![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pink Floyd v EMI
Mar. 11th, 2010 12:21 pmFrom this BBC report
He said it would have been "a very odd result" if band members were able to control exactly how their music was sold as a physical product but there was "a free-for-all with no limitation on online distribution".
Elizabeth Jones QC, appearing for EMI, disagreed and said the word "record" in the band's contract "plainly applies to the physical thing - there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution".
Hmmm.
Either the record contract covered online sales as well - in which case the stipulation that no singles were to be produced applied - or it didn't, in which case EMI should pony up an awful lot of money for illegally uploading those tracks to the internet for profit.
I'm sure an IP lawyer will be along in a minute.
He said it would have been "a very odd result" if band members were able to control exactly how their music was sold as a physical product but there was "a free-for-all with no limitation on online distribution".
Elizabeth Jones QC, appearing for EMI, disagreed and said the word "record" in the band's contract "plainly applies to the physical thing - there is nothing to suggest it applies to online distribution".
Hmmm.
Either the record contract covered online sales as well - in which case the stipulation that no singles were to be produced applied - or it didn't, in which case EMI should pony up an awful lot of money for illegally uploading those tracks to the internet for profit.
I'm sure an IP lawyer will be along in a minute.
