Pink Floyd launches legal battle against EMI in dispute over royalties
pink floyd have launched a legal battle to stop their songs being sold individually on iTunes and other internet music sites.
The legendary rock band want to exercise creative control and are trying to force their record company EMI to sell only complete albums, as they are meant to be heard as 'seamless' pieces of music.
EMI has allowed the band's songs to be downloaded individually following the emergence of MP3 players and the Apple iPod in recent years.
But Pink Floyd, who are responsible for three of the biggest-selling albums of all time - Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall and Wish You Were Here - are trying to put a stop to this at the High Court.
Yesterday their lawyer Robert Howe argued that a contractual clause 'expressly prohibited' the selling of tracks, either physically or online, 'other than in their original configuration'.
Mr Howe said it also concerned EMI's 'entitlement to sell individual tracks, or indeed any tracks, otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums'.
He argued that a contractual clause 'expressly prohibited' what was referred to as 'unbundling' - the selling of tracks, either physically or online, 'other than in their original configuration'.
Mr Howe said EMI was arguing that the prohibition 'applies only to the physical product and doesn't apply online'.
But that 'makes no commercial sense' and was contradicted by the conditions used in the agreement with EMI, argued Mr Howe.
However EMI insisted that the agreement applied only to records and not to downloads.
When the agreement was drawn up in 1999, downloads did not exist. They were introduced in 2004.
Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and have sold more than 200million albums. They are outsold only by The Beatles, whose songs have not yet been made available through iTunes.
Applying for a summary judgment against EMI, Mr Howe said the company had been permitting individual tracks from Pink Floyd albums to be downloaded on their own.
This went against an agreement negotiated in 1998-1999 which contained a clause which effectively prevented the exploitation of the band's music as single track downloads without express consent.
The band was well known for producing 'seamless' pieces of music on albums and was clearly what they wanted to achieve.
It was understandable they 'wanted to retain artistic control'.
Mr Howe said it would have been 'a very odd result' if they were able to control exactly how their music sold in its physical form but there was 'a free-for-all with no limitation on online distribution'.
Mr Howe argued the definition of 'record' embodied not only the physical album, but also included any new formats, and was broad enough to include the new single digital download.
'Prohibition applies equally to the digital product as it would to the physical product, as one would expect from the commercial purpose of the clause - there would be a digital free-for-all otherwise.'
Elizabeth Jones QC, appearing for EMI, disagreed and said the word record 'plainly applies to the physical thing - there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution'.
At the time the agreement was drawn up in 1999, iTunes downloads did not exist, being introduced in 2004.
Ms Jones said: 'There is nothing in the agreement suggesting the commercial intent was one way or the other, if you look at the clauses in the context of the whole agreement.'
Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, said he would give his ruling on Thursday.
The legendary rock band want to exercise creative control and are trying to force their record company EMI to sell only complete albums, as they are meant to be heard as 'seamless' pieces of music.
EMI has allowed the band's songs to be downloaded individually following the emergence of MP3 players and the Apple iPod in recent years.
Pink Floyd band members, from left, Roger Waters, Nick Mason and the late Syd Barrett and the late Rick Wright pictured in 1967
Yesterday their lawyer Robert Howe argued that a contractual clause 'expressly prohibited' the selling of tracks, either physically or online, 'other than in their original configuration'.
Mr Howe said it also concerned EMI's 'entitlement to sell individual tracks, or indeed any tracks, otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums'.
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best selling albums of all time
Mr Howe said EMI was arguing that the prohibition 'applies only to the physical product and doesn't apply online'.
But that 'makes no commercial sense' and was contradicted by the conditions used in the agreement with EMI, argued Mr Howe.
However EMI insisted that the agreement applied only to records and not to downloads.
When the agreement was drawn up in 1999, downloads did not exist. They were introduced in 2004.
Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and have sold more than 200million albums. They are outsold only by The Beatles, whose songs have not yet been made available through iTunes.
Applying for a summary judgment against EMI, Mr Howe said the company had been permitting individual tracks from Pink Floyd albums to be downloaded on their own.
This went against an agreement negotiated in 1998-1999 which contained a clause which effectively prevented the exploitation of the band's music as single track downloads without express consent.
The band was well known for producing 'seamless' pieces of music on albums and was clearly what they wanted to achieve.
It was understandable they 'wanted to retain artistic control'.
Mr Howe said it would have been 'a very odd result' if they were able to control exactly how their music sold in its physical form but there was 'a free-for-all with no limitation on online distribution'.
Mr Howe argued the definition of 'record' embodied not only the physical album, but also included any new formats, and was broad enough to include the new single digital download.
'Prohibition applies equally to the digital product as it would to the physical product, as one would expect from the commercial purpose of the clause - there would be a digital free-for-all otherwise.'
Elizabeth Jones QC, appearing for EMI, disagreed and said the word record 'plainly applies to the physical thing - there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution'.
At the time the agreement was drawn up in 1999, iTunes downloads did not exist, being introduced in 2004.
Ms Jones said: 'There is nothing in the agreement suggesting the commercial intent was one way or the other, if you look at the clauses in the context of the whole agreement.'
Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, said he would give his ruling on Thursday.
评论
发表评论