Guest Paul Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 ...Can we stop the moaning about boots, they've been there forever... I don't suppose it's your songs or recordings that are being bootlegged! So let's just leave them to it, shall we? And what about burglars? Why don't we just let them break into peoples homes and take whatever they want? After all, they've been doing it for years. What I think you're saying is: "They haven't broken into my home yet, so I'm not bothered". Well let's see how you feel when they target your house. Paul Mooney
Guest Paul Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 sorry mark, but i seem to recall you selling cassettes in echoes during the 80's, did you pay royalties on them... Are you saying that selling a few cassette tapes in the 1980s should prevent Mark from objecting to the highly prolific and organised bootleggers of today? You're not a criminal defense lawyer by any chance, are you? Paul Mooney
SteveM Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Are you saying that selling a few cassette tapes in the 1980s should prevent Mark from objecting to the highly prolific and organised bootleggers of today? You're not a criminal defense lawyer by any chance, are you? Paul Mooney Not a dig at Mark by any means, but to use your burglar analogy Paul, if you got burgled twenty years ago, and you knew the burglar and he only stole a bit AND twenty years on said burglary was wrong, is that okay then ? Just playing devils advocate of course Steve
Guest Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Are you saying that selling a few cassette tapes in the 1980s should prevent Mark from objecting to the highly prolific and organised bootleggers of today? You're not a criminal defense lawyer by any chance, are you? Paul Mooney all i'm saying is, i object to people taking the moral high ground when they are guilty of doing the self same thing. a few cassettes or 2000 oasis c.d's, the crime is still the same, bootlegging is bootlegging
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Ace had UK rights to Stax (Fantasy) but the deal expired when Fantasy was sold to Concord. I think Universal now have rights for Europe. Maybe Ady or Tony can confirm. Anyway the point is that these bootleggers should get a public flogging and have all their assets siezed ...and then they should be flogged again ...and deported to Australia or somewhere. Paul Mooney Universal handles the licensing requests for Europe. We still have many ongoing deals including the Carla Thomas 45 mentioned. Mark don't let criticism get to you too much, we've all done things we've regretted but if we change our attitudes and ways with the new knowledge we have that's great. There are quite a few people on here and elsewhere who have changed their attitudes since they've known the facts. I personally don't have any problem with tape copiers or people who run off CDs for their friends. It's the straight counterfeitters of 45s and CDs that I detest, especially if they pass them off as legitimate. It's particularly galling when those people brag about how rich and successful they are, yet don't attempt to pay the people who created the music. The people who buy their products usually bury their heads in the sand and say "No Politics" but that's how this scene is and everyone has their own personal morals. I'm happy to be doing things the way i do them and it's great that there are so many like-minded soul fans on here. By continuing to point out what's right and wrong we do have a sizeable effect; and sleep happy (except at weekends).
Modernsoulsucks Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I did notice, Ady that you didn't have any objection to cutting an unissued track from a Kent CD to play out [Additions thread]. I guess it's a bit of promotion for the CD and any extra sales benefits the original owner of the work. I think that's a generous open-minded attitude to take. Might be a bit of a problem if we all decided to do it. With your blessing of course. I bought those Kent 45s that were previously unissued. Any more plans to put others out on vinyl. I'd like that Tobi Lark "True true love" please. End of Jan would be fine as Xmas will be paid for by then. ROD
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I did notice, Ady that you didn't have any objection to cutting an unissued track from a Kent CD to play out [Additions thread]. I guess it's a bit of promotion for the CD and any extra sales benefits the original owner of the work. I think that's a generous open-minded attitude to take. Might be a bit of a problem if we all decided to do it. With your blessing of course. I bought those Kent 45s that were previously unissued. Any more plans to put others out on vinyl. I'd like that Tobi Lark "True true love" please. End of Jan would be fine as Xmas will be paid for by then. ROD Thanks Rod, we look on DJs playing them as good promo for the CD and if enough demand builds up even 45s. I've just spoken to Phil our sales guy and he reckons we could do another batch of Kent 45s for you discerning collectors. I'll start up another thread for your suggestions. I'll take True True Love as a starter though it'll take a couple of months or more so you could cut one in the meanwhile.
Pete S Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I'll tell you a really great track that you could put out on a Kent 45 - amazed that it didn't come out before to be honest - the instrumental version of Who Are You Trying To Fool...what a sound!
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I'll tell you a really great track that you could put out on a Kent 45 - amazed that it didn't come out before to be honest - the instrumental version of Who Are You Trying To Fool...what a sound! Jump threads quick.
Guest TONY ROUNCE Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Just a thought that whoever is pressing up Ruby Andrews (and we all know who it is, don't we?) might want to ponder - by pressing up 'Just Loving You', or any other record from Zodiac, for that matter, you are not taking money out of the accounts of a major label, whose interest in your activities would probably be minimal to non-existent, even if your parasitic efforts were brought to their attention on an hourly basis. You are also not taking money out of the accounts of a company like Ace/Kent, that has done more for the scene than you ever will and that relies on legitimate sales of owned and licensed repertoire to 'keep the ball rolling' in terms of future reissues. In this instance, you are taking money directly out of the pocket of one of the greatest artists ever to grace Soul music - Swamp Dogg, who looks after and licenses the Zodiac/Aquarius/Boo group of labels on behalf of its original owners, and who could probably do with the money that you are openly stealing from him by pressing up a master that he controls. Swamp's coming over on tour later this year. If I can find absolute proof of who's bootlegging him, I will happily furnish names and addresses and let him pay them a visit. Even in his 60s he is not a man to be messed with... TONE
Guest Baz Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Just a thought that whoever is pressing up Ruby Andrews (and we all know who it is, don't we?) might want to ponder - by pressing up 'Just Loving You', or any other record from Zodiac, for that matter, you are not taking money out of the accounts of a major label, whose interest in your activities would probably be minimal to non-existent, even if your parasitic efforts were brought to their attention on an hourly basis. You are also not taking money out of the accounts of a company like Ace/Kent, that has done more for the scene than you ever will and that relies on legitimate sales of owned and licensed repertoire to 'keep the ball rolling' in terms of future reissues. In this instance, you are taking money directly out of the pocket of one of the greatest artists ever to grace Soul music - Swamp Dogg, who looks after and licenses the Zodiac/Aquarius/Boo group of labels on behalf of its original owners, and who could probably do with the money that you are openly stealing from him by pressing up a master that he controls. Swamp's coming over on tour later this year. If I can find absolute proof of who's bootlegging him, I will happily furnish names and addresses and let him pay them a visit. Even in his 60s he is not a man to be messed with... TONE I'll happyly pass on his name and address.........the cnut tried to threaten me with mentioning all the names of family that live in my house...............hell i'll even give swampy a hand
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 [quote name='Baz' date='Jan 9 2007, 01:10 PM' post='the cnut tried to threaten me with mentioning all the names of family that live in my house.............
Guest Baz Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 [quote name='Baz' date='Jan 9 2007, 01:10 PM' post='the cnut tried to threaten me with mentioning all the names of family that live in my house............. How low can he go? Well i did egg him on a bit and told people not to buy his crap boots and call him a crook in his feedback on ebay So i guess i asked for it, as a bonus i got him kicked of ebay as Amnesia, but trying to do the same with his new account they never even battred an eye lid :angry:
Guest Matt Male Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) Interesting thread this. Just a few thoughts. I don't know anything about copyright law or royalties etc.. but i never quite understood why a record company or whoever owns the license has to be paid every time a piece of music is reproduced or played in public. They sell the records, isn't that enough? I'm not condoning illegal bootlegging (i cant understand why anyone buys them anyway in the age of CDs and downloads) but surely owning and enforcing the copyright is a case of selling the same item over and over again. Money for nothing almost? I'd even, and i know this is controversial, extend this to royalties for the artists. It was the fault of the record companies that they never got paid enough when they recorded these tracks, we know most were routinely ripped off. Surely it's down to the record companies to make amends not the bootleggers? There are a lot of businesses i'm sure that got rich on the back of poor artists, and who now cry about their lost royalties. Isn't it just a convenient law that enables record companies to cash in and doesn't it ultimately restrict the free distribution of music? Where would we be without tape swapping and pressings of the 70s and 80s before we could all own CDs and downloads? Obviously i'm playing devil's advocate a bit here... I'll get me tin helmet Edited January 9, 2007 by Matt Male
Guest vinylvixen Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Thanks Rod, we look on DJs playing them as good promo for the CD and if enough demand builds up even 45s. I've just spoken to Phil our sales guy and he reckons we could do another batch of Kent 45s for you discerning collectors. I'll start up another thread for your suggestions. I'll take True True Love as a starter though it'll take a couple of months or more so you could cut one in the meanwhile. Dear Ady, please could I have a Kent 45 copy of Luther Ingram...the same as Wilson Pickett but better Thank you. Jo
Guest Brian Ellis Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Just a thought that whoever is pressing up Ruby Andrews (and we all know who it is, don't we?) might want to ponder - by pressing up 'Just Loving You', or any other record from Zodiac, for that matter, you are not taking money out of the accounts of a major label, whose interest in your activities would probably be minimal to non-existent, even if your parasitic efforts were brought to their attention on an hourly basis. You are also not taking money out of the accounts of a company like Ace/Kent, that has done more for the scene than you ever will and that relies on legitimate sales of owned and licensed repertoire to 'keep the ball rolling' in terms of future reissues. In this instance, you are taking money directly out of the pocket of one of the greatest artists ever to grace Soul music - Swamp Dogg, who looks after and licenses the Zodiac/Aquarius/Boo group of labels on behalf of its original owners, and who could probably do with the money that you are openly stealing from him by pressing up a master that he controls. Swamp's coming over on tour later this year. If I can find absolute proof of who's bootlegging him, I will happily furnish names and addresses and let him pay them a visit. Even in his 60s he is not a man to be messed with... TONE Tony No one is taking any money from anyone's pocket - the record just isn't available on general release for purchase now, so no prospects of royalties. If the record isn't available for purchase to deliver him any money, then how can anyone be taking it? They may be taking away the potential for him to earn money from the record - so if there is a market for the record WHY DOESN'T HE RELEASE IT? Then he can earn money from it - surely? Brian
soulAdequateNP Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Tony No one is taking any money from anyone's pocket - the record just isn't available on general release for purchase now, so no prospects of royalties. If the record isn't available for purchase to deliver him any money, then how can anyone be taking it? They may be taking away the potential for him to earn money from the record - so if there is a market for the record WHY DOESN'T HE RELEASE IT? Then he can earn money from it - surely? Brian Actually, "Just Loving You" is available on at least 2 legitimate compilation CDs - Talk of the Grapevine and one of the Kent Dave Godin comps
soulAdequateNP Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I did notice, Ady that you didn't have any objection to cutting an unissued track from a Kent CD to play out [Additions thread]. I guess it's a bit of promotion for the CD and any extra sales benefits the original owner of the work. I think that's a generous open-minded attitude to take. On that basis, can those of us who have CD decks built into our gear just play the CD in these cases? (It'd be more original than a vinyl dub from said CD )
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 On that basis, can those of us who have CD decks built into our gear just play the CD in these cases? (It'd be more original than a vinyl dub from said CD ) Of course you can, that's the logical way to do it. Cutting an acetate doesn't make much sense as it lowers the sound quality but sometimes there aren't CD facilities and other times the DJs just like the physical presence of them
Ady Croasdell Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) Tony No one is taking any money from anyone's pocket - the record just isn't available on general release for purchase now, so no prospects of royalties. If the record isn't available for purchase to deliver him any money, then how can anyone be taking it? They may be taking away the potential for him to earn money from the record - so if there is a market for the record WHY DOESN'T HE RELEASE IT? Then he can earn money from it - surely? Brian [/quote Jerry doesn't run a UK record company and now its been booted legit companies probably won't ever be doing it so the bootleggers have denied Jerry and Ruby the money. Edited January 9, 2007 by ady croasdell
Guest Brian Ellis Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 [/quote Jerry doesn't run a UK record company and now its been booted legit companies probably won't ever be doing it so the bootleggers have denied Jerry and Ruby the money.
Pete S Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 [/quote Jerry doesn't run a UK record company and now its been booted legit companies probably won't ever be doing it so the bootleggers have denied Jerry and Ruby the money. Ady Ruby Andrews 'Just loving you' has had 'mega demand' written all over it for the past 10 years or more - surely there has been more than ample time for the legal owners of the copyright to 'cash in' legitimately on its popularity and selling potential? Now because some entrepreneurial bootlegger (and don't get me wrong, I don't condone bootlegging in any way) has seen a market opportunity, everyone is crying 'foul'. But what gets to me is that legitimate owners are just not prepared to put out very much material, and especially on vinyl (not everyone wants CDs). They seem to have no interest in doing this and are denying soul fans an opportunity to acquire a favourite record - a potentially large market of people with decent levels of disposable income. Don't they do any market research? Yet as soon as someone does come along and puts it out in an illegitimate format, people on SS are rallying around in defence of the owners. To me, if the owners have little interest in releasing it, do they have much interest (apart from a purely mercenary one) in what anyone else is doing with it? And if it does spur some on to legitimately release some stuff, then perhaps the bootleggers could be doing everyone a favour in the long run? I think that some of the frantic energy spent on SS in criticising bootleggers might more usefully be directed at owners who blatantly refuse to legitimately release records for which there is such a demand. Just another 'take' on things. Brian Very good points Brian. In the case of Ruby Andrews, there was a limited, very poor quality bootleg originating from the Cheshire area way back in 1989, so it's been "big" for 18 years or so now.
Guest Brian Ellis Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) Very good points Brian. In the case of Ruby Andrews, there was a limited, very poor quality bootleg originating from the Cheshire area way back in 1989, so it's been "big" for 18 years or so now. Pete However long it's been in demand, someone needs their ar*e kicking for not legitimately releasing this over here and knocking it out at 10 quid a throw. They'd have made more on this record than possibly any other soul reissue? When you think that John Anderson is releasing pretty obscure stuff on his Grapevine 2000 label and selling relatively few copies compared to what a Ruby Andrews would sell, you really have to admire his commitment to the music - and - he must be making some money in the process. But some people on here try to 'kick' him for doing so - queer state of affairs! Seems to me that people are now trying to shut a stable door now the horse has bolted! Brian Edited January 9, 2007 by Brian Ellis
timthemod Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 On the subject of royalties and as I've already stated to Pete, this guy is currently being investigated by the relevant bodies, but these things do take time, so we have to be patient. Tracks like Just Loving You may have been big for the last 20 years, but the US copyright owners are probably not aware of the Northern Scene, so they may refuse the licence on the basis that an individual or record company only wants to licence 1 track. It's makes more business sense for them sense to try and licence enough tracks for a various artists/single artist compilation. That's why you see more comp's for one label, and although you do see comp's with tracks from more than one licensing source there are less of these. Ady will be able to confirm that this is the case with stuff on the Ace group of labels, if he wants to to put out a comp of different sources it's fairly straight forward if it's say Money, Modern, etc for which Ace already have licensing deals in place. CD's like the recent 100 Club comp contains tracks from a large number of licensees, it's all about economics I guess. TTM
Guest Brian Ellis Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) On the subject of royalties and as I've already stated to Pete, this guy is currently being investigated by the relevant bodies, but these things do take time, so we have to be patient. Tracks like Just Loving You may have been big for the last 20 years, but the US copyright owners are probably not aware of the Northern Scene, so they may refuse the licence on the basis that an individual or record company only wants to licence 1 track. It's makes more business sense for them sense to try and licence enough tracks for a various artists/single artist compilation. That's why you see more comp's for one label, and although you do see comp's with tracks from more than one licensing source there are less of these. Ady will be able to confirm that this is the case with stuff on the Ace group of labels, if he wants to to put out a comp of different sources it's fairly straight forward if it's say Money, Modern, etc for which Ace already have licensing deals in place. CD's like the recent 100 Club comp contains tracks from a large number of licensees, it's all about economics I guess. TTM So when we get down to who's denying artists their royalties; it has always seemed to me that it is the owners who are much more to blame than any bootlegger. For example, my understanding is that none of the Cameo Parkway stuff has ever been allowed to be reissued by the owners - the demand for that would surely be high - so isn't this just such a case in point? And there will be hundreds (possibly thousands) of similar examples to quote. OK - the bootlegger sees an opportunity, jumps in and makes some dosh - but just where are the people who could, if they got their ar$e$ in gear, do this properly, legitimately and with artists receiving their just rewards? Why aren't Soul Sourcers jumping up and down to the same degree about this; save some of the rabid vitriol dished out to bootleggers and aim it where it is arguably more deserved? Brian Edited January 10, 2007 by Brian Ellis
Sebastian Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 someone needs their ar*e kicking for not legitimately releasing this over here and knocking it out at 10 quid a throw. Goldmine released it as one of their first Sevens 45s (with James Fountain's "Seven Day Lover" on the flip) back in the 90s and sold it for £5. It can still be had for that price. But from earlier comments made I suppose that was a bootleg...
Ady Croasdell Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Because bootleggers screw it up for legitimate companies to put lots of records out. Not paying royalties and publishing makes it easy for them to make a profit. By being honest we're fighting with one arm behind our backs but we're still there after 25 years and the bootleggers come and go. We're allowed to get pissed off at them though and allowed to express it on here. If you want to have a go at record labels feel free, but it doesn't mean we can't have a go at bootleggers.
Pete S Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Goldmine released it as one of their first Sevens 45s (with James Fountain's "Seven Day Lover" on the flip) back in the 90s and sold it for £5. It can still be had for that price. But from earlier comments made I suppose that was a bootleg... I don't know because they put it out on cd as well I think,maybe they had a year long lease on the track. If they pressed up records back then and still have stock, it can't be illegal can it or would the remaining stock have to be destroyed???? Minefield.
SteveM Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 So when we get down to who's denying artists their royalties; it has always seemed to me that it is the owners who are much more to blame than any bootlegger. For example, my understanding is that none of the Cameo Parkway stuff has ever been allowed to be reissued by the owners - the demand for that would surely be high - so isn't this just such a case in point? And there will be hundreds (possibly thousands) of similar examples to quote. OK - the bootlegger sees an opportunity, jumps in and makes some dosh - but just where are the people who could, if they got their ar$e$ in gear, do this properly, legitimately and with artists receiving their just rewards? Why aren't Soul Sourcers jumping up and down to the same degree about this; save some of the rabid vitriol dished out to bootleggers and aim it where it is arguably more deserved? Brian Bootleggers don't have any right though do they ? The true owners, I assume generally, have every right to do what they want surely ?
Guest Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Looks like he's started up on ebay again under the username soulsurviving ,exactly the same rip off records Hope the link works. Leave em to it, why get so stressed out.
Guest Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 all i'm saying is, i object to people taking the moral high ground when they are guilty of doing the self same thing. a few cassettes or 2000 oasis c.d's, the crime is still the same, bootlegging is bootlegging u must be a good boy
Guest Bogue Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Come on Pete, i think you need to let go of the stick now mate else you will probably end up being the latest 'boot' on here There's loads of other good threads on here, have a look around. bloody hell i sound like a moderator.
Trev Thomas Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 u must be a good boy well he must be gooder than you.....f*** me, youve only been on this site for five minutes and all you've done is piss people off & abuse anyone who dissagrees with you, mouldie got thrown off this site for far less than you, i think the moderators should look into your postings, this site is for open debate & discussion not abuse,
Guest DonnaD Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) I don't know because they put it out on cd as well I think,maybe they had a year long lease on the track. If they pressed up records back then and still have stock, it can't be illegal can it or would the remaining stock have to be destroyed???? Minefield. Whoops this is Ady logged on as Donna. If it was illegal, which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, jerry W would probably have to hire a UK lawyer to go after the culprits which would cost him a lot of money chasing not very much. That's another reason why it's such an underhanded crime. Edited January 11, 2007 by DonnaD
givemesoul Posted January 11, 2007 Author Posted January 11, 2007 the boots is a piss off ,iv'e got originals selling for less
Pete S Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) u must be a good boy Are you making these f*cking records or what? Edited January 11, 2007 by Pete-S
soulAdequateNP Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 So when we get down to who's denying artists their royalties; it has always seemed to me that it is the owners who are much more to blame than any bootlegger. For example, my understanding is that none of the Cameo Parkway stuff has ever been allowed to be reissued by the owners - the demand for that would surely be high - so isn't this just such a case in point? And there will be hundreds (possibly thousands) of similar examples to quote. Cameo Parkway stuff has been reissued recently - maybe they wised up?
Guest Brian Ellis Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Cameo Parkway stuff has been reissued recently - maybe they wised up? soulAdequate Thanks for update on this - clearly, as you say, they've wised up. I know there was a time when they were dragging their heels about releasing anything. Just looked at the track listings and some very nice soul tracks there - but the inclusion of too many non-soul numbers would dissuade me from shelling out £37+ for the box set. I see also that there is a 'Cameo Parkway Greatest Hits' CD @ £13, but again not a specific soul album. If they were ever to put out a 'Northern Soul of Cameo Parkway' type compilation then I'd definitely be persuaded to part with some readies. But I have to ask the question I raised in one of my previous posts on this thread - where is their market research? Thanks again. Brian
Jimmy A Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) all you got to do about these boots is dont buy um,saying that some of the record dealers, they sell um all the time.look at rob smith really nice bloke sells shit loads of boots all the time.the demand is there for them because people pay silly money for orig 45s Edited January 11, 2007 by JMYTG
Guest Paul Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) I don't know because they put it out on cd as well I think,maybe they had a year long lease on the track. If they pressed up records back then and still have stock, it can't be illegal can it or would the remaining stock have to be destroyed???? Minefield. Hello Pete, Licensees are usually obliged to delete product when the term of license expires, destroy unsold copies or supply them to the licensor at cost. Manufacturing further copies or selling existing copies after the expired term is illegal. However, it happens a lot but the actual seller is often a "different legal entity" (although sometimes closely related) to the licensee. It's another scam which is often used. There are many (too many) cases where a short-term license was granted twenty years ago yet today the licensee is still releasing product, selling old stock and even granting sub-licensing rights to third parties! It involves huge sums of money. Even worse are the licensing scams where one dubious record company obtains a fake license from an even more dubious record company (or a non-existant company) which doesn't own any rights in the first place. So there are far more "bootlegs" (in one form or another) than people think. And some of them are on labels which many people perceive to be legitimate operators. Paul Mooney (all names have been omitted to protect the guilty) Edited January 11, 2007 by Paul
givemesoul Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 Must be the same seller Barbara McNair Italian re-issue tmg 498 demo plus Contours demo's no wonder half decent record's don't stand a chance with this shite about,real records at the moment are selling for next to nothing on ebay ,while this shite is taking the money
Guest Paul Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 ...real records at the moment are selling for next to nothing on ebay ,while this shite is taking the money Yes, I hate to see people actually bidding on these items. I wouldn't buy them if they were 50p. each in the local supermarket. Anyway, I'm off to Tesco where the all-night in-crowd people hang out these days. Paul Mooney
Sunnysoul Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Ace had UK rights to Stax (Fantasy) but the deal expired when Fantasy was sold to Concord. I think Universal now have rights for Europe. Maybe Ady or Tony can confirm. Anyway the point is that these bootleggers should get a public flogging and have all their assets siezed ...and then they should be flogged again ...and deported to Australia or somewhere. Paul Mooney Paul , if they got deported to Australia I have no doubt they would regard that as a right result !!! Especially now with a thriving soul scene Down Under which they could exploit Not to mention 30 celsius plus heat , palm trees , sun surf and soul and an unbeatable cricket team !
Pete S Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 I see they've bootlegged Gene Toones and a few others now...
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!