Pink Floyd says iTunes can't sell single songs, only albums

[nightflier]

Read this on EnjoyTheMusic.com and thought it was interesting:

Legendary rock bank Pink Floyd has won a lawsuit against recording label EMI over online sales of their music.

A British court has ruled that Pink Floyd's songs can not be unbundled from their albums due to artistic creation and the fact their music tends to be conceptual. As such, online music stores including iTiunes can not sell single songs without the band's permission. Since Pink Flody's songs seamlessly go from one to the other, this aided in the court's ruling. EMI was claiming while this is true and per their contract applies to physical media, it did not apply to online sales. The judge 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."

[poppachubby]

Good for them. They obviously don't want to become a lo-fi soundbite...

[frahengeo]

The judge must've been a Floyd fan.

[nightflier]

More importantly, what does this mean for the download industry?

[atomicAdam]

In a weird way this could either be PF standing up for artistic integrity or it could be seen a money hungry. I'm not really sure how to take it, not knowing their Dark Side.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I applaud them for standing up for their artistic creations. While some albums can be considered a hoch poch of music, some bands albums are one big concept. By splitting this concept up, you turn each song into basically nothing but a tune. iTunes has pretty much killed the concept of the album, and these guys want to fight back doing that with their music.

Good for them.

[nightflier]

Pink Floyd has typically been a stand-up-for-the-little guy kind of band. They certainly don't need to be richer, so my guess is that this is more about the artistic value of the whole album.

I can see this issue apply to many different classic rock bands like Zep, Yes, Iron Butterfly, Frampton, etc. Imagine Rush's 2112 being split into 'tunes? Despite the popularity of the Temples of Syrinx portion, it just isn't the same without the rest of the piece. I also think this applies to other types of music like jazz and classical: what is Vivaldi's Winter without the other 3 Seasons? Where would you split *****es Brew into smaller more "packageable" tunes? Just as you wouldn't just admire the left side of a Rubens triptych in a cathedral, certain albums just need to heard in their entirety.

Damn! does the word "*****es" have to be censored? Are we going to put fig leafs over Michelangelo's David too? Geez, this is a discussion about the wholeness of art!

[rob_a]

It does seem more of an artistic battle more than a money issue. The bands stands to lose money with the restrictions on the single song sales.
I do agree, the album concept it's self is slowly going away because of music fans having the choice of buying the complete work or just parts of the work. So the case can be made that a lose in sales may be a result in this ruling.

[mlsstl]

Pink Floyd has typically been a stand-up-for-the-little guy kind of band. They certainly don't need to be richer, so my guess is that this is more about the artistic value of the whole album.

I can see this issue apply to many different classic rock bands like Zep, Yes, Iron Butterfly, Frampton, etc. Imagine Rush's 2112 being split into 'tunes? Despite the popularity of the Temples of Syrinx portion, it just isn't the same without the rest of the piece. I also think this applies to other types of music like jazz and classical: what is Vivaldi's Winter without the other 3 Seasons? Where would you split *****es Brew into smaller more "packageable" tunes? Just as you wouldn't just admire the left side of a Rubens triptych in a cathedral, certain albums just need to heard in their entirety.

I'm not sure I buy into the nobility of their cause as much as others. I grew up in the 1960s and 70s and they sure didn't have any problem back in those days with the radio stations playing one-song cuts from their album!

In fact, there is a 240 page book out just on the subject of Pink Floyd singles ("Pink Floyd on 45" is the title.)

So much for their snow white purity on that subject!

Actually, the album concept for pop music didn't even really exist until the mid to late 1960s and probably reached its peak in the 70s. Prior to 1948, there was only the 78 record which gave you roughly 4 minutes a side.

Even classical music isn't as quite as driven by the unabridged work concept as some might think. I listen to a fair amount of classical radio and playing a symphony or concerto uncut is much more the exception than the rule, whether it is Vivaldi, Beethoven or Mahler.

Just thinking out loud, I would imagine that Pink Floyd's suit was more about control than artistic integrity. Just my 2 cents.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure I buy into the nobility of their cause as much as others. I grew up in the 1960s and 70s and they sure didn't have any problem back in those days with the radio stations playing one-song cuts from their album!

Probably because playing single cuts actually drove the sales of an album back then.

In fact, there is a 240 page book out just on the subject of Pink Floyd singles ("Pink Floyd on 45" is the title.)

So much for their snow white purity on that subject!

They probably didn't write the book, so their views on album purity are not explored in the book.

Actually, the album concept for pop music didn't even really exist until the mid to late 1960s and probably reached its peak in the 70s. Prior to 1948, there was only the 78 record which gave you roughly 4 minutes a side.

Pink Floyd wasn't around in 1948 if I am not wrong(I don't think I am). They are a 60-70's band, around just when the concept album reached its peak - hence their interest in keeping their product whole.

Even classical music isn't as quite as driven by the unabridged work concept as some might think. I listen to a fair amount of classical radio and playing a symphony or concerto uncut is much more the exception than the rule, whether it is Vivaldi, Beethoven or Mahler.

Radio is much like a single. They play a cut from an album that spurs interest in that album as a whole. Radio(much like the single) is a marketing tool to enhance the sale of albums.

Just thinking out loud, I would imagine that Pink Floyd's suit was more about control than artistic integrity. Just my 2 cents.

It could be both artistic integrity and control for all we know. The bottom line is that they have their reason(whether we agree or not), and they were willing to side step some money to remain true to what they believe in. I can't do anything but respect that.

[mlsstl]

They probably didn't write the book, so their views on album purity are not explored in the book.

The book couldn't have been written if they hadn't released the singles. ;-)

Pink Floyd wasn't around in 1948 if I am not wrong(I don't think I am). They are a 60-70's band, around just when the concept album reached its peak - hence their interest in keeping their product whole.

And I didn't say they were around in '48. I was giving historical context that showed the idea of a "concept album" in pop music is not a particularly old idea. And, it has faded from its peak as a vehicle for artists.

Radio is much like a single. They play a cut from an album that spurs interest in that album as a whole. Radio(much like the single) is a marketing tool to enhance the sale of albums.

Agreed, though that wasn't always believed to be the case. BMI was formed in the early 1940s when ASCAP refused to renew broadcasting rights for radio stations. ASCAP was being greedy and dang near killed themselves in the process. They ended up accidentally launching new forms of music to the public at large (blues, gospel, country which formed the foundation of rock 'n roll in the 50s) when BMI was formed to supply music the radio stations could broadcast. By the time ASCAP came around, it was too late and their absolute control of music America heard was over.

It could be both artistic integrity and control for all we know. The bottom line is that they have their reason(whether we agree or not), and they were willing to side step some money to remain true to what they believe in. I can't do anything but respect that.

You are making the assumption that this is only a monetary loss for Pink Floyd. I'm not convinced that's the case. The whole history of music, dating back to the classical musicians, is one of artists and their publishers trying to control the manner in which the public consumes music. There has always been something that came along that screwed up their well-crafted plans and forces them to adapt or lose influence if they think they have the power to resist the changes.

I've always liked Pink Floyd, but have never been one of the acolytes. (While I have many of their albums, I'm not sure I could tell you the last time I listened to one.)

Guess this will be a situation where we agree to disagree. You think they've got some higher cause involved, and me? Well, I'm just not convinced.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The book couldn't have been written if they hadn't released the singles. ;-)

Everyone back then released singles, and once again it is to create interest in the album, not for indiviual songs. I am sure a book could have been written on the Beatles singles, Led Zepplin singles, Rolling Stones singles, Queen singles, Cream singles, The Who singles and the beat goes on.

And I didn't say they were around in '48. I was giving historical context that showed the idea of a "concept album" in pop music is not a particularly old idea. And, it has faded from its peak as a vehicle for artists.

Agreed, nobody does concept albums anymore. I personally don't think the training and musical skills needed to put one together are necessarily "in" musicians of today. However, that does not address the reality that some of their albums were "concept" projects, and I do not think it is wrong for them to want to keep their creative concept intact, even 40+ years after it was created.

Agreed, though that wasn't always believed to be the case. BMI was formed in the early 1940s when ASCAP refused to renew broadcasting rights for radio stations. ASCAP was being greedy and dang near killed themselves in the process. They ended up accidentally launching new forms of music to the public at large (blues, gospel, country which formed the foundation of rock 'n roll in the 50s) when BMI was formed to supply music the radio stations could broadcast. By the time ASCAP came around, it was too late and their absolute control of music America heard was over.

I am well aware of musical history, there were quite a few of my family members out there making it.

You are making the assumption that this is only a monetary loss for Pink Floyd. I'm not convinced that's the case. The whole history of music, dating back to the classical musicians, is one of artists and their publishers trying to control the manner in which the public consumes music. There has always been something that came along that screwed up their well-crafted plans and forces them to adapt or lose influence if they think they have the power to resist the changes.

I am making no assumptions, and I don't think it is relevant if the loss was more than monetary. The plain simple fact here is that they want their albums to be heard as a creative whole, and not some parsed out bunch of individual tunes. They conceived their albums as concept albums, and that is how they want them heard. Even if the real reason is they just don't want Apple selling their songs, or they make money on sales of the albums, their reasons are their reasons. Obviously whatever the real reason is , they believe so much in it, that they are willing to leave money on the table.

I've always liked Pink Floyd, but have never been one of the acolytes. (While I have many of their albums, I'm not sure I could tell you the last time I listened to one.)

Guess this will be a situation where we agree to disagree. You think they've got some higher cause involved, and me? Well, I'm just not convinced.

Since neither of us really knows why they are making this move, there is really nothing to agree to disagree with. I don't think convincing you are anyone else is their aim. I prefer to go with the reasons they clearly state, since we do not have enough information for anything else. However, with information we have, they state their music is continous(of which it is), and as such should not be cut apart and sold in bits and pieces. Obviously the judge agreed, and now their albums must be sold as a whole, or sold in pieces with their permission.

[E-Stat]

The book couldn't have been written if they hadn't released the singles. ;-)

Their move does appear to be disingenuous. Today's market is obviously different with the predominant delivery method being "song" oriented.

rw

[mlsstl]

Since neither of us really knows why they are making this move, there is really nothing to agree to disagree with. I don't think convincing you are anyone else is their aim. I prefer to go with the reasons they clearly state, since we do not have enough information for anything else. However, with information we have, they state their music is continous(of which it is), and as such should not be cut apart and sold in bits and pieces. Obviously the judge agreed, and now their albums must be sold as a whole, or sold in pieces with their permission.

Here's a comment from a news article in Business Insider: "The ruling is just part of a protracted legal battle with EMI over unpaid royalties that has been going on for more than a year."

And from Bloomberg News: "The ruling gives Pink Floyd leverage to seek more royalties if the band decides to allow single-song sales in the future, said Ian Karet, an intellectual property lawyer with Linklaters LLP in London."

Bloomberg continued to point out the contract involved is over 10 years old and "“At the time the contract was signed, it is unlikely they were foreseeing online sales,” Karet said in a phone interview. “Everybody in the music industry is looking to extract whatever value they can at this point.”

The Wall Street Journal reported the larger suit started in 2008 when the band undertook an audit of its contract to see if EMI was paying all the royalties to which they were entitled.

In other words, this is just part of a larger suit about money.

Who woulda thunk.

;-)

[TheHills44060]

I don't understand why people just don't buy the record, cd or tape. Call me old fashioned but all this download stuff is ridiculous.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Here's a comment from a news article in Business Insider: "The ruling is just part of a protracted legal battle with EMI over unpaid royalties that has been going on for more than a year."

And from Bloomberg News: "The ruling gives Pink Floyd leverage to seek more royalties if the band decides to allow single-song sales in the future, said Ian Karet, an intellectual property lawyer with Linklaters LLP in London."

Bloomberg continued to point out the contract involved is over 10 years old and "“At the time the contract was signed, it is unlikely they were foreseeing online sales,” Karet said in a phone interview. “Everybody in the music industry is looking to extract whatever value they can at this point.”

The Wall Street Journal reported the larger suit started in 2008 when the band undertook an audit of its contract to see if EMI was paying all the royalties to which they were entitled.

In other words, this is just part of a larger suit about money.

Who woulda thunk.

;-)

Great, you have one side who is asking to be paid what they deserve, and you have the record company potentially hiding, or just not paying out royalties the band earned.

Hey, if it were me, I would do the same thing. How can you trust a company to pay you what you are owed going forward, when they do not have a track record of doing so in the past. I knew this was about money, but I do not see anything disingenuous in their actions. Their catalog has a lot of value, and they have a right(just like the company did) to get as much as they desire for their intellectual property. EMI was trying to use the bands songs above and beyond what the contract states. Now they have the right to sell their songs as they see fit, and if they want the public to buy the album instead of individual songs, they can decide that for themselves. As you know, many a record company has cheated artists out of their royalties and control of their songs. Many an artist has chosen alternate release outlets for their songs because they are sick and tired of the behavior of the record companies they have signed with. If an artist has the wherewithal to fight, or go around a record company, I say more power to them.

[E-Stat]

I knew this was about money, but I do not see anything disingenuous in their actions.

Then have the balls to admit it is all about money and not about some bull$hit "concept album" crap. What was true about singles decades ago remains true about singles today. But, then again it's all about the title of the most popular cut from "Dark Side of the Moon" album, isn't it?

rw

[mlsstl]

Great, you have one side who is asking to be paid what they deserve, and you have the record company potentially hiding, or just not paying out royalties the band earned.

You need to make up your mind. First it's about artistic control and not money. Now it's OK to be about money. Your story seems to be evolving as the facts come out. ;-)

Though I'm not a lawyer, professionally I'm often involved in contract disputes on behalf of clients. I frequently find myself explaining to them that things aren't as black and white as they believe them to be.

First, if a contract is completely clear on a subject, there is less likely to be a dispute.

Second, here we have a contract that was written before downloading was a method of music distribution for the record companies. The Pink Floyd/EMI contract was written in 1999 according to the news articles. I-Tunes didn't even start as a business until 2001. As such, the contract says nothing about download sales.

In short, there was a lawsuit because, in 20-20 hindsight, it turned out the contract wasn't as definitive as both parties may have wished. That's just a routine hazard of drawing up a legal document that will apply to the future when the specific nature of changes can't be fully anticipated.

The members of Pink Floyd are just as subject to the vagaries of the human condition as the individuals who make up the management of EMI. Both parties are perfectly capable of being greedy, and it very common for a person to dress up a less noble motivation with trappings that make it look better.

"I want my money" isn't quite as pretty as "I want to retain artistic control."

In your case, you're more sure about which party's story you buy than I. While I love music, I've never found that the gift of musical ability automatically gives a person an extra dose of righteousness in the other areas of their life.

In any event, it makes interesting reading for us little people.

Have a good day and enjoy the show!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You need to make up your mind. First it's about artistic control and not money. Now it's OK to be about money. Your story seems to be evolving as the facts come out. ;-)

I didn't have a story, I had an opinion. Anyone's opinion that does not evolve as more facts are revealed is foolish. Ask G.W. Bush about that.

They first said they wanted their album sold whole because that is how they make them. Okay, I'll go with that. Now we find out they want what is due them, and will not allow the record company to do things outside what is contracted. Okay, I am good with that as well. I do not have to make up my mind until all of the facts are revealed, but I can have an opinion until they are.

Though I'm not a lawyer, professionally I'm often involved in contract disputes on behalf of clients. I frequently find myself explaining to them that things aren't as black and white as they believe them to be.

Okay, since I sign contracts, I understand this.

First, if a contract is completely clear on a subject, there is less likely to be a dispute.

It seems to me it would be hard to make a clear contract with the knowledge we now have. Since online sales of individual songs was not popular, or even on the radar ten years ago(itunes launched in 2003), it would have been hard to address that when the contract was written(they did say the contract was signed 10 years ago, which means the year 2000). If EMI tried to negotiate with Apple to sell Pink Floyd's tunes without PF's permission, that would be outside of the contract they signed.

Second, here we have a contract that was written before downloading was a method of music distribution for the record companies. The Pink Floyd/EMI contract was written in 1999 according to the news articles. I-Tunes didn't even start as a business until 2001. As such, the contract says nothing about download sales.

Hence the lawsuit. I still cannot see anything disingenuous here. By the way, the itunes store opened in 2003, not 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store

In short, there was a lawsuit because, in 20-20 hindsight, it turned out the contract wasn't as definitive as both parties may have wished. That's just a routine hazard of drawing up a legal document that will apply to the future when the specific nature of changes can't be fully anticipated.

Hence the lawsuit to make what is vague very clear going forward. Still cannot see anything disingenuous here.

The members of Pink Floyd are just as subject to the vagaries of the human condition as the individuals who make up the management of EMI. Both parties are perfectly capable of being greedy, and it very common for a person to dress up a less noble motivation with trappings that make it look better.

"I want my money" isn't quite as pretty as "I want to retain artistic control."

Who cares if it is pretty. It is legit to want your money, and have artistic control of your IP. Individuals want it that way, and so do large corporations. Nobody is right or wrong here IMO, that is just the way it is.

In your case, you're more sure about which party's story you buy than I.

How do you know what I am sure about? I never made a definitive statement on who is right and who is wrong. I looked at the link, and made some basic comments on what I thought. As more information was revealed, I made comments on that as well. Personally, I have had enough experience with working with record companies to know how they behave.

While I love music, I've never found that the gift of musical ability automatically gives a person an extra dose of righteousness in the other areas of their life.

This is not about righteousness at all. It is about honoring your contract as written, and that includes paying out all royalties that are owed to an artist, and working within the frame work of a contract already signed. When either of these things(or both) don't happen, then the situation becomes prime for a lawsuit. That is pretty clear cut and simple to get.

In any event, it makes interesting reading for us little people.

Have a good day and enjoy the show!

Ummmm Okay......

[audio amateur]

This isn't really on topic, but speaking of Pink Floyd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jsa...l#movie_player

Surprising that I hadn't seen that episode before...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This isn't really on topic, but speaking of Pink Floyd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jsa...l#movie_player

Surprising that I hadn't seen that episode before...

Nice wheels!!!

[mlsstl]

You need to be careful with Wikipedia - another article on the same web site reports the inception date of iTunes as 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes

This article on MacWorld also states 2001. http://www.maclife.com/article/featu...itunes_history

Either 2001 or 2003 is fine with me, but it seemed important to you.

However, since you felt it necessary to bring politics into the discussion, I think my participation in the discussion is over. I don't mix audio & music with politics. Feel free to have the last word.

[02audionoob]

I can't figure out why this topic takes such a long discussion to hash out that it's about the money. Of course it's about the money. It's always about the money.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You need to be careful with Wikipedia - another article on the same web site reports the inception date of iTunes as 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes

This article on MacWorld also states 2001. http://www.maclife.com/article/featu...itunes_history

Either 2001 or 2003 is fine with me, but it seemed important to you.

Thanks for the warning with Wikipedia, but I completely understand the difference between rolling out a product concept at a convention

iTunes was introduced by Apple Inc. on January 9, 2001,[2] at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco.

and when the store actually opened

Opening as the iTunes Music Store on April 28, 2003, with over 200,000 items to purchase,

I just wanted to make sure YOU understood the difference.

Either 2001 or 2003 is fine with me, but it seemed important to you.

I think the correct fact is important to us all. So 2003 would be the stores actual opening based on fact, and 2001 would be the product roll out at Mac World.

However, since you felt it necessary to bring politics into the discussion, I think my participation in the discussion is over. I don't mix audio & music with politics. Feel free to have the last word.

Thanks, I just took you up on your offer.

[nightflier]

Well OK, in PF's suit it was all about money, but this case also opens up the floodgates for other bands to make the same claims about their music being sold in complete albums. This also leads to another quandary: if radio singles were just advertising for pushing whole album sales, why can't a compressed downloaded single be considered the same? Also, why should it cost $1 per download if the website it is hosted on is bloated with ads, not unlike when a radio station cuts to commercial every few songs?