Id just like to clarify a few points because following all this is interesting - better than the telly atm - but a little confusing. What most people refer to as "boots on the Northern scene are actually what may be referred to as counterfeits in the wider record collecting scene where:

Bootlegs are unissued material previously unavailable and possible ambiguous ownership. These are different to 

Counterfeits - which are reissues (in this case vinyl) of previously released material. from any source or format.

Within the sphere of counterfeits there are "reproductions".

Would I be right in saying these new records (pressings) contain both bootlegs and counterfeits - and also reproductions. And since the unissued material (bootlegs) and the LP tracks (counterfeits) are easily recognizable as such the main issue is with the reproductions?

If this is the case my question is as follows: Are the reproductions (which has been stated are of a high quality) distinguishable from the original? And if so how easily?     It seems to me from what I've read that there would be indications that they  are not actually originals (eg vinyl instead of styrene).

  On 24/01/2016 at 22:16, maslar said:

Id just like to clarify a few points because following all this is interesting - better than the telly atm - but a little confusing. What most people refer to as "boots on the Northern scene are actually what may be referred to as counterfeits in the wider record collecting scene where:

Bootlegs are unissued material previously unavailable and possible ambiguous ownership. These are different to 

Counterfeits - which are reissues (in this case vinyl) of previously released material. from any source or format.

Within the sphere of counterfeits there are "reproductions".

Would I be right in saying these new records (pressings) contain both bootlegs and counterfeits - and also reproductions. And since the unissued material (bootlegs) and the LP tracks (counterfeits) are easily recognizable as such the main issue is with the reproductions?

If this is the case my question is as follows: Are the reproductions (which has been stated are of a high quality) distinguishable from the original? And if so how easily?     It seems to me from what I've read that there would be indications that they  are not actually originals (eg vinyl instead of styrene).

Mm, getting a little complicated for me. It's far simpler in my very simple mind - bootlegs, counterfeits, reproductions are all illegal, unlicensed fake copies of (mostly) rare records. In the main they are produced to deceive people  - and as I've said already, and seemingly you disagree Maslar, by dishonest people who are intent on theft. Quite simple really. You can add into the mix the "vanity project" swerve - but any records produced as a result of such a project will always bleed into the market place - and as a consequence people will be ripped off.

 

Whilst a bootleg was at one time generally concert music but not always the case, a bootleg is actually any music (or other product, booze, cigarettes) published illegally.  

2. To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally:

A counterfeit is one that is done to look like the real thing with the aim to deceive.

1. To make an imitation or copy of (something), usually with the intent to defraud:

Edited January 25, 20169 yr by chalky

  On 24/01/2016 at 22:26, Peter99 said:

Mm, getting a little complicated for me. It's far simpler in my very simple mind - bootlegs, counterfeits, reproductions are all illegal, unlicensed fake copies of (mostly) rare records. In the main they are produced to deceive people  - and as I've said already, and seemingly you disagree Maslar, by dishonest people who are intent on theft. Quite simple really. You can add into the mix the "vanity project" swerve - but any records produced as a result of such a project will always bleed into the market place - and as a consequence people will be ripped off.

 

There's nothing complicated about it. Unless you want to make it complicated. You either get it or you don't. it looks to me like you actually don't want to get it since as a basic concept it's pretty easy to understand. Once again you try and and attribute sentiments to me that I  don't share and have never stated. You claim that that I approve of  deception. it's twice now you've done this and to be honest it's getting tiring.

For the record (once again) I don't condone stealing or deceiving people. That I  should even have to make such statement I find offensive.

Your whole argument is pretty lame: To group all bootlegs and counterfeits under the same umbrella  -which is what you are doing - and then attaching tags such as thieving and deception to this "group" you have established is ridiculous. When I started buying northern soul records I bought pressings. They cost about £!..00. They were copies. Was I being deceived? Was my money stolen? I knew exactly what I was getting.

Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available. Bootlegs were never about deception or theft. Everyone knew what they  were getting and generally they were either distributed freely or at a reasonable low cost. 

I wouldn't have any qualms about owning a bootleg of my favourite artist or even a misc genre. In fact bootlegs have played a vital role in the way record companies have released music over the last couple of decade. particularly the abundance of anthologies with unreleased tracks, alternate takes , rehearsals and jams. The record companies only did this as a reaction to the bootleg movement. To meet demand.

The fact you label these as the same as the production of replicas which are deliberately designed to deceive people and make large sums of money shows a complete lack of understanding.

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:07, maslar said:

There's nothing complicated about it. Unless you want to make it complicated. You either get it or you don't. it looks to me like you actually don't want to get it since as a basic concept it's pretty easy to understand. Once again you try and and attribute sentiments to me that I  don't share and have never stated. You claim that that I approve of  deception. it's twice now you've done this and to be honest it's getting tiring.

For the record (once again) I don't condone stealing or deceiving people. That I  should even have to make such statement I find offensive.

Your whole argument is pretty lame: To group all bootlegs and counterfeits under the same umbrella  -which is what you are doing - and then attaching tags such as thieving and deception to this "group" you have established is ridiculous. When I started buying northern soul records I bought pressings. They cost about £!..00. They were copies. Was I being deceived? Was my money stolen? I knew exactly what I was getting.

Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available. Bootlegs were never about deception or theft. Everyone knew what they  were getting and generally they were either distributed freely or at a reasonable low cost. 

I wouldn't have any qualms about owning a bootleg of my favourite artist or even a misc genre. In fact bootlegs have played a vital role in the way record companies have released music over the last couple of decade. particularly the abundance of anthologies with unreleased tracks, alternate takes , rehearsals and jams. The record companies only did this as a reaction to the bootleg movement. To meet demand.

The fact you label these as the same as the production of replicas which are deliberately designed to deceive people and make large sums of money shows a complete lack of understanding.

Whatever. 

  On 25/01/2016 at 07:03, chalky said:

Whilst a bootleg was at one time generally concert music but not always the case, a bootleg is actually any music (or other product, booze, cigarettes) published illegally.  

2. To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally:

A counterfeit is one that is done to look like the real thing with the aim to deceive.

1. To make an imitation or copy of (something), usually with the intent to defraud:

Yes, and by definition; all counterfeits are bootlegs, while all bootlegs are not counterfeits. And all reissues are never counterfeits. There was some mish-mash with those terms and arguments by some here in this way too long and tiring tread. You were right to do so chalky, let's call a cat a cat. 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:07, maslar said:

 

Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available.

Bootlegs were never about deception or theft.

 

I think this is at best harsh at worst very naive. Bootlegging has been the scourge of the record industry for many decades. Have you read Tommy James book about Roulette stock being booted in the 60s (recommended)? Or the MCA book, dealers getting baseball- batted and impromptu "facial surgery" for bootlegging. It goes back a lot further than the Beatles and in many cases had nothing to do with unavailability.

As for bootlegs never being about deception or theft:

1) less concerned if they are sold as such, but not when they are "weathered" and passed off as originals as has happened here.

2) Have you been on ebay? Plenty of available sounds being booted all over on carvers and crude boots. Its not about theft? Presumably no one holds the rights to any of these tracks and they are in the P.D?  

3) I wonder if Universal (Motown) bootlegs (available on CDs), Ace / Kent, Soul Junction, Hayley, Numero Uno etc. share your view. I somehow doubt it.

  On 25/01/2016 at 07:03, chalky said:

Whilst a bootleg was at one time generally concert music but not always the case, a bootleg is actually any music (or other product, booze, cigarettes) published illegally.  

2. To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally:

A counterfeit is one that is done to look like the real thing with the aim to deceive.

1. To make an imitation or copy of (something), usually with the intent to defraud:

As I stated I'm specifically talking about terms used within record collecting - and unless you have a knowledge of the wider record collecting sphere then it's probably going to take a little thinking about.

I've already stated what the term "bootleg" refers to. No need to go over that again I'm sure.

But I will elaborate on the term "counterfeit" becasue you don't seem to get it. it's the music that is counterfeited. The medium by which this is done is largely irrelevant in term of legality. Years ago some on the northern scene used to make cassette tapes full of rare sounds and distribute them to their friends. These are counterfeits.  Taking a track of an LP and producing as a single is counterfeiting, just the same as if you'd put it onto a cd or dvd. Counterfeiting is the illegal production of licensed product. The means why which this reproduction is done is largely irrelevant. Back in the 70s there used to be a debate - when Phillips cassette recorders came onto the market - about whether taping off the radio was illegal. technically it was but no one bothered since it wasn't for profit and was too wide scale anyway.  Anyone who ever taped a song off the radio onto a cassette tape was making a counterfeit recording. According to some on here these same people would be deceitful thieves. It's laughable.

However, within the sphere of counterfeiting there is indeed the criminal activity of producing potentially financially lucrative replicas. This is it's own topic and should not really be confused with other bootlegging and counterfeiting.

 Think of it like this. If I made a tape or cd of a rare record and tape and gave it to a friend for free would  I be doing anything criminal? Don't forget in legal terms the rarity of a track has no  bearing. It's just the same as for example a current song in the charts  This is no different to me producing the same track on vinyl and giving them a copy. The medium if irrelevant and nobody cares less. Unless i try to make money out of it, And in reality only then if it's large sums of money.

On the northern scene there a tendency to group all bootlegs, counterfeits, and (amazingly) even legal reissues under the term "boots".  Now if you're going to argue that the northern scene has it own terminology then fair enough. But that doesn't avoid the fact that its only going to lead to confusion.

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:07, maslar said:

There's nothing complicated about it. Unless you want to make it complicated. You either get it or you don't. it looks to me like you actually don't want to get it since as a basic concept it's pretty easy to understand. Once again you try and and attribute sentiments to me that I  don't share and have never stated. You claim that that I approve of  deception. it's twice now you've done this and to be honest it's getting tiring.

For the record (once again) I don't condone stealing or deceiving people. That I  should even have to make such statement I find offensive.

Your whole argument is pretty lame: To group all bootlegs and counterfeits under the same umbrella  -which is what you are doing - and then attaching tags such as thieving and deception to this "group" you have established is ridiculous. When I started buying northern soul records I bought pressings. They cost about £!..00. They were copies. Was I being deceived? Was my money stolen? I knew exactly what I was getting.

Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available. Bootlegs were never about deception or theft. Everyone knew what they  were getting and generally they were either distributed freely or at a reasonable low cost. 

I wouldn't have any qualms about owning a bootleg of my favourite artist or even a misc genre. In fact bootlegs have played a vital role in the way record companies have released music over the last couple of decade. particularly the abundance of anthologies with unreleased tracks, alternate takes , rehearsals and jams. The record companies only did this as a reaction to the bootleg movement. To meet demand.

The fact you label these as the same as the production of replicas which are deliberately designed to deceive people and make large sums of money shows a complete lack of understanding.

Bootlegging is copyright theft.  Whilst they may not have stolen your money, you actually gave it freely, you are or were buying illegal copies of music, no copyright was paid, no royalties to anyone due them etc etc.  As said earlier bootlegging isn't just unreleased or live music,  it is the distribution of anything unlicensed. I think that is what others are intimating.

I agree entirely it isn't the same as what is happening here and elsewhere, counterfeits, done to look the same and to defraud or deceive people.

I have over 200 David Bowie bootlegs.  Am I in trouble?

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:49, Pete S said:

I have over 200 David Bowie bootlegs.  Am I in trouble?

No, not this week 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:41, chalky said:

Bootlegging is copyright theft.  Whilst they may not have stolen your money, you actually gave it freely, you are or were buying illegal copies of music, no copyright was paid, no royalties to anyone due them etc etc.  As said earlier bootlegging isn't just unreleased or live music,  it is the distribution of anything unlicensed. I think that is what others are intimating.

I agree entirely it isn't the same as what is happening here and elsewhere, counterfeits, done to look the same and to defraud or deceive people.

 

You seem unable to grasp the basic fundamentals of what I'm saying. And to be honest I'm in danger of going round and round in circles.

But one last point and example and then that's it from me on this topic unless someone make a point  that I can relate to.

Just to reaffirm: Bootlegging in record collecting  -refers to the release on any medium of previously unissued and unavailable material. The ownership of this  material may be known, a grey area or unknown. 

For example. Imagine I purchased an acetate  of an unreleased track. I own the acetate. Do I own the rights to release it on vinyl? Maybe, maybe not. But this has been done successfully numerous times. This is potentially a grey area that could be contested in court if anyone actually gave toss.

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:55, maslar said:

 I own the acetate. Do I own the rights to release it on vinyl? Maybe, maybe not. But this has been done successfully numerous times. This is potentially a grey area that could be contested in court if anyone actually gave toss.

No, you just own an acetate.....no rights to release it whatsoever.....no grey area.

(Unless you wrote and produced it of course !)

Edited January 25, 20169 yr by Mace

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:49, Pete S said:

I have over 200 David Bowie bootlegs.  Am I in trouble?

Don't tell me Ian is also doing 1000 Glam Rock records for £1000 too '

Ian I know you will see this, please NOTE the smiley !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and don't get your boxers in a knot, assuming its not a commando day 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:58, Mace said:

No, you just own an acetate.....no rights to release it whatsoever.....no grey area.

(Unless you wrote and produced it of course !)

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago,  of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind.  The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe.

This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:49, Pete S said:

I have over 200 David Bowie bootlegs.  Am I in trouble?

 

- NO because as you already know it's not illegal to own bootlegs.

  On 25/01/2016 at 11:12, maslar said:

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago,  of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind.  The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe.

This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:55, maslar said:

 

You seem unable to grasp the basic fundamentals of what I'm saying. And to be honest I'm in danger of going round and round in circles.

But one last point and example and then that's it from me on this topic unless someone make a point  that I can relate to.

Just to reaffirm: Bootlegging in record collecting  -refers to the release on any medium of previously unissued and unavailable material. The ownership of this  material may be known, a grey area or unknown. 

For example. Imagine I purchased an acetate  of an unreleased track. I own the acetate. Do I own the rights to release it on vinyl? Maybe, maybe not. But this has been done successfully numerous times. This is potentially a grey area that could be contested in court if anyone actually gave toss.

There is only one of us who doesn't seem to grasp the matter in question.  A bootleg is illegal, end of.  Buying a bootleg is illegal in the US I think although not 100%, it should be here too.  Whether resources would be used to chase those who buy them is a different matter.  

There is no grey area regarding previously unreleased material, it is still subject to copyright law and permission is required before it is copied or distributed.

As for an acetate you don't own the rights and don't have permission to press copies of it and distribute.  You need to seek the permission of the rights holder.  The selling of intellectual property that’s protected by copyright law is a crime regardless of any demand.

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:37, Steve G said:

I think this is at best harsh at worst very naive. Bootlegging has been the scourge of the record industry for many decades. Have you read Tommy James book about Roulette stock being booted in the 60s (recommended)? Or the MCA book, dealers getting baseball- batted and impromptu "facial surgery" for bootlegging. It goes back a lot further than the Beatles and in many cases had nothing to do with unavailability.

As for bootlegs never being about deception or theft:

1) less concerned if they are sold as such, but not when they are "weathered" and passed off as originals as has happened here.

2) Have you been on ebay? Plenty of available sounds being booted all over on carvers and crude boots. Its not about theft? Presumably no one holds the rights to any of these tracks and they are in the P.D?  

3) I wonder if Universal (Motown) bootlegs (available on CDs), Ace / Kent, Soul Junction, Hayley, Numero Uno etc. share your view. I somehow doubt it.

You're referring to what I call "counterfeits" as bootlegs - then using this (your own definition) to refer to my definition of bootleg (which is different).

From my perspective (and within record collecting in general) the two are fundamentally different. You're using only one term (bootleg) and in doing so causing misrepresentation of what  i'm actually saying.

  On 25/01/2016 at 11:54, chalky said:

 

There is only one of us who doesn't seem to grasp the matter in question.  A bootleg is illegal, end of.  Buying a bootleg is illegal in the US I think although not 100%, it should be here too.  Whether resources would be used to chase those who buy them is a different matter.  

There is no grey area regarding previously unreleased material, it is still subject to copyright law and permission is required before it is copied or distributed.

As for an acetate you don't own the rights and don't have permission to press copies of it and distribute.  You need to seek the permission of the rights holder.  The selling of intellectual property that’s protected by copyright law is a crime regardless of any demand.

There most certainly is. It's been proven by the successful release of such material

How about starting a topic on the ethics (or otherwise) surrounding counterfeiting, which would be more germane to current discussions on the scene?

  On 25/01/2016 at 12:46, garethx said:

How about starting a topic on the ethics (or otherwise) surrounding counterfeiting, which would be more germane to current discussions on the scene?

Indeed.

Been engrossed the last few days with the Levine Soul Pack debate but now Maslar has come on and it seems to be developing into the same as the threads on the political forum now defunct , which Masler seems to put a new slant on everything to just provoke reaction .  

  On 25/01/2016 at 11:12, maslar said:

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago,  of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind.  The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe.

This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

Maybe the guy who had the Marc Bolan acetate also paid for the rights to release it.....?

  On 25/01/2016 at 13:01, shinehead said:

Been engrossed the last few days with the Levine Soul Pack debate but now Maslar has come on and it seems to be developing into the same as the threads on the political forum now defunct , which Masler seems to put a new slant on everything to just provoke reaction .  

What a stupid post.  You're on the wrong topic anyway.

Dazed and confused.

  On 25/01/2016 at 13:20, Mace said:

Maybe the guy who had the Marc Bolan acetate also paid for the rights to release it.....?

Maybe. I don't know enough about how that process works make any real comment.

  On 24/01/2016 at 22:16, maslar said:

Id just like to clarify a few points because following all this is interesting - better than the telly atm - but a little confusing. What most people refer to as "boots on the Northern scene are actually what may be referred to as counterfeits in the wider record collecting scene where:

Bootlegs are unissued material previously unavailable and possible ambiguous ownership. These are different to 

Counterfeits - which are reissues (in this case vinyl) of previously released material. from any source or format.

Within the sphere of counterfeits there are "reproductions".

Would I be right in saying these new records (pressings) contain both bootlegs and counterfeits - and also reproductions. And since the unissued material (bootlegs) and the LP tracks (counterfeits) are easily recognizable as such the main issue is with the reproductions?

If this is the case my question is as follows: Are the reproductions (which has been stated are of a high quality) distinguishable from the original? And if so how easily?     It seems to me from what I've read that there would be indications that they  are not actually originals (eg vinyl instead of styrene).

Does the above statement also apply to re-issues that are released for sale from companies/people that have the license/rights to do so?.

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:49, Pete S said:

I have over 200 David Bowie bootlegs.  Am I in trouble?

Until Mr Levine is nailed to a cross and publicly crucified I would say your safe for the time being Pete.

Roy

Has or does anyone provide a "Provence" service for rare soul records?

  On 25/01/2016 at 12:04, maslar said:

You're referring to what I call "counterfeits" as bootlegs - then using this (your own definition) to refer to my definition of bootleg (which is different).

From my perspective (and within record collecting in general) the two are fundamentally different. You're using only one term (bootleg) and in doing so causing misrepresentation of what  i'm actually saying.

This site is not about the music scene/ record collecting in general its about the  northern soul scene and historically any record that's not a original is/always will be called a bootleg. Simple really

Steve

  On 25/01/2016 at 11:12, maslar said:

OK fair point. I'm not sure whether legally it would be true or not. Why then have such acetates been legally released onto the market? (By legally I refer to lack of criminal proceedings ensuing). The example that springs to my mind in the release, a couple of decades ago,  of the very early unissued Marc Bolan track "The Road I'm On" c/w Blowing In the wind.  The person that released is as a limited release with picture sleeve owned the acetate. The subsequent release was advertised in full half page advert in Record Collector over a considerable time, even before it's release. (Record Collector being the main record collecting magazine in Europe.

This was a bootleg in record collecting terms. There was a large demand for it from fans and the price was reasonable. As far as I'm aware no one was ever prosecuted. There are of course numerous other examples. I'm sure this particular example falls into the grey area category. Nevertheless RC mag -which had a policy of not advertising illegal recordings featured it. So essentially it comes down to a grey area involving ethics.

 

If you're not sure if ownership of an acetate entitles to release it legally to the market you don't even know half the score you're trying to make us believe. I give you a hint: It does not.

Imagine a writer giving his mate the draft of his latest novel because he wasn't happy with it. does it legitimate his mate to print it and put it on the market? Of course not.

Also, a counterfeit is an illegal replica. Look up the dictionary. Not just a reissue. A counterfeit is made to look as close as possible to the original. That Rita thing on TRC and both Motown LP tracks are therefore no counterfeits but illegal reissues.

I agree with you when it comes to definition of bootleg in the wider record collecting world. it's first and foremost pressings of previously unreleased live recordings.

However, this is the Strange World of Northern Soul. Where 40 years old records are called "Modern". So shall we rather stick with the definitions everybody's used to?

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:29, Winsford Soul said:

This site is not about the music scene/ record collecting in general its about the  northern soul scene and historically any record that's not a original is/always will be called a bootleg. Simple really

Steve

Really? When I started buying records on the northern scene everyone called them "pressings". I don't remember "boots" being used much at all. And legit reissues aren't original neither are they in any way "boots". See the problems that arise when you don't use the correct terminology? Life could be so much simpler - Really

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:36, Benji said:

 

If you're not sure if ownership of an acetate entitles to release it legally to the market you don't even know half the score you're trying to make us believe. I give you a hint: It does not.

Imagine a writer giving his mate the draft of his latest novel because he wasn't happy with it. does it legitimate his mate to print it and put it on the market? Of course not.

Also, a counterfeit is an illegal replica. Look up the dictionary. Not just a reissue. A counterfeit is made to look as close as possible to the original. That Rita thing on TRC and both Motown LP tracks are therefore no counterfeits but illegal reissues.

I agree with you when it comes to definition of bootleg in the wider record collecting world. it's first and foremost pressings of previously unreleased live recordings.

However, this is the Strange World of Northern Soul. Where 40 years old records are called "Modern". So shall we rather stick with the definitions everybody's used to?

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated.  The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever.  Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may  have other issues attached to  them (possible deception, prices, etc). 

Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:57, maslar said:

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated.  The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever.  Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may  have other issues attached to  them (possible deception, prices, etc). 

Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

The Northern scene is only obsessed by records though mate,nothing else matters. You only have to look at reaction on this forum and in general to the latest batch of counterfeit records to see that. The irony is that all of these tracks could be given away on a free CD with a shitty newspaper and no one would have the slightest problem with it on here. Bootleg a few rarities and you're asking to get lynched. Its always been about records.

Legal reissues are not boots,never understood the mentality of classing them as such.

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:40, maslar said:

Really? When I started buying records on the northern scene everyone called them "pressings". I don't remember "boots" being used much at all. And legit reissues aren't original neither are they in any way "boots". See the problems that arise when you don't use the correct terminology? Life could be so much simpler - Really

You are corrrect - everyone called them pressings, it was the universal term.  Charles Diamond on Breakthru - pressing.  etc

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:57, maslar said:

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated.  The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever.  Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may  have other issues attached to  them (possible deception, prices, etc). 

Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

I'm definitely not in the mood of starting an argument. But it's you that don't get it. Do yourself a favour,  look up counterfeit in a dictionary. Counterfeiting DOES NOT refer to the music. It does refer to the medium. You can counterfeit a five pound note. And by this you don't counterfeit the value of a five pound note. You counterfeit the appearance of a five pount note. period.

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:06, simon t said:

Has or does anyone provide a "Provence" service for rare soul records?

Darren Brown - Rare Soul 45s has just sent out an email offering this type of service

Boots has always been live tapes and lp's of gigs ie rock bands etc Amazing Kornyphone.Pressings has always been the term on the northern soul scene....ie Jeff King turning up and opening the boot of his car selling the latest pressings of big records .....ie someone found out the real name of Richards Joe Matthews c/u and it has been pressed up and dropped from the playlist......I see this bloke at fairs every now and again.  

 

Edited January 25, 20169 yr by wiggyflat

Just to wade in here, perhaps where I'm not wanted, but I am perhaps older then all or, at least most of you, and the beginning of bootlegging was liquor, during prohibition. The mob controlled that here in the States, much as the Mob controlled a lot of the record business for many years as well. I worked for a mob owned record store here in NYC that was getting in the business of bootlegging cutouts. That is they would repress albums cut out by the original labels because since they were cut out, left over stock, in the first place, no one was watching. It wasn't Beatles records but instead Phillies Christmas albums that they would be making. These were called bootlegs and in fact all of what you are talking about is called bootlegs. Before there were live recordings illicitly sold, there were bootlegs of successful albums and, as I have mentioned, less then successful albums as well. The Mob pressing up these cutouts was viewed by them as printing money. Since they controlled the legitimate cutout business they knew which ones sold and made more of them.

It seems to me there are a lot of small label jazz cut outs around these days here in the U.S. And as someone who is cognizant of these things, there are a some legitimate (and illaginament) people making cutouts of soul and African albums over there in the UK and Europe. I'll work years to license something and then find out that Honest Jon's is (and other stores) selling a bootleg, unlicensed version, of the record. There really isn't enough of a societal reprehension to stop this and of course everyone is downloading stuff as well. Maybe in the collector culture will be where the light is finally shown on this end of things. I think it's important to name names because that is what will be the most likely to bring this issue to the fore. On that note may I mention Charley Records and Scorpio.

Either it's an original or it's not, doesn't really matter what you call them!

Pressing, bootleg, reissue, legal reissue, counterfeit, special product, look-a-like, acetate (that looks like it was made last year) etc.  All the same to me. People come up with different names for them to suit their own ends!

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by Guest

  On 26/01/2016 at 19:55, solidsoul said:

Either it's an original or it's not, doesn't really matter what you call them!

Pressing, bootleg, reissue, legal reissue, counterfeit, special product, look-a-like.  People come up with different names, to make it easier to sell them!

Legal reissues are a different kettle of fish.

 

  On 26/01/2016 at 19:57, Peter99 said:

Legal reissues are a different kettle of fish.

 

I have plenty of legal reissues, but I would not let them anywhere near my proper Northern Soul collection of originals!!

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:40, maslar said:

Really? When I started buying records on the northern scene everyone called them "pressings". I don't remember "boots" being used much at all. And legit reissues aren't original neither are they in any way "boots". See the problems that arise when you don't use the correct terminology? Life could be so much simpler - Really

We could go on and on regarding the merits of this interpretation of which term  copied material is given.

CONSIDER THIS....The only true original medium of any music is the master tape it is recorded on and the first vinyl record off the pressing plant.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST A COPY OF WHATS GONE BEFORE . 

  On 25/01/2016 at 20:57, maslar said:

To be honest I'm getting a little tired of this. A counterfeit in this instance refers to the music. Don't you get it? It's the music that is licensed that is replicated.  The medium by which it is done is largely irrelevant. Ok on the northern scene its usually vinyl but it could be tape or cd. or whatever.  Reproductions are just one form of counterfeiting. that may  have other issues attached to  them (possible deception, prices, etc). 

Counterfeiting refers to the reproduction of the music - that (what you hear) is the copying aspect - not the physical form it takes. Reproductions take this one step further in that there may be an attempt to deceive - but not necessarily.

Counterfeiting is something replicated to look the same as the original and to deceive or if you like defraud.  That includes the art work and the medium that carries it.

What you are talking about is plain old bootlegging. Something that has been about long before the beatles, any rock group and northern soul. Bootlegging is the distribution of unlicensed material, be it music, film, money, booze or cigs.

I'm really sure we don't need to be too pedantic about the precise terminology used differentiate between counterfeits and bootlegs - the bottom line is we are talking about unlicensed pressings i.e. records made without the permission and/ or licensing from the copyright owner. 
A lot of what I do in my day job involves copyright and licensing of photos/ images, and whilst it's not music, the same rules apply. Someone owns the rights to the music, and there seems to be this warped idea that people can do what they like with it, and then apply a set of fabricated rules to justify their actions. There is only one consideration, which is that it is not legal - you need a license to reproduce and distribute this material.

Edited January 27, 20169 yr by JIMMY SOUL

  On 26/01/2016 at 19:23, Yale said:

Just to wade in here, perhaps where I'm not wanted, but I am perhaps older then all or, at least most of you, and the beginning of bootlegging was liquor, during prohibition. The mob controlled that here in the States, much as the Mob controlled a lot of the record business for many years as well. I worked for a mob owned record store here in NYC that was getting in the business of bootlegging cutouts. That is they would repress albums cut out by the original labels because since they were cut out, left over stock, in the first place, no one was watching. It wasn't Beatles records but instead Phillies Christmas albums that they would be making. These were called bootlegs and in fact all of what you are talking about is called bootlegs. Before there were live recordings illicitly sold, there were bootlegs of successful albums and, as I have mentioned, less then successful albums as well. The Mob pressing up these cutouts was viewed by them as printing money. Since they controlled the legitimate cutout business they knew which ones sold and made more of them.

It seems to me there are a lot of small label jazz cut outs around these days here in the U.S. And as someone who is cognizant of these things, there are a some legitimate (and illaginament) people making cutouts of soul and African albums over there in the UK and Europe. I'll work years to license something and then find out that Honest Jon's is (and other stores) selling a bootleg, unlicensed version, of the record. There really isn't enough of a societal reprehension to stop this and of course everyone is downloading stuff as well. Maybe in the collector culture will be where the light is finally shown on this end of things. I think it's important to name names because that is what will be the most likely to bring this issue to the fore. On that note may I mention Charley Records and Scorpio.

Spent many a happy hour in Scorpio in the first half of the 90's. Was put onto it by a mate, Mark Wimmers, who was based in Baltimore who took me round there.

I think it was second or third time I was there on my own the guy who priced albums up for me says the boss wants a word with you.

Walked into the office and was tied to a chair and beaten with a baseball bat but  I was no fink so they kidnapped the wife, which turned out OK as I cut a deal to take her back when they paid $250,000 into my bank a/c. I feel I could have got more but they'd been through enough.

Obviously that didn't happen.

Coffees and doughnuts and a wide-ranging chat initially about what I was buying - soul/funk albums for 2-step/rare groove UK market - but then just general stuff about US/UK and how we'd both ended up where we were.  I didn't really have to read between the lines.

Back then the soul albums were definitely legitimate copies but I believe later they were involved in selling [at least] lots of soul/funk represses.

 

bloody hell which bit of it aint legit doesn't this guy get ?????  has he escaped from arkham ???

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:37, Steve G said:

I think this is at best harsh at worst very naive. Bootlegging has been the scourge of the record industry for many decades. Have you read Tommy James book about Roulette stock being booted in the 60s (recommended)?

Me, the Mob, and the Music: One Helluva Ride with Tommy James & The Shondells by Tommy James

just bought with Motown's First A & R Man Presents The A & R Man by Ashley Stevenson

 

Thanks for the tip mate

 

Thank god for bootlegs btw

My wife has been bootlegging my sandwiches for years, They are almost identical copies of the ones I can't be bothered to make. Except mine taste far superior.

 Think Chalky's posts have brought some common sense and clarity to the subject, whilst Maslar needs to go and have a good lay down.

Edited February 3, 20169 yr by still diggin
got posters name wrong