This case
42.43.44.Secondly, the sleeve of the vinyl album provides LTEV’s full name, full address in Wallingford, its telephone number and website address. It also states that it is manufactured and distributed by Plastic Head and says that it was made under licence from Boogie Up Productions. The statement about manufacture by Plastic Head is not right, but Mr Beatty could not have arranged for the sleeve to be more open about Plastic Head, LTEV and the source of its licence. This was not the behaviour of a man who believed he was dealing in unlicensed ‘bootleg’ albums. 45.Thirdly, the CDs of the album had been sold for some time by Intergroove, apparently without complaint and both vinyl and CD versions were advertised openly by Plastic Head. 46.Fourthly, Mr Beatty had a substantial business in lawfully selling albums and would not risk his reputation by selling bootlegs. 47.Fifthly, Mr Beatty’s response to FTB’s complaint was the rapid and appropriate response of a man who honestly believed that he was selling licensed albums. Sales were promptly withdrawn. 48.In response Mr Muir Wood made these points. 49.First, he invited me to disbelieve Mr Beatty’s evidence that Intergroove had sold copies of Infinite in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. 50.Secondly, Mr Beatty was experienced enough in the business to realise that further investigation was necessary before he ceased to have reason to believe that the Infinite albums his company was selling were not licensed. 51.Thirdly, a reasonable person in Mr Beatty’s position would have expected to receive a master tape from a party offering a legitimate licence to make vinyl copies of Infinite. 52. I find Mr Colbey’s points more compelling than those of Mr Muir Wood, especially Mr Colbey’s first to third and fifth points. The fourth I think is neutral in that it assumes Mr Beatty was honest. It might be said that if Mr Beatty were dishonest he would be expected to conduct his business by profiting from unlawful sales of albums. 53.As to the third, I heard Mr Beatty give evidence. He said that Intergroove had sold Infinite albums since about 2010 without apparent complaint and there was no further evidence to suggest otherwise. I accept what Mr Beatty said. 54.With regard to Mr Muir Wood’s points, I have dealt with the first. As to the second, I am not sure what else Mr Beatty could reasonably have done. He believed that he was taking over from Intergroove in the lawful sales of Infinite and other albums and had received the response from MCPS referred to above. I attach no importance to the fact that LTEV made its copies of Infinite from a WAV file rather than a Master Tape. Mr Martin said that a WAV file could be a copy of anything – the Master Tape or a poor quality cassette recording. I infer that whatever had been copied to create the WAV file of Infinite supplied by Boogie Up to LTEV, Mr Beatty or a colleague was satisfied that it was of sufficiently good quality. It may in fact have been a copy of the Master Tape. 55.