10355406
story
Comments: 601 + - Your Rights Online: EMI Cannot Unbundle Pink Floyd Songs on Thursday March 11, @03:40PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmusic.gif); width:60px; height:49px;
music
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmedia.gif); width:60px; height:53px;
themedia
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicuk.png); width:90px; height:78px;
uk
smooth wombat writes "Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s, EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings. This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd, who wanted to retain artistic control of their works, which they considered 'seamless' pieces of music. However, with the advent of digital downloads, EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store. Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales. Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums.' Judge Morritt also ruled 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.'"
Related Stories
Your lucky color has faded.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Emi (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Emi (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, Leachers, leave that band alone!
(Alternate title: Several Species of Nasty Verminous Lawyers Gathered Together in a Basement Groveling Over a Contract)
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" you can't have yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1!" How can you buy "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" if you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1?!?"
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to...
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, we do. We just don't have any that have that clause in their contract.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people who say stuff like this are revealing more about their own taste in music than they realize. At 27, I can honestly say that there's been a wealth of great music released throughout my life, even if it isn't on heavy rotation on radio and cable music networks. And I can think of very few one hit wonders I'd include in that.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Crowded non-profit band (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger question is: "What in the hell are you doing in Fort Wayne, Indiana?"
If I remember correctly, there are buses leaving that town every single day. It's a great American tradition that people who are interested in experiencing all that the world offers leave towns like Fort Wayne just as soon as they're old enough to walk and make their way to places that are not bound by religious fundamentalism and small-town small-mindedness.
I'd like to say I'm not trying to single Fort Wayne out, but the fact is that I'm quite familiar with Fort Wayne and the Bible Belt that it's got on so tight that it's cutting off the circulation to the brain.
Seriously, friend, make like a tree and leave.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand. You're sitting at a computer right now. There's plenty of ways to find stuff, free and legal, you just need to look around.
But I will echo a couple of the answers you've already gotten: small act live shows and college radio. I can't emphasize small acts enough. You're not likely to find anything but the heavy rotation artists at the big stadium and theatre shows.
When it comes down to it, it's mostly a question of how interested you are in finding good music.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)
He is running into the same problem many run into as they get older.
Their time is devoted to other things than following the latest fad (and many acts are that). So he has found a way for someone else to do a bit of sifting for him.
We used to get our ideas from our friends of what music to listen to. They in turn got it from their friends and so on. But eventually that 'fad loop' closes. The key changers move away or just stop doing whatever it was they did to 'find new music'. Or perhaps you realize the dude with all the cool music is a bit unstable and not what you want to be around anymore...
So radio is a perfectly valid way to find new music. Then go searching for other things to build on.
The problem is however, I can go searching on the internet for all sorts of music. But where do I start? Google? I know what genres of music I like but how would I find *NEW* music if I do not even know what to search for? I do not even know they exist much less what sort of music they have. Last.fm and pandora are interesting but limited in their scope of introducing new music.
You will see this too when you get older. I didnt believe it myself when my parents told me it would happen. It does to many of us.
Parent
Re:Support local music (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just listening to Scenes from a Memory by Dream Theater yesterday. Although I guess that was made 11 years ago.
The Dreamer's Paradox [jamendo.com] by JT Bruce fits together pretty well as well.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the point they were making was "too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to". My answer is that we do have them, in fact a wealth of them. In a later comment I added that most artists don't write filler but that one can expect, given the subjective nature of art, to only like a subset of what's out there, even from talented artists.
I think my broader point was that my experience has been that the perception of artists not producing whole albums worth listening to comes from hearing only heavy rotation music and not really sitting down to take in the breadth of an artist's repertoire. It might sound snobby, but appreciating art is an interactive process and rarely will someone really find much joy in art if they're not willing to invest attention in it.
Parent
Re:Emi (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
3 strikes, please (Score:4, Funny)
Let's hope they get permanently blocked by their ISP (and others) for three strikes.
Re:3 strikes, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hope they get permanently blocked by their ISP (and others) for three strikes.
It'd be unfortunate for it to have to come to that, but it would be an ultimately good thing if such advocates for ever stringent copyright laws got a taste of their own medicine. In a way, that's what is happening here. Pink Floyd is only able to exert this control (and have a judge back them up) because of the strict nature of copyright law, including over songs that are significantly older than many folks participating in this discussion. It seems that EMI and others who lobby for more copyright restrictions have gotten what they wanted. It's viscerally satisfying to see that what they want and try so hard to get more of is not always how they imagined it to be.
Parent
Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"... (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't make any sense. Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.
Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play. I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe. When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to Floydus Interruptus.
Parent
Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to hear anything resembling artistic integrity on the radio.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.
Radio? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny because radio destroys this "artistic integrity" by playing Pink Floyd singles every day.
Re:Radio? (Score:5, Funny)
3 moderators agree with him; none with you.
Dude, I get massive amounts of mod points here all the time, and I'm a fuckin' idiot. What's your point?
Parent
So, my guess is... (Score:5, Insightful)
That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.
Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free? evil copyright?) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.
So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums. I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music? I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media. And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media ...
So yes: in my opinion, EMI is breaking a contract. Bad.
And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.
If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track. Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc. For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement. Separately... :)
Re:So, my guess is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Song flow (Score:5, Interesting)
I never realized how intercoupled the songs on Pink Floyd albums were until I happened to listen to the songs on my mp3 device while set to 'random song'. It was jumping all over my music collection, and all the Pink Floyd songs were either jarring to come into or ended abruptly. I can see why they didn't want them split up. They really are parts of a whole with a few exceptions.
But c'mon, what balls on EMI. Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records. But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Different music concept (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever since the advent of the long-playing record as the popular music medium, many artists have been making music that flows for 20 to 45 minutes, not just music that lasts for 3 or 4 minutes. Sure, singles still got made, but most real artists thought in terms of albums, not songs. The CD reinforced that model, allowing artists to flow their music for even longer. Even on albums that appear to be mostly singles, a lot of thought went into how they were arranged on the record.
The advent of itunes killed this. And it's a shame. Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music. Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?
Floyd has their money, they want to keep their integrity.
Re:Different music concept (Score:5, Insightful)
The decline of albums happened long before iTunes. Back in the days of the cassette tape, there were singles. Then the CD single came along. The really technology to blame was MTV.
Frontline covered this topic in 2004 in an episode called The way the music died. [pbs.org]
The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only. Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs. The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.
iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted. There wasn't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album. If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players. I'd say Apple was correct in that assumption. They didn't drive this demise; they merely used it to their advantage.
Parent
People seem to be missing the LARGER issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone.
So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Insightful)
For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.
This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
EMI to carry on, regardless (=ignore ruling) (Score:5, Informative)
From the BBC article:
An EMI statement said: "Today's judgment does not require EMI to cease making Pink Floyd's catalogue available as single track downloads, and EMI continues to sell Pink Floyd's music digitally and in other formats."
Parent
Re:One downside (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit.
Then why would Pink Floyd ask for royalties as damages? How long did these bundled sales go on before Pink Floyd decided to sue?
From the BBC article [bbc.co.uk]:
EMI disagreed but a judge has sided with Pink Floyd. The ruling is part of a long-running battle between the two sides over £10m in unpaid royalties.
I also am a huge fan of Pink Floyd but I believe your altruistic views of Floyd are a bit misplaced. I dare say this may be a deeper battle with greed also playing a part and 'art' being used as a facade. If they were concerned about their art, from day one they would have denied radio stations the ability to play their work on the radio without the ent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Funny)
Then why would Pink Floyd ask for royalties as damages?
How else are you going to hurt the bastards? Money. It's a hit. Don't give me any do goody-goody bullshit.
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why would Pink Floyd ask for royalties as damages?
Because you're not allowed to sue for the right to beat the loveless everliving shit out of your opponent. (God only knows how often I'd be in court if that were allowed!)
It's a contract. The label's alleged acts in bad faith constitute a breach of contract, which is an instrument of monetary consideration. That's the scorecard. That's the stick. Cease-and-desist is temporary. Termination of contract is the nuclear option. What's left?
For all you know, PF might donate all their damages to charity, or hire the very best contract assassins to finish the job that the courts could only start, or burn the entire windfall in a huge bonfire in EMI's parking lot.
No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know the customary abbreviation. No, I don't care.
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:4, Insightful)
You think that's a win? It just means more Pink Floyd songs will be downloaded on file sharing services rather than purchased legitimately. When all that is left is illegitimate means you can guarantee that's the route people will take. This time, it's the artists I have no sympathy for. That's a switch.
Maybe they don't even mind if people share their music (having "already made their money"), which would be admirable, but it's still a disservice to their fans to not give them a legitimate avenue other than "buy a CD" (which for me personally would amount to maybe 20% to 30% of a Pink Floyd album that I actually like.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like one mp3 of the whole album should be fine to sell.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?
If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them. But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.
As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.
Well, the result included an undisclosed settlement of royalties paid to Pink Floyd by EMI based on past sales. So it could be as serious as the difference album versus fractional purchase of everyone who bought only fractions of Pink Floyd albums.
If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.' I understand that the Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, etc of songs like "Shine on You Crazy Dia
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio. It's much easier to get playtime for 4 minutes than 40.
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Funny)
Your comment reminds me how truly and deeply I miss AOR [wikipedia.org].
Chillin' out with my boombox in my lounge chair in my lawn with a tall cool drink listening to Alan Parsons Project or Yes.... I wouldn't even feel the need to yell at you to get off, you young kids...
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Insightful)
My hat is off to you Pink Floyd!
Parent
Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are made as single things. It was the glory days of the concept album. The best track is like the best square inch of a good painting, and they don't want to be judged on that. Good on 'em.
What I want to know is whether this means that EMI reckons we can freely copy EMI songs from that period because their copyrights applied to the physical album only, so a digital copy from vinyl is OK for free distribution.
Parent
Re:This isn't about bundling... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, this might be a bit of a shock for you but sometimes, on very rare occasions, people make decisions where monetary profit is not the prime motivator. This might be one such case...
Parent
Re:Guess no music games then (Score:5, Funny)
There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...
They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking brutal. One level is Dark Side of the Moon. The next is The Wall. Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!
Parent
Re:Props to Pink Floyd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
Parent