Pink Floyd wins UK court battle with EMI label

[Mike]

LONDON (Reuters) – British rock band Pink Floyd won its court battle with EMI on Thursday with a ruling that prevents the record company from selling single downloads on the Internet from the group's concept albums.

The outcome of a dispute over the level of royalties the band received remained unclear, however, as that part of the judgment was held in secret, the Press Association reported. A source close to the band said those talks were "ongoing."

Lawyers said it was the first time a royalties dispute between artists and their record companies had been held in private, after EMI successfully applied for a news blackout for reasons of "commercial confidentiality."

The ruling at London's High Court is the latest blow to EMI, the smallest of the four major record companies, which is seeking new funds to avoid breaching debt covenants.

EMI sought to play down the court's decision.

"The litigation has been running for well over a year and most of its points have already been settled," the company said in a statement.

"This week's court hearing was around the interpretation of two contractual points, both linked to the digital sale of Pink Floyd's music. There are further arguments to be heard and the case will go on for some time."

EMI's owner Terra Firma is also embroiled in a legal dispute with Citigroup over advice and financing the U.S. bank provided to enable it to buy EMI in 2007.

Several top acts, including Pink Floyd and Queen, are reportedly in talks with other labels, following the exodus of the Rolling Stones and Radiohead since Terra Firma took over.

But EMI added in its statement: "We're huge fans of Pink Floyd whose great catalog we have been representing for more than 40 years and continue to represent exclusively and internationally."

VALUABLE BACK Catalog

Pink Floyd's back catalog at EMI has been outsold only by that of the Beatles.

The band, whose albums include "The Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall," went to court to challenge EMI's right to "unbundle" their records and sell individual tracks online.

Judge Andrew Morritt accepted arguments by the group that EMI was bound by a contract forbidding it from selling records other than as complete albums without written consent.

The judge said the purpose of a clause in the contract, drawn up more than a decade ago, was to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums."

Pink Floyd alleged that EMI had allowed online downloads from the albums and parts of tracks to be used as ringtones.

But Elizabeth Jones, representing EMI in court, countered that the word record "plainly applies to the physical thing -- there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution."

The judge ordered EMI to pay Pink Floyd's costs in the case, estimated at 60,000 pounds ($90,000), and refused the company permission to appeal.

Pink Floyd's influential and acclaimed body of work is a valuable commodity. Members Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason all appeared on the 2009 Sunday Times Rich List with personal fortunes estimated at 85 million, 78 million and 50 million pounds respectively.

Copyright © 2010 Reuters Limited

[pinkstones]

Excellent. Ordinarily I would not side with the artists in a case like this, but with Pink Floyd....they weren't a "singles" band. They were definitely an albums band, much like Led Zeppelin. They believed their music was best heard within the context of the album, rather than as individual tracks. I happen to agree. If you take a song like Sheep off of Animals and just put it in a random playlist, you lose the context of the song and what Roger was talking about. Also, I think you should be in charge of how your music is made available to the public. It's why Paul and Ringo haven't decided on what the best way to make their music available on the internet is. Same with AC/DC, I believe.

So good for them for putting their foot down.

[Viaene]

Artists strike back

[MindCrime]

Normally I don't agree with the band in this situation, but as Beth already said, I agree with this particular band's purpose.

Pink Floyd 2 - Greedy Record Label 0

[chutzpah]

I agree with the court decision but I have to disagree about Pink Floyd never being a singles band..."Syd Barrett" was an original member of "Pink Floyd" and they made a few singles...Unfortunately, "Syd Barrett" went into the ozone (or somewhere)And he was a founding member of the band...Both "David Gilmour" and Roger Waters" produced (or tried to) anyway...some of his music... ...I just think "Syd Barrett" should get his fair share (or his family anyway)

[pinkstones]

Pink Floyd wasn't a singles band. Once Syd was gone, they realized they couldn't do them. The four of them just didn't have the ability to write some short little 3-minute pop song - that wasn't what they were good at. Roger said in a documentary (which I have) that they decided to do "long things" since that's where their direction took them.

Also, putting their names in quotes almost makes it look like they're pseudonyms or you don't think they're real people. Syd's dead and has been dead for almost 4 years - the other 3 surviving members make sure that his family gets all royalties that would be owed to him.

[Kevin]

I think it's B.S. the idea of one having to listen to an entire PF album in order to take away 'something they were trying to say ' being necessary . Even your own example of 'Sheep ' : it's a lovely little song and can have it's own solitary impact without having to listen to the whole album .

Are they also going to go after radio stations who play a cut from the albums rather than playing it in it's entirety , too ?

Agreed ; you may get more of the entire 'message ' by listening to all of an album , but don't you think the band could draw more listeners into their work if they allowed them the option of hearing popular excerpts first ? That's how classical music or opera , etc. usually grows it's base .

PF are screwed in the head . Those songs begin , end, and often and there isn't necessarily a clear connection to the next song , except perhaps in ' Wish You were Here ' or ' The Wall ' ( and watching the movie helps ) . Believe me - I've listened to them hundreds of times both in their complete form and by jumping to tracks I wanna hear at a particular time . I don't see what the fuss is about . With their kind of money , why not buy back their song rights and exhibit them as they wish , if it's really SO important to them ?!

I don't at all dislike PF , but I can see how these occasional elitist views out of the blue show us how that band could never stay together and just how wonderful they thought they were - which rubs a lot of people the wrong way . In the end , isn't an artist's works and 'greatness ' in the hands of their audience to judge and not what the egocentric goofballs think of themself (ves ) ?

[chutzpah]

Maybe, I should have said "Early Pink Floyd" made singles...Ok? I just think that people should remember Syd Barrett(no quotes...see?) I know they're real people,seen them a bunch of times... as Pink Floyd (again no quotes) and seperately...after reading about all that money... I'm sure everybody's getting something

[pinkstones]

Are they also going to go after radio stations who play a cut from the albums rather than playing it in it's entirety , too?

Seeing as this court decision deals with how their music is SOLD, radio plays have absolutely zero to do with it. That was outlined in the first post of the thread.

but I can see how these occasional elitist views out of the blue show us how that band could never stay together and just how wonderful they thought they were

One, it's not elitist to want control over how your music is made available to the public for purchase. That's just good business sense. The Beatles are far worse when it comes to that. Paul and Ringo have yet to decide how they want their catalog made available on the internet, and they probably never will. Two, the band fractured because of Roger's ego and his increasing desire to BE Pink Floyd, and not delegate control and responsibilities to the other people in the group. He thought he was the band, and that everything they did was because he was responsible for it, and when you have someone like that in a group, that band is only going to go so far.

[pinkstones]

I just think that people should remember Syd Barrett

No one is going to forget Syd Barrett, least of all the surviving members of the band.

[Farin]

The Beatles are far worse when it comes to that. Paul and Ringo have yet to decide how they want their catalog made available on the internet, and they probably never will.

FWIW, Pink Floyd doesn't allow any online streams (on last.fm, pandora, spotify, etc) either. Same with Led Zeppelin or Metallica. I think it's sad, but in the end it's their own business decision.

[pinkstones]

Yeah, I noticed that Pink Floyd's songs weren't on Grooveshark anymore. That's fine, I have the CDs, the vinyl and the mp3s on my iPod; I think I'm covered. LOL

As for it being sad, I don't agree. Like you said, it's their own business decision, but it's also their intellectual property. I think sad would be if there was no way to ever listen to their music, in any form. But that's just me, someone else might think otherwise.

[MindCrime]

I've found a few of their tracks on Playlist.com, but only when somebody changes the band name to something like Piink Floyyd or something so they can't find the song easy.

[RockyRaccoon]

To my knowledge, The Beatles don't currently own the rights to their music. Last I heard it was Michael Jackson. I have no idea what happened to it since he died though.

Allow me to preface this saying I absolutely LOVE Pink Floyd. Allow me to also preface this with a bunch of happy emoticons so this doesn't come off as negative :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana:

Anyways, that said, Pink Floyd isn't a singles band? Hmm. That explains why the following songs were released as singles: "One Of These Days," "Free Four," "Money," "Us And Them/Time," "Have A Cigar," "Wish You Were Here," "Another Brick In The Wall Part 2," "Comfortably Numb," "Run Like Hell" etc. etc.

Pink Floyd released some singles and they worked as singles. They also created some albums that worked perfectly as albums.

Think of it this way: one would not necessarily consider classical music something that could create singles. However, one can listen to Beethoven's entire 5th Symphony, all together, and get it as its entirety. But what about the 1st movement? Everyone knows it. One can listen to it and never hear the rest and still appreciate it. Perhaps Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" is the same way. There are multiple movements to the piece, yet everyone knows the first movement. Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" is the same. Some listen to it all together and love it. Some listen to the 1st movement of "Spring" and know that.

It all depends on how you prefer to listen to it. It all depends on various circumstances. I feel that Pink Floyd is a singles AND an album band. Just like King Crimson, Yes, Caravan, Camel etc. etc.

At least, that's my opinion.

Let's end on a good note. Here's a happy emoticon:

[pinkstones]

A "singles band" creates music specifically to be released as singles. The Beatles were a singles band. Pink Floyd didn't do that. All of their songs that WERE released as singles had to be heavily edited because they were too long to fit on 45rpm records. Also a "singles band" is primarily known for singles and the single releases are highly successful. Pink Floyd only had two singles released on the Billboard Hot 100 that were successful and that was Money at #13 and ABITW pt. 2 at #1.

So no, they weren't a singles band. That was not their primary objective when making music, nor was it something they promoted. Pink Floyd were about the albums, the concepts and the themes contained therein, not 3 minute dittys to play on the radio.

[edna]

: Pink Floyd released some singles and they worked as singles. They also created some albums that worked perfectly as albums...

I feel that Pink Floyd is a singles AND an album band. Just like King Crimson, Yes, Caravan, Camel etc. etc.

I agree with you, Rocky. Besides, the music industry wouldn't allow a band NOT to have singles, mainly when we talk about a band that makes tons of money.

Plus, the Floyds are known as... well, they love money, maybe a bit more than other artists... They know, and the records company knows, that if you want to sell an album you must have some airplay. Thus is releasing a single.

Pink Floyd had singles just as everybody did. They focussed on another sort of sound, right... but their singles were their passport to stardom.

[pinkstones]

Pink Floyd didn't have significant airplay on the radio until Money, which was in 1973. They didn't have significant radio airplay again until 1980, when ABITW was released. Free Four had some minor radio airplay in the US, but it's hardly worth mentioning. Before that they had none. Between Money and ABITW, they had none. After ABITW, they had some minor radio airplay on alternative stations with some of the songs off AMLoR, but nothing comes close to the continued overplaying of Money and ABITW.

There's a huge difference between a band releasing singles, which most do and a band being a "singles band".

Also, the singles they released weren't a "passport to stardom". They were really quite successful in the UK prior to Dark Side being released, and they barely had radio/single action there, same as in the US. Dark Side exploded in the US because of Money being played on the radio, but they were already successes by then. Their albums and their lives hows made them famous.

[RockyRaccoon]

Actually the did have a bit of chart success in the UK in the beginning. "See Emily Play" hit #6 and "Arnold Layne" hit #20.

I can see the point you're getting at though PS. I would say that Pink Floyd was an album-oriented band. However, they did have some songs that were released, and listenable as singles. But yes, I would agree that OVERALL, Pink Floyd was very album oriented. But like I said, so were bands such as King Crimson, Yes, Caravan, Camel etc. who also had songs that could be listened to as singles.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't believe one can say "If you listen to Pink Floyd you can't just listen to one song, you have to listen to the album or it doesn't work." Now, granted, I believe that listening to an entire album of Floyd's can be quite the experience. I remember listening to "Meddle" for the first time and I was blown away. Same with "Animals" and "Atom Heart Mother." However, you could just listen to "One Of These Days" and still get the experience without listening to the entire album. It all depends on your preferences.

[pinkstones]

I know they released singles, I own two of them. What I was initially talking about was the belief or idea that they were a "singles band" or a group that made music primarily to release singles for sale and the radio, which is absolutely NOT what they were about. I never disputed that they released singles, or had chart success or even had radio airplay success and I think perhaps that was initially misunderstood by some of you and I suppose that's my fault for not wording what I said properly.

Also, while it's absolutely possible to listen to select songs off of their albums and enjoy them fully, I think you get the complete concept when you listen to the album as a whole. Take Any Colour You Like, for example. The song by itself is kick-ass. However if you only listen to it by itself and not the whole album, you lose the context of the song and its meaning within the overall arc of the record. The song talks about our lack of choices in life, or rather how we're led to believe we have choices, but we really don't. If you don't listen to it between Us and Them and then Brain Damage, you're not going to get that.

[RockyRaccoon]

Wooo! I think we've come to the same point.

Now that's what I call debate and resolution

[blind-fitter]

The song talks about our lack of choices in life, or rather how we're led to believe we have choices, but we really don't.

Well, we have one fewer choice now. Just as I was adapting to the 21st century way of being able to purchase individual tracks, somebody comes along and curtails my freedom.

Now, if I want to listen to Pink Floyd, I'll have to buy whole albums.

Or get a friend to burn me a "Best Of..." compilation. Yeah, I think I'll do that.

[pinkstones]

I don't care how people listen to the Floyd, just as long as they do.

[jammie22]

I missed a court for minour assault just will like to know if this will show up in my records at the airports in europe just...

_________________

Free Public Court Records

[blind-fitter]

I believe that under current jurisdiction, even the possession of Pink Floyd records should not prevent your unhindered passage through UK airports.

However, for possession of Yes albums, the full strip and intimate body-search still applies, I'm afraid.

[pinkstones]

That's not even funny spam, even.