Pink Floyd wins online distribution ruling.

[herr_oberst]

Very conflicted here.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm

• Huge Pink Floyd Fan - I have Saucerful of Secrets on vinyl. Have had since it was released.

• They sue EMI for £10 million. Non-payment of downloaded songs.

• But then insist it's all about artistic integrity, because the albums are supposed to be heard as a complete recording, not individual songs, a'la itunes.
This is the conflict as I see it for me. I agree totally the artists should be able to control the content and the way it's distributed. Shouldn't they just sue to make Apple, or any other content provider, demand that the consumer buy the complete album? Shouldn't content providers offer that option to all the artists?

Is it possible to sell out for integrity? That's how I feel about this suit.

• When Metallica came down HARD against illegal downloading I knew where I stood, and I don't really care that much for Hetfield, et al.

• Gogar's band (among others) have given new releases away for free.

It's the wild-wild west out there.

I think I just want to hear the discussion.

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Shouldn't they just sue to make Apple, or any other content provider, demand that the consumer buy the complete album? Shouldn't content providers offer that option to all the artists?

Yes, but only if the artist is willing to risk it. Some artists could demand this right & obviously Pink Floyd want it. I know for me, I average really liking only 2 - 3 songs on any release. So I would tend to skip the whole release unless I really, really wanted those tracks.

Ian

[ramonesfreak]

i read an article yesterday about this and there was a statement from the attorney that the purpose of the suit is to get a ruling on the contract because apparently the contract is ambiguous regarding on-line. I believe the Judge so far has simply stated that PF does indeed have a viable case. Such suits in this country are called "declaratory" actions...Whether PF is entitled to money, i have no idea

selling individual songs instead of albums is exactly why the beatles have not been available on itunes..

Its also why Led Zep did not allow Atlantic to sell "singles"...they wanted their audience to experience the album as a whole....and in this respect, they revolutionized the recording industry

[ramonesfreak]

here from the article:

"This week's court hearing was around the interpretation of two contractual points, both linked to the digital sale of Pink Floyd's music. But there are further arguments to be heard on this and the case will go on for some time."

The contract was entered into before on-line was around...so terms are now ambiguous.

I dont understand what about this is "selling out"

Who sold out and why ? Not sure what your saying

[herr_oberst]

I guess in my romantic view, artistic control of the distribution would be the goal. Not a pile of money to throw onto an already enormous pile... (yet, I know that EMI has been happy as pigs in mud to keep money that should belong to the creator of the music. . .)

Like I said, these suits tend to conflict me.

[ramonesfreak]

it says in the article that this issue of single vs album is one of many ongoing issues., including FAILURE TO PAY ROYALTIES....failure to pay back royalties is what the money is about...

the single vs. album issue...will not result in a money judgement..it will result in clarification of the contract and an order to stop offering individual songs for sale

i hope you dont mind that PF wants their proper royalties

[ramonesfreak]

"The ruling is part of a long-running battle between the two sides over £10m in unpaid royalties."

[Gogar]

The artist, or the owner (if the artist is not the owner) should be able to have a say in the means of distribution.

If PF wants their albums to be sold as collections for $xx and not sell singles, that is their right, and the market would hopefully determine whether or not the complete, more expensive product is "worth it."

IMO with this suit PF is cutting off their nose to spite their face. They indeed should be compensated for unpaid royalties from the online sale of their singles, but to remove their songs' availability as singles from the online services shows a fundamental misunderstanding of a quickly changing marketplace.


With that said, they certainly don't 'need' the money, so if they want to take a stand about selling the 'whole album', I think that's great. Ask Jay-Z how it worked out for him.

[legion]

This has ALWAYS been Pink Floyd's stance. They refused to release singles in the 60's, 70's, and 80's because they have felt that their works should only be released as complete albums.

This has never changed.

[ramonesfreak]

well..they did issue single 45's in the early days...Arnold Layne, See Emily Play etc... but very rarely

[targa911S]

Uhhh wasn't "money" release as a single? Ironic.

[targa911S]

I also think "the wall" was released.

[ramonesfreak]

i dont think Money was ever available as a "single" for retail sale....it was a radio "hit" but thats all...as far as i know

[targa911S]

have a cigar was also a single. prolly the B side of Another brick in the wall.

[ramonesfreak]

you sure about that...those are two songs off two different LPs... Welcome to the Machine and The Wall.....

[targa911S]

wouldn't be the first time. but you're right that would be odd. They were both released, I was just guessing about the B side.

[ramonesfreak]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Early Singles is a CD that is available only on Pink Floyd's 1992 Shine On box set. It is a compilation of the first five Pink Floyd singles. After these releases, the band did not officially issue another single in their home territory of the United Kingdom until 1979's "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II".

Except for the song "The Scarecrow", which appeared on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967), and "See Emily Play" which appeared on the American issue of The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the rest of the tracks were not released on any studio albums. Although several of the tracks appeared on earlier compilations, notably Relics (1971) and Works (1983), this was the first release that brought the 1960s singles together. To date, it is still the only official CD release to contain "Point Me at the Sky" and "It Would Be So Nice".

The tracks "Apples and Oranges" and "Point Me at the Sky" were previously unreleased in the United States and The Early Singles CD marked the tracks' first official appearance in the United States.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Release dates
* 2 Track listing
* 3 Personnel
* 4 References

[edit] Release dates

* "Arnold Layne"/"Candy and a Currant Bun" – 11 March 1967
* "See Emily Play"/"The Scarecrow" – 17 June 1967
* "Apples and Oranges"/"Paint Box" – 18 November 1967
* "It Would Be So Nice"/"Julia Dream" – 13 April 1968
* "Point Me at the Sky"/"Careful with That Axe, Eugene" – 7 December 1968

[ramonesfreak]

not sure what was released internationally though...now i gotta find out

[targa911S]

yer a smart guy for a bass player :-)

[ramonesfreak]

Originally Posted by targa911S

wouldn't be the first time. but you're right that would be odd. They were both released, I was just guessing about the B side.

yup, your right. have a cigar was a single but Shine on was the B side
PINK FLOYD Have a Cigar music reviews and MP3

Money was also a single. Any color you like was the B side
PINK FLOYD Money music reviews and MP3

the singles are listed here half way down the page
PINK FLOYD music, discography, MP3, videos and reviews


interesting....