Selling Bootleg Cd's

[Jumpinjoan]

Because (in general) there were no commercial outlets for tapes, people traded tapes but still bought reissues on vinyl back then, whereas the emerging CD market brought out a whole plethora of professional compilers/manufacturers. Tapes didn't threaten anyone's livelihood but the same professional compilers feel they were/are sideswiped by the 'Freebie CD'.

People really need to take the blinkers off and look at the industry in general instead of focusing on what is effectively a drop in the music buying ocean (See Soul Scene)

Regards,

Dave

I have many a tape that was given to me as a freebie from venues.

What about the tapes that advertised and were sold in soul magazines? They were compiled by collectors and sold - not given away.

I never heard of anyone going mad about that.

[Chalky]

I have many a tape that was given to me as a freebie from venues.

What about the tapes that advertised and were sold in soul magazines? They were compiled by collectors and sold - not given away.

I never heard of anyone going mad about that.

They are illegal as you have to have the rights to, or licence music for distribution but I guess they are under the radar of the relevant authorities and as said small fry compared to the car boot bootleggers who mass market cds and dvds.

Think you are allowed to make a copy for yourself of any cd/track you buy or download, any more is in breach of copyright law.

[Dave Moore]

I have many a tape that was given to me as a freebie from venues.

What about the tapes that advertised and were sold in soul magazines? They were compiled by collectors and sold - not given away.

I never heard of anyone going mad about that.

Yep, I too have loads of tapes of the same but my point was, that they weren't competing (some would say torpedoing) professionally set up companies who were producing similar product. Obviously people on the scene who receive freebies are more than happy, it's the professional CD manufacturer/seller who is against it for obvious reasons.

Regards,

Dave

[Jumpinjoan]

They are illegal as you have to have the rights to, or licence music for distribution but I guess they are under the radar of the relevant authorities and as said small fry compared to the car boot bootleggers who mass market cds and dvds.

But when these tapes were done there were no cds. You bought a tape as you would buy a cd today.

Why was there not the uproar then as there is now?

[Jumpinjoan]

Yep, I too have loads of tapes of the same but my point was, that they weren't competing (some would say torpedoing) professionally set up companies who were producing similar product. Obviously people on the scene who receive freebies are more than happy, it's the professional CD manufacturer/seller who is against it for obvious reasons.

Regards,

Dave

But surely the same would have applied to tapes? Or am I missing something?

[pikeys dog]

But when these tapes were done there were no cds. You bought a tape as you would buy a cd today.

Why was there not the uproar then as there is now?

Probably because when tapes were prevalent at the end of the eighties and through the early nineties, there wasn't the market for Northern like there is now...

Of course there's also the fact you couldn't DJ with tapes (due to the sound quality) like you can with CDs.

[Chalky]

But when these tapes were done there were no cds. You bought a tape as you would buy a cd today.

Why was there not the uproar then as there is now?

Like Joe says the market for tapes of NS recordings was practically non existent in the 80's early 90's. Unlike today when sales can run into 1000's.

[Jumpinjoan]

Like Joe says the market for tapes of NS recordings was practically non existent in the 80's early 90's. Unlike today when sales can run into 1000's.

I am more confused now

I was answering the point that venues that give away cd's are causing major harm.

[Chalky]

I am more confused now

I was answering the point that venues that give away cd's are causing major harm.

The simple fact whether they realise it or not, they are distributing music they do not have the rights or licence to distribute. It doesn't matter they are not taking any money, they are distributing someone else's property.

[Jumpinjoan]

The simple fact whether they realise it or not, they are distributing music they do not have the rights or licence to distribute. It doesn't matter they are not taking any money, they are distributing someone else's property.

But weren't tapes doing the same thing?

And are you saying that we should not do people cds? I am talking personally here and not as a venue give away.

Edited December 5, 2010 by jumpinjoan

[Guest JIM BARRY]

The simple fact whether they realise it or not, they are distributing music they do not have the rights or licence to distribute. It doesn't matter they are not taking any money, they are distributing someone else's property.

would the courts treat a retailer who is selling cds without copyright different than the organiser of a soul night giving them away?......there is a massive difference in morality to my mind......i don't think a prosecution would be brought against the latter. however the the retailer should have the book thrown at them. i wish i would be on the jury.

[Chalky]

But weren't tapes doing the same thing?

And are you saying that we should not do people cds? I am talking personally here and not as a venue give away.

I'm not saying you should do one thing or the other, all I'm saying is giving away 100 cd's of copyrighted music is illegal. I've done people cd's and had them given in return and will continue to do so. Technically even with a cd/tape swap you are in breach of copyright. But I doubt you would be thrown in jail for it unlike a car boot bootlegger.

The authorities do little against small scale bootlegging, you only have to look at what goes on unchallenged on ebay everyday.

[Jumpinjoan]

I'm not saying you should do one thing or the other, all I'm saying is giving away 100 cd's of copyrighted music is illegal. I've done people cd's and had them given in return and will continue to do so. Technically even with a cd/tape swap you are in breach of copyright. But I doubt you would be thrown in jail for it unlike a car boot bootlegger.

The authorities do little against small scale bootlegging, you only have to look at what goes on unchallenged on ebay everyday.

So you could say that soul source has in fact sanctioned bootlegging by allowing its members to do a cd swap?

[Chalky]

would the courts treat a retailer who is selling cds without copyright different than the organiser of a soul night giving them away?......there is a massive difference in morality to my mind......i don't think a prosecution would be brought against the latter. however the the retailer should have the book thrown at them. i wish i would be on the jury.

Those cd's might have 15 tracks that are owned by say Kent therefore denying Kent of sales cause people have no need to buy them and artists are denied any royalties.

Can we drop the retailer remarks please.

[Chalky]

So you could say that soul source has in fact sanctioned bootlegging by allowing its members to do a cd swap?

no I'm not saying that at all.

[Naughty Boy]

The authorities do little against small scale bootlegging, you only have to look at what goes on unchallenged on ebay everyday.

Yeh i would agree with you there Chalks there is no mileage in it for them for the small scale stuff its small potatoes. They are after the ones that do it big time via the carboot or legit companies with records and cd's ripping publishers and artists off for a fast buck

[Jumpinjoan]

no I'm not saying that at all.

But surely it must have?

You said "Technically even with a cd/tape swap you are in breach of copyright".

[Chalky]

But surely it must have?

You said "Technically even with a cd/tape swap you are in breach of copyright".

Soul Source hasn't sanctioned anything.

[Jumpinjoan]

Soul Source hasn't sanctioned anything.

Allows it then.

I can't see any difference between a venue cd and a soul source cd.

Edited December 5, 2010 by jumpinjoan

[Jumpinjoan]

Have some posts been removed from this thread?

[Chalky]

Yes Joan, some posts been removed. It comes across to me as a deliberate attempt to wind another member up and will simply ruin another debate.

[Chalky]

Allows it then.

I can't see any difference between a venue cd and a soul source cd.

Soul Source isn't responsible for what it's members post. Maybe it should ban such topics in future????

[Jumpinjoan]

Soul Source isn't responsible for what it's members post. Maybe it should ban such topics in future????

I am sure there is one member who would say yes

[Ian Dewhirst]

But when these tapes were done there were no cds. You bought a tape as you would buy a cd today.

Why was there not the uproar then as there is now?

There was Joan. "The Home Taping Is Killing Music" logo was standard on many album releases in the 80's........

Home Taping Is Killing Music

Ian D

Edited December 5, 2010 by Ian Dewhirst

[paultp]

I'm not saying you should do one thing or the other, all I'm saying is giving away 100 cd's of copyrighted music is illegal. I've done people cd's and had them given in return and will continue to do so. Technically even with a cd/tape swap you are in breach of copyright. But I doubt you would be thrown in jail for it unlike a car boot bootlegger.

The authorities do little against small scale bootlegging, you only have to look at what goes on unchallenged on ebay everyday.

People were making and selling tapes of tunes right up until about the millennium, nobody on "the scene" said anything about it, it was accepted.

People have made tapes for their mates and other collectors and again nobody said anything about it. Now people have changed format, they cut CD's of their tunes and swap them.

People gave away tapes of tunes at venues, again right up until the millennium, nobody said anything about it.

Now it seems that giving away a CD to regular attendees at a club is a heinous crime.

I think it is laughable that anyone on the Northern Soul scene is now concerned with the legality of anything when bootlegging tunes has always been a part of the scene. Hands up if you have never bought or sold a bootleg? A good few people could put there hands up to making them in quantity.

Like legality has ever been a concern. Like anyone is innocent here, anyone care to name major bootleggers from the 70's who now think they are legit?

I don't agree with people making up bootleg CD's and then selling them, I certainly wouldn't buy them. But if people buy them and the people who own the rights do nothing about it, then that is their concern in each case, same with bootleg vinyl.

I just take issue with the point that people will not buy legitimate CD's when they have been given an anniversary one, that is just facile.

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Hi everybody

Does anybody remember this: "ALL RIGHTS OF THE PRODUCER AND OF THE OWNER OF THE WORKS REPRODUCED RESERVED. UNAUTHORISED COPYING, HIRING, LENDING, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, AND BROADCASTING OF THIS RECORD PROHIBITED."

This notice is a reminder that music is purchased for 'home' (CD copy for the car etc these days?) use only, and part of the sale of that product (record/vinyl/CD etc) has the neceesary licence for you to listen to it there, as many times as you like. You own the vinyl, but not the recording on it, or even the melody, chords and lyrics. Just like when you buy a cinema ticket for a feature film, that gives you a license to watch the movie in the cinema - not to video and give away free copies at party's, or even claim because you bought a ticket at a cinema, you are owed a DVD version of it free of charge to watch at home, and when it suites, burn a few copies to give away to mates.

By definition of purchasing a CD/record for example, we have agreed to those terms. Any duplication of somebody elses property without permission, whether music, software, art, books etc.....is illegal. These days because everybody likes to rip CD's and distribute recordings all over the place, the viral effect of that is damaging the music business. Worldwide, if 5,000 000 people were given just 1 illegal track and they liked it and never purchased ( and maybe back in the seventies their c90 non chrome dioxide tape version with shite quality would have made them catch a bus to their local record shop and buy it) ...@ 79p each that would be almost £4,000,000. From that money, artists are paid, publishers (who source songs and song writers for artists and producers) studio and pressing costs recovered, royalties paid to musicians etc...

An American attorney told me: 'if it ain't yours, it's somebody elses'. So copyright protects those creators who have manufactured, designed, invested in the product etc and who hope for a decent return on their investment. A bit like the pint of beer down the booser. Unless you are given a pint free by the landlord, we are are happy to pay the £2 etc. Nobody would think of jumping around the bar and helping themselves free of charge, or filling up with petrol at a garage and driving off without paying, no matter how much it was!

This subject is covered quite frequently on here, but check this out and read the disclaimer on the left. Do you feel this is right? Should this be happening? It's nice to see I can buy 251 mp3's at just 10p each.............

https://www.northernsoulmusic.co.uk/

Edited December 6, 2010 by Carl Dixon

[Guest Dante]

Hi everybody

Does anybody remember this: "ALL RIGHTS OF THE PRODUCER AND OF THE OWNER OF THE WORKS REPRODUCED RESERVED. UNAUTHORISED COPYING, HIRING, LENDING, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, AND BROADCASTING OF THIS RECORD PROHIBITED."

This notice is a reminder that music is purchased for 'home' (CD copy for the car etc these days?) use only, and part of the sale of that product (record/vinyl/CD etc) has the neceesary licence for you to listen to it there, as many times as you like. You own the vinyl, but not the recording on it, or even the melody, chords and lyrics. Just like when you buy a cinema ticket for a feature film, that gives you a license to watch the movie in the cinema - not to video and give away free copies at party's, or even claim because you bought a ticket at a cinema, you are owed a DVD version of it free of charge to watch at home, and when it suites, burn a few copies to give away to mates.

By definition of purchasing a CD/record for example, we have agreed to those terms. Any duplication of somebody elses property without permission, whether music, software, art, books etc.....is illegal. These days because everybody likes to rip CD's and distribute recordings all over the place, the viral effect of that is damaging the music business. Worldwide, if 5,000 000 people were given just 1 illegal track and they liked it and never purchased ( and maybe back in the seventies their c90 non chrome dioxide tape version with shite quality would have made them catch a bus to their local record shop and buy it) ...@ 79p each that would be almost £4,000,000. From that money, artists are paid, publishers (who source songs and song writers for artists and producers) studio and pressing costs recovered, royalties paid to musicians etc...

An American attorney told me: 'if it ain't yours, it's somebody elses'. So copyright protects those creators who have manufactured, designed, invested in the product etc and who hope for a decent return on their investment. A bit like the pint of beer down the booser. Unless you are given a pint free by the landlord, we are are happy to pay the £2 etc. Nobody would think of jumping around the bar and helping themselves free of charge, or filling up with petrol at a garage and driving off without paying, no matter how much it was!

This subject is covered quite frequently on here, but check this out and read the disclaimer on the left. Do you feel this is right? Should this be happening? It's nice to see I can buy 251 mp3's at just 10p each.............

https://www.northernsoulmusic.co.uk/

Exactly. Theoretically you're not allowed to play your records at a soul night / niter and charge for that; so every soul night and all nighter is breaking the law, and I don't see the same self-righteous attitude about that.

[Guest Carl Dixon]

If the venue has a music license, it can play the records. The cost of the PRS licence, staff, lighting, water etc are paid for by the takings at the door, drinks/food sold at the bar, cloakroom revenue etc. It's a business. Making records is a business. Playing records on the radio is a business. The stations commercial revenue pays for their music licence etc...and royalties go backwards in the chain.....

Next time you go shopping or to the pub. Look in the window and see if you see PPL or PRS stickers. If they they are there and pay their licence fee they can have live music and recorded music played.

So at Prestatyn, Pontins would have those licences, and be legally allowed to have performances and recorded music played..... so, happy days.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Carl Dixon

[Chalky]

People were making and selling tapes of tunes right up until about the millennium, nobody on "the scene" said anything about it, it was accepted.

People have made tapes for their mates and other collectors and again nobody said anything about it. Now people have changed format, they cut CD's of their tunes and swap them.

People gave away tapes of tunes at venues, again right up until the millennium, nobody said anything about it.

Now it seems that giving away a CD to regular attendees at a club is a heinous crime.

I think it is laughable that anyone on the Northern Soul scene is now concerned with the legality of anything when bootlegging tunes has always been a part of the scene. Hands up if you have never bought or sold a bootleg? A good few people could put there hands up to making them in quantity.

Like legality has ever been a concern. Like anyone is innocent here, anyone care to name major bootleggers from the 70's who now think they are legit?

I don't agree with people making up bootleg CD's and then selling them, I certainly wouldn't buy them. But if people buy them and the people who own the rights do nothing about it, then that is their concern in each case, same with bootleg vinyl.

I just take issue with the point that people will not buy legitimate CD's when they have been given an anniversary one, that is just facile.

I know what has gone off for many a year, done it myself and still do swap cd's. I'm not moralising or saying you shouldn't do something, someone asked a question whether it is legal or not and I and others answered answered it .

[Ady Croasdell]

and see what you think about it?

https://cgi.ebay.co.u...=item48390a7509

It's been removed, nice one Pete, you're officially Soul Police now

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Agreed. And also, many of these tracks people have already from compilations, original singles, LP tracks etc. So, to get them again, in a different order on a Christmas CD, is academic. In addition, many tracks have made their profit back on the original release. Take 'My Girl' by The Tempts. Nice cover version by Otis, so the song writers got a nice wad back in 67/68 whenever. It gets other covers all over the place, put into movies and many accompany commercials, plus loads of airplay and other revenue making platforms. Especially these days, when people are actually buying mp3's on iTunes for their ipods rather than capturing off their scratched vinyl. It's just a fascinating subject. I like to think I am legal, yet I speed in the car sometimes and feel justified in doing it. Is it legal - no!

Somebody at work said something to me regarding Hollywood movies and the matting/chroma keying on film sets and the excessive use of digital effects. They said ' just because you can, doesn't mean you should'. I think the technology has made it so easy for people to, in their innocence, copy, distribute, rip to mp3 and transmit to friends family., that now it would be like closing the door after the horse has bolted. But.............the big labels are starting to reclaim some lost ground with something similar. Warner Brothers have withdrawn all their CD's from Tesco's because the the price is so low, it is not worthwhile for any of the artists or indeed the label to manufacture and sell there. They feel the musics' worth has been devalued so much, they are prepared to fight back and come up with new business models. YouTube are now paying UK royalties on official video releases on the channel. The likes of Amazon and iTunes are obliged to pay something like .0001p for an audio stream when somebody listens to the track on line, but does not purchase. So this massive can of worms will always be around. Copyright theft in musical terms first started with piano rolls and sheet music all those years ago. Imagine how the music publishers felt when photostat machines came out in the early 70's. They survived and now sell on line! Such a fascinating thread.....and so much to learn about human nature and what we percieve as being right, OK, wrong, unfair, etc....

Edited December 6, 2010 by Carl Dixon

[Little-stevie]

Agreed. And also, many of these tracks people have already from compilations, original singles, LP tracks etc. So, to get them again, in a different order on a Christmas CD, is academic. In addition, many tracks have made their profit back on the original release. Take 'My Girl' by The Tempts. Nice cover version by Otis, so the song writers got a nice wad back in 67/68 whenever. It gets other covers all over the place, put into movies and many accompany commercials, plus loads of airplay and other revenue making platforms. Especially these days, when people are actually buying mp3's on iTunes for their ipods rather than capturing off their scratched vinyl. It's just a fascinating subject. I like to think I am legal, yet I speed in the car sometimes and feel justified in doing it. Is it legal - no!

Somebody at work said something to me regarding Hollywood movies and the matting/chroma keying on film sets and the excessive use of digital effects. They said ' just because you can, doesn't mean you should'. I think the technology has made it so easy for people to, in their innocence, copy, distribute, rip to mp3 and transmit to friends family., that now it would be like closing the door after the horse has bolted. But.............the big labels are starting to reclaim some lost ground with something similar. Warner Brothers have withdrawn all their CD's from Tesco's because the the price is so low, it is not worthwhile for any of the artists or indeed the label to manufacture and sell there. They feel the musics' worth has been devalued so much, they are prepared to fight back and come up with new business models. YouTube are now paying UK royalties on official video releases on the channel. The likes of Amazon and iTunes are obliged to pay something like .0001p for an audio stream when somebody listens to the track on line, but does not purchase. So this massive can of worms will always be around. Copyright theft in musical terms first started with piano rolls and sheet music all those years ago. Imagine how the music publishers felt when photostat machines came out in the early 70's. They survived and now sell on line! Such a fascinating thread.....and so much to learn about human nature and what we percieve as being right, OK, wrong, unfair, etc....

I would like to see a book on the history of this subject but guess it would never be so for legal reasons and could open the biggest can of worms..

What was the first bootlegged soul record??? whats the record ammount a known boot as fetched via ebay or through dealers...

[Pete S]

It's been removed, nice one Pete, you're officially Soul Police now

More likely because it's 9 months old Ady...

[Ady Croasdell]

More likely because it's 9 months old Ady...

So is this an official re-release thread or a bootleg version without your written permission?

[Pete S]

So is this an official re-release thread or a bootleg version without your written permission?

I'm not sure why it reappeared but I think the original thread was concerning the ebay seller making the statement "all recordings are in the public domain".

[macca]

Sorry to bring Spain into the argument, but the word SGAE (General Society of Authors & Editors) is a swear word that's on many people's lips here. So much so that there's been a campaign of civil disobedience in protest at their 'persuasive' collection methods. Many small businesses have literally gone to the wall due to the outrageous royalty claims they process 'on behalf of their clients'. You might be the owner of a village bar or caf putting on background music just to make the place more amenable, but it's never long before you receive a visit from the copyright infringement gestapo. I can understand it when it comes to the big clubs where it's often the music that's the actual crowd puller, but to hammer family owned pubs, bars, cafs, shops etc? Incidentally, the previous president of SGAE was the lead singer in Los Canarios, Teddy Bautista. The ruthlessness of the SGAE under him had a lot of people... on their knees. I wonder if the UK equivalent of SGAE are aware of events like Blackpool, Prestatyn and others that pull in thousands of punters from all over Europe? Surely they'd make a pile there, wouldn't they?

[Little-stevie]

So is this an official re-release thread or a bootleg version without your written permission?

an official re-mix maybe... but without written permission... ..