The combinations and c.o.ds have been booted on a double sider ,enough is enough is ,I know who this bootlegger is

Hope he got good brief team he will need it

What's pisses me of these bootlegging twats have never owned these records and think they have the right to destroy good rare records

He has done endless 45s in the last 2 years ,enough is enough

Fin stinks

Mick h

  On 12/11/2012 at 18:35, giant said:

why not have real records' thats what i want see at any venue i go to

I'm quite sure that my tongue was definitely somewhere near my cheek....

T

Whilst footballers comb overs are fascinating, can we keep on topic pleaase lol...

Russ

Hard work a long time looking chasing hoping and dreaming and saving like my mad to get a tune that can make you as a dj pretty exclusive and also the buzz of owning something not many if anyone else has wether it's an oldie or newie then put out for general sale for a tenner. Yeah brilliant what a great idea and why should it matter who really cares anymore its just another bootleg so no harm done eh.... Oh well I still know where to go if I do want to here the real thing ....

Another day, another bootleg?

I get a little bit confused on these threads. Is the main problem:-

A. The fact that these rare tunes are now widely available on a "45", and it doesn't really matter if the reissue was illegally or legally done

B. The "possibly" illegal way in which these tunes have been pressed, depriving the tunes rightful owners of income, and if this was pressed legally on "Outasight", "Grapevine", "Kent" etc it would be ok.

Des Parker

Think a point worth metioning as much as we all get p'd off with bootlegs, (many of which i cant understand why they have been bootlegged as they can be bought quite easily on the real thing, Billy Davis, Billy Butler etc etc (not sure if they are legit or not) to name but a few), is that anyone can just go and get a carver done for £10/£15 whatever of any tune they want which is equally frustrating

  On 13/11/2012 at 08:02, SOUL.INC said:

I get a little bit confused on these threads. Is the main problem:-

A. The fact that these rare tunes are now widely available on a "45", and it doesn't really matter if the reissue was illegally or legally done

B. The "possibly" illegal way in which these tunes have been pressed, depriving the tunes rightful owners of income, and if this was pressed legally on "Outasight", "Grapevine", "Kent" etc it would be ok.

Des Parker

I know what you mean Des.

The thing is, the people who shout the loudest about rare records becoming widely available on a '45' are the ones who have the original, other collectors, and followers of OVO policy events, none of who would ever buy a pressing, or go somewhere they might be played, so the issue doesn't affect them at all! Why waste that much time and emotion on something that has little or no impact on your musical stance. Prices of 'pressed' originals haven't really bottomed out, in fact they seem to continue to rise, what's the problem?

Secondly, the loudest protestors about the 'illegal' pressings taking money away from the original artists are the ones who buy and sell records for hundreds or thousands of pounds with not one penny ever going to the artist that recorded it! It just seems a bizarre/hypocritical stance on the subject to me.

I would like to point out I do collect original vinyl, and do think the market is flooded with far too many 'pressings' - legal or illegal - of tunes that are readily and cheaply available on the original release.

You have to question why anyone would bootleg these two tunes though. People who collect originals won't want them, people who don't like "rare sh*t" won't want them, wannabee DJ's won't want them as they are too rare so they will empty the floor.

What's the market for them?

Personally I can't stand either tune, I think both are a triumph for rarity over quality but that's just MHO.

I have received an email from the person(s) who have done this. In the email are some details of licensing and who the license is obtained from etc and therefore claims it is a legit UK issue. As they are obviously reading this told them to come on here and nail the rumours and give some transparency to all this rather than all the secrecy.

  On 13/11/2012 at 08:02, SOUL.INC said:

I get a little bit confused on these threads. Is the main problem:-

A. The fact that these rare tunes are now widely available on a "45", and it doesn't really matter if the reissue was illegally or legally done

B. The "possibly" illegal way in which these tunes have been pressed, depriving the tunes rightful owners of income, and if this was pressed legally on "Outasight", "Grapevine", "Kent" etc it would be ok.

Des Parker

I must say I strongly doubt that all of them so-called re-issues are really indeed legit and legal. I know one case I in which I contacted the artist to buy the rights for one of his tunes for an upcoming Hip City 45. He -in fact his wife- told me "yes we own the rights but no thanks, we are not interested in any kind of re-issues or new reocrdings and such. we left the music behind us a long time ago" when I mentioned that of course I will respect their decision I still dont understand why they agreed on a deal with some one else on a different tune..they said "which tune ? We never ever gave anyone the rights to rerelease any of the music"...had me thinking. not really thinking in fact it just added to what I already knew / was fearing for to be the reality of the oh so wonderful world of new releases and re-issues...

I'm told many so called legitimate reissues are licensed through the back door and none of those who should get royalties actually receive....nothing.

  On 13/11/2012 at 09:43, Marc Forrest said:

I must say I strongly doubt that all of them so-called re-issues are really indeed legit and legal. I know one case I in which I contacted the artist to buy the rights for one of his tunes for an upcoming Hip City 45. He -in fact his wife- told me "yes we own the rights but no thanks, we are not interested in any kind of re-issues or new reocrdings and such. we left the music behind us a long time ago" when I mentioned that of course I will respect their decision I still dont understand why they agreed on a deal with some one else on a different tune..they said "which tune ? We never ever gave anyone the rights to rerelease any of the music"...had me thinking. not really thinking in fact it just added to what I already knew / was fearing for to be the reality of the oh so wonderful world of new releases and re-issues...

There are legal 'get out of jail free' type disclaimers which some companies use that go along the lines of, "We have made every attempt to locate the copyright holder of this recording. If the copyright owner contacts us we will be pleased to communicate with them" or something along those lines. It also helps if the company puts any potential advance/royalties for the song into an escrow account for either 3 or 6 years (I can't remember which). I'm not sure if these strategies are 100% legally watertight, but if the situation ever went to court (which doesn't happen very often as the legal fees often outweigh anything else), then at least there's a 'chain' of responsible actions to demonstrate that there was no attempt to defraud or bootleg.

In the case of the above party, the above arguement wouldn't wash if they didn't want anything out at all.

Unfortunately bootlegs of 50's, 60's and 70's recordings will continue to proliferate since the owners are either dead, broke or simply too old to be bothered. I personally think the major companies and the MCPS should be doing more to combat this stuff but I guess the cases are difficult to persue and the costs will mostly outweight any eventual outcome!

Legal costs are ridiculous but that's another thread........

Ian D

  On 13/11/2012 at 09:49, chalky said:

I'm told many so called legitimate reissues are licensed through the back door and none of those who should get royalties actually receive....nothing.

Also, to be fair, there's often a lot of confusion as to who owns the master. The person who owns the master is generally the person who financed the recording. The artist is mostly simply contracted to perform the recording but usually doesn't finance or own the master. Contracts are generally worked out before the artist even enters the studio. I've heard many artists accuse people of stealing their recordings when their recording have been legally licensed from the verified owners who generally have the paperwork or chain of ownership.

It's not unusual. It still goes on today. I recently had an internationally famous producer in who offered me almost his entire life's work to release and I had to gently point out that he didn't own ANY of it and that the project would be too expensive to licence from the different parties to ever make a profit. Quite a difficult conversation.........

Ian D

  On 13/11/2012 at 09:49, chalky said:

I'm told many so called legitimate reissues are licensed through the back door and none of those who should get royalties actually receive....nothing.

Well I guess the easy answer to that, is if the original record was a flop (which 99% of Northern Soul tunes were) then whoever owns it probably never recouped on the initial outlay (most don't as 95% of releases lose money). If the artist received an advance and only sold a handful of copies, then maybe they're not due anything anyway until the owner recoups the original advance......?

Ian D

Further to the email ive been asked to share some info with you. The two tracks in question are owned by Charley (I can verify this as well) and leased to those who have issued the 45 through song seekers.

https://song-seekers.com/index.php/labels

They are not members of soul source and have no wish to reply or get involved.

  On 13/11/2012 at 10:13, Ian Dewhirst said:

Also, to be fair, there's often a lot of confusion as to who owns the master. The person who owns the master is generally the person who financed the recording. The artist is mostly simply contracted to perform the recording but usually doesn't finance or own the master. Contracts are generally worked out before the artist even enters the studio. I've heard many artists accuse people of stealing their recordings when their recording have been legally licensed from the verified owners who generally have the paperwork or chain of ownership.

It's not unusual. It still goes on today. I recently had an internationally famous producer in who offered me almost his entire life's work to release and I had to gently point out that he didn't own ANY of it and that the project would be too expensive to licence from the different parties to ever make a profit. Quite a difficult conversation.........

Ian D

Bang on the money Ian as usual. All these folk that seem to think the artists own the music they recorded is very naive. In some cases they do, in many cases they don't.

  On 13/11/2012 at 07:34, Bearsy said:

Hard work a long time looking chasing hoping and dreaming and saving like my mad to get a tune that can make you as a dj pretty exclusive and also the buzz of owning something not many if anyone else has wether it's an oldie or newie then put out for general sale for a tenner. Yeah brilliant what a great idea and why should it matter who really cares anymore its just another bootleg so no harm done eh.... Oh well I still know where to go if I do want to here the real thing ....

Totally agree and still gives people a reason to travel and gives djs individual personality ................

  On 13/11/2012 at 10:56, Steve G said:

Bang on the money Ian as usual. All these folk that seem to think the artists own the music they recorded is very naive. In some cases they do, in many cases they don't.

You dont have to have a phd to know that. I think most people who have ever held a record in their hands know they meaning of the word "publisher"...

  On 13/11/2012 at 10:23, Ian Dewhirst said:

Well I guess the easy answer to that, is if the original record was a flop (which 99% of Northern Soul tunes were) then whoever owns it probably never recouped on the initial outlay (most don't as 95% of releases lose money). If the artist received an advance and only sold a handful of copies, then maybe they're not due anything anyway until the owner recoups the original advance......?

Ian D

By whoever gets the royalties I wasn't referring to be artist, I was referring to whoever the monies are due. I know full well that in the majority of cases the recording doesn't belong to the artist.

But how many times has the get out of jail disclaimer you mention been used when the rights owner etc is known?

thread temp locked

some posts have been removed due to myself being made aware of concerns about them

some are unconnected to this release but as it does seems that some people have mistakenly taken them to mean something else they have been removed

as been pointed out by chalky the people who have released this 45 do claim to have acquired the rights for the release of this 45 single

ask that all further comments are made with this in mind

thanks

mike

  On 13/11/2012 at 10:41, chalky said:

Further to the email ive been asked to share some info with you. The two tracks in question are owned by Charley (I can verify this as well) and leased to those who have issued the 45 through song seekers.

https://song-seekers.com/index.php/labels

They are not members of soul source and have no wish to reply or get involved.

  On 13/11/2012 at 08:58, MrC said:

I know what you mean Des.

The thing is, the people who shout the loudest about rare records becoming widely available on a '45' are the ones who have the original, other collectors, and followers of OVO policy events, none of who would ever buy a pressing, or go somewhere they might be played, so the issue doesn't affect them at all! Why waste that much time and emotion on something that has little or no impact on your musical stance. Prices of 'pressed' originals haven't really bottomed out, in fact they seem to continue to rise, what's the problem?

Secondly, the loudest protestors about the 'illegal' pressings taking money away from the original artists are the ones who buy and sell records for hundreds or thousands of pounds with not one penny ever going to the artist that recorded it! It just seems a bizarre/hypocritical stance on the subject to me.

I would like to point out I do collect original vinyl, and do think the market is flooded with far too many 'pressings' - legal or illegal - of tunes that are readily and cheaply available on the original release.

  On 13/11/2012 at 11:09, chalky said:

But how many times has the get out of jail disclaimer you mention been used when the rights owner etc is known?

It's happened quite a few times in the Disco arena surprisingly. The world is getting smaller with the internet, though some people are still next to impossible to track down. I personally have never used disclaimers as much as I've been tempted to sometimes, as I just don't like the uncertainty of the situation.

Also, even if a company apparently hold the rights, it's not always the case. There are many tracks which some majors and other companies quite obviously should own on the surface, but if that all-important paperwork is missing, then really who knows? Maybe it was a lease deal? Maybe the terms of the contract were broken hence the masters could return to the original owner? Maybe something was written into the contract which would return the masters? There's many tracks which are apparently owned by particular companies but which will never be licensed or released as the paperwork has disappeared and no one wants to take the chance to clear a track that might come back to bite 'em on the arse.

In the case where a major owns a subsidiary label, there's no guarantees that all the paperwork has been held intact for 40 odd years or even passed over in the first place. There are records which have been cleared in the past and even used on TV ads, that will never be cleared again as there was never any paperwork and the risk of potential litigation has simply become bigger in recent years!

And let's not forget that some people had a habit of selling the same catalogues to several different parties back in the day!

Ian D

  On 13/11/2012 at 12:17, Russ Vickers said:

Edited November 13, 201212 yr by MrC

  On 13/11/2012 at 10:59, Marc Forrest said:

You dont have to have a phd to know that. I think most people who have ever held a record in their hands know they meaning of the word "publisher"...

I'm pretty sure they don't actually, it's pretty complicated (I'm not being sarcastic). Even "producer" (totally different than "publisher") isn't that simple.

hey mick we know who as the orig so any other clown who tries to play it will be laughed at

  On 13/11/2012 at 21:47, speedlimit said:

hey mick we know who as the orig so any other clown who tries to play it will be laughed at

=======

trouble is most of the big late wigan sounds have all been booted at some stage (recently deadbeats , vondells and now these two ) and only a few remain unscathed.

ive had an acetate of this both sides + yvonne vernee but never played it out at a major do

when uve payed a few grand for a rare original must be really galling but i guess its no dfifferent to the days of the 70s sadly with james fountain etc..

  On 12/11/2012 at 03:30, ruppy said:

The combinations and c.o.ds have been booted on a double sider ,enough is enough is ,I know who this bootlegger is

Hope he got good brief team he will need it

What's pisses me of these bootlegging twats have never owned these records and think they have the right to destroy good rare records

He has done endless 45s in the last 2 years ,enough is enough

Fin stinks

Mick h

This was a message received in the Ebay message box of one of my accounts recently, from an individual rejoicing under the name of "Mick H".

I challenged the sender to contact me direct to discuss this matter. This he has failed to do, and has ignored my request to enter into a dialogue. He has instead decided to start a misleading blog on Soulsource, thus drawing in a number of other mis informed contributors I notice!

So as to remove all doubt, the tracks he refers to have been fully licensed by the UK issuer via SONGSEEKERS LLP OF TWICKENHAM LONDON ( copy paperwork available on request from me).

As is so often the case on this forum, the poster is ill informed and abusive to boot. He should check his facts before sounding off, and try not be personal or insulting! Needless to say I have not yet heard from his legal team!

Dear citysoul66,

Hope you got rights to this cos I have fucknig stinks you never owned either copy on originals well don rob

Legal team will be in touch

Mick h

- annadantomy1 Reply in your email program or through My Messages

Edited November 18, 201212 yr by righttrack