Clapton knew of lawsuit against widow, blames widow again, won't enforce judgment due to backlash

Since the beginning of recorded history, there have been tales of fiends that lurk at night, preying on the young, the very old, and the sick- Vampires, Draugr, Lamia, Succubus- each of these beasts have terrified mankind and wreaked havoc on those that would unwittingly cross their paths… Though, in the modern age, we believe that we are safe from these demons- either they never existed, or are long gone, or have retreated from whence the came… we were WRONG.

Last week, it became public that Eric Clapton had obtained a judgment against a German widow for about $4,000USD in German court. Her terrible infraction? She sold a CD of her sadly deceased husband for $11 on eBay that was bootleg, except she didn't know it was bootleg.

Clapton received near universal disapproval for seeking to destroy a woman who was disposing of her deceased husband's items, particularly when said item was of nominal value and she did not know it was not authorized (since she bought it at a department store).

Yesterday, after the information became public backlash raged across the Internet, Clapton's management issued a statement saying they would not seek Clapton's portion of the judgment. (She is still stuck with court costs and her own costs).

The statement begins by saying reports about the story were inaccurate, but then largely agrees with most articles posted about the story. Rather, in the statement, Clapton's attorneys admitted that Clapton himself signed a declaration in the case allowing his attorneys to file the suit, thereby showing that Clapton had knowledge of the suit. The statement also doubles down and again blames the widow for the entire situation: "If the individual had complied with the initial letter the costs would have been minimal." Notably, the decision to not destroy a poor German widow did not come after the cease and desist was served, or after the lawsuit weas filed, or after the judgment was obtained, or after the widow filed an appeal, or after the appeal was denied or after the years of dragging a grieving widow through the German legal process- it came after Clapton's activities were made public on a global scale.

So all of you holiday travelers out there, take heed during these cold, wintry months. Make haste in telling your loved ones that they are indeed loved. For, in these tumultous times, one never knows when one's widowed aunt… or one's lonely brother… or even oneself… will unwittingly sell a cheap CD on eBay only to summon the unholy red thirst of the Ghoul man calls "Clapton," and be torn asunder by his perverse, sadistic, brutal hunger.

You can read the statement from Clapton's management below. Take warning mortals. Do not be brave.

Statement from Clapton management

Given the widespread and often misleading press reports about a recent bootleg case involving a woman in Germany, the following provides clarification to set the record straight.

Germany is one of several countries where sales of unauthorized and usually poor-quality illegal bootleg CDs are rife, which harms both the industry and purchasers of inferior product. Over a period of more than 10 years the German lawyers appointed by Eric Clapton, and a significant number of other well-known artists and record companies, have successfully pursued thousands of bootleg cases under routine copyright procedures.

It is not the intention to target individuals selling isolated CDs from their own collection, but rather the active bootleggers manufacturing unauthorised copies for sale. In the case of an individual selling unauthorised items from a personal collection, if following receipt of a “cease and desist” letter the offending items are withdrawn, any costs would be minimal, or might be waived.

Eric Clapton’s lawyers and management team (rather than Eric personally) identifies if an item offered for sale is illegal, and a declaration confirming that is signed, but thereafter Eric Clapton is not involved in any individual cases, and 95% of the cases are resolved before going to Court.

This case could have been disposed of quickly at minimal cost, but unfortunately in response to the German lawyers’ first standard letter, the individual’s reply included the line (translation): “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands”. This triggered the next step in the standard legal procedures, and the Court then made the initial injunction order.

If the individual had complied with the initial letter the costs would have been minimal. Had she explained at the outset the full facts in a simple phone call or letter to the lawyers, any claim might, have been waived, and costs avoided.

However, the individual appointed a lawyer who appealed the injunction decision. The Judge encouraged the individual to withdraw the appeal to save costs, but she proceeded. The appeal failed and she was ordered to pay the costs of the Court and all of the parties.

However, when the full facts of this particular case came to light and it was clear the individual is not the type of person Eric Clapton, or his record company, wish to target, Eric Clapton decided not to take any further action and does not intend to collect the costs awarded to him by the Court. Also, he hopes the individual will not herself incur any further costs.

Eric Clapton Management

22nd December 2021