Putting some records up on Discogs and came across this:

A marmite record I know ... Russ Conway on speed!

https://www.discogs.com/Billy-Arnell-And-The-Sparkles-Tough-Girl/release/12650805

Is it a 'real un'?  I thought these went for 4 figures?  If it is genuine then someone got a bargain! £29.99 for a near minter!

https://www.popsike.com/BILLY-ARNELL-THE-SPARKLES-Tough-Girl-7-45-US-NORTHERN-SOUL-LISTEN/310759745046.html

Wow. Definitely bargain of the year if it,s genuine . I personally love the record.  There is this boot though

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-BILLY-ARNELL-TOUGH-GIRL-TOUGH-GIRL-INSTRUMENTAL-SOUL-STORMER-/114124289238

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Winsford Soul

There's something 'fishy' about this listing - although they appear under the listing for the original - 3 have sold for around £30 in the last month or so and they graded as Mint ... what does NOC mean ... Not Original Carver/Counterfeit????

 

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Soulstrutter

1 hour ago, Soulstrutter said:

Putting some records up on Discogs and came across this:

A marmite record I know ... Russ Conway on speed!

https://www.discogs.com/Billy-Arnell-And-The-Sparkles-Tough-Girl/release/12650805

Is it a 'real un'?  I thought these went for 4 figures?  If it is genuine then someone got a bargain! £29.99 for a near minter!

https://www.popsike.com/BILLY-ARNELL-THE-SPARKLES-Tough-Girl-7-45-US-NORTHERN-SOUL-LISTEN/310759745046.html

So for me, the scan on the Discogs page seems very authentic. It looks very similar to the original. But I think that these 3 sales in the history refer to Boots. I can't imagine that something like that could happen so unknowingly on Discogs. Never say never, but I just can't imagine it. Although in 2017 a Sity & James (Sprout) was apparently also sold for $15. And here it is demonstrably proven that there is no boat!

The Popsike scan looks very mint and fake and looks like a bootleg to me.

 

1 minute ago, Zanetti said:

So for me, the scan on the Discogs page seems very authentic. It looks very similar to the original. But I think that these 3 sales in the history refer to Boots. I can't imagine that something like that could happen so unknowingly on Discogs. Never say never, but I just can't imagine it. Although in 2017 a Sity & James (Sprout) was apparently also sold for $15. And here it is demonstrably proven that there is no boat!

The Popsike scan looks very mint and fake and looks like a bootleg to me.

 

 

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Zanetti

4 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

There's something 'fishy' about this listing - although they appear under the listing for the original - 3 have sold for around £30 in the last month or so and they graded as Mint ... what does NOC mean ... Not Original Carver/Counterfeit????

 

I think he meant NOS

Got to be a boot. Loads of them around. Did not sell at auction at this price so must be a set sale. Sold in pounds rather than dollars so UK flogger at work. Great record and one of the best blue-eyed soul releases of all time...holy grail...floorpacker...blah blah blah...perfect for some saddo to knock out forgeries🤮

The scan is irrelevant, that could have been added when the entry was made, it doesn’t necessarily correspond with the sale item

my guess is it is one of the look a like copies which are blocked from sale, the seller will simply add a comment to say as much in his listing notes

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Chalky

boot is green  one me think 

NOC = No Centre

or so I believe

2 hours ago, Chalky said:

The scan is irrelevant, that could have been added when the entry was made, it doesn’t necessarily correspond with the sale item

my guess is it is one of the look a like copies which are blocked from sale, the seller will simply add a comment to say as much in his listing notes

You're probably right as the other 2 entries are blocked from sale! The 1st was NM the other 2 were M so they must be repros.

23 minutes ago, Jkpnefc said:

NOC = No Centre

or so I believe

Yeah I get that ... I was being ironic (aka ... sarcastic 😉)

3 hours ago, Chalky said:

The scan is irrelevant, that could have been added when the entry was made, it doesn’t necessarily correspond with the sale item

my guess is it is one of the look a like copies which are blocked from sale, the seller will simply add a comment to say as much in his listing notes

Spot on and I can confirm all 3 copies were bootlegs, It is a problem that Discogs have been wanting to solve since the listings started when (shall we term them as idiots ?) were getting away with it. Kilburn in Derbyshire is nice at this time of the year I believe NOC

Discogs is primarily a database so sadly this happens from time to time and there are a number of listings that have the same sort of false sales data attached as this one

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Blackpoolsoul

Was this one of Levine's for friends only boots?

18 hours ago, Soulstrutter said:

Yeah I get that ... I was being ironic (aka ... sarcastic 😉)

Not Original Copy,

Apparently people are supposed to guess what it means.

I bought a cheap record from the same seller on Discogs from the same seller in Kilburn, Derbyshire and when I asked why she was selling boots under the original listings when the boots had been blocked from sale she replied "Did you not realise that NOC meant "Not Original Copy""

What an idiot I am I thought , it must be me deceiving myself

Edited December 12, 20204 yr by Blackpoolsoul

2 hours ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

Not Original Copy,

Apparently people are supposed to guess what it means.

I bought a cheap record from the same seller on Discogs from the same seller in Kilburn, Derbyshire and when I asked why she was selling boots under the original listings when the boots had been blocked from sale she replied "Did you not realise that NOC meant "Not Original Copy""

What an idiot I am I thought , it must be me deceiving myself

I wasn't far off then! ... deliberatley ambiguous to deceive, shall we say, less knowledgeable buyers who 'may' think they're getting a bargain.  Is there no way to report the seller on Discogs like ebay?  Unless they specifically stated that it was not an original (not some ambiguous acronym) then this is fraud!

It was a great instrumental when it was big and I used to hear it at Wigan Casino!

Don't know why any dj would play the vocal. It's very poor compared to the mighty instrumental!

Edited December 15, 20204 yr by Halogen

39 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

I wasn't far off then! ... deliberatley ambiguous to deceive, shall we say, less knowledgeable buyers who 'may' think they're getting a bargain.  Is there no way to report the seller on Discogs like ebay?  Unless they specifically stated that it was not an original (not some ambiguous acronym) then this is fraud!

Sadly the world we live in means that companies and websites are petrified of lawyers NOT bootleggers, so yes, I reported it/them and nothing happened and nothing will, they all appear to be spineless.

If I mention them here I may get my post removed for the same/similar reasons

You can PM me and I will happily give you the details

Edited December 12, 20204 yr by Blackpoolsoul

Been reading this thread with interest. 

Back in the old days, NOC stood for No Original Centre, but in some quarters it appears to have morphed into Not Original Copy. You’ve got to smile! 😊

’Bootleg’ is the correct term, but for those that sell such items, that can make items difficult to list for sale on some platforms I guess.

Wasn’t it a soul sam spin ? 
 

 

1 hour ago, Richard Free said:

Wasn’t it a soul sam spin ? 
 

 

You could be right!   The instrumental was a big record around the time Soul Sam was dj'ing at Wigan.

2 hours ago, Soul16 said:

Been reading this thread with interest. 

Back in the old days, NOC stood for No Original Centre, but in some quarters it appears to have morphed into Not Original Copy. You’ve got to smile! 😊

’Bootleg’ is the correct term, but for those that sell such items, that can make items difficult to list for sale on some platforms I guess.

That's becasue they shouldn't be sold cos they're illegal!  If you created a piece of art and someone came along and photographed it and sold 'prints' on EBay ... wouldn't you be a p*ssed off?

Stay cool mate. I wasn’t condoning the sale of illegal items, my stance on bootlegs has been documented on this forum more times than I care to remember. Feel free to take a look 👀 

1 hour ago, Soul16 said:

Stay cool mate. I wasn’t condoning the sale of illegal items, my stance on bootlegs has been documented on this forum more times than I care to remember. Feel free to take a look 👀 

I wasn't suggesting you were  ... just seems we are getting a bit apethetic towards these sellers and we should call it out and if necessary name and shame   ... but agree with Blackpoolsoul  ... we are almost encouraged just to look the other way as more aggravation than its worth to do anything about it as we, rather than the sellers, just get  'shut down' or fobbed off! Do the sales sites really care that much... as long as they are getting their cut?

I can just imagine the furore if someone was stupid enough to try it on this site!  Why should it be different anywhere else?

Sort of folk buying these are cut from the same cloth as those who happily wear counterfeit Rolex watches and Fred Perry's and drive 316i's with fake exhausts and M-Power badges , they'll never change ... and you'll never stop the counterfeiters either so just get over it .... 

56 minutes ago, Woodbutcher said:

Sort of folk buying these are cut from the same cloth as those who happily wear counterfeit Rolex watches and Fred Perry's and drive 316i's with fake exhausts and M-Power badges , they'll never change ... and you'll never stop the counterfeiters either so just get over it .... 

I was given a second hand fake Rolex when my watch broke by a friend as I needed a watch .

It kept going for 27 years lol

Bootlegs are all over the scene,  I'm sure most of us could cut carvers from rare tracks we all have on acetate cd vinyl mp3 etc and mate a good deal of money but we choose not to.

 

While people get away playing these out at events it wont change. People listening to them at home are not the problem as they could watch on YouTube etc

5 minutes ago, davidwapples said:

I was given a second hand fake Rolex when my watch broke by a friend as I needed a watch .

It kept going for 27 years lol

Personally speaking I would rather buy a cheap Timex than wear a fake Rolex ... I hope you spent the twenty-seven years saving up for a real one ... 

1 minute ago, Woodbutcher said:

Personally speaking I would rather buy a cheap Timex than wear a fake Rolex ... I hope you spent the twenty-seven years saving up for a real one ... 

I spent it all on records instead lol

1 minute ago, davidwapples said:

I spent it all on records instead lol

Real ones ... ?

Next thing will be an equivalent of the recent Xbox or Playstation eBay scam. "Absolutely genuine Billy Arnell original photo". Guess what the buyer will receive.

3 hours ago, Woodbutcher said:

Sort of folk buying these are cut from the same cloth as those who happily wear counterfeit Rolex watches and Fred Perry's and drive 316i's with fake exhausts and M-Power badges , they'll never change ... and you'll never stop the counterfeiters either so just get over it .... 

That's just the sort of 'apathy' I refer too! 😉  As long as it is 'tolerated' it will happen as no one is prepared to do anything about it ... so they continue making money by ripping off others - the original artists, companies and buyers  ... and in this instance 'queer the pitch' for genuine sales on Discogs as price will now be distorted much lower than the actual value  .. I guess I should just go and stick my head back in the sand then and 'accept' it!

Of course lol that's why I cant a new rolex

5 hours ago, Woodbutcher said:

Sort of folk buying these are cut from the same cloth as those who happily wear counterfeit Rolex watches and Fred Perry's and drive 316i's with fake exhausts and M-Power badges , they'll never change ... and you'll never stop the counterfeiters either so just get over it .... 

Agreed but probably fake Hollister or Superdry rather than Fred Perry. There are some situations when buying a fake Billy Arnell would be acceptable. A reputable dealer may choose to gather all bootlegs for reference. Youngsters in Outer Mongolia might fancy a cheap version for their DJ box knowing full well they will never own an original copy. Someone owning an original may choose to spin it in the record room as it is closer to hand than the locked away version. I could see some wag buying a copy for a wife/girlfriend for a laugh. Yes, there is a market for these forgeries but surely they do not need to be facsimiles designed to deceive. It’s reached the point where UK sellers on eBay are not worth considering - too many of them just add a vague word about the record’s age or admit to knowing nothing whatsoever about it to mislead buyers.

Jees! … just did a quick search on ebay and they are rife!  One seller has almost 900 records listed as 'reissues' and virtually every one (that I could be bothered checking) appears to be a boot (and he's by no means the only one selling them).  There's a (not so) cottage industry pressing these up.  I stand to be corrected … but apart from some respected reissue companies (e.g. Kent) how many of these are likely to be legit?  I note that Sonic Wax states that they pay MCPS fees - is that really sufficient (genuine question)?  What are they pressed from? … original tapes - hardly - probably ripped from the many compilation CDs out there (ripping those companies off)? So just buy the CDs and support the legit reissue companies (who have presumably/hopefully paid for the rights and pay the necessary royalties) and not line bootleggers pockets FFS! (preaching to converted on here I know).

P.S. There are currently 15 different listings for Billy Arnell pressing for less than £10 (some £4.99) so the mugs that bought them on Discogs for £30 need their bumps felt ... or were they daft enough to be decieved to think that they were getting as real one?

I'll get off my soap box now 🙄

Edited December 13, 20204 yr by Soulstrutter
spelling

3 hours ago, Soulstrutter said:

That's just the sort of 'apathy' I refer too! 😉  As long as it is 'tolerated' it will happen as no one is prepared to do anything about it ... so they continue making money by ripping off others - the original artists, companies and buyers  ... and in this instance 'queer the pitch' for genuine sales on Discogs as price will now be distorted much lower than the actual value  .. I guess I should just go and stick my head back in the sand then and 'accept' it!

 

43 minutes ago, Frankie Crocker said:

Agreed but probably fake Hollister or Superdry rather than Fred Perry. There are some situations when buying a fake Billy Arnell would be acceptable. A reputable dealer may choose to gather all bootlegs for reference. Youngsters in Outer Mongolia might fancy a cheap version for their DJ box knowing full well they will never own an original copy. Someone owning an original may choose to spin it in the record room as it is closer to hand than the locked away version. I could see some wag buying a copy for a wife/girlfriend for a laugh. Yes, there is a market for these forgeries but surely they do not need to be facsimiles designed to deceive. It’s reached the point where UK sellers on eBay are not worth considering - too many of them just add a vague word about the record’s age or admit to knowing nothing whatsoever about it to mislead buyers.

As the older ones of us know Soussan's Bootlegs were in them selves quite an amazing thing to produce in them 1970's days and to be honest I have a "little" admiration for the efforts that were made without the technology that is now available.

It will never end as sellers cannot put "bootleg" on the listings on auction sites and to be fair at least Discogs has attempted to "slow" the process down and theses scumbags have tried to get round it buy listing them against the original release with an attempt at a "get out" clause as with the phrase "re-issue" on EBAY etc.

All we can ask is that the knowledgable folks on here let Discogs know when possible and spend time adding details so in 20 years time then everyone will know (here's hoping)

You may notice that in the notes section on the Billy it now draws attention to the bootleg so sellers and buyers will know

5 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

Jees! … just did a quick search on ebay and they are rife!  One seller has almost 900 records listed as 'reissues' and virtually every one (that I could be bothered checking) appears to be a boot (and he's by no means the only one selling them).  There's a (not so) cottage industry pressing these up.  I stand to be corrected … but apart from some respected reissue companies (e.g. Kent) how many of these are likely to be legit?  I note that Sonic Wax states that they pay MCPS fees - is that really sufficient (genuine question)?  What are they pressed from? … original tapes - hardly - probably ripped from the many compilation CDs out there (ripping those companies off)? So just buy the CDs and support the legit reissue companies (who have presumably/hopefully paid for the rights and pay the necessary royalties) and not line bootleggers pockets FFS! (preaching to converted on here I know).

P.S. There are currently 15 different listings for Billy Arnell pressing for less than £10 (some £4.99) so the mugs that bought them on Discogs for £30 need their bumps felt ... or were they daft enough to be decieved to think that they were getting as real one?

I'll get off my soap box now 🙄

If you go into Discogs and look at unofficial releases, sad to say that after years of saying they would be banned there are still plenty for sale so all these sites cannot cope with policing it (as yet)

8 minutes ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

 

As the older ones of us know Soussan's Bootlegs were in them selves quite an amazing thing to produce in them 1970's days and to be honest I have a "little" admiration for the efforts that were made without the technology that is now available.

It will never end as sellers cannot put "bootleg" on the listings on auction sites and to be fair at least Discogs has attempted to "slow" the process down and theses scumbags have tried to get round it buy listing them against the original release with an attempt at a "get out" clause as with the phrase "re-issue" on EBAY etc.

All we can ask is that the knowledgable folks on here let Discogs know when possible and spend time adding details so in 20 years time then everyone will know (here's hoping)

You may notice that in the notes section on the Billy it now draws attention to the bootleg so sellers and buyers will know

I'm in no way condoing it ... but back in those days we were young and naive and it was literally the only way to own, and listen to the 'current' sounds without hunting down the original. There simply isn't that excuse nowadays as nearly everything is on YouTube or on CD so the only conceivable reason I can think for anyone buying these is they are 'wannabe' DJ's who simply don't understand the concept of OVO.  Lets' not go down OVO route!

Answering my own question above re: MCPS which you 'might' find interesting and enlightening!

https://www.prsformusic.com/licences/releasing-music-products/limited-manufacture

If I've read and understood correctly, it would appear that you can obtain an MCPS/PRS licence for virtually any recording for up to 1,000 copies for around £200 (only £70 for 250) - that's presumably for each side ... hence many are single-sided.

However, it then states that

'The licence allows you to manufacture and distribute retail and non-retail, audio, and audio-visual products within the manufacturing limits of the licence, providing the products are not made commercially available through a third party distributor or retailer.'

'Copies cannot be sold through any third party retail distribution channels.'

... so presumably you have to sell them directly yourself .... do ebay/Discogs count as third party channels?

So it would seem that as long as MCPS fees are paid then these are legit?  So I'll shut up now!

33 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

Answering my own question above re: MCPS which you 'might' find interesting and enlightening!

https://www.prsformusic.com/licences/releasing-music-products/limited-manufacture

 

the above post appears to be details for using music in video releases not actual vinyl releases

Quote

 

Using music in your own products - LM

This blanket licence covers the use of music in your own CDs, DVDs and more - perfect for home movies and small personal projects. 

The LM licence

 

 

a fair few member have released 45s, do run own labels etc etc

suggest maybe ask them for info

 

I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anyone who's done it ... as it seems 'too easy'!

"The Limited Manufacture (LM) licence is quick, affordable and grants you ‘blanket’ permission to legally use any music in your own CDs, DVDs or videos (and other formats) – that’s any music, from any genre, by any artist including the names, from Elvis, The Beatles to Adele and Ed Sheeran."

Reading furher in FAQ document it states:

https://www.prsformusic.com/-/media/files/prs-for-music/licensing/faqs/lm-faqs.pdf
Formats:
CD, cassette, minidisk, vinyl, DAT, DVD, Blu-ray disk, HD-DVD, VHS, CD-Rom or any
other physical format

22 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anyone who's done it ... as it seems 'too easy'!

"The Limited Manufacture (LM) licence is quick, affordable and grants you ‘blanket’ permission to legally use any music in your own CDs, DVDs or videos (and other formats) – that’s any music, from any genre, by any artist including the names, from Elvis, The Beatles to Adele and Ed Sheeran."

Reading furher in FAQ document it states:

https://www.prsformusic.com/-/media/files/prs-for-music/licensing/faqs/lm-faqs.pdf
Formats:
CD, cassette, minidisk, vinyl, DAT, DVD, Blu-ray disk, HD-DVD, VHS, CD-Rom or any
other physical format

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Releasing audio-only products - AP1 and AP2

These licences cover the manufacture and distribution of audio-only products - like CDs and vinyl - for retail sale. 

The AP1 and AP2 licences

 

try reading the bit above

 

given the serious legal aspects of copyright issues  (and the possible effects, sales, fines, even jail) best if we try and keep the info posted here 100% legally correct

if not sure, then don't post be my call

 

10 hours ago, davidwapples said:

I was given a second hand fake Rolex when my watch broke by a friend as I needed a watch .

It kept going for 27 years lol

Bootlegs are all over the scene,  I'm sure most of us could cut carvers from rare tracks we all have on acetate cd vinyl mp3 etc and mate a good deal of money but we choose not to.

 

While people get away playing these out at events it wont change. People listening to them at home are not the problem as they could watch on YouTube etc

U only fooling yurself

2 hours ago, Mike said:

 

 

try reading the bit above

 

given the serious legal aspects of copyright issues  (and the possible effects, sales, fines, even jail) best if we try and keep the info posted here 100% legally correct

if not sure, then don't post be my call

 

I did and it says:

"Is AP1/AP2 right for me?
Do you make a limited number of copies for direct sale through gigs or a personal website? The Limited Manufacture may be more suitable."

I've emailed PRS for clarification so will relay back any response I get.

11 hours ago, Soulstrutter said:

I did and it says:

"Is AP1/AP2 right for me?
Do you make a limited number of copies for direct sale through gigs or a personal website? The Limited Manufacture may be more suitable."

I've emailed PRS for clarification so will relay back any response I get.

 

as said best if you are going to post info then try and make sure that it is 100% correct

as in it be better if get the clarification first then post

 

though schedules 1 and 2 on the below link are fairly clear on what 'The Limited Manufacture' licence covers imo

Schedule 2 Inclusions - The following uses ARE covered by the Licence

Schedule 2 Exclusions - The following categories ARE NOT covered by the Licence

https://www.prsformusic.com/-/media/files/prs-for-music/licensing/terms-and-conditions/lm-tandc.pdf

 

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

as said best if you are going to post info then try and make sure that it is 100% correct

as in it be better if get the clarification first then post

 

though schedules 1 and 2 on the below link are fairly clear on what 'The Limited Manufacture' licence covers imo

Schedule 2 Inclusions - The following uses ARE covered by the Licence

Schedule 2 Exclusions - The following categories ARE NOT covered by the Licence

https://www.prsformusic.com/-/media/files/prs-for-music/licensing/terms-and-conditions/lm-tandc.pdf

 

Looks like an old link as well Mike as it mentions VAT increasing to 20% in 2011 !!!