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
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.
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...
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.
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
There is no downside to this ruling. Admittedly, people who would like to download only parts of Pink Floyd albums will be disappointed, but from a stand point of what is good for society this is a good ruling. Of course, if copyright didn't extend longer than it should, this ruling would be irrelevant since Pink Floyd's music would be in the public domain by now (or within a couple of years anyway).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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
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.
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.
Your comment reminds me how truly and deeply I miss AOR.
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...
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.