Reselling Old Records

[Jason S]

Not sure I'm missing something here so I thought I'd run this by the board.

Currently in the middle of a very 'interesting' exchange with an artist who (initially under the apparent auspices of wanting to buy something) has made contact after seeing his record for sale on my site. As I say he initially approached me with the subject 'Record Order' but then made a request to speak to 'the management' (had to chuckle at that)

Anyway, the crux of the matter is that he's somehow got it into his head that me reselling an original, used copy of his record is in some way an infringement of ownership and a denial of royalties, much like if I'd have bootlegged it or sold MP3 downloads of it.

I'm pretty sure that he's not owed royalties from the resale of an object that he no doubt accepted money for when he intially sold the 45's but I wanted to check whether i'd missed something. If he is I guess everyone who ever sold a 45 on this board, not to mention the world over, owed the artists money which they're no doubt not due.

I've only ever had this from one other artist who it has to be said was utterly deluded and confused and got the compilation/reissue/bootleg thing totally mixed up and thought he could somehow claim royalties for each resale of any of his old records. Looks like we've got another one here.

This guy has hinted at 'getting his legal team ready' which in itself is laughable and ridiculous and it'd be fascinating seeing the case for the prosecution...

Unless of course, he's right...(which would mean a lot of paperwork for everyone ever reselling records...)

Anyone else had one of these kind of guys or do I just seem to attract 'em?

Edited February 8, 2008 by J-Brew

[Guest Bogue]

Sounds more like a wind up or some elaborate phishing scam to me to be honest J ! Just ignore them

[Chalky]

just tell him see you in court lol, I bet he runs a mile.

[Spanner]

just tell him see you in court lol, I bet he runs a mile.

Send me £50 i will sort it [now that a scam ]

[Simon T]

Not sure I'm missing something here so I thought I'd run this by the board.

Currently in the middle of a very 'interesting' exchange with an artist who (initially under the apparent auspices of wanting to buy something) has made contact after seeing his record for sale on my site. As I say he initially approached me with the subject 'Record Order' but then made a request to speak to 'the management' (had to chuckle at that)

Anyway, the crux of the matter is that he's somehow got it into his head that me reselling an original, used copy of his record is in some way an infringement of ownership and a denial of royalties, much like if I'd have bootlegged it or sold MP3 downloads of it.

I'm pretty sure that he's not owed royalties from the resale of an object that he no doubt accepted money for when he intially sold the 45's but I wanted to check whether i'd missed something. If he is I guess everyone who ever sold a 45 on this board, not to mention the world over, owed the artists money which they're no doubt not due.

I've only ever had this from one other artist who it has to be said was utterly deluded and confused and got the compilation/reissue/bootleg thing totally mixed up and thought he could somehow claim royalties for each resale of any of his old records. Looks like we've got another one here.

This guy has hinted at 'getting his legal team ready' which in itself is laughable and ridiculous and it'd be fascinating seeing the case for the prosecution...

Unless of course, he's right...(which would mean a lot of paperwork for everyone ever reselling records...)

Anyone else had one of these kind of guys or do I just seem to attract 'em?

If it is an issue / stock copy that was at one time for sale on the open market, then he's talking twaddle. (Records are not like computer software, where the makers licence the product to the purchaser.)

Theoretically, demonstration copies should not be for sale as they are owned by the issuing company.

Also theoretically, returned stock e.g. records with the drill hole, shouldn't be on the market

[Guest Bogue]

Send me £50 i will sort it [now that a scam ]

Had to laugh the other day, had one of those phishing emails made out to be from an Ebay customer where i had supposedly had the money for a lap top ! & get this, not only were they going to get Ebay to blacklist my account , they were going to report me to the FBI !!

[michael-j]

Theoretically, demonstration copies should not be for sale as they are owned by the issuing company.

and the reason companies made specific promo copies, was so they could charge the artist for the manufacture (out of future earnings) and not pay royalties to the artist.

Also theoretically, returned stock e.g. records with the drill hole, shouldn't be on the market

but the hole was drilled/sleeve corner cut/etc after they'd been returned so that they could be sold again by shops, just not at full price

[Jason S]

and the reason companies made specific promo copies, was so they could charge the artist for the manufacture (out of future earnings) and not pay royalties to the artist.

but the hole was drilled/sleeve corner cut/etc after they'd been returned so that they could be sold again by shops, just not at full price

No, it doesn't say demo or anything on the label. It's his own label (Gengis Khan Records ) - looks like we've got a live one here 'cos the guy just said I've been printing them up and that his attorney's will be in touch (whether that's with me or a psychiatric ward we'll have to wait and see). Christ, where do they find 'em!

[Simon T]

but the hole was drilled/sleeve corner cut/etc after they'd been returned so that they could be sold again by shops, just not at full price

I never knew that; I always imagined it was to stop re-sale buy showing they had been returned to the distributors as 'un-sold'

[Jason S]

...btw if anyone fancies staying in Hawaii why not give him a bell...might do special rates for record collectors...maybe you could sit him down and explain it all to him...

Sorry, he's winding me up now

(anyone want to buy a copy of the record let me know, otherwise I might youtube meself melting it down.... )

Edited February 8, 2008 by J-Brew

[Guest Matt Male]

Name of the 'artist'?

[Jason S]

Name of the 'artist'?

Terry Gengis. No relation to Terry Tibbs but comes across a bit like him

[Guest SteveJohnston]

Unless of course, he's right...(which would mean a lot of paperwork for everyone ever reselling records...)

Anyone else had one of these kind of guys or do I just seem to attract 'em?

[Guest Rob_Sevier]

In the strictest interpretation of the law he is correct, any distribution of a recorded work (defined as transfering ownership from one owner to another) requires the payment of a mechanical royalty. I believe there was a Garth Brooks lawsuit to this effect in the early 1990s. However, it was ultimately thrown out of court. The fact is, there is no system in place to collect these mechanical royalties, so it's a null point.

I recently had an experience similar to yours, an artist that I'm close with called me and asked me if I've "looked on the internet recently." To which I replied, honestly, yes. He responded "so, you saw that they're selling my CD all over the place [this was a CD he made in the '90s.]" Naturally I hadn't, but the perception of the internet as being similar to television was brilliant. Essentially, he googled himself and was shocked to find his CD for sale on eBay and overstock.com and assumed it was actually a bootleg and not original copies (it is the latter).

[boba]

I pm'ed you about this, but I think that he thinks that you bootlegged his 45 since it was never officially distributed. Artists don't understand what happens to their records after they're pressed and dumped 20 years later. I think you should explain to him that you only have one copy and that no one has repressed or bootlegged this specific 45 (obviously that is not the case for certain other records). You could even offer to pay the 9.1 cents mechanical royalty (or whatever the statutory rate is now) if you ever sell it, even though as Rob explained, he's not really due that either and I'm sure he didn't send anyone 8 cents per song when he probably sold his LPs to a used record store in the 90s or whenever...

Also, he's probably going to find this thread given that he's actively googling his name, so maybe he will sign up here and give his opinion of what he thinks you did.

[Guest JJMMWGDuPree]

At last someone else remembers the Garth Brookes case! I used that as an example on the old Tower of Power message board a few years ago and got well roasted for it. He tried at least twice, once in the states and then over here. I remember our copyright people were pretty miffed about it, the last thing they wanted was someone stirring the waters. Yes it is indeed illegal to sell a copyrighted entity on without the copyright holder's permission, even if you bought the thing brand new, fair and square. Legally you can sell the carrier but not the sound that's on it, and since separating the two is not the easiest of tasks...

[Mike]

I pm'ed you about this, but I think that he thinks that you bootlegged his 45 since it was never officially distributed. Artists don't understand what happens to their records after they're pressed and dumped 20 years later. I think you should explain to him that you only have one copy and that no one has repressed or bootlegged this specific 45 (obviously that is not the case for certain other records). You could even offer to pay the 9.1 cents mechanical royalty (or whatever the statutory rate is now) if you ever sell it, even though as Rob explained, he's not really due that either and I'm sure he didn't send anyone 8 cents per song when he probably sold his LPs to a used record store in the 90s or whenever...

Also, he's probably going to find this thread given that he's actively googling his name, so maybe he will sign up here and give his opinion of what he thinks you did.

for interest, have had similar emails off this artist as well

hopefully either this thread or emails will resolve

mike

[Jason S]

I pm'ed you about this, but I think that he thinks that you bootlegged his 45 since it was never officially distributed. Artists don't understand what happens to their records after they're pressed and dumped 20 years later. I think you should explain to him that you only have one copy and that no one has repressed or bootlegged this specific 45 (obviously that is not the case for certain other records). You could even offer to pay the 9.1 cents mechanical royalty (or whatever the statutory rate is now) if you ever sell it, even though as Rob explained, he's not really due that either and I'm sure he didn't send anyone 8 cents per song when he probably sold his LPs to a used record store in the 90s or whenever...

Also, he's probably going to find this thread given that he's actively googling his name, so maybe he will sign up here and give his opinion of what he thinks you did.

Trust me Bob, I've gone to great lengths several times over the course of about 10 emails with the guy, pointing out that reselling an old Object (his 45) is a totally different thing to reproducing his music illegally. From where I'm sitting re-selling something in it's original state and illegally reproducing something and selling it are two different things. One's a legal market transaction the other's unlawful violation of copyright. As it happens his track actually appeared on a French Boogie comp so I think that made matters worse. I think he doesn't understand (depsite pointing it out in really plain English) that what I'm actually selling is one of his vinyl records...I think cos it's on the web he thinks I'm selling MP3's. I've tried to explain it but he's not grasping it.

And anyway as for as I'm concerned he's owed nothing from the resale of one of his records.

That'd be like every used bookstore having to pay royalties for every used book they sell. Surely the mechanical royalties thing only covers the sale of new goods, not the resale of used goods? It'd be totally unworkable if not and I doubt very much he wrote it into his contract at the time that any resale of the record over any period of time would incur repeat royalties.

Nah, like you said, he's just got online, googled himself and seen the $$$ signs come down in a row and thought 'Jackpot'.

Edited February 9, 2008 by J-Brew

[Mark R]

but the hole was drilled/sleeve corner cut/etc after they'd been returned so that they could be sold again by shops, just not at full price

Known as the "cut-out bin" in the shops

Cheers,

Mark R

[Dave Rimmer]

Slightly different sibject, but.......

There are some strange people out there. I had a run in with one of the Manhattans a couple of years ago. He sent an email saying that I had to remove the discography from my site because I was in breach of his copyright to the name The Manhattans. He even sent me the US copyright documents to prove his case. He threatened to sue me through his legal team

Unfortunately for him, when I studied the documents he had the name copyrighted for performance purposes only thus it didn't apply to a written discography. I emailed him back and basically said bring it on, I will now only deal with your legal team, please give me their company name and address so that I can contact them (Thinking as soon as I contacted them they would have to reply, and charge him for the privelege ). He suddenly back tracked on the legal threats

I advised him what a prick he was, removed the discography from the site and left a very pointed message on the page it was on. He'd wound me up though, so I then started sending him emails advising him that I intended to seek damages for the malicious threats of legal action which were totally unsustainable, and in the States I could probably have won the case

I then got an email which apologised profusely, and blamed it all on a junior member of staff, with a very polite request to reinstate the discography....please

He might be able to sing , but what a tosser

[Guest Paul]

Just to clear up a few misunderstandings regarding mechanical royalties:

Mechanical royalties are payable to music publishers (usually via copyright societies) on all copies of records / cassettes / CDs manufactured (or sold) by record companies or distributors responsible for manufacture. These royalties are payable at statutory rates at the time of manufacture and are in respect of the SONGS, not the masters - i.e, the money goes to publishers for writers, not artists.

The royalties are payable ONCE and no further royalties are payable when copies are resold.

In theory, every record on the second-hand market has had a mechanical royalty paid on it when it was manufactured. That includes 'drilled' or cut-out' records which are returns or deletions which can legally be offered for sale at discounted prices. The reason they are 'drilled' or 'cut' is purely to identify them so unscrupulous dealers cannot return discounted stock and claim refund credits at regular dealer prices. In some cases promotional records are 'drilled' or 'cut' to show they are exempt from mechanical royalties (and other royalties) because those copies are issued free of charge.

It is perfectly legal for anyone to buy or sell a 'drilled' or 'cut' record; there is no obligation to pay a mechnaical royalty unless you are the manufacturer of records which are intended for sale. Even then, mechanical royalties are not payable for the reproduction of most traditional (public domain) songs and for many songs which are not registered with copyright societies. This is a general overview because rulings aren't the same in all territories due to local laws.

One final point, record companies don't charge artists for the manufacture of promotional records but they obviously do not pay royalties on those copies because they are not intended to be sold.

Best regards,

Paul

[Cunnie]

(anyone want to buy a copy of the record let me know, otherwise I might youtube meself melting it down.... )

Don't you dare melt it down Jason.

Guy might be as mad as a box of frogs (allegedly, best cover myself if he's reading this!) but it's a great record & would buy it myself if I didn't already have a copy.

Will post a refosoul clip up soon & that should help move it on for you hopefully.

Why not throw the ball back in his court & tell him you're glad he's been in touch as the records a reject due to the labels bieng reversed & demand a refund off him.

[Jason S]

Just to clear up a few misunderstandings regarding mechanical royalties:

Mechanical royalties are payable to music publishers (usually via copyright societies) on all copies of records / cassettes / CDs manufactured (or sold) by record companies or distributors responsible for manufacture. These royalties are payable at statutory rates at the time of manufacture and are in respect of the SONGS, not the masters - i.e, the money goes to publishers for writers, not artists.

The royalties are payable ONCE and no further royalties are payable when copies are resold.

Thanks Paul - this is what I tried to explain to this guy - not in so many words but in essence that's what I told him.

I think the confusion in my case is that he failed to understand the term 'copy'. I said I had a single copy of his 7" single for sale....I think the guy has taken that literally to mean I have copied it, hence his bizarre accusations that I've 'reprinted it'. I guess in collector's terms if you buy a copy of something you understand that you're buying a unit of the actual thing (well, in most cases - mind you can you imagine posting a want for 'a single unit of Terry Gengis' - Gonna Be There' as opposed to 'a copy of Terry Gengis' - Gonna Be There' 45...) I suppose there's no other way of describing it other than saying 'I am selling a single unit of his 45'...even then I don't think he'd pay much attention seeing as I think he's got the jackpot line in his head but the Bandit ain't paying out. Just niavety and a lack of understanding really, even after repeated attempts at explaining it to him in clear, plain English.

[Jason S]

Don't you dare melt it down Jason.

Guy might be as mad as a box of frogs (allegedly, best cover myself if he's reading this!) but it's a great record & would buy it myself if I didn't already have a copy.

Will post a refosoul clip up soon & that should help move it on for you hopefully.

Why not throw the ball back in his court & tell him you're glad he's been in touch as the records a reject due to the labels bieng reversed & demand a refund off him.

I'm rapidly going off it Martin, tbh. Be careful about posting a clip of it, though...this guy sounds like he's sitting in a haze of gold thinking that he's gonna retire off the back of a record that, no doubt, he'd already got his money for originally, or maybe failed at the time or whatever.

Does styrene melt or does it just go to dust...only one way to find out: fiiiiiiiiiiiight (said in the style of Harry Hill)

Edited February 9, 2008 by J-Brew

[Cunnie]

I'm rapidly going off it Martin, tbh. Be careful about posting a clip of it, though...this guy sounds like he's sitting in a haze of gold thinking that he's gonna retire off the back of a record that, no doubt, he'd already got his money for originally, or maybe failed at the time or whatever.

Does styrene melt or does it just go to dust...only one way to find out: fiiiiiiiiiiiight (said in the style of Harry Hill)

OOPS!

Guess you posted this while my clip was loading

[Guest Paul]

I must admit, although he has no claim, I can understand how some artists / writers / producers / label owners can be a bit frustrated when they see one of their old tracks selling for high prices - especially if it lost money when first issued.

It's also sad if they can't afford to buy a copy for themselves.

But they shouldn't take their frustration out on fans / collectors / dealers.

Paul

[NEV]

Not sure I'm missing something here so I thought I'd run this by the board.

Currently in the middle of a very 'interesting' exchange with an artist who (initially under the apparent auspices of wanting to buy something) has made contact after seeing his record for sale on my site. As I say he initially approached me with the subject 'Record Order' but then made a request to speak to 'the management' (had to chuckle at that)

Anyway, the crux of the matter is that he's somehow got it into his head that me reselling an original, used copy of his record is in some way an infringement of ownership and a denial of royalties, much like if I'd have bootlegged it or sold MP3 downloads of it.

I'm pretty sure that he's not owed royalties from the resale of an object that he no doubt accepted money for when he intially sold the 45's but I wanted to check whether i'd missed something. If he is I guess everyone who ever sold a 45 on this board, not to mention the world over, owed the artists money which they're no doubt not due.

I've only ever had this from one other artist who it has to be said was utterly deluded and confused and got the compilation/reissue/bootleg thing totally mixed up and thought he could somehow claim royalties for each resale of any of his old records. Looks like we've got another one here.

This guy has hinted at 'getting his legal team ready' which in itself is laughable and ridiculous and it'd be fascinating seeing the case for the prosecution...

Unless of course, he's right...(which would mean a lot of paperwork for everyone ever reselling records...)

Anyone else had one of these kind of guys or do I just seem to attract 'em?

i don't know Jason

The lengths you'll go to ,to get a sale

[Guest moggy]

Can see why he never made a lot of money off this single

Not my cup of tea Im afraid good thread to read though

[Mike]

OOPS!

Guess you posted this while my clip was loading

unapproved it Mart

as said have already had emails off the bloke

its just asking for more hassle

[Guest moggy]

unapproved it Mart

as said have already had emails off the bloke

its just asking for more hassle

Being a bit of a tit me thinks

There may be someone who likes the sound clip enough to make them maybe purchase something from an outlet where he may make some money out of his music

sounds a right plonker

[mischief]

Why dosen't the artist read this thread and think of it from a differnt angle..

why dosen't he see a market for reissuing some of his stuff.. he could have posted on here asking if people would still buy certain records.. he may even have some unrleased stuff of a high standard.. that could have been issued and we all know that some of the members on soul source are the ones who can help him.

he is arguing over royalties of one record when he is missing a bigger opptunity.

[Cunnie]

unapproved it Mart

as said have already had emails off the bloke

its just asking for more hassle

No problem Mike.

Was just trying to help Jason move the record on & giving folks who don't know it the chance to hear it.

Funny thing is the records probably had more listens in the last hour than ever before so you'd think Terry Gengis ( General Crook? ) would be glad of the publicity.

If he get's in touch again do me a favour & ask him if he's got a spare copy of it on a 12" for me as i've only got the 7"

Edited February 9, 2008 by CUNNIE

[Winnie :-)]

unapproved it Mart

as said have already had emails off the bloke

its just asking for more hassle

=============

Was able to listen to it through clicking on someone's last played clip. Is that ok for the site Mike?

Win :-)

[Jason S]

The track was included on a French comp - https://www.boogie-times.fr/english/disques...id_disque=10600

What he now assumes is that any instance of the record appearing anywhere for sale will incur the same royalty payments that he was (rightfully) due after the track was included on a compilation.

I don't think he understands the difference between re-selling an old object (which is what I'm doing) and reproducing the music on that old object and widely issuing it for profit (which is what the comp does)

[Jason S]

No problem Mike.

Was just trying to help Jason move the record on & giving folks who don't know it the chance to hear it.

Funny thing is the records probably had more listens in the last hour than ever before so you'd think Terry Gengis ( General Crook? ) would be glad of the publicity.

If he get's in touch again do me a favour & ask him if he's got a spare copy of it on a 12" for me as i've only got the 7"

Think Records By Mail have the 12" Mart.

He's not General Crook (or claims not to be) as he stated that 'General Crook may have produced it but I (Gengis) was the writer' ...something no-one's ever disputed.

[boba]

Think Records By Mail have the 12" Mart.

He's not General Crook (or claims not to be) as he stated that 'General Crook may have produced it but I (Gengis) was the writer' ...something no-one's ever disputed.

He isn't general crook.

Either way, I think all these problems actually come over not only confusion as to how record collectors work but also confusion over the internet. One person called me up to complain to me about how some site in scandanavia was "linked" to my site, like we were making money together or something. In the past, if people saw their name or record in the media (e.g. on the radio), it meant that many people were buying or hearing their record. Now if one person mentions a person's name on his private webpage that 2 people have seen, it comes up in a google search. People new to the internet don't understand the nature of the internet and assume that if one person has one copy of a record for sale, that actually means they are some sort of distributor or something due to the fact that it has somehow come up publicly in the media.

[Cunnie]

Think Records By Mail have the 12" Mart.

He's not General Crook (or claims not to be) as he stated that 'General Crook may have produced it but I (Gengis) was the writer' ...something no-one's ever disputed.

Was just going on what it says on Andy Nobles sales site as he's got a 12" for sale.

Have a look on the link below (click on LP's/12" & scroll down)

https://lotuslandrecords.net/

Off to see how much the 12" is on Moerers

[Jason S]

i don't know Jason

The lengths you'll go to ,to get a sale

Yeah I know - still got the f**king thing as well ...looks like youtubing myself melting it down is still on the cards

Edited February 9, 2008 by J-Brew

[Guest posstot]

Had to laugh the other day, had one of those phishing emails made out to be from an Ebay customer where i had supposedly had the money for a lap top ! & get this, not only were they going to get Ebay to blacklist my account , they were going to report me to the FBI !!

FBI as in fucking blitherring idiots.

[Guest NASHEE]

How would you stand legally if you offered the item in question for free....and charged £££££(price of the item)??? for packaging?

[Chris Anderton]

I once had this from a member of the group Mandrill....accused me of making money from thier hard work..."I`ll be seeing Jerry, Terry and Berry (or whatever their names are) tonight and the rest of the boys from the band...I`m sure they will be very interested in what you are doing"!!

Told him to get lost and i never heard anything from him again.

Chris

[Guest JJMMWGDuPree]

Thanks Paul - this is what I tried to explain to this guy - not in so many words but in essence that's what I told him.

I think the confusion in my case is that he failed to understand the term 'copy'. I said I had a single copy of his 7" single for sale....I think the guy has taken that literally to mean I have copied it, hence his bizarre accusations that I've 'reprinted it'. I guess in collector's terms if you buy a copy of something you understand that you're buying a unit of the actual thing (well, in most cases - mind you can you imagine posting a want for 'a single unit of Terry Gengis' - Gonna Be There' as opposed to 'a copy of Terry Gengis' - Gonna Be There' 45...) I suppose there's no other way of describing it other than saying 'I am selling a single unit of his 45'...even then I don't think he'd pay much attention seeing as I think he's got the jackpot line in his head but the Bandit ain't paying out. Just niavety and a lack of understanding really, even after repeated attempts at explaining it to him in clear, plain English.

Maybe it's a '2 nations divided by a single language' job. Certainly over here 'Copy' is the correct word. All records are copies of the original sound and that's what they've always been called. Or a least, my dad always referred to his precious 78s as copies, and he was dead old...

[Jason S]

Maybe it's a '2 nations divided by a single language' job. Certainly over here 'Copy' is the correct word. All records are copies of the original sound and that's what they've always been called. Or a least, my dad always referred to his precious 78s as copies, and he was dead old...

Either that or this guy is being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway, following a badly written foul mouthed tirade, some limp wristed wannabe gangster threats and a ridiculous proclamation that he was infact a millionaire and didn't need the money anyway, he's gone.

Good ridance too.

Never known anything like it. I'm off to melt his record, for real this time

Edited February 10, 2008 by J-Brew

[De-to]

Had to laugh the other day, had one of those phishing emails made out to be from an Ebay customer where i had supposedly had the money for a lap top ! & get this, not only were they going to get Ebay to blacklist my account , they were going to report me to the FBI !!

i had an e-bay mail same as you it was riddled with spelling mistakes etc they are only after your password etc,also had an e-mail from nat west bank they wanted to update my account details,but i havent got a account with nat west and never have ,to the recycle bin they went!!!

[Guest mel brat]

I must admit, although he has no claim, I can understand how some artists / writers / producers / label owners can be a bit frustrated when they see one of their old tracks selling for high prices - especially if it lost money when first issued...

Paul

Hear, Hear!

[pikeys dog]

It's so shite he ought to pay you to take it out to the woods and bury the fecker....

[Guest ZTSC]

Trust me Bob, I've gone to great lengths several times over the course of about 10 emails with the guy, pointing out that reselling an old Object (his 45) is a totally different thing to reproducing his music illegally. From where I'm sitting re-selling something in it's original state and illegally reproducing something and selling it are two different things. One's a legal market transaction the other's unlawful violation of copyright. As it happens his track actually appeared on a French Boogie comp so I think that made matters worse. I think he doesn't understand (depsite pointing it out in really plain English) that what I'm actually selling is one of his vinyl records...I think cos it's on the web he thinks I'm selling MP3's. I've tried to explain it but he's not grasping it.

And anyway as for as I'm concerned he's owed nothing from the resale of one of his records.

That'd be like every used bookstore having to pay royalties for every used book they sell. Surely the mechanical royalties thing only covers the sale of new goods, not the resale of used goods? It'd be totally unworkable if not and I doubt very much he wrote it into his contract at the time that any resale of the record over any period of time would incur repeat royalties.

Nah, like you said, he's just got online, googled himself and seen the $$$ signs come down in a row and thought 'Jackpot'.

Tell him to f*** off or come over to Newcastle to get his money - simple !