Posts
Pink Floyd sue EMI for allowing people to not buy the rubbish ones
You've got to love the irony: for years, the major labels have been trying to find ways of forcing people to buy digital music in bundles, only for Pink Floyd to get upset with EMI for, erm, allowing people to buy individual tracks:
"Pink Floyd [are] well-known for performing seamless pieces," said Robert Howe, the band's lawyer, at a High Court hearing yesterday. "Many of the songs blend into each other." To reflect this, Pink Floyd's renegotiated 1999 contract "expressly prohibits" EMI from selling songs out of context. And yet, Howe argues, EMI "[permit] individual tracks to be downloaded online and ... [therefore allow] albums not to be sold in their original configuration."
EMI's defence is the 1999 contract didn't even consider digital downloads. Seriously? Nobody at either EMI or on Pink Floyd's team considered selling songs online in 1999? No wonder the old labels are struggling to cope.
It's not clear why Pink Floyd are desperate to make people give them money for songs their audience don't actually want, but legal experts suggest it might be a mixture of "arrogrance, ego, and old-fashioned greed."
2 comments:
It is worth mentioning that in 2001, two years after 1999, Pink Floyd released a compilation album, 'Echoes', which featured many of their most famous songs removed from their original album context.
Or is it different when it's on CD and you have to listen to "Money" for the billionth time without being allowed to remember that "Interstellar Overdrive" or "Grantchester Meadows" or anything off the 'More' soundtrack exist?
New technology always revolutionised the music industry. First there was shellac and now it's MP3's. It's sad that a Venerable old label such as EMI has been forced to become a dinosaur by it's own proteges.
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.