Pink Floyd win court battle stopping their tracks being sold individually

[cthrubuoy]

https://www.musicrooms.net/rock/22037-pink-floyd-win-ruling-against-emi.html3

Pink Floyd have won a court battle stopping their tracks being sold individually online.

The psychedelic band had argued a clause in their record contract should prevent their record company, EMI, from selling songs separately from their full albums online.

At the time the band last signed their contract, 1999, online distribution was in its nascent stages, but has since grown to become the most popular method of people buying new music.

The band's lawyer, Robert Howe QC, said the lawsuit was brought by the 'Another Brick In The Wall' group because they wanted to "know where they stand as a matter of contract,'' and questioned EMI's ''entitlement to sell individual tracks, or indeed any tracks, otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums," saying they believed they were "wrongly exploiting" the band.

Pink Floyd initially won the case at Britain's High Court in March, although it was appealed by the record label, which is currently facing huge financial trouble.

However, the Court Of Appeal ruled again ruled in the band's favour on Tuesday (14.12.10).

During the court case, much of Pink Floyd's music has been available through download sites, such as iTunes, individually.

The case is also part of a larger dispute between the band and EMI, as the rockers allege they are owed over $15 million in unpaid royalties from sales between 2002 and 2007.

Pink Floyd - whose album 'Dark Side of the Moon' is one of the biggest selling of all time - signed with EMI in 1967 and are the label's second most successful artist after The Beatles, although they are presently defunct.

Struggling record company EMI reported in February it made a £1.5 billion pre-tax loss in 2009.

[Portrucci]

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

[cthrubuoy]

Exactly my thoughts.

[Global Laziness]

I'm interested to see if this sets any sort of precedent down the line.

[ZKX-2099]

Snobby prog ass holes giving prog fans bad images.

[yeshaberto]

not in favor for most bands, but clearly PF is the exception

[ariich]

"Page Not Found"



Also, didn't this happen like a year ago?

[cthrubuoy]

URL works and the doesn't work intermittently. WTF?

Article is listed at 16/12/2010 though

[Fluffy Lothario]

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

There's barely a single PF album where I like every track. If I had to listen to PF as full albums, Animals and Piper are probably the only albums I'd put on at all.

The funny thing is, I actually did buy quite a few of their albums, but once I realised how much of a mixed bag most of them were, I gave the CDs away and have chopped them to bits on my iTunes. For example, the Wall, from which I kept ten tracks. WYWH, from which I kept two. Pulse, from which I ended up keeping two. I even did it to Dark Side at one point, and kept about three or four tracks, but the friend who I gave the CD away to wanted to listen to the full album on my iTunes off my laptop at one point, so he put the full album back on there.

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

[Sigz]

It's totally their right to do so, but frankly I don't agree with it. I really don't see what's wrong with enjoying an artist's work in a way different than what they intended, and I don't understand why an artist would want to force that on people.

[SPNKr]

Fuck The Man. I think Pink Floyd won fair and square.

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

+1

[wolfking]

Casual fans will just buy Echoes (best of) anyway.

[Super Dude]

I just felt a disturbance in the Force...as if a million voices cried out, and were suddenly silenced.  I fear something terrible has happened.

[ZBomber]

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

This. Call me a "prog snob" if you will, but if Pink Floyd want to keep their music within the context of an album, then I think they should be able to.

[Orbert]

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

It's not because it's the "great holy Pink Floyd" -- it's because they took a lot of care to present their albums as cohesive, thematic works.  For most bands, albums are just collections of songs, each individual, and it doesn't much matter what order you play them in.  Pink Floyd albums have a flow to them, most songs segue together, and they feel that it's the only proper way to listen to them.

[Super Dude]

And they want the greater royalties that come with full album purchases.  No matter how much an artist you may be, you can't deny the money is probably a large contributor as well.

[robwebster]

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

It's not because it's the "great holy Pink Floyd" -- it's because they took a lot of care to present their albums as cohesive, thematic works.  For most bands, albums are just collections of songs, each individual, and it doesn't much matter what order you play them in.  Pink Floyd albums have a flow to them, most songs segue together, and they feel that it's the only proper way to listen to them.

Fair doos. But on the other hand, look at big hits like Another Brick in the Wall or Money. Don't think they'd have even half of the level of success they do if it weren't for a couple of their tracks being thrown around on their own.

Totally behind the album as a format. Think it's f'ing brilliant. But if someone only really wants to listen to - say - Wish You Were Here (the track), I can't really see the logic in saying "No. Buy the album." 'Course, before digital music retailers, they wouldn't've had much choice. But nowadays they do - and it seems possibly a wee bit futile to rein that back in.

This decision basically means that instead of having the choice between "buying a single track" and "buying the album," casual Pink Floyd listeners now have to instead choose between "illegally downloading a single track" and "buying the album." Think it should really be up to the listener. Might not be the way I'd personally choose to listen to Dark Side of the Moon, but I have no issue with the audience enjoying it in whichever way they like. They're the only people who are gonna buy it - they can play it backwards for all I care.

(Actually, knowing Pink Floyd fans, many probably do.)

[Fluffy Lothario]

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

It's not because it's the "great holy Pink Floyd" -- it's because they took a lot of care to present their albums as cohesive, thematic works.  For most bands, albums are just collections of songs, each individual, and it doesn't much matter what order you play them in.  Pink Floyd albums have a flow to them, most songs segue together, and they feel that it's the only proper way to listen to them.

Most albums by most half-decent artists have their tracks ordered for the best effect. The fact that Pink Floyd were more obvious about it, and (possibly) put in a little more effort, makes no difference, not to me, at least. You could make the same argument about almost any band.

[skydivingninja]

I really don't see what's wrong with enjoying an artist's work in a way different than what they intended, and I don't understand why an artist would want to force that on people.

This.  But if it was in a contract that they signed I guess they were in the right.  It IS kind of annoying to look at someone's iPod and just see "We Don't Need No Education" and maybe even "Money," though.  I'm going to base this next thought on absolutely nothing: it could be that Pink Floyd (what's left of them) are trying to maintain a reputation of being more than just a few classic rock radio staples.

Anyone else find it funny how, forty years later, EMI's most popular acts are STILL The Beatles and Pink Floyd?

[darkshade]

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

There's barely a single PF album where I like every track. If I had to listen to PF as full albums, Animals and Piper are probably the only albums I'd put on at all.

The funny thing is, I actually did buy quite a few of their albums, but once I realised how much of a mixed bag most of them were, I gave the CDs away and have chopped them to bits on my iTunes. For example, the Wall, from which I kept ten tracks. WYWH, from which I kept two. Pulse, from which I ended up keeping two. I even did it to Dark Side at one point, and kept about three or four tracks, but the friend who I gave the CD away to wanted to listen to the full album on my iTunes off my laptop at one point, so he put the full album back on there.

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

dont get rid of tracks. you never know when you might one day appreciate the whole album, especially when it comes to The Pink Floyd

[Nick]

I think this can be broken down quite simply.

Pink Floyd are not fools and realize that in order to sell more albums they need to promote themselves, and the best way to do that is offering parts of an album to radio stations for play. However beyond that point EMI and Pink Floyd had signed a contract stating that they were not allowed to sell individual songs. From Pink Floyd's end this makes sense as once people had enjoyed part of an album they wanted them to go out and buy a complete studio album in order to fully appreciate their work of art, perfectly reasonable.

On the labels end it was foolish to breech a contract and are now simply being held accountable. While I personally like Pink Floyd holding to their guns on this, despite what you feel on the subject they have EVERY RIGHT per their contract to make it that tracks are not available individually.

Some may argue that this will cause people to illegally obtain tracks or blow off Pink Floyd completely, and while this may be true I'm sure the band realizes it and doesn't care that a few will walk away if it means others will start buying and listening to the albums. Much like with Rush, Pink Floyd has many casual fans, but they also have a ton of die-hard fans who are very keen to appreciate that the band is preserving art for art's sake.

[Orbert]

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

It's not because it's the "great holy Pink Floyd" -- it's because they took a lot of care to present their albums as cohesive, thematic works.  For most bands, albums are just collections of songs, each individual, and it doesn't much matter what order you play them in.  Pink Floyd albums have a flow to them, most songs segue together, and they feel that it's the only proper way to listen to them.

Most albums by most half-decent artists have their tracks ordered for the best effect. The fact that Pink Floyd were more obvious about it, and (possibly) put in a little more effort, makes no difference, not to me, at least. You could make the same argument about almost any band.

I get that you're not a big fan, and I get that you're not impressed by the fact that almost every Pink Floyd album is a concept album.  But you're either intentionally misinterpreting the situation, or just stupid, and I don't think you're stupid.  I've seen enough of your posts to know better.  It's not about the track order, it's about how the songs fit into a larger work.  I never even mentioned track order; you did.

If you pick up a book, open it, and read Chapter 7, you might get something out of it.  You might be able to admire the prose, the attention to detail, maybe even be impressed by the big words; but there's a really good chance that you won't understand the whole book, and similarly, that the book won't really work if you remove Chapter 7.  This is not because you didn't read the chapters in order; it is because you didn't read the whole book to understand the one chapter you did read.

[contest_sanity]

If PF's motivation on this is mainly financial, then that makes some sense.  However, if it is supposedly for "artistic" reasons, then it seems like to me they would have had to refuse to let their individual tracks be played on the radio too, since they would not be heard as intended as part of the album.  Of course, that wouldn't make much sense if you're trying to promote yourself, but if you really want people to only hear your albums, then why is radio ok but not individual tracks on itunes?     

[Nick]

If PF's motivation on this is mainly financial, then that makes some sense.  However, if it is supposedly for "artistic" reasons, then it seems like to me they would have had to refuse to let their individual tracks be played on the radio too, since they would not be heard as intended as part of the album.  Of course, that wouldn't make much sense if you're trying to promote yourself, but if you really want people to only hear your albums, then why is radio ok but not individual tracks on itunes?     

It's one thing to give out a free sample of something and another thing to sell that sample which causes people to forgo the overall product.

[contest_sanity]

If PF's motivation on this is mainly financial, then that makes some sense.  However, if it is supposedly for "artistic" reasons, then it seems like to me they would have had to refuse to let their individual tracks be played on the radio too, since they would not be heard as intended as part of the album.  Of course, that wouldn't make much sense if you're trying to promote yourself, but if you really want people to only hear your albums, then why is radio ok but not individual tracks on itunes?     

It's one thing to give out a free sample of something and another thing to sell that sample which causes people to forgo the overall product.

Oh, I agree if we are talking about promotion.  Sure, that makes perfect sense.  But if you're making an "artistic" argument that your songs can only be understood and appreciated within the context of their albums, then you're betraying that very principle if you allow anyone to hear individual songs for any reason whatsoever (free sample included).  And I'm not even saying that Pink Floyd is making this type of argument, but it seems like a lot of people are giving them credit for defending their "art" in this way.

EDIT: let me risk an analogy.  If I write a book of poetry and someone asks to see a poem from it, I have every right to say, as an artist, "well, you have to read the entire collection to get the full effect.  I'm sorry, I can't let you see just one poem."  Fine.  But if I then walk to the radio station and have them read a single poem on the radio for promotional purposes, that seems like a contradiction.

[Ben_Jamin]

But it doesn't work like that. Its the labels that promote, not the bands. The book of poetry is a themeatic piece, like The Raven or Dante's Inferno, What you described are regular poems not connected at all. Its good they're trying to bring back the times when albums were listened to in full.

[contest_sanity]

Well, that's a good point about bands not doing all the promotion themselves; clearly, the label does do the bulk of it.  I guess as an artist if you wanted to maintain total artistic control on how things were heard, you'd have to self-release everything.  However, I think that even in a conceptual album, if you separately title the movements, you're begging for them to possibly be seen as individual songs.  Same thing with radio play.

Anyway, whatever is in their contract has to be upheld, so I guess this is all a moo point: like a cow's opinion, it just doesn't matter.

[Ben_Jamin]

yup. EMI broke it and now PF want the royalties, I would to.

[Fluffy Lothario]

If the band as artists want people to buy their music as full albums, fair enough, it's their right, but I'm not gonna pretend it makes any more sense or is more justified just because it's coming from the great holy Pink Floyd.

It's not because it's the "great holy Pink Floyd" -- it's because they took a lot of care to present their albums as cohesive, thematic works.  For most bands, albums are just collections of songs, each individual, and it doesn't much matter what order you play them in.  Pink Floyd albums have a flow to them, most songs segue together, and they feel that it's the only proper way to listen to them.

Most albums by most half-decent artists have their tracks ordered for the best effect. The fact that Pink Floyd were more obvious about it, and (possibly) put in a little more effort, makes no difference, not to me, at least. You could make the same argument about almost any band.

I get that you're not a big fan, and I get that you're not impressed by the fact that almost every Pink Floyd album is a concept album.  But you're either intentionally misinterpreting the situation, or just stupid, and I don't think you're stupid.  I've seen enough of your posts to know better.  It's not about the track order, it's about how the songs fit into a larger work.  I never even mentioned track order; you did.

If you pick up a book, open it, and read Chapter 7, you might get something out of it.  You might be able to admire the prose, the attention to detail, maybe even be impressed by the big words; but there's a really good chance that you won't understand the whole book, and similarly, that the book won't really work if you remove Chapter 7.  This is not because you didn't read the chapters in order; it is because you didn't read the whole book to understand the one chapter you did read.

I can see why that analogy would apply to an extent on, for example, the Wall, or Animals, the albums with strong lyrical unity. Although even there, the comparison of book to concept album doesn't really work. I'd rather listen to the songs on many PF albums in isolation, or in relative ignorance of the arch of the concept. In fact, I find the concept of many of PF's albums actually detracts from the album and its songs. I'm not trying to argue that's the 'right' way to listen to a PF album, but there are fans who do want to hear the whole album, and there are others who don't. I'd struggle to think of a story where some people want to read the whole thing, but some people would prefer to read Chapter 7 when they skipped Chapter 6, or are reading without paying attention to the plot at all.

But at any rate, I don't think there's anything that a person who hasn't heard the first four tracks of Dark Side can't 'get' from Great Gig in the Sky that a person who has heard them can (or in case it seems I just picked a song without lyrics, Money). Or if there is, it's miniscule, something as small as a sense of there having been four tracks before it and it being somewhere mid-album, which is my point.

[Marvellous G]

I'm on a prog forum so I'll be shot down here, but it just seems pretentious of them to not let their fans enjoy their work however they want in favour of a (less convenient) show of driving home what an awesome singular experience their albums are. Sure, I do personally think DSOTM should only be listened to in one go, but why should Pink Floyd force people to do so, regardless of how necessary they might think it is?

Also Orbert, I don't really agree with your book analogy, as you can still easily get enjoyment out of DSOTM as a casual listener by just putting on, say, Money, if you have a craving for it, which you can't really do with a random chapter from the middle of a book.

I'm against this move.

[Orbert]

There are definitely songs which are fine on their own, but I guess I was thinking more of tracks like "Vera" or "The Happiest Days of our Lives."  People talk about all the "filler" tracks on The Wall, but those are like chapters from a book or scenes from a movie.  They weren't really meant to stand alone in the first place.  Even things like "Any Colour You Like" -- it's a sweet jam, but the progression is directly from "Breathe" and the track itself doesn't end so much as it leads into the closing tracks of the album. 

[SPNKr]

Good on them. They made the recordings as albums and the respective songs only fully make sense in the context of their placement in the album. I don't shed a tear for the guy trying to buy Wish You Were Here (song) cause he heard it on the radio. Buy the bloody album, it's sure as hell worth it 

This. Call me a "prog snob" if you will, but if Pink Floyd want to keep their music within the context of an album, then I think they should be able to.

Prog snob.

[Marvellous G]

There are definitely songs which are fine on their own, but I guess I was thinking more of tracks like "Vera" or "The Happiest Days of our Lives."  People talk about all the "filler" tracks on The Wall, but those are like chapters from a book or scenes from a movie.  They weren't really meant to stand alone in the first place.  Even things like "Any Colour You Like" -- it's a sweet jam, but the progression is directly from "Breathe" and the track itself doesn't end so much as it leads into the closing tracks of the album. 

But the single tracks that most people will want to be buying aren't going to be these filler songs, and they're getting 'punished' for just wanting to buy the singles most likely.

[skydivingninja]

To be honest, Pink Floyd really don't need to sell any more albums

[Jamariquay]

But which one's Pink?



It seems pretty straightforward to me. If it was in their contract, and EMI sold the songs individually anyway, then EMI was in breach of contract. However you want to listen to an album doesn't really enter into the equation here.