Anyone seen those dreadful "look-a-like" repro 45s on eBay from a seller called amnesiarecords? They also have a website www.amnesiarecords.co.uk

I'm not sure if they are vinyl pressings or dub plates but they certainly aren't legal and I hope people don't buy them. The seller claims they are limited editions (500 copies) and his supplier is someone whose e-mail address is davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

Please consider the rights of artists, writers, producers and copyright owners and don't support bootleggers (or sellers) by paying for their cheap and nasty products.

Paul Mooney

www.millbrand.com

Ace has a lot of the original metalwork (acetates and/or stampers as appropriate) from the labels it owns, like Kent/Modern and Dootone, for instance, but we always prefer to go back to original tapes if the masters were recorded to tape and if the tape has preserved the integrity of the music.

TONE

Thanks, thats very interesting (for me). So the chances of finding the plates for an unknown soul rareties at a pressing plant in the stamper storeroom is pretty slim I guess. Someone once suggested to me that it mmust be worth a try when we were discussing how records were made, must have had a few Spitfires myself, said I'd look into it but thought it was a pretty daft idea in the sober (and hungover) light of day.

No, Drew, you're making a valid point, really - or you would be, if I actually bought bootlegs for my own pleasure, rather than for research purposes as I do 99.99999% of the time.

Most of the bootlegs that I own are CDs (very few being soul) and most have been bought for reference, rather than to form any integral part of my collection. In my line of work, I tend to use them for things like establishing the correct running time of tracks, and comparing against mastertapes, to check that we haven't been sent alternate takes to release by mistake. I therefore use the bootleggers to the advantage of those who might eventually get to hear the same song, in 'from mastertape' quality and legally licensed, at some point on an Ace CD. I certainly don't buy them to exploit the artists or the legal owners of the repertoire.

Also, although I'll occasionally do a CDR burn of a track for someone for a specific reason (e.g. they, too, need it for reference purposes) I've never bought a CD and then immedaitely copied it for a friend, like many people seem to do.

In respect of Northern bootlegs, I don't own even as many as five and I can name the ones that I have for you - Mel Britt, an "Eddie Foster" pressing of "Do I Love You" (because I find it a laugh to own 'The World's Rarest Northern Soul Record' on a tuppeny ha'penny Soussan pressing), Dena Barnes (which I borrowed to tape about 30 years ago and never saw the guy I borrowed it off again!) - and that's about it. I never paid for any of those - Eddie Foster was a gift, as was the Mel Britt, from a mate who got conned by Soussan's pressings of it in '75-76 (along with many others) and I won't buy any others, no matter how much I might care to own the track. Oh, and I aslo have a "Crazy Baby" that I bought from Brownie years ago for a tidy sum and that he swore up and down was legit (so how come you can hear a needle drop at the beginning of the tune, then?) and that I now know wasn't because I've seen every variation of the legitimate Atco release, both demo and issue.

I've also never played any of these copies out in public.

The only other 'bootlegs' I own are those I've made myself, when I've transferred an otherwise unavailable vinyl album to CDR so that I can listen to it in the car or on my discman, late at night or early in the morning. I don't regard these as part of my collection any more than I do the hundreds of cassette tapes that I must have made over a 30+ year period.

Like I say, I'm not as pure as the driven snow on this one, I admit, but neither am I fair game for the scum who regularly rip off both artists and record labels just because I 'must have it on vinyl at all costs'...

TONE

Quite right, Tone, a counterfeit is a counterfeit, is a counterfeit, no matter on what basis it is conceived. Were we talking about pharmaceuticals, designer labels, DVD's, games etc we would understand the effect on those that have legal rights to the income from their products, but there seems to be some opinion that suggests that just because the income trail ie royalties, may be dead, or at least not intact, the product is fair game. The full weight of the law should fall on those that perpetrate the acts, although we can assume that it will not be at the top of priorities for those that are responsible for taking such action.

On a connected matter, Tone perhaps you can impart your wisdom on those less knowledgable, as to how CD compilations are able to be put out, where the artists and labels concerned appear to have no common connection ie not part of a group of labels, or publishing group (unless that latter fact is not so apparent)

What I am getting at here, and this may have been previously discussed, CD's from various sources, of which I currently have 3 in front of me( and you can probably guess the source) do not refer to having licenced the tracks from any particular source. In one case the source is referred to as being from "original 45's". Is this "legal" and if so, how?

This is a bit like my Solidarity thread, peeps know what's going on but choose to turn a blind eye. I guarantee there's people on here who have mates who are selling or making these bootlegs but they're hardly likely to shop them even though it's ripping off the artsists they listen to week in week out, see no evil hear no evil etc. etc.

I'm sure this thread will be popping up continually on here for as long as this forum is running unless anyone ever really has the courage to tackle it which i seriously doubt.

Simon

On a connected matter, Tone perhaps you can impart your wisdom on those less knowledgable, as to how CD compilations are able to be put out, where the artists and labels concerned appear to have no common connection ie not part of a group of labels, or publishing group (unless that latter fact is not so apparent)

What I am getting at here, and this may have been previously discussed, CD's from various sources, of which I currently have 3 in front of me( and you can probably guess the source) do not refer to having licenced the tracks from any particular source. In one case the source is referred to as being from "original 45's". Is this "legal" and if so, how?

The companies that Ace does business with usually have no objections at all to our 'multi licensing' for a package, whether for a complete collection of one artist's work whose work appeared on several different labels, or for several different artists for a themed package (like, for instance, "Kent's Cellar Of Soul" is). When applying for a licens we always give the the labels in question a list of what their masters are expected to be in the company of, and to my knowledge we've never been refused a license because of any offence taken at other repertoire that we plan to use on any given CD.

I believe it's probably a legal requirement for any label to declare, somewhere on every CD or vinyl package, who any given track is licensed from. At Ace we even put 'C Ace Records Ltd' next to the tracks we own, for the sake of uniformity. Even if the licensors are not listed on a track by track basis, you'll usually find them somewhere in the booklet or on the tray card of any legitmately compiled, licensed and released CD (not just Ace's)

If no licensors are listed, then the chances of your CD being a legit one is minimal to non existent. It's not illegal to compile a CD 'from original 45s', however such a statement is probably a smokescreen to hide the fact that there's actually been no licensing going on and the only person who'll be profiting from the enterprise is the cove who put it together.

Hope this unmuddies the waters a bit.

TONE

I guarantee there's people on here who have mates who are selling or making these bootlegs but they're hardly likely to shop them even though it's ripping off the artsists they listen to week in week out, see no evil hear no evil etc. etc.

Simon

I don't condone bootlegging, nor do I set out to buy bootlegs. But how many Soul Sourcers who have been on the scene as I have since the late 60s can put their hand on their heart and say they have NEVER bought a bootleg? Bootlegs have been an integral part of the scene since its inception and I find it incomprehensible that many have gone through life without acquiring some bootlegs in their collection. In fact one might argue that the scene wouldn't be what it is (or what it has been) if the bootleg aspect of it had never materialised.

So, if anyone did buy a bootleg in their youth, answer the question 'why?'. If, like me then, it was your only prospect of being able to play that record on your turntable at home, then why are you taking the moral high ground now, depriving people of satisfying the same need you had then.

I also just wanted to pick up on the 'ripping off of artists' - I do have some difficulty with this phrase that is often thrown in to bootleg discussions. It suggests that somehow bootlegs are depriving artists of royalties, but, as with many of these records no one is legitimately (re)issuing them in this country, then the artist would have no expectation of any royalties in any case (Margaret Littles is a classic example perhaps) - so in this example how does it 'rip off' an artist? And, if anyone feels so strongly about royalties, do they, when purchasing a second-hand rarity, attempt to send some royalty monies to the recording artist - now that would be really keeping the faith?

I reiterate that I do not condone bootlegging, nor do I buy them, but aren't we all getting overly precious. In bilblical terms ' Let the one without sin throw the first stone'.

Brian

Edited November 17, 200618 yr by Brian Ellis

This is a bit like my Solidarity thread, peeps know what's going on but choose to turn a blind eye. I guarantee there's people on here who have mates who are selling or making these bootlegs but they're hardly likely to shop them even though it's ripping off the artsists they listen to week in week out, see no evil hear no evil etc. etc.

I'm sure this thread will be popping up continually on here for as long as this forum is running unless anyone ever really has the courage to tackle it which i seriously doubt.

Simon

============

Don't think people turn a blind eye Si, I think it's a case of no one willing to prosecute, and the question is why. It would appear to be a guaranteed win, but no one apparently wants to take up the cudgels, so I guess you're right, people will continue to bootleg, and on SS people will continue to bring it to everyones attention, but in the long run, nothing will get done.

Winnie:-)

ok

i sometimes dj, i really like the track its kick ass northern by the additions (see below) its not on vinyl, just cd.

Our club is original vinyl only, whilst i appreciate the theory....allowing cd's would just create more headaches than they might resolve at a northern night.

why wasnt this put on vinyl, i want it, i want to dance to it, i want others to dance to it, its fn kick ass northern aint it.

i rarely buy cds mainly 2nd had vinyl. if i have to will go to vinyl carvers myself, otherwise would love to buy a kent-ace -grapevine but if you cant see the potential (too late now) am pressing one copy for me to play,

am just trying to highlight some of the problems

listen to this stonker if you havnt already got cd, and lets see the power of soul source to sort this

Additions___We_re_In_Love.mp3

Just catching up on this thread and it reminded me of an incident last year. I go to maybe 15 record shows in the Toronto area every year and there was always a guy selling "moody" DVD's. He always had everything, and all from the mixing desk, and was doing a very brisk business.

Anyway, last year at the Hamilton show I am casually flipping through 45's and all of a sudden the Bill storm in, grab this guy and all his wares and cart him off.

Upshot is we will not be seeing him at any shows for at least 5 years!!!

My point being, if it is illegal and breaching copyright, as in the Millie Jackson stufff etc, a well placed phone call will put a dent in his wallet, especially as most of you seem to know who and where they are coming from.

Just a thought.

why wasnt this put on vinyl, i want it, i want to dance to it, i want others to dance to it, its fn kick ass northern aint it.

Because it's so average??

I don't condone bootlegging, nor do I set out to buy bootlegs. But how many Soul Sourcers who have been on the scene as I have since the late 60s can put their hand on their heart and say they have NEVER bought a bootleg? Bootlegs have been an integral part of the scene since its inception and I find it incomprehensible that many have gone through life without acquiring some bootlegs in their collection. In fact one might argue that the scene wouldn't be what it is (or what it has been) if the bootleg aspect of it had never materialised.

So, if anyone did buy a bootleg in their youth, answer the question 'why?'. If, like me then, it was your only prospect of being able to play that record on your turntable at home, then why are you taking the moral high ground now, depriving people of satisfying the same need you had then.

I also just wanted to pick up on the 'ripping off of artists' - I do have some difficulty with this phrase that is often thrown in to bootleg discussions. It suggests that somehow bootlegs are depriving artists of royalties, but, as with many of these records no one is legitimately (re)issuing them in this country, then the artist would have no expectation of any royalties in any case (Margaret Littles is a classic example perhaps) - so in this example how does it 'rip off' an artist? And, if anyone feels so strongly about royalties, do they, when purchasing a second-hand rarity, attempt to send some royalty monies to the recording artist - now that would be really keeping the faith?

I reiterate that I do not condone bootlegging, nor do I buy them, but aren't we all getting overly precious. In bilblical terms ' Let the one without sin throw the first stone'.

Brian

You are wrong about the paragraph "Ripping off artists" - Its irellevant where the artist is if the song is copyrighted over here which thousands are including the most obscure soul 45s we listen to- I opened aprevious thread on this acouple of months ago.(Larry Birdsong- Somebody help me on SUR-Shot records) So if you boot over here you are ripping the artists or their estate of royalties! Fact. If you contact the copyright people they can tell you if its registered or not.

You are wrong about the paragraph "Ripping off artists" - Its irellevant where the artist is if the song is copyrighted over here which thousands are including the most obscure soul 45s we listen to- I opened aprevious thread on this acouple of months ago.(Larry Birdsong- Somebody help me on SUR-Shot records) So if you boot over here you are ripping the artists or their estate of royalties! Fact. If you contact the copyright people they can tell you if its registered or not.

Ernie

I can understand the issue of 'ripping off' in the case where a bootleg (counterfeit) is produced of an article that is currently available for legitimate purchase 'as new' (i.e. not secondhand) e.g. Adidas sportswear, Prada handbags, Callaway Golf Clubs and records/CDs - counterfeiters are actually depriving the manufacturers/artists of their rightful royalties/profits - there's not a hair of difference between your position and mine in this respect.

However, I still have real difficulty in knowing how an artist is 'ripped off' in the same way as Adidas, Prada, Callaway etc are as in the example above; his/her records are just not available to purchase 'as new', that's the only time a royalty would be appropriate (i.e. the secondhand trading of goods does not require royalty payments) . So if an artist has no record available for legitimate sale/purchase 'as new' then he/she has, by definition, no prospect or expectation of any royalty payment - fact - so where is the 'rip off'?

If the debate is about licensing or Intellectual Property Rights or copyright, then that is a quite different argument - and it's at that point I would weigh in against the bootleggers. But let's not get these all mixed up with payment of royalties.

Let's be honest, if a bootlegger did decide to legitimise the production of his copies and pay royalties to the artists (presuming they or their estate could be traced) - how many $$ royalty are we talking about per copy, so we can get some context for all of this? What if he/she (or their estates) can't be traced - what happens then?

Let me make my position absolutely clear and for the avoidance of any doubt - I do not in any way condone the illegitimate counterfeiting of records nor do I set out to purchase bootlegs.

But surely we all carry some (historical) responsibility for this situation; I would find it quite unique if anyone on the NS scene has never bought (or sold) a bootleg at some stage in their life - and once that has happened I don't think he or she can take the absolute moral high ground on this, without being open to a charge of a degree of hypocrisy and double standards. Would you not agree?

So the debate rumbles on - and not one I think that will ever be resolved; bootlegging has been an integral part of our scene ab initio. Would our scene be where it has been/is now if bootlegs had not been an integral part - I very much doubt it?

Brian

How many people own a Tobi Legend original, almost as bad as a bootleg, as this record was released without the artist knowing it had been released and under a made up name to boot, until 30 years after she (Tobi Lark) recorded it. This isn't the only example of this happening so get off the moral high ground, record companies and record ex are just as bad were making money is concerned. Also without boots half the records that have had legal releases on the recording scene would never have seen the light of day and I'm not talking just about soul music here. Quite often it's only because a record has been booted, does the record company even bother to release the tracks.

How many people own a Tobi Legend original, almost as bad as a bootleg, as this record was released without the artist knowing it had been released and under a made up name to boot, until 30 years after she (Tobi Lark) recorded it. This isn't the only example of this happening so get off the moral high ground, record companies and record ex are just as bad were making money is concerned. Also without boots half the records that have had legal releases on the recording scene would never have seen the light of day and I'm not talking just about soul music here. Quite often it's only because a record has been booted, does the record company even bother to release the tracks.

Without wishing to sound like an apologist for the American Recording Industry circa 1960-69 I would imagine the record company in this instance was acting within the law and had the perfect right to release any material recorded at their (usually considerable) expense. That's why artists sign a contract with the record company.

It occurs to me that artists aren't usually the best judge of right and wrong with regard to their old recordings. As has been pointed out previously, any monies owed on record sales (if any) have been usually fully paid up long ago. Publishing/Performing/Mechanicals is obviously a very different kettle of fish.

Just because us daft gits over here still religiously play and collect these mostly unsuccessful curios from a different age it doesn't necessarily follow that there's a pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow for the poor artist no matter how much we wish there were.

Edited November 24, 200618 yr by sweeney

I was looking on Ebay last night at the 'ending soonest' section and suddenly it struck me that there were page after page offering repro/re issue 45's call them what you will, i knew there were a lot of these out there but had no idea there were so many, the market would seem to be flooded, some of the titles amazed me as they are pretty easy enough to locate on an original if you dig deep enough and not the big ticket items either, i'm not gonna go into the rights and wrongs here as it's none of my buisness but it strikes me that these things must be selling for them to be reproduced in such quantity? Personally i would rather spend my money on little bits and bats originals, you can find some fantastic records on several well known sites without breaking the bank, still each to their own i guess?

Regards - Mark Bicknell.

Mark you have turned into the diplomat ..Yes why stress over somehting you can do nothing about...Like you said there are plenty real records at cheap prices too that aint been given a real play ....

I know there must be a market for the re-issue stuff but i don't know who is buying them,i don't think anyone i know would bother...If the re-issue tunes get some new folk into the music then its not such a bad thing is it...Lets take a chill pill,we have enough in life to worry about.

Anyone seen those dreadful "look-a-like" repro 45s on eBay from a seller called amnesiarecords? They also have a website www.amnesiarecords.co.uk

I'm not sure if they are vinyl pressings or dub plates but they certainly aren't legal and I hope people don't buy them. The seller claims they are limited editions (500 copies) and his supplier is someone whose e-mail address is davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

Please consider the rights of artists, writers, producers and copyright owners and don't support bootleggers (or sellers) by paying for their cheap and nasty products.

Paul Mooney

www.millbrand.com

Our scene has always had a percentage of grumpy old men, looks like you lot fill the bill!!!

Does it really matter if a few pressings get done, they always have been.

Do you not go to goldsoul events because of Kev Roberts involvement in bootlegging over a thirty years, no you still go.

Do you buy records of tim Brown and martin koppell, they have never sold a bootleg. (lol)

Do you buy off John Manship?, he wouldn't ever sell a dodgy re-issue would he.

Think about lads, are you over reacting just a little.

regards

David Jones, yes that one

davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

Edited December 3, 200618 yr by wigandancer

Our scene has always had a percentage of grumpy old men, looks like you lot fill the bill!!!

Does it really matter if a few pressings get done, they always have been.

Do you not go to goldsoul events because of Kev Roberts involvement in bootlegging over a thirty years, no you still go.

Do you buy records of tim Brown and martin koppell, they have never sold a bootleg. (lol)

Do you buy off John Manship?, he wouldn't ever sell a dodgy re-issue would he.

Think about lads, are you over reacting just a little.

regards

David Jones, yes that one

davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

A few pressings ? That shit website is full of them.

Tomo

Edited December 3, 200618 yr by alan t

Our scene has always had a percentage of grumpy old men, looks like you lot fill the bill!!!

Does it really matter if a few pressings get done, they always have been.

Do you not go to goldsoul events because of Kev Roberts involvement in bootlegging over a thirty years, no you still go.

Do you buy records of tim Brown and martin koppell, they have never sold a bootleg. (lol)

Do you buy off John Manship?, he wouldn't ever sell a dodgy re-issue would he.

Think about lads, are you over reacting just a little.

regards

David Jones, yes that one

davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

I'm guilty of all of those things.

Mark are you trying to wind me up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 3, 200618 yr by MAK

Our scene has always had a percentage of grumpy old men, looks like you lot fill the bill!!!

Does it really matter if a few pressings get done, they always have been.

Do you not go to goldsoul events because of Kev Roberts involvement in bootlegging over a thirty years, no you still go.

Do you buy records of tim Brown and martin koppell, they have never sold a bootleg. (lol)

Do you buy off John Manship?, he wouldn't ever sell a dodgy re-issue would he.

Think about lads, are you over reacting just a little.

regards

David Jones, yes that one

davidjonesrecords@fsmail.net

Hello David,

We're not talking about "a few pressings", your website offers nothing but pressings. And let's call them what they really are: ILLEGAL bootlegs and second-rate counterfeits which infringe various musical copyrights and trade marks.

These bootlegs DEFRAUD artists, producers, record companies, writers and publishers. Your gain is their financial loss.

I find this level of blatant bootlegging particularly offensive at a time when many people in the music industry are struggling financially.

My company has more than 160 clients and owns or controls over three thousand copyrights. I hope you don't make the mistake of infringing any of our copyrights because I have a duty to vigorously defend the interests of my company and our clients.

I sincerely hope this won't be necessary.

Paul Mooney

www.millbrand.com

A further thought on this matter...

Why are people who admit to being involved in blatant bootlegging allowed to be members of soulsource???

Paul Mooney

A further thought on this matter...

Why are people who admit to being involved in blatant bootlegging allowed to be members of soulsource???

Paul Mooney

That's like saying why are blonde haired people allowed to be members of soul source...

That's like saying why are blonde haired people allowed to be members of soul source...

No it isn't, Pete, it's asking if we should allow organised fraudulant criminals (and those who assist them) to be members of soul source.

Let's not forget that the victims of these frauds include artists, writers, producers and musicians we admire.

I'm usually against censorship and I value free speech but, personally, I feel uneasy about this and I'd like to know what other members think.

Paul Mooney

No it isn't, Pete, it's asking if we should allow organised fraudulant criminals (and those who assist them) to be members of soul source.

Let's not forget that the victims of these frauds include artists, writers, producers and musicians we admire.

I'm usually against censorship and I value free speech but, personally, I feel uneasy about this and I'd like to know what other members think.

Paul Mooney

No what I meant is - despite whatever they have done, or do - when you join, there's no list of credentials that you have to have and no list of exceptions as to why you won't be allowed to join. That's why you couldn't just ban that guy, it would be the thin end of the wedge. Next you'd have to ban the people who bought them off him and so on. I'm amazed that some of the record companies of the titles booted haven't been able to frighten him though.

Hello David,

We're not talking about "a few pressings", your website offers nothing but pressings. And let's call them what they really are: ILLEGAL bootlegs and second-rate counterfeits which infringe various musical copyrights and trade marks.

These bootlegs DEFRAUD artists, producers, record companies, writers and publishers. Your gain is their financial loss.

I find this level of blatant bootlegging particularly offensive at a time when many people in the music industry are struggling financially.

My company has more than 160 clients and owns or controls over three thousand copyrights. I hope you don't make the mistake of infringing any of our copyrights because I have a duty to vigorously defend the interests of my company and our clients.

I sincerely hope this won't be necessary.

Paul Mooney

www.millbrand.com

Hi Paul,

Just a thought. I'm ignorant to the ins & outs of your business, I was just wondering, what kind of percentage, if any, do you take from the artists returns? You're painting yourself as being a guardian of these artists, is this the case?

This is in no way any kind of dig at you, just be interesting to know.

Regards,

Ady.

No what I meant is - despite whatever they have done, or do - when you join, there's no list of credentials that you have to have and no list of exceptions as to why you won't be allowed to join. That's why you couldn't just ban that guy, it would be the thin end of the wedge. Next you'd have to ban the people who bought them off him and so on. I'm amazed that some of the record companies of the titles booted haven't been able to frighten him though.

Hello Pete,

That particular guy admitted to being involved and seems to be proud of it. He's not just a seller, he's a wholesale supplier of bootlegs. He actually offered some to me at dealer prices.

If someone burgled your home, Pete, I would not associate with that person and I'd like to think many other soulsource members would feel the same.

I'm also amazed at how many record companies fail to act and it's sad that ebay are unable (or unwilling) to police themselves.

Paul Mooney

14 people reading this topic, nobody posting on it! Can't you involve the BPI in this, or are they just not interested unless it's The Beatles or Elton John?

Hi Paul,

Just a thought. I'm ignorant to the ins & outs of your business, I was just wondering, what kind of percentage, if any, do you take from the artists returns? You're painting yourself as being a guardian of these artists, is this the case?

This is in no way any kind of dig at you, just be interesting to know.

Regards,

Ady.

Hello Ady,

Record companies and publishers GENERATE income for artists and writers, often paying royalties in advance before records or CDs are pressed or sold. Of course they have overheads and costs and are also entitled to make a fair profit themselves. Our clients are paid various rates but in most cases it's fair to say that writers receive the lion's share of income do not have to risk any costs or losses.

I'm certainly not a "guardian" but as a publisher I do fight for income due to our writer and publisher clients. And of course I believe we are entitled to retain a small share, usually just enough to cover costs and make a small contribution to overheads. But yes, I'm actually quite proud that many writers and artists have benefited financially from our work.

In direct contrast, bootleggers are getting rich by defrauding writers and artists (and other parties) of considerable amounts of money. It's theft.

Paul Mooney

14 people reading this topic, nobody posting on it! Can't you involve the BPI in this, or are they just not interested unless it's The Beatles or Elton John?

You're right, Pete. If someone bootlegs a Beatles or Elton John record, they major companies and the BPI get straight on the case.

Sadly, they don't seem to care about lesser-known artists and they sometimes consider it would cost too much to pursue the smaller offenders (even though their collective offences add up to very large amounts).

Paul Mooney

You're right, Pete. If someone bootlegs a Beatles or Elton John record, they major companies and the BPI get straight on the case.

Sadly, they don't seem to care about lesser-known artists and they sometimes consider it would cost too much to pursue the smaller offenders (even though their collective offences add up to very large amounts).

Paul Mooney

I sent an email to Universal last night who own the rights to Drizabone, and motown vaults with a link to crooks site

I sent an email to Universal last night who own the rights to Drizabone, and motown vaults with a link to crooks site

Hello Baz,

I know where you live but I won't tell them unless the torture is unbearable.

Paul Mooney

Hello Baz,

I know where you live but I won't tell them unless the torture is unbearable.

Paul Mooney

Send em over no bother to me

Hello David,

We're not talking about "a few pressings", your website offers nothing but pressings. And let's call them what they really are: ILLEGAL bootlegs and second-rate counterfeits which infringe various musical copyrights and trade marks.

These bootlegs DEFRAUD artists, producers, record companies, writers and publishers. Your gain is their financial loss.

I find this level of blatant bootlegging particularly offensive at a time when many people in the music industry are struggling financially.

My company has more than 160 clients and owns or controls over three thousand copyrights. I hope you don't make the mistake of infringing any of our copyrights because I have a duty to vigorously defend the interests of my company and our clients.

I sincerely hope this won't be necessary.

Paul Mooney

www.millbrand.com

Paul

I refer to my previous posts on this topic. I remain curious as to how an artist (or writer) whose record has never been released in this country, nor has any prospect whatsoever of it being released in this country, suffers 'financial loss' as a result of a bootleg copy of their record being produced.

An example must be Margaret Littles 'Love finds a way' - totally unheard of a couple of years ago. It's rare, but a handful of copies turn up, it becomes popular at soul nights, it's bootlegged (although I have heard that the copies may be legit - but I'm not sure, but for the purposes of this debate I'll assume them to be counterfeit). If it's never going to get legitimately released here there is no chance whatsoever of the artist receiving any form of financial benefit.

However, and again for the purposes of this debate, let's assume an entrepreneurial record company sees the prospect of some sales for this record and legally obtains the rights to release it and sells perhaps 500 (I doubt many more than that would sell) @ market rate, say a tenner a piece, (£5k turnover) - just how much would Margaret expect to receive from said sales per 500 (presuming of course she could ever be found). This might put the 'suffering of financial loss' into some sort of context.

As I've said previously, I do not condone bootlegging, but this is much more from an Intellectual Property Rights angle rather than from any (notional) royalties perspective.

When I posed thie question about the level of royalties an artist might anticipate earlier in the post, no one was able to proffer a figure; but as you are in the business you would be ideally placed to advise on this.

I believe there is a large degree of ill-informed hysteria about the size of 'financial loss suffered' by artists - so put us in the picture so that we all know what we are talking about in future.

Thanks

Brian

Paul

I refer to my previous posts on this topic. I remain curious as to how an artist (or writer) whose record has never been released in this country, nor has any prospect whatsoever of it being released in this country, suffers 'financial loss' as a result of a bootleg copy of their record being produced.

An example must be Margaret Littles 'Love finds a way' - totally unheard of a couple of years ago. It's rare, but a handful of copies turn up, it becomes popular at soul nights, it's bootlegged (although I have heard that the copies may be legit - but I'm not sure, but for the purposes of this debate I'll assume them to be counterfeit). If it's never going to get legitimately released here there is no chance whatsoever of the artist receiving any form of financial benefit.

However, and again for the purposes of this debate, let's assume an entrepreneurial record company sees the prospect of some sales for this record and legally obtains the rights to release it and sells perhaps 500 (I doubt many more than that would sell) @ market rate, say a tenner a piece, (£5k turnover) - just how much would Margaret expect to receive from said sales per 500 (presuming of course she could ever be found). This might put the 'suffering of financial loss' into some sort of context.

As I've said previously, I do not condone bootlegging, but this is much more from an Intellectual Property Rights angle rather than from any (notional) royalties perspective.

When I posed thie question about the level of royalties an artist might anticipate earlier in the post, no one was able to proffer a figure; but as you are in the business you would be ideally placed to advise on this.

I believe there is a large degree of ill-informed hysteria about the size of 'financial loss suffered' by artists - so put us in the picture so that we all know what we are talking about in future.

Thanks

Brian

bit from the Ernie Johnson interview by john dixon on here at

regarding royalties from the Kent cd release

JB - I'm sure it was very nice for you to recoup some of the money you made when the CD came out.

EJ- It was a little bit, it wasn't very much. It was like 2700, but after I paid some people some bills it was gone. We get royalties twice a year so maybe something will come up, I have got a few debts which doesn't feel to good, but I hope they are people that trust and believe that when I get some money I will try to pay them.

...I remain curious as to how an artist (or writer) whose record has never been released in this country, nor has any prospect whatsoever of it being released in this country, suffers 'financial loss' as a result of a bootleg copy of their record being produced...

Hello Brian,

It has nothing to do with the fact that a record has not previously been released in this country (or any country) or weather there is any prospect of a release - and in many cases there ARE prospects of legitmate releases which are cancelled because of bootlegs.

Artists, writers, producers, publishers and record companies own or control various copyrights and other rights in their music (their work). If someone uses their work without permission (and without payment) then they are robbing them. It's as simple as that.

If someone stole your wages or your savings, you would suffer a loss in the same way - even if you weren't aware of the theft.

Best regards,

Paul Mooney

Was the four vandals on goldmine sevens I just sold on ebay legit it was bought from a well know record dealer

... let's assume an entrepreneurial record company sees the prospect of some sales for this record and legally obtains the rights to release it and sells perhaps 500 (I doubt many more than that would sell) @ market rate, say a tenner a piece, (£5k turnover) - just how much would Margaret expect to receive from said sales per 500 (presuming of course she could ever be found). This might put the 'suffering of financial loss' into some sort of context...

Hello again Brian,

First of all, the artist (or master owner) should have the right to refuse an offer or to grant a license in return for a fee and / or royalties. For a 500 run of singles at £10.00 retail, they could expect £500.00 or more in advance or royalties of around 20% (just for example) of the net dealer price. That works out at £1.00 per copy sold so you could say that their financial loss is £500.00 or more.

In addition, music publishers are entitled to a STATUTORY mechanical royalty of 8.5% of the neat dealer price, therefore they lose around £212.50 income from a similar project. So for each bootleg of this type, I'd say at least £712.50 is STOLEN. That's equal to $1,400.00 even at today's low rate of exchange.

I know many artists, producer and writers who could definately use that kind of money every time one of their records is bootlegged in 500 runs.

And if an artist has had several records bootlegged several times, you can imagine how soon his loss adds up to $10,000.00 and more. That's a LOT of money for anyone to lose and that's why I don't like bootleggers.

Paul Mooney

Was the four vandals on goldmine sevens I just sold on ebay legit it was bought from a well know record dealer

Yes I'm sure it was a legitimate release, licensed from the writer / producer "Duke Jackson" (Ian Levine) who deserves every penny because it's a great song!

Paul Mooney

Hello again Brian,

First of all, the artist (or master owner) should have the right to refuse an offer or to grant a license in return for a fee and / or royalties. For a 500 run of singles at £10.00 retail, they could expect £500.00 or more in advance or royalties of around 20% (just for example) of the net dealer price. That works out at £1.00 per copy sold so you could say that their financial loss is £500.00 or more.

In addition, music publishers are entitled to a STATUTORY mechanical royalty of 8.5% of the neat dealer price, therefore they lose around £212.50 income from a similar project. So for each bootleg of this type, I'd say at least £712.50 is STOLEN. That's equal to $1,400.00 even at today's low rate of exchange.

I know many artists, producer and writers who could definately use that kind of money every time one of their records is bootlegged in 500 runs.

And if an artist has had several records bootlegged several times, you can imagine how soon his loss adds up to $10,000.00 and more. That's a LOT of money for anyone to lose and that's why I don't like bootleggers.

Paul Mooney

Paul

Thanks for your advice on this, I find that quite interesting. So essentially artists receive approximately 20% royalty on the retail price of every single. At least that helps put some of this into context.

Is this a figure across the piece, so for example would the latest Take That number 1 generate the same % level of royalty per single as would (for example) a Margaret Littles release? Am I right in thinking that the 'older' the record the lower the level of royalty (or does this only relate to plays on radio stations). I note from the news that some of Cliff Richard's singles are about to fall below the royalty threshold on the basis that they will be older than 50 years in age in the very near future.

And just to move this on a little, if you don't mind, how many anticipated sales would it need for a record company to take on the likes of a Margaret Littles for legitimate release? Would an anticipated sales figure of 500 be sufficient, or would it need to be in much greater volume.

Thanks

Brian

Edited December 6, 200618 yr by Brian Ellis

Paul

Thanks for your advice on this, I find that quite interesting. So essentially artists receive approximately 20% royalty on the retail price of every single. At least that helps put some of this into context.

Is this a figure across the piece, so for example would the latest Take That number 1 generate the same % level of royalty per single as would (for example) a Margaret Littles release? Am I right in thinking that the 'older' the record the lower the level of royalty (or does this only relate to plays on radio stations). I note from the news that some of Cliff Richard's singles are about to fall below the royalty threshold on the basis that they will be older than 50 years in age in the very near future.

And just to move this on a little, if you don't mind, how many anticipated sales would it need for a record company to take on the likes of a Margaret Littles for legitimate release? Would an anticipated sales figure of 500 be sufficient, or would it need to be in much greater volume.

Thanks

Brian

Hello Brian,

The figures aren't standard; sometimes the royalty rates are higher, sometimes lower. They are usually paid on net dealer prices. Obviously a successful act has more negotiating power and can expect top rates. And an artist who is also a writer effectively has two sources of income.

Small, specialist record companies can and do take on small projects (limited edition runs of 500 singles, for example) but aren't likely to make much unless they have very low overheads and are selling direct to retailers rather than selling through distributors and wholesalers. But if all 500 copies are sold, they can make an honest profit - after paying all fees and royalties.

Paul Mooney

Even though I agree with everything Paul Mooney has said, I think it is a very romantic notion to think that the artists of legitimate reissues of rare soul actually earn much money from them. The owners of the master tapes are likely to receive some sort of advance but because this is relatively small due to the low number of sales, there is not much left to pass on to the artist. Also I would guess that unless the owners of the original masters have retained all the artists contracts there is very little chance of knowing if they are entitled to anything.

I have been producing records for 23 years and continue to licence tracks all over the world. The most common comment from artists when they see something they recorded 20 odd years ago appears on a new compilation in somewhere like Spain is "where is my money?" The artist usually forgets that they received a significant advance against sales 20 odd years ago and the recording has yet to go into propfit so they are entitled to nothing till it does. Also the company in Spain probably only paid $150 for the use of the track and sometimes paid nothing at all. Often my stuff is used without permission.

Whilst lots of companies behave honourably, there is often no way of them knowing if when they release a track whether or not all the people down the line are being paid their due and are honouring all the contracts relating to that recording.

With the advent of CDs most major recording acts from the previous decades negotiated profitable deals to give the record companies permission to put the stuff out on cd. Their original contracts did not mention "CD" so the lables needed to re-negotiate so they could reissue the back catalogue. I doubt if many obscure US soul acts gave anybody permission to put their old recordings on cd.

The legal ownership and entitlements of old recordings is not always clear and the reason people get away with bootlegging is because the legitimate owners of the material have to spend a lot of money pursuing individuals at great cost for very little return.

Having said all this I still agree with Paul that wherever possible everyone who is entitled to a share of a recordings profit should get it, regardless of whether it is £500 or 50p.

Ian

BTW When Motown UK wanted to reissue "Do I love you" in the late 70s they could not locate the original master tape so the dubbed it from the Eddie Foster bootleg.

Edited December 6, 200618 yr by Ringleader

BTW When Motown UK wanted to reissue "Do I love you" in the late 70s they could not locate the original master tape so the dubbed it from the Eddie Foster bootleg.

Is this fact? I heard that story at the time, but since then I've been told that they only had the stereo version and wanted the boot to mix the right sound for mono release...but as stereo singles were common then, wouldn't they just have gone ahead with what they had? Although they'd never admit to it, I wouldn't be surprised if Ringleader is correct...

Jerry.

Is this fact? I heard that story at the time, but since then I've been told that they only had the stereo version and wanted the boot to mix the right sound for mono release...but as stereo singles were common then, wouldn't they just have gone ahead with what they had? Although they'd never admit to it, I wouldn't be surprised if Ringleader is correct...

Jerry.

I was told this by Simon Sousan's UK conterpart. At the time, US motown could not find the master tape of the original single mix. There is more to the story but it is difficult to tell without potentially incriminating people. Motown UK and US. were always fully aware of the Eddie Foster bootleg.

I was told this by Simon Sousan's UK conterpart. At the time, US motown could not find the master tape of the original single mix. There is more to the story but it is difficult to tell without potentially incriminating people. Motown UK and US. were always fully aware of the Eddie Foster bootleg.

Say no more, squire ...still think this rings truer than the mono/stereo story, love to know the rest of the tale!