay attention to that.
> I guess if I had to like the personality of every artist I listened to my play list would be pretty thin.


A guy can only listen to so much Anne Murray.


----------



## Permanent Waves

TVvoodoo said:


> I made a couple of tribute straps a few years back, Ricky, trailer park boys theme in houndstooth etc, to sell. Each had a Rush embroidered patch on them, purchased online.
> got a rather unfriendly note from the "representation". Hence, Rush too, are jerks. Todays modern warriors


That's an interesting story. I don't think they had a valid reason to complain since you purchased the patches online and any royalties would have been collected at that level. Also, I don't think it's the artists who personally drive this but rather the labels, publishers or content owners. There was an interesting story a few years back about a Metallica tribute band getting a cease-and-desist letter from the management, only to have the band members intervene personally to give them the go-ahead. If management did that to every tribute band, they'd bury themselves in litigation and bad publicity.

I know Rush's management company is particularly protective of the band's IP, especially the Man-In-Star logo. I had a heck of a time finding a company that does bass drum artwork willing to print one for my band's drum kit. However, the cease-and-desist example above is another example of excessive music management overreach. A band's management can prevent an organization from using their music for commercial gain (in an ad, for example), but they cannot prevent the public performance of the music (either recorded or live) as long as the proper tariffs are paid by the radio station or live venue.


----------



## Fred Gifford

Malcom X said " the media is the most powerful entity on earth .. they have the power to make a guilty man innocent and an innocent man guilty " I for one believe every single thing I read online as the Gospel truth !! Facts ?? who needs stinkin' facts ?? Clapton is 100% guilty .. the Kangaroo Court has declared it .... I also believe in Unicorns and Magic Pixie Dust too.


----------



## keto

Permanent Waves said:


> That's an interesting story. I don't think they had a valid reason to complain since you purchased the patches online and any royalties would have been collected at that level. Also, I don't think it's the artists who personally drive this but rather the labels, publishers or content owners. There was an interesting story a few years back about a Metallica tribute band getting a cease-and-desist letter from the management, only to have the band members intervene personally to give them the go-ahead. If management did that to every tribute band, they'd bury themselves in litigation and bad publicity.
> 
> I know Rush's management company is particularly protective of the band's IP, especially the Man-In-Star logo. I had a heck of a time finding a company that does bass drum artwork willing to print one for my band's drum kit. However, the cease-and-desist example above is another example of excessive music management overreach. A band's management can prevent an organization from using their music for commercial gain (in an ad, for example), but they cannot prevent the public performance of the music (either recorded or live) as long as the proper tariffs are paid by the radio station or live venue.


The issue would have been with reselling the patch. They want their piece of every transaction involving the band's IP, and have the right to demand it not be sold by unauthorized source. This isn't some hobbyist selling a single used piece on kijiji (I can think of a dozen scenarios that also fit).


----------



## BlueRocker

Clapton may be a jerk. Hard to argue he's been an influential musician though. I think being a celebrity can bring out the worst in people, and I know people who've come out of addiction sometimes struggle to be understood. I'm giving him a permanent pass.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

you gotta wonder why now, why this is anything more than a hush or a slow news day? Well, when the venues were opening with the mandate in tow he was one of the few who stood his ground and didn't roll with it. Looks like it's time to drag his name to the mud because maybe he does have some private plans for living a free life...oh shame on him I guess. In all ends this is news because someone powerful thinks it should be, that _we_ should know about it and that we shouldn't like Clapton. It's working wonders.
Like people have already said, if there is any truth to this, it's certainly not Clapton handling the legality of the matter or even sinking any of his time into this.


----------



## keto

Mutant_Guitar said:


> you gotta wonder why now, why this is anything more than a hush or a slow news day? Well, when the venues were opening with the mandate in tow he was one of the few who stood his ground and didn't roll with it. Looks like it's time to drag his name to the mud because maybe he does have some private plans for living a free life...oh shame on him I guess. In all ends this is news because someone powerful thinks it should be, that _we_ should know about it and that we shouldn't like Clapton. It's working wonders.
> Like people have already said, if there is any truth to this, it's certainly not Clapton handling the legality of the matter or even sinking any of his time into this.


Nah, that's BS. Read his autobio, at least when I did he totally fell out of my listening, total asshole and I was reminded of that the first note of any song of his coming on the radio. Just because he's out of touch with science doesn't make him an asshole, there's a lot more to it.


----------



## laristotle

keto said:


> there's a lot more to it


----------



## JBFairthorne

I really don’t understand the hatred.

1) He was legally protecting his intellectual property.
2) Almost certainly had nothing to do with finding or pursuing the case. Just signed the papers.
3) Only awarded his expenses. Zero profit at all. Likely actual expenses were more.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. It’s clear there are those here who despise this guy so much that they’ll jump on any detail in order to talk about what a terrible guy this is, whether it’s his protest song, his vocal opinions on matters, suing someone, whatever. If this story was about anyone else, I doubt we would be even talking about it.

I just don’t get the outrage. Courts are bunged with way more ridiculous, less worthy matters than this.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

keto said:


> Nah, that's BS. Read his autobio, at least when I did he totally fell out of my listening, total asshole and I was reminded of that the first note of any song of his coming on the radio. Just because he's out of touch with science doesn't make him an asshole, there's a lot more to it.


that's dumb to put a hard mark on anyone. I mean personally I believe in rehabilitation, maybe I'm an odd-duck. Just cause you read an autobiography one day many many days ago doesn't mean it ain't horsebunk in the grand scheme.


----------



## TimH

I guarantee Eric knows exactly nothing about this case other than years ago he'd given power of attorney to someone to protect his IP.


----------



## player99

When Eric Clapton scratches his nose does the mojo transfer to his nose?


----------



## kelowna

The trick here to separate the person from the art. It is difficult to do. No more Woody Allen movies, Michael Jackson music, no Hitler art. I suppose one has to use some judgement here (am I going to change the station when Peter Townsend is played on the radio?). 

Eric Clapton is (or more accurately was) an inspired and consummate guitar player. But that is about it. He should and cannot lecture us on immigration, and I certainly am not going to take medical advice from him. And even more so, he and Morrison should keep quiet about freedoms and analogies equating the mask mandate to fascist state. It is annoying to listen to someone pontificate about topics they know nothing about. There is no grasp about the history of freedom and how the thinking evolved over the past centuries. Hegel, the obscure German philosopher said that the first requisite of liberty is order. You cannot have a functioning society without laws that people abide by. The most obvious examples of this are the prohibition of inflicting violence on another person or taking their stuff. Whether it is smoking or spreading a virus, someone's freedom is curtailed when it potentially injures someone else's well-being. Without such rules we would literally have anarchy. The uninformed knee-jerk reaction displayed by the likes of Clapton towards freedom merely reveals his ignorance on the topic. I wish he would stick to playing guitar and stealing other people's girlfriends (neither of which break any laws).


----------



## Wardo

kelowna said:


> The trick here …


Well said.


----------



## Guncho

Eric Clapton has become your annoying conspiracy theory/anti vaxx/anti immigrant relative at Christmas dinner.


----------



## jimmythegeek

Sneaky said:


> A guy can only listen to so much Anne Murray.


Not to derail the thread but offstage she has a reputation of being remarkably unpleasant lol.


----------



## jimmythegeek

kelowna said:


> The trick here to separate the person from the art. It is difficult to do. No more Woody Allen movies, Michael Jackson music, no Hitler art. I suppose one has to use some judgement here (am I going to change the station when Peter Townsend is played on the radio?).
> 
> Eric Clapton is (or more accurately was) an inspired and consummate guitar player. But that is about it. He should and cannot lecture us on immigration, and I certainly am not going to take medical advice from him. And even more so, he and Morrison should keep quiet about freedoms and analogies equating the mask mandate to fascist state. It is annoying to listen to someone pontificate about topics they know nothing about. There is no grasp about the history of freedom and how the thinking evolved over the past centuries. Hegel, the obscure German philosopher said that the first requisite of liberty is order. You cannot have a functioning society without laws that people abide by. The most obvious examples of this are the prohibition of inflicting violence on another person or taking their stuff. Whether it is smoking or spreading a virus, someone's freedom is curtailed when it potentially injures someone else's well-being. Without such rules we would literally have anarchy. The uninformed knee-jerk reaction displayed by the likes of Clapton towards freedom merely reveals his ignorance on the topic. I wish he would stick to playing guitar and stealing other people's girlfriends (neither of which break any laws).


Is Hegel considered obscure? Asking for a friend…


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

kelowna said:


> The trick here to separate the person from the art. It is difficult to do. No more Woody Allen movies, Michael Jackson music, no Hitler art. I suppose one has to use some judgement here (am I going to change the station when Peter Townsend is played on the radio?).
> 
> Eric Clapton is (or more accurately was) an inspired and consummate guitar player. But that is about it. He should and cannot lecture us on immigration, and I certainly am not going to take medical advice from him. And even more so, he and Morrison should keep quiet about freedoms and analogies equating the mask mandate to fascist state. It is annoying to listen to someone pontificate about topics they know nothing about. There is no grasp about the history of freedom and how the thinking evolved over the past centuries. Hegel, the obscure German philosopher said that the first requisite of liberty is order. You cannot have a functioning society without laws that people abide by. The most obvious examples of this are the prohibition of inflicting violence on another person or taking their stuff. Whether it is smoking or spreading a virus, someone's freedom is curtailed when it potentially injures someone else's well-being. Without such rules we would literally have anarchy. The uninformed knee-jerk reaction displayed by the likes of Clapton towards freedom merely reveals his ignorance on the topic. I wish he would stick to playing guitar and stealing other people's girlfriends (neither of which break any laws).


This is good, a lot of discussion to be had _potentially_. I think that no one should posture, arbitrate, nor lecture beyond vestiges of open and intelligent discussion. Open discussion is/should be foremost among uninitiated people and it should be lawfully encouraged. This is, for lack of a better phrase, "central intelligence" for common people like you and I. We've been otherwise led down a blind alley full of "expert" pundits clamoring for our trust and consent on matters we know very little about, and that we know less and less about as we go in time. Blind trust in people you know nothing about is a rife opportunity to be a willing participant in a predatory relationship. 
It is true that laws are providence of a healthy and abundant society but, equally so, it is the will of the people to adhere to those laws. Therein is the statute of limitation; One must not eclipse the other if healthiness and abundance are pillars of an ideal society. Nor can laws _solely_ be validated by the governing body for this is an impingement on the freedoms of the many who must be let to "rightfully choose and wrongfully disobey". It is a natural order as we are naturally living, breathing, born and dying, people of this world. In all ways there must be a pitch-perfect balance to promote the continuing productivity of a society. A pool, for example, requires a certain mineral balance. A certain amount of chlorine might keep the water sterile and aseptic, but there is a balance as to how much is the right quantity and how much will outright kill any and all intending to swim in it. Laws, and especially new laws, must be tempered with the continuing progression of society. And the promotion of open discussion should be encouraged to best calibrate and balance the laws by which the people abide.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

Guncho said:


> Eric Clapton has become your annoying conspiracy theory/anti vaxx/anti immigrant relative at Christmas dinner.
> 
> View attachment 393388


What's interesting: the tag of conspiracy theorist is a one-way derogation, but in the true function of the word there would also be a pro-vax conspiracy theorist, and many other kinds of conspiracy theorists. Unless of course the utility of such a term would only be used to offend or ostracize, which then is by all means insidious. Even common usage curse words have many facets of meaning, so it would be retarded to assume that a broad term such as conspiracy theorist is intentionally one-dimensional. If it were it would be more akin to a slur but one that is applied to all manner of people...once again, quite insidious.


----------



## Mooh

Well, Clapton himself borrowed liberally across all manner of divides, cultural, racial, generational, artistic, and financial, but I guess being a rich white man makes him immune from fault, and somewhat irony impaired.


----------



## HighNoon

Mooh said:


> Well, Clapton himself borrowed liberally across all manner of divides, cultural, racial, generational, artistic, and financial, but I guess being a rich white man makes him immune from fault, and somewhat irony impaired.


Pretty darned successful for a bluesman. He's a talented sucker and still out there doing it.....bop until you drop.


----------



## HighNoon

Mutant_Guitar said:


> What's interesting: the tag of conspiracy theorist is a one-way derogation, but in the true function of the word there would also be a pro-vax conspiracy theorist, and many other kinds of conspiracy theorists. Unless of course the utility of such a term would only be used to offend or ostracize, which then is by all means insidious. Even common usage curse words have many facets of meaning, so it would be retarded to assume that a broad term such as conspiracy theorist is intentionally one-dimensional. If it were it would be more akin to a slur but one that is applied to all manner of people...once again, quite insidious.


The use of the word insidious is quite delicious. Deliciously insidious.....


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

HighNoon said:


> The use of the word insidious is quite delicious. Deliciously insidious.....


they said that about McDonald's "restaurant" food...and in regards to that; insidiousness is akin to poison.


----------



## HighNoon

Mutant_Guitar said:


> they said that about McDonald's "restaurant" food...and in regards to that; insidiousness is akin to poison.


Reminds me of that Steve Martin skit where he's talking about Mickey D's and how everything comes rolling off of one assembly line.....chocolate shake, fries, burger, cardboard box......


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

The whole of the buffalo has to do, otherwise why kill it? These are our modern geniuses: making life easier by making it worse.


----------



## Arek

I would not condemn the man without knowing all circumstances and hearing his side of the story.
What exactly was she sued for?
Who sued?
Has Clapton personally sued, or was it the label, or whoever towns the right to the music/names etc.?

I would not go with mainstream media on that. They would print anything to sell the paper. They would format it for easy digestion and in a way that will not expose their shody journalism.

Coincidently Clapton is against checking medical record of people coming to his concerts (don’t confuse that with being antivaxer). 
My conspiracy theory is: “THEY” want to cancel Clapton.”


----------



## mhammer

Note that, in the comic, the young man - also a guitar player - has named his cat "Clapton".


----------



## SWLABR

The more I think of this, the more torn I get... I agree Clapton (or his management team) has a right to protect his image. Mattel got a lot of backlash for going after Aqua for Barbie Girl, but that's their _property_. They had to protect the name Barbie. Otherwise any doll would become a one. Think "Kleenex"... no one says "I need a facial tissue". They say Kleenex even if it's toilet paper! 
And I stick behind the snowball thing I said earlier. Yes, this time it's one CD... but then a box, truckload, warehouse, etc... 

But what about other "property"? I can by a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt at Value Village. Ralph doesn't see a dime. OK, that's a charity... What about Winner's? Loads of brand name stuff. I had heard they somehow got a hold of a bunch of Ian Poulter (golf) clothes, and he was going after them. I've never heard an actual news story on this, just Tee-Box chatter. 

All the Fenders and Gibson's for sale right here on GC?? 

And, closer to the story at hand... I buy a ton of used vinyl. I go to records shops all over the place. South Western Ontario, Niagara, Toronto, even Detroit. The original "artist" is not getting anything for those. I've even bought a few bootlegs. I feel a little dirty buying them, but I figure, these things have changed hands so much in the last 30yrs, the original "thief" is long gone. (On a side note, I would only ever buy Morrisey used. I still like the music, but, I don't want him to have _my_ money. Which I know is asinine) 

I guess at the end of it, he has the right. Whether he actually knows anything about it or not.


----------



## bentwire17

Clapton has put it all out there, most all of his life.
Read his book.
Become a great advocate for sobriety and getting ones life back on track.
Crossroads Centre and the festivals that support it, to say the least .
A humble lover of the older blues legends.
A generous mentor to up and coming guitarists.
He has bad reactions to the jabs and speaks out.
He interconnects with the ant-vax people and Lo and behold it’s full on media attack 24/7! Hmmm.
Does everyone not see what happens to those that speak out against Jab culture?
Clapton is god, or at least God bless him.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

Matters of public affair are always a dubious sort. It's a shame so few of us are prepared to look, listen, read, discuss, and make personal decisions/choices instead of going with one flow or another. I hold to faith that we are all equipped and armed rightly but too few care to sniff out the truth for themselves. Everything you "get" stinks. Anything coming _to you_ is there to wash you into the gutter along with it. So hang on to each other, brothers and sisters, cause the flood can only get worse.


----------



## Milkman

bentwire17 said:


> Does everyone not see what happens to those that speak out against Jab culture?


Yes, we see that they are frequently exposed for the whack jobs they truly are.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

There are almost 8 billion people. Grandpa wants to believe that news media employs only the most conscientious of them.


----------



## bentwire17

Milkman said:


> Yes, we see that they are frequently exposed for the whack jobs they truly are.


Why so sour-milkman?
Nobody allowed to offer a opinion other than yours ?
Wish you a Merry Christmas anyways….


----------



## Jim DaddyO

It wasn't "Eric Clapton", the person. It was "Eric Clapton" the management company.

Opinions of the man vary obviously but the suit wasn't his doing.


----------



## Milkman

bentwire17 said:


> Why so sour-milkman?
> Nobody allowed to offer a opinion other than yours ?
> Wish you a Merry Christmas anyways….


Not sour at all, but I AM tired of misinformation and bad advice that is propelling this pandemic. Without that BS we could have been out of this many months ago.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

I will repeat: what you are _getting_ is drivel and hogwash. Taking your pick among the offal and refuse you're being fed is going to leave you "fed-up". Whether its one bit of information or another, it's all still coming from the same smelly foul-mouthed horse...so take a nap, then put on your house slippers, jog that ol corpuscular lump in your head and come up with your views and decisions...if you come up short, then go looking, go fish, by any means do anything that your volition tells you, just _don't_ turn on the laptop and look at the news feed (you'll get fed-up right quick)


----------



## laristotle

Mutant_Guitar said:


> Matters of public affair are always a dubious sort. It's a shame so few of us are prepared to look, listen, read, discuss, and make personal decisions/choices instead of going with one flow or another. I hold to faith that we are all equipped and armed rightly but too few care to sniff out the truth for themselves. Everything you "get" stinks. Anything coming _to you_ is there to wash you into the gutter along with it. So hang on to each other, brothers and sisters, cause the flood can only get worse.





Mutant_Guitar said:


> I will repeat: what you are _getting_ is drivel and hogwash. Taking your pick among the offal and refuse you're being fed is going to leave you "fed-up". Whether its one bit of information or another, it's all still coming from the same smelly foul-mouthed horse...so take a nap, then put on your house slippers, jog that ol corpuscular lump in your head and come up with your views and decisions...if you come up short, then go looking, go fish, by any means do anything that your volition tells you, just _don't_ turn on the laptop and look at the news feed (you'll get fed-up right quick)


There's a song there in all of that. Something Arlo Guthrie ish?


----------



## Milkman

laristotle said:


> There's a song there in all of that. Something Arlo Guthrie ish?


You can get all the crap you want, at the Anti-vaxer restaurant?


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

Momma didn't raise no fool, you became one on your own.


----------

