Pink Floyd songs could be removed from iTunes after court ruling

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Music legends Pink Floyd won a lawsuit with their label EMI Thursday, with the band successfully defending its right to block the sale of individual songs on digital download services like iTunes.



According to the BBC, a High Court in the U.K. sided with the band, which signed a deal with EMI that stated individual songs would not be sold without the band's permission. However, that deal was inked before legal digital downloads from services like iTunes hit the market, and the label felt that the same rules didn't apply to digital downloads as did to CDs. The members of Pink Floyd felt otherwise, and the court agreed.



The contract between the band and the label sought to "preserve the artistic integrity" of whole albums by not breaking them up into individual song sales. The decision is reportedly part of a larger case over £10m in unpaid royalties.



"The band largely avoided releasing singles during their career, instead preferring fans to listen to entire albums such as Dark Side of the Moon, which has sold more than 35 million copies around the world," the report said.



EMI has not yet been ordered to cease the sale of tracks. As of Thursday afternoon, individual track sales on iTunes for classics like "Money," and "Wish You Were Here" were still available for individual sale at a cost of $1.29. The BBC simply noted that the band's songs "may be removed from digital music services like iTunes."







EMI also owns the catalogue for The Beatles, and it is believed the issue over single song downloads has been what has kept their tracks from being sold iTunes thus far.



The labels attempted to boost whole album digital sales last year, when they convinced Apple to create the iTunes LP format. However, sales thus far are said to have been disappointing.



Issues over digital download royalties led to a legal battle last year between Apple and rapper Eminem. In that case, the artist felt that new, separate contracts should be required for digital distribution. Eminem argued the sale of songs on iTunes was not covered under the terms of the original agreement with the record label. The case was quickly settled out of court.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 113
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,064member
    Quote:

    preserve the artistic integrity



    [sarcasm]

    I'm surprised more artists have not gone after radio stations for daring to play a single track instead of the entire album. That's how this problem started.

    [/sarcasm]
  • Reply 2 of 113
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    "How can you eat your pudding?"



    'If you don't sell single on iTunes!'



    "How can you eat your pudding?"



    See ya Pink Floyd.... "All in all your just a 'nother brick in the wall."
  • Reply 3 of 113
    dcno10dcno10 Posts: 19member
    To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.



    Then come talk to me.
  • Reply 4 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCno10 View Post


    To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.



    Then come talk to me.



    Of course, the same could be said about MEATLOAF. Will you be speaking up for him as well?
  • Reply 5 of 113
    dcno10dcno10 Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post


    Of course, the same could be said about MEATLOAF. Will you be speaking up for him as well?



    If he had taken an artistic position that an album is an art form that should be experienced in its entirety then yes. Look at The Beatles as they said in the article: their early music was the catchy, boybandy hook music (Hard Day's Night, I Want to Hold Your Hand, etc). They evolved into a band that focused on the album as a work of art (Abbey Road, Revolver, etc).



    I'm not saying that you can't listen to a single song from one of those artists and be happy about it, but you should respect the artist's request to release their work as it was intended.



    You wouldn't read chapters 1, 9, 16, and 42 from a book without reading the entire book would you?
  • Reply 6 of 113
    l008coml008com Posts: 163member
    Why is this even an issue when it comes to iTunes? There have been Album-Only songs since day one. If Pink Floyd want it so you must buy their whole album, let em? I don't see how it's an issue? It will probably mean fewer Floyd songs sold, and people who buy the whole album will still listen on shuffle anyway.
  • Reply 7 of 113
    This actually makes sense for Pink Floyd as they really did care about how the songs flowed together in an album. I'd expect the songs to still be on iTunes but in an album only format
  • Reply 8 of 113
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCno10 View Post


    To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.



    Then come talk to me.





    Got to admit that is pretty much a timeless piece of music. I have never listened to it in any other way than the full album. Glad to see them sticking up for their artistic integrity even though it could cost them some money.



    On the other hand, although I used to think the Beatles were the best group ever, now when I hear to their stuff it seems so dated and well, silly. Yellow submarine blah, Maxwells silver hammer, blah to name just 2 that I can't stand. But Pink Floyd still sounds great.
  • Reply 9 of 113
    l008coml008com Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 View Post


    This actually makes sense for Pink Floyd as they really did care about how the songs flowed together in an album. I'd expect the songs to still be on iTunes but in an album only format



    Just make sure you also shuffle the dvd chapters when you watch the wizard of oz.
  • Reply 9 of 113
    Yawn. Decent, but overrated in their prime; but now definitely a has-been, band.



    This is news!?
  • Reply 11 of 113
    sticknicksticknick Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rot'napple View Post


    "how can you eat your pudding?"



    'if you don't sell single on itunes!'




    hahahahah!!!
  • Reply 12 of 113
    Simple fix, make the album one long song. Sell it for a 1.29, just like all the other songs, only this one is an hour long.



    According to their stance, no one should be able to skip to the next "song" on their album anyway.
  • Reply 13 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCno10 View Post


    To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.



    Then come talk to me.



    No one disagrees. It just sounds a tad pompous, that's all. (I know DSotM very well; good album).



    Incidentally, when they perform live concerts, do they only perform either all of DSotM, or none of it?



    If they do snippets, then that means they are not only pompous, but also a tad hypocritical.
  • Reply 14 of 113
    azazel-azazel- Posts: 68member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Yawn. Decent, but overrated in their prime; but now definitely a has-been, band.



    This is news!?



    Blasphemy!



    OT: sell them as album-only. Problem solved.
  • Reply 15 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    However, that deal was inked before legal digital downloads from services like iTunes hit the market, and the label felt that the same rules didn't apply to digital downloads as did to CDs. The members of Pink Floyd felt otherwise, and the court agreed.



    I agree, too -- the fault here lies entirely with EMI. Anyone who knows them is aware of their profound stupidity. ("Witless Greedy Moron Syndrome" seems to be endemic to the business side of the recording industry, period.)



    I mean, they can't even remember what's in their own company contracts??? What über-idiots advised them, "Sure, go ahead, sell them individually!" in the first place?



    And yes, DSOTM -- as one of THE flagship "concept albums" in music history -- definitely deserves to be sold in its entirety.
  • Reply 16 of 113
    cavallocavallo Posts: 57member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Incidentally, when they perform live concerts, do they only perform either all of DSotM, or none of it?



    If they do snippets, then that means they are not only pompous, but also a tad hypocritical.



    For that logic to work, you'd have to believe that they don't plan their live sets at all, and simply play songs at random.
  • Reply 17 of 113
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by azazel- View Post


    Blasphemy!



    OT: sell them as album-only. Problem solved.



    not blasphemy, merely profound ignorance.
  • Reply 18 of 113
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cavallo View Post


    For that logic to work, you'd have to believe that they don't plan their live sets at all, and simply play songs at random.



    There is no use arguing. The youth of today has never developed the listening skills to appreciate music, or true talent.



    Music these days is not generally viewed as an art form, but simply as either background music or entertainment, hence the death of the (concept) album and the rise of the single that can be digested in roughly 2.5 minutes.
  • Reply 19 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCno10 View Post


    To anyone that disagrees with the position of listening to/releasing only whole albums: go listen to The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety.



    Then come talk to me.



    I agree totally. PF may decide that some of their albums be sold as individual songs, but I'm glad the artists have won the right to distribute their music as they see fit.
  • Reply 20 of 113
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    But Pink Floyd still sounds great.



    Even their "rough stuff" from the early days, despite the dated sound, doesn't really sound "dated," if you catch my meaning. The Beatles' sound, by comparison, is positively prehistoric -- part of its appeal, to some, though it wears quickly on me.



    But when Pink Floyd were in their prime, their studio-album production values were top-notch -- groundbreaking and revolutionary, in fact. The quality of the music varied, but the overall "sheen" and "lustre" given to their projects is virtually unbeatable.



    In any age, no matter what the technological standards, their sound would be a standard-bearer.



    And while "A Momentary Lapse Of Reason" and "The Division Bell" may not live up to the same musical standard of the mature masterpieces, they certainly match the technical standard and sound just as amazing.
Sign In or Register to comment.