Legendary prog-rockers Pink Floyd have won a landmark court ruling, which states that songs from the group's albums are not allowed to be sold separately online.
Unless Pink Floyd gives permission to EMI – its record company – to do so, only the bands albums will be made available for purchase on the web.
According to the judge who resided over the case, this is to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums".
The albums-only decision means that EMI will have to pay £40,000 in court costs with further fines, according to the BBC, to be decided.
Tangled web
While albums like The Dark Side Of The Moon – which has sold in the region of 35 million copies – are something that needs to be listened to in its entirety, Pink Floyd did release a number of singles when they were together, including early tracks like 'Arnold Layne' and the classic 'Another Brick In The Wall'.
The court decision, however, doesn't mean that these singles will not be released online sans album – they just have to be vetted and approved by the band first.
Interestingly, in court, EMI argued the semantics of what the word 'record' actually meant in Pink Floyd's contract.
EMI said it described the physical thing rather than the group of songs, so the company could essentially take the songs and distribute them however it wanted online. The court, in the end, disagreed.
This will come as a relief to many more musicians whose contracts were created pre-digital that are worried about their back-catalogue being distributed ad hoc on the web. But it will also mean that now bands retain control of how their back catalogue is sold on the internet, downloaders may see big delays in some music finding its way online.
Via the BBC
Your comments (6) Click to add a new comment
tech89
March 13th 2010
6. @chrisinbelgium
I honestly don't think Pink Floyd care about the cash any more, after they have been making money for decades.
This is not about cash anyway. If the artist wanted to make easy quick cash then they would dice up their album in an instant. This is about the fact that the Record label ignored a clause in the contract with their artist/client and diced up the album with out Pink Floyd's permission.
If EMI Records can't respect contract clauses then they will get challenged by their artists.
I'm not surprised, EMI Records is a money losing label that would do anything to bring in cash for itself and not dish out royalties.
EMI = Trouble!
Alert a moderator
chrisinbelgium
March 13th 2010
5. no, it just strikes me that artists as well as record companies still haven't got a clue about doing business in these modern internet times. They should realise that the days of vynil are gone and you can't just sell packaged LP's anymore, and decide which songs you would like to sell as a "single". Their lack of common sense never ceases to amaze me.
Alert a moderator
steve_geek
March 12th 2010
4. I think this is a step in the right direction. Although I wonder, have they lost a new market? Not that they need the cash I guess!
Alert a moderator
seniorwells
March 12th 2010
3. I don't blame them. They obviously want people to hear the entire album to give people the experience they were trying to create. If there is tracks that you like, you can still add these to your ipod from the album.
Alert a moderator
taio101
March 11th 2010
2. No wonder people pirate music…
Alert a moderator
rimscar
March 11th 2010
1. fair enough, and more power to 'em. They just won't be seeing any of my dosh...
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments