"Represent!"
Posted on 03/10/2010 1:41:48 PM PST by a fool in paradise
Pink Floyd are suing their record label EMI, claiming that it has no right to sell their songs except as part of full albums. According to a 1999 contract, tunes like Money and Another Brick in the Wall cannot be "unbundled" from the albums on which they appear; EMI alleges this does not apply to downloads.
"Pink Floyd [are] well-known for performing seamless pieces," said Robert Howe, the band's lawyer, at a High Court hearing yesterday. "Many of the songs blend into each other." To reflect this, Pink Floyd's renegotiated 1999 contract "expressly prohibits" EMI from selling songs out of context. And yet, Howe argues, EMI "[permit] individual tracks to be downloaded online and ... [therefore allow] albums not to be sold in their original configuration."
EMI's legal team dismissed this interpretation, saying the album stipulation applies only to physical releases like CDs and DVDs. "In 1999, when [the contract] was negotiated, iTunes didn't even exist," EMI lawyer Elizabeth Jones told BusinessWeek.
...Pink Floyd have been signed to EMI since 1967, issuing all of their albums through the label. It's been a lucrative career: The Dark Side of the Moon, released in 1973, is one of the all-time bestselling albums, and the group's back catalogue is second only to the Beatles in worldwide sales....
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Another brick in the wall
Except when they appear on best of albums, in boxed sets, etc.
The band (and band members) have long taken to breaking up these compositions by song and jetisoning much of the albums when they go on tour.
Don’t mess with the Floyd!
Wonder how this affects Pink Floyd songs rerecorded by other artists.
Lot's of interesting reditions out there.
“That geezer is cruisin’ for a bruisin’”
We keep hearing that intellectual property law is supposed to protect the “creators” of art and science, but of late it only seems to protect commercial interests which produce copies of what others created. I think Pink Floyd is short-sighted from a purely financial point of view in taking this position, but sacrificing money for artistic integrity is the artist’s right (or in this case artists’ right), so I hope they win.
"Represent!"
Roger Waters and David Gilmour can’t even agree on artistic integrity. The other members aren’t equal share members of the latter Floyd albums and Rog has to laugh that Gilmour’s wife wrote songs at the end (said it was so Spinal Tap).
Oh man..LOL
Except.... the songs were played on the radio for decades with no action against them.
Next.
It was a renegotiated contract 30 years after the fact. When they found their artistic vision I guess.
Da Floyds.
“There is no dark side of the moon. It’s all dark.”
When the copyright law was written, computers didn't even exist, yet copyright law has been found to protect IP on electronic media.
Roger Waters is one of the biggest idiots in show biz
Songs played on the radio are not sales, nor are they recordings.
I’m a real believer in intellectual property rights, so I’m on the side of PF. I’m also think that those kids who sang on The Wall should be paid already. PF members seem to be really garbage human beings. Bob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.