boba

thanks again for listening, i really appreciate it

have you successfully opened up a paypal case against someone you non-trackably shipped to where the package was supposedly lost?

i thought that was reasonable. i would have bid on it had i not already spent way too much money recently. i wouldn't want to pay higher than the max bid though.

I think off-center copies are usually one-off pressing errors. Are there entire runs of off-center records? like from a miscalibrated machine or something?

if you send an insulting or threatening message to anyone on ebay they can hit the report button and ebay will send you a warning (if it's your first time) or take more actions... it's actually more rewarding to provoke someone else into insulting you so you can report them. i know all of this from experience

let me follow up on what i was saying. I was not saying this change is bad or disagreeing that the labels that paid for the work should not continue to earn (and hopefully pay) royalties. My only point was that the benefit of these laws most of the time go to the labels and not the artists. the article i was talking about in the NYT (I will try to find it) was talking about something much more radical, saying that master rights should revert back to the artists after a certain number of years. I'm not sure I agree with that but it was an interesting twist on ownership.

Nightrider888 hasn't been an ebay user since 2003

what is his ebay ID? you can search to see if it's on people's blocked bidder lists

also you should be able to find his local post office using his address / zip code

is it possible to email a us post office? i've never heard of that before. I found an email form on the USPS website but I can't find a way to contact a specific post office.

I must be confused. I swear I saw a shout title where the number didn't fit into any of the shout discographies. Maybe I was wrong. I apologize if I confused anyone else.

I understand that artists like to bitch about not getting paid when they may have been paid, but I've definitely seen enough cases of artists not getting paid master royalties and having to chase down larger labels that I don't think it's "nonsense". One thing that compounds the problem is a catalog being sold and resold, they definitely don't try very hard to keep good records of their contracts with artists over the recordings and pay. With publishing, obviously song catalogs also get sold and resold (and obviously many publishers also don't pay) but at least the songs have a much closer tie to the writer as they're always credited and BMI will pay the writers share directly.

Any publishing company generally will pay royalties and performing rights societies like BMI will pay the writers share direct to the writer. On the other hand most artists only ever get their initial advance on the master recording, which is supposed to be an advance on future royalties, but many large labels still don't account for and pay royalties on the recording session even after the advance is recouped. I agree that having the master go into the public domain doesn't help the artist, but extending the time mainly helps the labels who don't pay artists royalties on the recording.

i saw a weird shout number on ebay recently that i've never seen in any discographies. it was by the equals, I don't remember if it was black skin blue eyed boys or something else. it had the same label design as the other red white and blue shout labels. it didn't look like a jamaican press or anything like that. i should have saved a scan, it was bizarre.

I just read the article. It is talking about the master right not falling into the public domain, not the song: -- The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters. --- Musicians may have written the songs but they almost never own the master rights unless they produced their own recordings, which they didn't if they were on any sort of label. This won't help musicians, it will help record labels. The article talks about this. There was a pretty interesting article in the new york times recently about master rights possibly being reclaimed by musicians even though they did not produce the recordings themselves.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense since I know that the PRS in different countries also apply their own rules to american recordings (for example, collecting for performers in some countries even though that's not required in the US).

I think US copyright is way more complicated than 50 years = public domain. also, how does international copyright work? do countries obey the laws of the places where the copyright originated or do US recordings fall under this law in the UK?

also you could pitch them down for more time every week on the herb kent show in chicago he plays band of gold "love songs are back again", it's like 40 minutes long and i imagine he's in the bathroom the whole time

how does this affect US produced records?

what does that mean?

this makes it sound not very rare

thanks everyone for your opinions, I'm sort of disconnected from "the scene" so it helps

yes. someone must have played a big stack of drifters 45s at one time and picked that one out. did they miss this one or is the sound wrong?

I think it was the first drifters 45 I ever bought, just bought it randomly like 12 years ago, I remember playing it and being confused by the sound. 12 years later it's still confusing. I don't understand why this isn't a known record, isn't there some known northern drifters record?

i've seen prices of this all over the place, from $50-$200. never seen it at 250 pounds though.