Pink Floyd Win EMI Court Battle

[Blazes]

entertainment



Pink Floyd win EMI court battle over online sales




Pink Floyd, pictured in 1967, the year they signed to EMI

Pink Floyd have won a High Court battle to stop their record label EMI selling individual songs online.
The rock legends, signed to EMI since 1967, said their contract meant their albums could not be split up without their permission.
A judge agreed, saying the contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums".
EMI has been ordered to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs, with a further fine to be decided.
The group, whose latest contract was signed before download stores like iTunes appeared, also disputed the way royalties for digital sales were calculated.
In court, Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt declared that the contract means EMI is not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.
The band largely avoided releasing singles during their career, instead preferring fans to listen to entire albums such as Dark Side of the Moon, which has sold more than 35 million copies around the world.


Pink Floyd tracks have been available on download stores like iTunes

Earlier this week, Robert Howe QC, appearing for the group, said the the band's deal with EMI stipulated that their "seamless" albums should not be split up and that they "wanted to retain artistic control".
He said it would have been "a very odd result" if band members were able to control exactly how their music was sold as a physical product but there was "a free-for-all with no limitation on online distribution".
Elizabeth Jones QC, appearing for EMI, disagreed and said the word "record" in the band's contract "plainly applies to the physical thing - there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution".
The band were not present to hear the judgment at the High Court in London.
The issue of selling individual tracks online has been a thorny one for many artists, who want their albums to be seen as complete works. Bands also receive less money if fans pick and choose tracks instead of buying a full suite of songs.
It is believed to be one reason why The Beatles - whose catalogue is also owned by EMI - have not appeared in download stores like iTunes.
Garth Brooks and AC/DC are among the others who have objected to their albums being split up.

[eryque]

Originally Posted by Blazes

Garth Brooks and AC/DC are among the others who have objected to their albums being split up.

Yeah, those are two artists who are full of artistic integrity and whose albums absolutely must remain in tact conceptually.

[tonemeister20]

Pink Floyd Lps were meant to be an experience and as such should not be broken into singles. But in the case of the Beatles, they put out single 45s, some of which did not appear on the lps that were current such as strawberry fields and sgt pepper which actually forced you to by both. In addition they have had numerous compilation lps such as "love songs", "ones" etc so their philosophy or argument does not have merit to me.
However I completely agree with the Pink Floyd verdict.

[jjboogie]

EMI is constantly in lawsuits......I can't stand those guys! They have put so many peoples lives in misery.

[pickaguitar]

I'm a die hard Floyd fan but I disagree with them here. Singles should be available imo

[flume]

Wonderful news. The artist's discretion on single releases should be a no-brainer.

It's no secret that single song downloading has drastically reduced artist income.

Illegal downloading even more so to restate the obvious.

[jhvox]

I was driving yesterday and only had time to listen to "Sheep" from the "Animals" album. Should I get a lawyer?

[dlacx]

Does that mean we should not be able to listen to the "single" on the radio?

Although, I do agree with the band's concept and believe they have the right to do with their music what they want.

[greeny]

I can't see that EMI had a leg to stand on here. There was a clear clause that their records could not be split up and sold as individuals. To try to argue that digital downloads were not records is just playing with semantics, and there could be little dispute over the intent of the clause.

I'm not sure what clauses may have been included in AC/DC or Beatles albums.

[ShavenYak]

Originally Posted by pickaguitar

I'm a die hard Floyd fan but I disagree with them here. Singles should be available imo

Perhaps some of them will be, but if the contract says it's up to the band to decide, that's the way it should be.

[zep41]

Originally Posted by dlacx

Does that mean we should not be able to listen to the "single" on the radio?

Although, I do agree with the band's concept and believe they have the right to do with their music what they want.

I see your point -- and the other guy's point about driving and only listening to "sheep." But we are talking about actual sales of a piece of music here.

If a band insists that their music only be SOLD as albums, then that is their discretion. They should be fully granted that discretion. What we hear on the radio or what we only have time to listen to is irrelevant -- the fact is if you hear a song you like on the radio and want to get it, Pink Floyd insists you get it by buying their full album. If you only have time to listen to one of those tracks -- still, you BOUGHT the album as a whole.

That is Pink Floyd's business and they should be entitled to that. Any band should be entitled to that, if they wish to do business that way.

[dark_rainbow]

good thing I downloaded "Comfortably Numb" last night

[enocaster]

Originally Posted by jjboogie

EMI is constantly in lawsuits......I can't stand those guys! They have put so many peoples lives in misery.

Word. Pink Floyd has probably made EMI over a billion dollars – don't make them sue you. They should be kissing their asses.

[pbradt]

Originally Posted by eryque

Yeah, those are two artists who are full of artistic integrity and whose albums absolutely must remain in tact conceptually.

That's not the point - the point is, they got the stipulation in the contract and the record company should be forced to abide by the terms of the contract.

[ReddRanger]

Originally Posted by pickaguitar

I'm a die hard Floyd fan but I disagree with them here. Singles should be available imo

As a fan, it’s kind of a bummer not to be able to buy the individual tracks.

However, I stand by them (or any artist) in defending their right to do as they wish with their music in accordance with their contract.