Pink Floyd wins battle with EMI over online sales

[Levee]

Pink Floyd wins battle with EMI over online sales

By JILL LAWLESS Associated Press Writer The Associated Press

Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:17 AM EST

LONDON (AP) — In a victory for the concept album, Britain's High Court on Thursday ordered record company EMI Group Ltd. to stop selling downloads of Pink Floyd tracks individually rather than as part of the band's original records.

The prog-rock group sued the music label, saying its contract prohibited selling the tracks "unbundled" from their original album setting.

Pink Floyd lawyer Robert Howe said the band was known for producing "seamless" pieces of music on albums like "Dark Side of the Moon," "The Division Bell" and "The Wall," and wanted to retain artistic control.

EMI claimed the clause in the band's contract — negotiated a decade ago, before the advent of iTunes and other online retailers — applied only to physical albums, not Internet sales.

Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected "the artistic integrity of the albums."

He ruled that 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 judge ordered EMI to pay the band's legal costs and said he would rule later on how much the company must pay in damages.

The judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band. That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.

A spokesman for EMI said the company was considering its response to the ruling.

The band's spokesman said Pink Floyd had no comment.

Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and became one of its most lucrative acts, with its back catalog outsold only by The Beatles.

Online sales make up an increasing portion of music companies' profits, and are a growing area of dispute.

The surviving members of The Beatles have yet to agree a deal to allow their music to be sold online.

Hard-rock band AC/DC also has withheld its music from iTunes, saying the group is not interested in selling individual tracks.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

I can see there point, almost any one can get there song on web download.

[Walter]

I'm glad that artists are still in control over how their music is delivered, at least the smart ones that put such provisions in their contracts.

[Electrophile]

Ordinarily I would not side with the artists in a case like this, but with Pink Floyd....they weren't a "singles" band. They were definitely an albums band, much like Led Zeppelin. They believed their music was best heard within the context of the album, rather than as individual tracks. I happen to agree. If you take a song like Sheep off of Animals and just put it in a random playlist, you lose the context of the song and what Roger was talking about.

So good for them for putting their foot down.

[Jahfin]

Wouldn't this be tantamount to not allowing a 45 rpm single to be released?

[Levee]

Wouldn't this be tantamount to not allowing a 45 rpm single to be released?

Hmm....good question Jahfin. And doesn't this lawsuit win set precedence for others to come forward claiming concept album?

[greenman]

Wouldn't this be tantamount to not allowing a 45 rpm single to be released?

Well there was a 10 year period when they didnt release them in the UK between Point Me At The Sky and Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 so its likely more than just a business decision,

A single by its very nature is a temporary product aswell, obviously most people will keep them but after a few months their normally unavailable where as individual downloads are always going to be out there.

[BIGDAN]

Artist 1

Record Label 0

"Ah caught you smiling at me, That's the way it should be,

Like a leaf is to a tree, so fine."

Regards, Danny

Edited March 14, 2010 by BIGDAN

[Electrophile]

Hmm....good question Jahfin. And doesn't this lawsuit win set precedence for others to come forward claiming concept album?

No, what it does is show that the artist controls how their music is disseminated, not the record label. Take the Beatles, for example. Their music still isn't available online because Paul and Ringo (the two surviving members) can't decide on how to go about making their vast catalog available that way. You can only buy Beatles music in a physical store. Or illegally download it.

Pink Floyd didn't want their albums chopped up into individual tracks when on iTunes or other online music retail sites, because they feel the music is best listened to and experienced through the album as a whole. Their original contract actually stipulated how they wanted their music distributed, but as it was made pre-internet, this kind of avenue wasn't mapped out. Other avenues of sale were, though. EMI tried to say that because nothing about internet sales were discussed, they should have the option of distributing it the way they want, but the courts said "I don't think so". It's a great precedent, but it has nothing to do with "concept albums".

[Walter]

Again, as was stated by Electrophile, the bands have to be smart enough to have that kind of control in their contracts with their labels. This is not carte blanche for all bands, just the one's who have stipulated as such.