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

[drplokta]

You don't know where the word "record" appeared. Perhaps the contract said that EMI had rights to distribute Pink Floyd's music, but that no sales of single records were permitted. If so, it would seem much less clear-cut.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

This is, indeed, true.

However, I think the court realised that EMI were attempting to both have their cake and eat it, and stomped on them. I strongly suspect that if EMI had treated the albums online the same way as the physical artefacts (i.e. all the tracks on Dark Side sold in one bundle, no splitting), there'd have been no case.

(Well, excepting the royalties question. But the 'artistic integrity' part would have been moot.)