Pink Floyd goes to court in royalty row with EMI
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog News, Press Releases
Forum Description: Submit press releases, news , new releases, prog music news and other interesting things happening in the world of progressive music (featured in home and artist page)
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65652
Printed Date: April 23 2024 at 08:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pink Floyd goes to court in royalty row with EMI
Posted By: rushfan4
Subject: Pink Floyd goes to court in royalty row with EMI
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 13:13
|
Link to article from Yahoo news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_pink_floyd_emi - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_pink_floyd_emi
The article itself:
LONDON – Pink Floyd has begun legal action against music label EMI Group Ltd. over the way royalty payments are calculated in the digital era. The group's lawyer, Robert Howe, told the High Court that the band was disputing the way royalties for online sales are worked out. He said the group also wants a ruling on whether EMI can sell tracks "unbundled" from their original albums. Howe said the band's contract prohibits selling tracks "otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums." EMI claims the rule applies only to physical albums, not the Internet. Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and became one of its most lucrative acts. Tuesday's hearing was the start of what is expected to be a lengthy legal battle. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 09:01
Wots...Uh The Deal? 
|
Posted By: skorziks
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 11:07
Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie.
 ------------- The ice cream lady wet her drawers to see you in the passion play. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 12:56
|
The original contract claus was to prevent PF tracks appearing on budget compilation and anthology albums - something I think The Beatles also had in their contract as you won't find either artist on any Now That's What I Call ... albums. ------------- What? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 14:00
Now That's What I Call...Counter-Culture 28 ! (Parental Advisory) ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Dean wrote:Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 14:37
|
This will be an interesting test case as regards band's rights under digital copyright, as opposed to vinyl/tape/CD. Whilst Floyd are all incredibly rich and don't really need the money, if successful this might well help a great number of lesser mortals/bands. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 10:12
|
Update: Pink Floyd wins battle with EMI over online sales:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_pink_floyd - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_pink_floyd
LONDON – In a victory for the concept album, Britain's High Court on Thursday ordered record company EMI Group Ltd. to stop selling downloads of Pink Floyd tracks individually rather than as part of the band's original records. The prog-rock group sued the music label, saying its contract prohibited selling the tracks "unbundled" from their original album setting. Pink Floyd lawyer Robert Howe said the band was known for producing "seamless" pieces of music on albums like "Dark Side of the Moon," "The Division Bell" and "The Wall," and wanted to retain artistic control. EMI claimed the clause in the band's contract — negotiated a decade ago, before the advent of iTunes and other online retailers — applied only to physical albums, not Internet sales. Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected "the artistic integrity of the albums." He ruled that 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." The judge ordered EMI to pay the band's legal costs and said he would rule later on how much the company must pay in damages. 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. A spokesman for EMI said the company was considering its response to the ruling. The band's spokesman said Pink Floyd had no comment. Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and became one of its most lucrative acts, with its back catalog outsold only by The Beatles. Online sales make up an increasing portion of music companies' profits, and are a growing area of dispute. The surviving members of The Beatles have yet to agree a deal to allow their music to be sold online. Hard-rock band AC/DC also has withheld its music from iTunes, saying the group is not interested in selling individual tracks. -------------
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 10:14
| EMI's response: "The gold it's in the..." |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 11:23
|
But AC/DC is all about individual tracks.
-------------   
|
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: March 13 2010 at 23:40
|
LOL!! My thoughts exactly! http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/pink-floyd-force-you-to-listen-to-the-bad-bits-201003122552/ - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/pink-floyd-force-you-to-listen-to-the-bad-bits-201003122552/
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 01:51
|
This Does Go on a Bit |
Posted By: nordwind
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 18:22
|
Yeah ,definitely a "watershed" ruling...... ------------- Jazz isn't dead.......it just smells funny. Frank Zappa / Live in New York |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: March 17 2010 at 17:40
Maybe had they lost they would have changed their moniker to Pink Fraud !  or better still Pink Freud or Pink Fried  . ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 21:09
|
From Robert Fripp's blog: New arisings of the industrial kind: Pink Floyd has won their court action against EMI. EMI’s strategy, of defending the indefensible, is further evidence of witlessness in their corridors of power. Readers of this Diary may recall the account of David & myself being visited at DGM HQ by an EMI person, and being told by him (2003) that downloads aren’t important but we have to have them! It’s company policy! A company that has to have what isn’t important is either exceptionally stupid or lying to you; in either case, not a company to engage with in very much at all. That was the end of our licensing deal with EMI, but not the end of our pain in dealing with them. Despite no download rights ever being granted, nevertheless EMI put up KC tracks for download – after the license had expired! And two audits showing huge sums of non-accounted & unpaid royalties took, in turn, two major efforts to extract cheques for sums payable to the Crims. Dear innocents looking in from outside the industry: what would you do if you had no idea whether your contracted wages were going to be paid, or not, or when, and what proportion of the promised sum might eventually reach your hands? Today, please forgive me my lack of charitable impulse while running upstairs to where David was working, shouting – Good news! Good news! Pink Floyd has won! http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=17005 - http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=17005 |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 21:16
|
Fripp reminds me of Henry for some reason.
|