Pink Floyd takes record company EMI to court

[meegbear]

Veteran rock band Pink Floyd took their record company EMI to court in London Tuesday in a row over online royalty payments.

Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and their albums include "Dark Side Of The Moon", one of the top-sellers of all time.

Their lawyer Robert Howe told the High Court that the dispute was about online royalties and whether EMI was entitled to sell individual tracks "otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums".

He argued that this was "expressly prohibited" under their contract but said EMI argued that the clause did not apply to online sales. The case is likely to run for days.

Pink Floyd found fame with their brand of progressive rock in the late 1960s and early 1970s, hitting the global big-time with 1973's "Dark Side of the Moon", followed by "Wish You Were Here", "Animals" and 1979's "The Wall".

Relations between the original members of the band were strained in recent years but they reunited for the giant Live 8 concert in London's Hyde Park in 2005. Keyboard player Richard Wright died of cancer in 2008 aged 65.

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/pink-floyd-takes-record-company-emi-court/

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. I hope they rip EMI some 847 new ones.

Fuck media monopolies. There's no such thing as a bad thing that, upon happening to them, would not give me satisfaction.

[wtmusic]

2. PF had no problem with EMI selling 45s

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. 45s were sold specifically to promote the albums, and only particular

tracks were available. Selling any and all tracks on-line destroys the integrity of the album and, honestly, if you don't listen to the album as a whole you are losing the intent. Prior to Pink Floyd and the Beatles (Sgt Pepper) concept albums were unheard of - albums were just collections of songs.

They are just trying to protect their legacy.

[wtmusic]

8. Of course. They were crying all the way to the bank with the millions they made

from singles sales, and the havoc it wrought on their precious legacy (singles were never available for all tracks of any LP).

What a joke.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Actually they did NOT make millions off singles sales - they made

millions off ALBUM sales. There's a problem with that? Pink Floyd did NOT sell to 13 year old girls playing singles at their slumber parties. They were not the Monkees.

What's your problem with artists protecting their work?

[wtmusic]

17. Yes, they made millions

http://www.angelfire.com/ok2/wall/singles.html

IMO at this point PF would prefer to be selling the albums as entire pieces, which I understand. However, they don't own their own publishing - other entities actually own the copyrights to their music - and those entities have the right (within certain bounds) to promote their music however they see fit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Which is what this suit is all about - whether they DO have the right

to sell the music on line as they wish.

"Their lawyer Robert Howe told the High Court that the dispute was about online royalties and whether EMI was entitled to sell individual tracks "otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums".

He argued that this was "expressly prohibited" under their contract but said EMI argued that the clause did not apply to online sales."

IOW, EMI is trying an end-run around the specifics of a contract that was created before the very idea of on-line sales was born.

As for the 'making millions' they made between 5-8 CENTS per 45 sold. Any idea how many millions of 45s it would take to make millions off 45 sales? They just didn't have that level of popularity with the prime demographic that purchased 45s.

[wtmusic]

21. 5-8 cents for writer mechanical royalties

+ writer airplay - much more (unless, of course, they insisted that DJs only play the album in its entirety for artistic integrity) + artist royalties. Millions.

I had a song in the 80s that only got up to #53 on the Billboard Hot 100 and made the down payment on my first house with the performance royalties.

They may prevail depending on the specifics of their contract. IMO this is much less about artistic control than PF they can make more money by forcing everyone to buy an entire album's worth of material, even if they only like one song, and EMI disagreeing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. OK, I get it. I was thinking in terms of only the 45 sales themselves, not

airplay royalties. When a 45 cost 6 cents to make, the artist gets another 6 cents, add in distribution costs, and the label's profits, all out of a 60cent price tag, it is hard to get to millions - but as you say, airplay royalties changes the equation.

[Lyric]

15. I disagree, and I think PF is wrong about this.

Art isn't about the intent of the artist--it's about the experience of the observer/reader/listener. To restrict art to ONLY what the artist "intended" is incredibly counterproductive to an open-minded society, because it leaves no room for creative interpretation. If art were meant to serve the artist, primarily, then there wouldn't be any point in sharing it with the world, other than to inflate one's own ego. Art IS interpretation--and that includes the idea of selecting out segments in order to interpret them individually in new ways that even the original artists didn't conceive of. This is a common and beloved truth about art--every generation finds new insight that even the artist/poet/writer/musician didn't consider at the time.

Such a harsh restriction also leaves no room for the evolving paradigms of art; if the "album" as a concept is becoming outdated, we can look back at classic albums and reinterpret them to find something new and fantastic about them, even beyond the old paradigm. But hey, if they REALLY want their work to be left out and buried among the histories of the old fuddy-duddies who couldn't handle change, well, more power to them I guess.

[Johonny]

3. There's a band that needs less time in court more time in studio

[truebrit71]

4. Amen..alas without Richard Wright I believe we have heard the last from the Floyd...

...one of my all-time fave groups..

[tridim]

6. Yes, but only if Roger checks his ego at the studio door.

I really don't like that dude, which is a shame because he's obviously a great talent.

[johnnie]

7. I used to think it was Roger

But now I think Gilmour is the one with the issues.

[tridim]

9. Really? I've never considered Gilmour anything other than an average nice guy.

But I don't know him. If he has an ego he hides it well.

[cbdo2007]

11. The "Waters backers" always blame Gilmour....

and I guess us Gilmour backers always blame Waters.

It's a never ending thing like the Democrat vs Republican thing I guess.... :)

[tridim]

13. Hehe, I'm not a "backer" of either..

I think they're both great musicians.

It's just Roger's massive ego that I have a problem with. It's the same reason I hated Oasis.

[johnnie]

14. I only changed my mind recently

I always thought Roger was a twit until about the time of Live8 and watching a few documentaries after that. Maybe Roger just became a different person after then, I don't know.

[Ishoutandscream2]

20. Like Lennon backers and McCartney backers as well

Shows that there is probably a brilliant band...

[Johonny]

12. I agree

Dave clearly stepped back for his second marriage and appears to be enjoying being a father more. He also has finally had success outside the Pink Floyd name, as Smile did well as a single.

It sounds like Roger after finally touring well solo in the early 2000s put to bed a lot of bad blood he had with Wright and Gilmour. But as Gilmour said, what exactly has he written in the last 20 years ( almost that long since Amused to Death) that Waters would want Gilmour to play on. Gilmour also says they have political differences which seemed a little surprising given Gilmours musical out put. Although Daves always been more reserved in his music views than Waters. It appears in Dave's opinion he has more to lose than gain with any potential Waters reunion because he appears to be doing just fine.

Either together or apart I just want more than 1 studio album every 16 years:)

[Echo In Light]

16. Although I know what you mean, that time has come and gone

[Cetacea]

18. No mention of the guy who made it all possible.

Without Syd Barrett all would have either wound up playing weddings or became architects.

The law suit over the name was especially ludicrous. But it emphasized the fact that without the brand name (and the recording contract) that Barrett handed them, they'd all be SOL.

[Johonny]

24. I don't think Waters, Gilmour, Mason and Wright

have ever left Syd out. Heck Dave and Roger were always making sure Syd got his royalties. Dave opened his show with his song in 1994 just to make sure he kept getting royalties. Would they have "made" it without Syd. Who knows. He's dead now so it's not like it matters and Syd didn't record anything on Darkside so it's hard to get his family money from the lawsuit even if they win. He's biggest songs were all made singles so it's not easy to see how he factors in.

[musiclawyer]

23. PF worked in a day when few big artists were self published

And now they are suffering the consequnces. But actually they are suffering far less than others.... the Kinks for example. I am self published and would never sell to anyone unless I was so well off that ownership of my songs was not worth the hassle. That's how it is now for many new recording artists in this day and age. That being said, I will always take the artists side and hope PF wins thier case if for no other reason than, they, should dictate the evolution of their legacy

[slampoet]

25. Funny how people attack Pirating as Stealing from musicians but when companies steal from musicians

...the posters on DU attack the musicians and say they need to work harder even though the people in Pink Floyd are approaching their retirement years.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Some people are unable to feel empathy for anyone other than the extremely powerful. -nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Pink Floyd win EMI court battle over online sales

The group, signed to EMI since 1967, disputed the way payments for their digital sales were calculated.

They also objected to EMI's decision to sell individual album tracks online.

The band argued that their deal with EMI stipulated that their "seamless" albums should not be split up. EMI said that only applied to physical sales.

EMI has been ordered to pay £40,000 in court costs - as an interim payment. The judge is still considering how much more the record label should pay in a fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm

[City Lights]

28. Thanks for the update! nt

[AngryAmish]

29. Couldn't the two sides stab each other to death and put us out of their misery?

Watching billionaires argue over money is sick. Puke.