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.'"
all in all, they just ran into a wall.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
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.
Sent from your iPad.
Let's hope they get permanently blocked by their ISP (and others) for three strikes.
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.
It's funny because radio destroys this "artistic integrity" by playing Pink Floyd singles every day.
This doesn't prevent Pink Floyd from making a separate deal to sell individual songs. To me it's more about smacking down EMI for trying to bypass contract verbiage and I applaud that. It's nice to see that a judge thinks an artist's vision of their work actually counts for something.
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.
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!
The enemies of Democracy are
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 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.
I have yet to hear anything resembling artistic integrity on the radio.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
On the other hand, they've already made their fortunes. They can afford to have artistic integrity.
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.
And then Nick Mason will cut you up into little pieces.
Pink Floyd songs are "unbundled" when they are played on the radio as singles.
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.
Plenty of musicians have made their fortunes and still have no artistic integrity. Credit where credit is due, and for a while now that's meant acknowledging when a musician has any artistic integrity at all.
...I've already pirated their whole discography anyway.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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."
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
rip your own album as a single mp3
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish? Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.
That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that music is created solely in the tightly controlled laboratories deep within record label strongholds. Instrument players are merely stealing music by way of arranging reproductions of notes and chord progressions developed by, and the exclusive property of, the music industry. These people must be stopped before their counterfeit performances devalue music by making it accessible.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
While I applaud the decision, it does kinda bum me out. This album was released over 30 years ago. Under the original 1790 copy right laws, this album would have just entered public domain. Thanks to Sony Bono the album wont hit public domain until the earliest of 2084.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
How else can Pink Floyd punish EMI for acting as a poor steward of Pink Floyd's work? Demand an apology?
Make the bastards pay, it's the only language they understand.
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?".
From the article
The judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band. That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.
I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.
Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
are OK with it.
But most symphonies are sold with individual tracks (and thus able to be bought individually).
And most people, even classical music listening people, only really recognize certain movements of symphonies or any multi-movement work, unless it's REALLY well-known.
Some composers actually started doing traditionally multi-movement works as one large piece with no breaks inbetween. Example: Liszt's piano sonata in b minor. Reason? He didn't wan the work split up. Same reason PF gives for their album. But Liszt accomplished it without having to rely on licensing and distribution restrictions; he just made it one continuous piece.
Personally I think if they broke a contract requiring them to only distribute complete copies of the work they should be required to do two things to make-good thier violations.
1: For each sale pay the royalties for the whole work.
2: Offer the complete work at no extra charge to people they sold part of the work.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.
Pink Floyd can say whatever they want and they've made their millions so they can do whatever they want in the name of "artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks? Fact is the songs on their albums are discrete works which can be listened to independently. Their albums are rarely listened to in their entirety - a fact I'm sure they are well aware of.
They can sell their works however they want and I'm fine with that but I don't have to buy them if I don't like the format. I happen to own several of their albums and like Pink Floyd's music but not all their music is of equal quality. There are several albums of theirs I only like a few tracks on and I haven't bought the whole album because of that fact. I could not care less about Pink Floyd's opinion about whether their albums are a single work. I'll listen to it the way I want to and buy it only in the format I want. If they won't sell it to me in that format, that is their loss, not mine.
unlimited supply e.m.i.
there is no reason why e.m.i.
i tell you it was all a frame e.m.i.
they only did it 'cos of fame e.m.i.
i do not need the pressure e.m.i.
i can't stand those useless fools e.m.i.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
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.
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.
Oh please. Pink Floyd has every right to do this, but they're being either very weird or just plain hypocritical. For all of the talk of artistic integrity, and about how the songs are a seamless whole, they have no problem with the individual songs being played as singles on radio stations to sell the albums, do they?
I think this has more to do with "make people buy the whole album" than it does with any artistic vision.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
...if you're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy, lossy music files on your PC, then you're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...
Sorry, kiddies, but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties; this maximises record company profits & means they're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.
This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability, they're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them, thus explaining why the modern "great unwashed" now want to treat music like "Pick N Mix" sweeties and just choose the tracks they like (which also happen to be the only ones that are any good).
So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am, let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity, old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off & run around at the gym whilst listening to your "ever so modern" formulaic plastic music...
Rant mode disengaged.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I don't know anybody who listens to just a few tracks of DSOTM.
Pleased to make your acquaintance. I haven't seen anyone listen to the album end to end since I was in college - 15 years ago. Tracks from that particular album are played on the radio as standalone pieces all the time.
Heck, the Wall makes no friggin' sense at all if you just pull out...
Only if you actually are following the whole story which is more effort than I've seen most people put into their listening. The *music* is just fine even if you pay no attention to the lyrics. Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 are all just fine as standalone works. I listen to them frequently in just that way. Heck the London Philharmonic released a symphonic version of many of those songs (Us and Them - Symphonic Pink Floyd) which proves the point that they can be standalone pieces.
There are many ways to enjoy Pink Floyd beyond just the official dogma. I find it ironic that a group who writes lyrics decrying thought control is so interested in controlling how I listen to my music.