Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Litto
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 02:27 PM

Sorry, that should read "the same seller"... (above)

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Bugsy
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 09:09 PM

I was refering to the section on Public Domain. It would appear to me that some of the early recordings would soon be, if not already, in the Public Domain.

Cheers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 12:37 AM

Not sure what "early recordings" you're referring to, Bugsy.

If you mean the material in some of the "grey" albums and others which would have been transcribed from cylinder, wire or early tape or acetate recordings, the originals might well be in the public domain, but any extant examples are likely to be in the hands of libraries or private collections who can still require licencing fees for reproduction. The transcribed recordings which went to make up those albums may or may not have been copyright to Bill Leader at the time of production, and in any case would not themselves become public domain for many years.

If you mean Bill Leader's own earliest recordings, even they would still be a long way from becoming public domain. If I'm reading the article right, anything recorded after 1961 would be covered by the extension of copyright (proposed 2011 - was it enacted?) from fifty years to seventy years, ie 1961 to 2031 and so on. The Leader/Trailer output as dated in the Musical Traditions discography spans the years 1969-1977, so all would now be in the seventy-year bracket.

I did wonder what the situation would be for any recordings Bill Leader made prior to 1961, or before setting up his own label, but those would have been made for other labels who would presumably have held the original copyrights in the material they published.

Ross

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,ROSIE HARDMAN
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 05:27 AM

Sorry about this - but I really take exception to the person who said that the albums that are not released are not wanted anyway!

TWO of my albums are 'on the shelves' not being released and I can tell you very emphatically that there IS a demand for them! I get requests via my own website regularly. I tried to get the rights back to release these albums over 10 years ago and was told then by Dave Bulmer that he hoped to release them within 18 months. It just never happened.

I tried again in 2004, without success. He wouldn't even give me the rights to add them, in MP3 form, to a HUGE archive that a friend of mine took two years to put together and that we hoped to release in 2002. They were the ONLY albums for which I didn't get the rights back, where I was still able to contact the people who originally recorded them. They were such an important part of my musical history that I couldn't release the archive without them and the whole project was scuppered.

It might also be of interest that I recorded a private album with Bill Leader, completely at my own expense, in 1973 (featuring Ian Hunt, Stuart Marson, Graham Cooper and myself). It therefore belonged to ME - not to Leader records. You can read all about it on my site, under The Lost Leader (tongue in cheek title I gave it deliberately). I didn't release this until 2000 when I got the money together to have it done. The tapes were in perfect condition and were remastered digitally. It has sold through my site - and sold WELL - ever since. I tracked down Bill Leader and talked to him on the phone and he was delighted that it was doing so well. We also talked about other things so I know exactly how he feels about them.

The success of The Lost Leader stimulated me into re-releasing my Plant Life albums and the contrast between their attitude & Celtic's was poles apart. I got the rights back to all my Plant Life albums without a single problem - because as they said - they weren't going to release them and they felt that the music ought to be 'out there' earning money for me and giving people pleasure. What a refreshing attitude! All those albums have sold solidly since via my site.

I did some 'one-off' gigs in 2006, 7, 8 and 9 which all sold out almost immediately and which generated good sales again for my Plant Life albums and would have been a perfect chance to release my Leader albums... but again, NOTHING happened.

When it comes to 'signing contracts more rigorously' - in the early 70s when I signed with Bill Leader, I was young and yes, naive. Being asked to sign with Bill Leader was one of the greatest accolades that any artist on the British Folk Scene could earn at that time and nobody in their right mind turned down the chance. It never occurred to me, nor, I am sure, to many other artistes, that our work could or would be sold from underneath us without someone having to re-negotiate the contract!

The law IS to blame - for allowing people like Bulmer to buy people's work without a re-negotiation of contracts with the people who wrote and/or recorded the material. There should at LEAST be a time-limit for releasing the material, upon the expiration of which rights are returned to the artiste/composer etc. As we all know though - the law is often an ass. However - just because someone has the legal rights to something doesn't mean that they should ignore the ethics of the situation.

When it comes to people getting heated on the subject - I am now heading for 70, disabled and on a very low pension. I would LOVE to have these albums out again and making even a little money for me. My work, from any era, SHOULD be providing me with income where possible. However, despite this, to me, obvious MORAL & ETHICAL fact, they are stuck on some shelves somewhere, unheard, when they could be enjoyed by my fans, old and new. So if I sound angry, it's because I AM flippin' angry - and I am certainly not going to pretend otherwise.   

Lo and behold - what has just dropped into my Inbox? An email asking me if I have Firebird available on CD! Q. E. D. Another one to join the growing list of emails from people waiting for CDs of Second Season Came or Firebird.

Anyone wanting to contact me - you know where I am - www.rosiehardman.com/rosie.htm

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 08:03 AM

Click on the link:- www.rosiehardman.com/rosie.htm

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 08:18 AM

Many artists have recovered rights from other labels to enable the re-release of albums which would no longer make commercial sense for the labels themselves to reproduce, but which do have a limited demand, whether from old fans replacing vinyl copies or new fans seeking older material.

It is Celtic Music's intransigence in refusing to deal in this way that baffles and infuriates so many people.

Ross

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:18 AM

I agree with,Rosie,
which is why i referred to him as a wanker, i made an lp with the new mexborough concertina quartet, which was made on richrd digances label dam buster, the recording was sold to bulmer without our approval nor were we even asked.
I have been approached by potential customers, i know there is a demand.
i take exception to the remark no demand,
I also recorded a SOLO lp with Carthy playing guitar,which Bulmer has in his possession dont tell me there is no demand.
Dave Bulmer makes me sick.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ian Hendrie
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 12:06 PM

The Rosie Hardman link doesn't work because of a www.mudcat.org prefix being added. I tried to make a working link but encountered the same problem.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 12:14 PM

http://www.rosiehardman.com/rosie.htm

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ian Hendrie
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 12:42 PM

Thanks for that.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Sean, Lincs.
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 05:28 PM

Any mention of Bulmer in connection with music corrupt practice should always be in the company of Neil Sharpley, Bulmer's legal henchman from Licolnshire, who prospers to this day in Louth despite, or perhaps because, he knows dishonesty pays.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 06:32 PM

I really take exception to the person who said that the albums that are not released are not wanted anyway!

In case it wasn't obvious, I was paraphrasing Bulmer when I wrote that - and I don't agree with him!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 06 Aug 12 - 01:41 AM

Apologies for the bad link. Forgot to check it myself.

Ross

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,mindthetrams
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:27 PM

I don't begin to understand the issues that some people have with Dave Bulmer. Having played with him for many years at gigs and in sessions, I have yet to meet anyone who has such an encyclopaedic knowledge of Irish traditional tunes and who has done so much to promote traditional music - either through his books ( Bulmer & Sharpley) or just by osmosis in sessions.
I suspect that a lot of people think that their music is worth more than it actually is. There are thousands of singer/songwriters out there who are actually quite boring and whose recordings are not worth preserving - far less worth producing and promulgating!
A values issue? Discuss!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:59 PM

Discuss what? You're either Bulmer's uncle or you're a feckin' eejit. Discuss.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:37 AM

OK, mindthetrams, you know him so well. Ask him why he won't release material. Then post his reply here.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:11 AM

Mindthtrams, I think this is what puzzles so many people. He did indeed do a great deal to promote traditional music (I have two of his Irish tunebooks), which is why it is such a mystery that he refuses to release the material he owns.

If you do indeed know him then please ask him why, if he doesn't think it's worthwhile commercially for him to release these albums, he won't give permission for the musicians themselves to do it.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 11:16 AM

"There are thousands of singer/songwriters out there who are actually quite boring and whose recordings are not worth preserving - far less worth producing and promulgating!"

One of the most arrogant statements I've ever seen on Mudcat. What, exactly, makes your opinion so valuable - and what contribution have you made to the folk music scene? Discuss!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:12 PM

Yes. It is Morton's fork. Either the recordings are of market value so should be released or they are not so they should revert.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Henry Farley,
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:10 AM

Dave Bulmer aquired the recordings he holds quite legally, there was little demand for them at the time but he maybe thought one or two of them would become viable again. This has with very limited exeption proved not to be the case and even if it did happen the artists concerned would receive no royalties, Bulmer and his legal chum Neil Sharpley would pocket the lot, even if a royalty agreement had been signed.
A simple enquiry to PRS or MCPS would verify this.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Concerned of Tunbridge
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:50 AM

Question:- If the recordings held by Dave are of no commercial value to him why does he not sell them back to the original artistes thus at least realising some financial return on the original cost of his investment.

Could it be that we, the folk fraternity, have really cheesed him off with the somewhat acid, nay vitriolic, criticism of him over the years.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:17 AM

"Yes. It is Morton's fork. Either the recordings are of market value so should be released or they are not so they should revert."

Too right. In 2012, what with things like Bandcamp and AmazingTunes, it has never been easier to put out music for sale.

That Dave Bulmer clearly has perverse and petty ulterior motives couldn't be clearer.

If I were one of the aggreived parties, with an album Bulmer is sitting on, I would just covertly (or even not-so covertly) bootleg it. I'd make my own pressings, and stick em on eBay. Make my own digital versions, and stick em on Bandcamp. And dare him to do anything about it.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Alistair Russell
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 04:07 PM

Hello Litto and all interested parties. I was there at the beginning of CM - my vinyl album Tripping Upstairs with Tom Napper was CM002.
I've since become a bit experienced at the technical side of the recording game.
Like everyone else here, I have opinions and observations about Bulmer, Leader, viability of CD releases, relative merits of various early folk labels and so on. I'll be glad to have an email exchange with you about it, Litto, or even meet up for a chat. Like many parties involved in this matter, I'm in West Yorkshire.
All the best, Alistair [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:14 PM

As I recall, folks here bitched just as loudly when he did release some.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:51 PM

And what kind of releases were they, Dick?

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:19 PM

The releases were, and are CD-Rs. So what?

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 07:23 PM

So they were not properly remastered re-releases on proper CDs and they were not properly packaged with proper inserts and there were no royalties for the artist. That's so what, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:20 PM

THe question of royalties has to to with contracts, and has nothing at all to do with whether it's a "proper" CD or a CD-R. I agree, it would be nice if they were re-mastered (though they're certainly quite listenable), and I miss the notes, but they're certainly available, which, IMO is a hell of a lot better than not having them available.
And wotinhell is a "proper" insert?

If you want to complain about Bulmer, you might look at his actions in preventing Free Reed from using the Bellamy material they had included in Wake the Vaulted Echoes.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,raymond greenoaken
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:34 AM

Where do we look, Dick? Can you shine a little light on it?

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:26 AM

Dick is quite right, the question of royalties (which seems to get people particularly exercised) is a contractual matter and it would make no difference if Bulmer were to release the albums. Not everything in his portfolio will be worth releasing, but there is clearly demand for some of them. But if he doesn't want to do it himself, he could sell the rights back to the artists.

Yes, the music is available - if you know that a particular album is part of his stable in the first place, and then only if you know how to track down Mr Bulmer to get in touch with him, as he seems to keep a low profile. When I want to buy a record I don't usually expect to have to carry out a search at Companies House to track down the record label, I expect to go into a shop or buy online. So it's a very restricted meaning of "available".

Secondly, the copies he supplies are on CD-R. Now that is indeed better than nothing, but a search on here will turn up a number of complaints about the quality. Proper CDs are now cheap to produce, putting sound files online even cheaper.

As things stand, everyone is losing. Artists are losing the opportunity to sell albums, fans are losing the opportunity to buy them, and Mr Bulmer is getting little or no return on his investment. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be improved for everyone.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Henry Farley.
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:47 AM

Bulmer and Sharpley not only own large numbers of recordings but through Celtic Music they are also publishers which means that every time a track from their vast catalogue is broadcast, and many still are they receive royalties, a percentage, usually 50% is paid to the artist, this is not done. Were Bulmer to relinquish rights to these recordings this income would be lost. Neil Sharpley is clever enough to know that the artists in question do not have the money to challenge them through the courts.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:07 PM

He does not have to relinquish rights, he could negotiate deals with the artists which would benefit both parties.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:26 PM

There is a tendency to vastly overtate the amount of money involved in folk CDs. First of all, royallties typically are about 15%. Secondly sales of folk CDs, with very few exceptions, alre almost exclusively limited to sales made by performers at places where they're performing.
    Searching for a CD doesn't necessarily involve searching through each publisher's catalog---that's what retailers (including CAMSCO) are for.
    And, regarding durability of CD-Rs, I can only speak for my own business, but CD-Rs carry the same warranty a pressed CDs.
    Lastly, at least one major folk CD publisher in the UK (as well as 2 major folk publishers in the US) produce CD-Rs. It's the only feasible way to supply a small (and diminishing) market.Complaining tht they're not "proper CDs is like complaining thet CDs aren't "proper" LPs.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:35 PM

it is not just about royalties it is about having control over material THAT INVOLVED LOTS OF BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS,
I would definitely benefit from having the Mexborough recordings issued plus Cheating the Tide with Martin Carthy, even if it was ONLY from the point of publicity.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM

Sadly, most contracts written in the 60s and 70s relinquished all such control, Permanently.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,CJ
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:56 PM

CDrs are not as long lasting as CDs. When you buy a CDr from C# House they recommend you make a copy onto your hard drive sooner rather than later.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 06:46 PM

CD-Rs are for temporary storage only. You can run off a hundred for about ten quid from a batch of blanks you bought at Asda. And stick 'em in covers you bought for a quid for 70 in the Pound Shop. Pretending you're rereleasing an album by releasing it on CD-R is taking the piss. As for royalties, Dick, I don't give a monkey's bloody mickey whether the artist gets 15p or 15 grand as long as the principle of recompensing the artist is honoured. Principle, Dick.

And come on, make a case that Noah's Ark Trap would not be commercially viable. Ferchrissake!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

The question of royalties is a red herring. As has been pointed out, under the terms of the contracts the artists wouldn't be entitled to royalties even if the albums were released. However, not only is Bulmer not releasing the albums himself, he appears to be unwilling to negotiate with artists who would like the opportunity to re-release their own material. For some of these, this would be a small but important contribution to their income. If he doesn't want to exploit his assets himself, his refusal to allow them to benefit from their own work strikes many as morally wrong.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:04 PM

Whaddya mean, "strikes many"? It bloody well is morally wrong.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM

Steve. You're wrong, I make no case for Bulmer's ethics or morality, but hi is releasing some of the albums, if not in the form that suits you.And I've encountered nothing about CD-Rs that limits them to temporary storage. The low cost of producing CD-Rs is what makes it possible to satisfy what is actually a tiny market. I have no Idea how well Noah's Ark Trap would sell (I'd buy it), but I do know that, in the US, at least, I've sold a half-dozen copies of Unearthed since it's been released.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:51 PM

And how many copies of Unearthed have sold altogether? I have it and I know of at least one other bloke who has it. I live in the middle of nowhere yet I already know a third as many people who have it as the 300 million in the US who you've failed to sell it to.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:08 PM

If you have a vested commercial interest in selling CDr products
then they are bloody marvellous !!!

But for the rest of us,
we are all too aware of CDr limitations as a reliable long term, or even medium term, storage media.


Though surely 'debate' about the 'merits' of CDr is just a distraction from the main topic
of this thread.....???

Sadly, stubborn bitter petty spiteful wrangling about disputed ownership rights
is all too common a factor
preventing release of cherished 'vintage' recorded music & movies.
Often persisting for far too long after the artists are deceased
and master tapes & negatives have perished from neglect & poor storage conditions,
or mean spirited wilful destruction.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:14 AM

Let's accept that Mr Bulmer is acting entirely lawfully. He owns the assets, it's up to him what he does with them. As I understand it, he cannot yet be required to return the rights to the original artists if he doesn't want to make use of them himself.

Let us also accept that under the terms of the original contracts the original artists will receive no royalties if the albums are released. It may have been naive of them, but they signed the contracts and must live with the consequences.

However:

1) When one of a record label's principal artists suffers a life-changing accident and loses his livelihood, one would expect that most record labels would look beyond the small print of the contract and try to help. Especially if they have no intention of releasing his albums themselves.

Nic Jones is perhaps an extreme example, but we've heard from other artists who would be glad of the chance to sell some of the old recordings. And it's not just about money - a recording represents a huge commitment of time and emotional effort, and artists want to see those albums available and to be able to sell them at gigs or through their websites. So why won't Bulmer deal with them to allow this to happen?

2) Bill Leader's recordings represented some of the most important developments in folk music of their time, as well as a lot of significant source recordings. Whilst those recordings are not "lost", in the sense that there must be many original copies out there, it is a matter of regret that they are not more widely available. If it is not worth releasing them as CDs, it is very cheap to put them online.

3) Bulmer's attitude makes no commercial sense to anyone. With a few exceptions, he won't exploit them himself, and he won't make them available to others. That's a lose-lose all round.

4) In doing so, he has completely trashed his own reputation on the folk scene.

The question no one seems to be able to get an answer to is, why?

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 07:39 AM

There is a tendency to vastly overtate the amount of money involved in folk CDs.

True.

First of all, royallties typically are about 15%.

That's the industry model. Over the past 30 odd years, in the UK at least, plenty of small labels have used the 50/50 profit share approach pioneered by the likes of Rough Trade. The label recoups its investment and splits the profits with the artists. This usually doesn't amount to much money, though...

Secondly sales of folk CDs, with very few exceptions, alre almost exclusively limited to sales made by performers at places where they're performing.

Nearly all the albums my label has released have been sold online or via record shops. A minority of sales have been at gigs. I accept that maay not be typical, but it's true.

Searching for a CD doesn't necessarily involve searching through each publisher's catalog---that's what retailers (including CAMSCO) are for.

A quick scout of the internet reveals that very few retailers stock CM product.

And, regarding durability of CD-Rs, I can only speak for my own business, but CD-Rs carry the same warranty a pressed CDs.

There's not really any excuse to use CDrs when glass mastered CDs are available in runs of as little as 100. And not only should CDrs be clearly identified as such, it shouldn't be left to responsible retailers to do this but should be the job of the record label.

Lastly, at least one major folk CD publisher in the UK (as well as 2 major folk publishers in the US) produce CD-Rs.

That's fine as long as they are not trying to pass them off as glass mastered CDs. I've seen CM reissues and there is no indication anywhere on the disc or packaging that these are CDrs. This omission is dishonest.

It's the only feasible way to supply a small (and diminishing) market.

No it's not. The manufacturer I use does runs of glass mastered CDs starting at 100 copies. You can even get a run of vinyl albums from 100 copies. Making material available via a download retailer such as Bandcamp has never been easier. The expense - apart from your time - is in getting the masters (or the vinyl) professionally digitised. There are services that do this that charge a low enough fee to make even a potentially low selling reissue potentially viable over time.

Complaining tht they're not "proper CDs is like complaining thet CDs aren't "proper" LPs

No it's not. A CDr is not a glass mastered CD. I've absolutely no problem with people selling them, and have bought loads myself over the years, but they need to be above board about it. It helps the customer make an informed choice about what they spend their money on.

And unlike a CD, I always make a digital back up of any CDr I buy because I've had too many crap out on me.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Jim Moray
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:08 AM

A small point before I sink into the ether again...

I don't think the use of CDRs rather than glass mastered CDs on CM product is about cost, I think it's because CDRs are exempt from needing an MCPS licence. In other words it's a further attempt to avoid mechanical royalties.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:14 AM

Thanks for the heads up on MCPS Jim, an interesting point given the large number of CD-R products that I've seen this year!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:17 AM

Jim - succinct, to the point and spot on!

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: GUEST,Jenny.
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:44 AM

Avoiding paying royalties is what it's all about, what do you think Bulmer lives on.

Subject: RE: Bill Leader/Dave Bulmer
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:49 PM

Is that correct about MCPS? I don't see why the media should make a difference. There are different rates for music on DVDs, downloads etc but if copyright music is used then royalties are payable.

The MCPS AP2 application doesn't distinguish CD from CD-R, and manufacturers say they require a MCPS certificate for all audio products, whether CD-Rs or 'proper' CDs. There is a Limited Manufacture Licence for less than 1000 units, but this applies whether its on CD, LP or cassette.

So far as I am aware the only exemptions from royalties are where you are recording your own material, or the material isn't controlled by MCPS (in which case you have to agree terms direct with the rights holder).

I'm happy to proved wrong on this.

Bulmer doesn't need to go through these hoops to avoid royalties due to the terms of the original contracts signed by the artists (which in fairness were not entered into with him, he has just acquired the rights)