Pink Floyd wins court fight on downloads
Rock band Pink Floyd has won a court battle against downtrodden EMI that may force the record company to stop selling the band's individual songs as downloads, according to reports.
The lobby at EMI's New York headquarters.
(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET)The U.K.'s High Court ruled that EMI Music isn't entitled to exploit individual recordings via the Web or any other distribution means without Pink Floyd's consent, according to a story by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Pink Floyd charged in its suit that the financially troubled label violated its contract by selling individual songs. The label countered that the clause in the contract that prohibited those song sales applied only to physical DVDs or albums.
EMI denied that the court's decision would require it to stop selling Pink Floyd's individual songs on iTunes, Amazon or any other Web music service.
"Today's judgment does not require EMI to cease making Pink Floyd's catalog available as single track downloads," EMI said in a statement. "EMI continues to sell Pink Floyd's music digitally and in other formats."
The band's most recent contract was signed prior to the rise of digital music, according to the BBC and a report in The Associated Press.
The BBC's story didn't make it clear whether the famed rock band, known for albums such as The Wall (from 1979) and The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), is opposed to the sale of individual songs on the Web or to the narrower point of EMI doing so without its permission. What is also unclear is how many acts this decision could affect in the future.
The High Court fined EMI $60,000, with an additional fine to be decided later, the BBC reported. Pink Floyd also objected to the way EMI paid royalties for downloads.
Corrected at 8:53 a.m. PST: This story incorrectly stated how the court's decision will affect EMI. It is unclear whether the label will be forced to stop selling individual song downloads of Pink Floyd's music.
Updated 8:50 a.m. PST:to include EMI statement.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at @sandoCNET. 
court battle
The joy of Pink Floyd is in listening to the albums in their entirety. It's so strange for me to hear a Pink Floyd song on the radio and not hear the next track. It would be like picking up a book, reading one chapter somewhere in the middle and then picking up a different book. It may have been a really good chapter, but you miss out on what made it a really great book or album in this case. The Wall should be listened to from start to finish. Well that's just my personal opinion. Very few albums are like that, so it's nice when a band puts time and effort into an album that you can feel the flow one track to the next instead of a hosh posh mix of songs just thrown on there in no apparent order.
Their loss - and everyone's loss (except for the lawyers of course)
And no, I don't particularly care about Pink Floyd.
More power to 'em. It should be the artist's choice how the tracks are sold, not EMI's, or Apple's or anyone else. If they can make more money selling individual songs, once again, that should be the artist's choice.
True. However it's up to me as the buyer to decide how I'd like to buy. In the case of Pink Floyd, it's by the song. In some books it's the 1st of the triligy, or perhaps the First 3, but not hte last 3 of a 6 part series.
Pink Floyd won and I'm glat they did. It doesnt' change that I'd rather buy what I like and since there are a lot more songs that I like that I don't have than I can afford, I'll focus elsewhere.
Up to you as a buyer? Don't think so. Up to the seller to decide on how they want to sell their products. If your preferred option isn't there, to bad. Now if the seller sees a demand for an option that they don't provide, they may add this option but still the seller's decision.
What people do illegally is, well, illegal. Pink FLoyd has the right to weight the art/profit ratio and decide how they want to sell their art. So what if someone downloads individual track illegally. It makes no difference. PF's art. Take it or leave it (legally).
Good on PF for calling EMI out on this and btw - I totally agree with moordrake's comment!
Welcome my son,...to the Machine.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.
8-)
B) This case was heard in the UK. The RIAA is AMERICAN.
HOWEVER, whether I think it's bunk or not is irrelevant. As the creator of the work, they have the right to control how the product is distributed. Now, they can choose to delegate that right to someone else (the labels) or keep it themselves, but ultimately, the artist chooses to license or not to license their work, so I support them 100%.
I do, however, think it's going to cost them sales. Most Pink Floyd fans already have all their music. The only new revenues will come from people just learning about them - and those newbies are more likely to buy a single song for $0.99 and then buy more if they like it than to spend $9.99 or more for the full album. But, as I said, it's their choice.
Artists definitely make more money when they sell a whole album as opposed to just one track at a time, so what if more artists do this? A dwindling amount of single songs sold at Amazon and iTunes would mean a heavy increase in the amount of songs downloaded illegally. We've already seen it in the past, people don't want to pay $9.99 for a song they like, they want to pay $0.99.
So bravo, Pink Floyd, for shooting yourselves in the foot. Money; nobody's giving it away, but they're also not throwing it away.
You may not be aware of this, but PF have been around for a little while now, and are one of the most universally lauded bands in history. Something tells me that they knew what they were doing and are happy that fewer people will buy single songs. They are artists, and have decided that the works they have created shuold only be presented in a certain way. May be a shock to you, but there are a lot of credible artists out there who are more concerned with integrity rather than $$$.
Maybe they should have called you and asked your advice, but between Gilmour, Waters et al I get the feeling they were all over this one.
oh, and what does 'presidence' mean?
This is simple economics. The more you charge for a good or service, the less people will buy that good or service. And since music from iTunes, Amazon and torrents are perfect substitutes, those priced out of buying single songs by having to pay for the whole album may look for ways to download the media without paying. That most certainly is shooting yourself in the foot.
How long before other artists follow suit? It's a dangerous slope that could end up forcing Amazon, iTunes and other digital media retailers to sell albums instead of single songs.
You really think this is about preserving art? That they want whole albums to stay whole? If they're going to go as far as controlling how you buy their music, they should take it to the next logical conclusion and control how you listen to the music too. So why have tracks at all? If each song is supposed to be a part of a whole collection, then just sell the whole, continuous collection.
Your argument makes sense when it's something like a painting or a sculpture, but the same can hardly be said about albums. I've heard single Pink Floyd songs played on the radio, on television and in movies. I've even heard segments of their songs played on shows and adverts! Where's the integrity there?
No, this has little to do with integrity and everything to do with the loss of money accompanied by selling single songs. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just drinking kool-aid. But it's the band's right to do what they want with their music. Just like it's my right to throw their CD's in the garbage where they belong.
My, how times have changed. :-(
Why do they do this? Because music yesterday is like music today. There are good songs, there are bad songs. I love Jefferson Airplane, but I wouldn't buy more than Somebody To Love, White Rabbit, DCBA 25 and 3/5ths of a Mile in 10 Seconds.
The reason you feel yesterday's music was better is a well documented phenomenon in all people called nostalgia.
EMI...it's an unlimited supply
EMI TPhhhtph!!!
*Taps microphone*
Is There Anybody Out There?
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
- by tjrieves March 12, 2010 9:26 AM PST
- I do like the fact that Pink Floyd won the case, but don't you think that EMI is basically spitting in everybody's faces by saying that they don't need to stop despite the somewhat hefty fine?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (46 Comments)