Pink Floyd v EMI

[bellinghman]

From 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.

Comments

[sbp.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't have done explicitly - "latest contract was signed before download stores like iTunes appeared" - but a) I don't know how exploitation of new formats gets covered in older contracts and b) PF were big enough to make sure that last contract was favourable towards them as much as they could, so it's probably a pretty bespoke contract.