Slashdot Mirror
EMI Cannot Unbundle Pink Floyd Songs
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.'"
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.
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
My hat is off to you Pink Floyd!
We are the Borg...
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... :)
I have yet to hear anything resembling artistic integrity on the radio.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, we do. We just don't have any that have that clause in their contract.
On the other hand, they've already made their fortunes. They can afford to have artistic integrity.
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.
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.)
Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Maybe it's greed or maybe it's revenge. The only way to hurt EMI is through their bank account. If someone makes me go to all the trouble and expense of hiring a law firm I'm damn sure going to hurt them as bad as I can.
You know you can show up on someone's doorstep and bitch for years, threaten to sue, get laughed at. Then sue. It's quite likely Pink Floyd sent their lawyer over to cry breech of contract, for months. "Please stop doing this." ... oh, you don't want to listen? Hold on, let me get the big stick.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This isn't an issue of profit versus art, or even single track versus album, the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did. And then excused it with the thin excuse that "it didn't count" because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution.
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?".
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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?!?"
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 by JT Bruce fits together pretty well as well.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think the real story here is not that Pink Floyd is suing, nor that EMI offered the songs as individual tracks, but that there are people stupid enough to buy Pink Floyd in any unit other than an album or complete works set.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News