|
|
Post by Barry SR Gowing on Feb 24, 2010 17:47:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Adey on Mar 1, 2010 18:33:11 GMT
The souls are long gone..
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry SR Gowing on Mar 11, 2010 7:40:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tannis on Mar 11, 2010 8:27:08 GMT
...and there's more...Pink Floyd await EMI dispute ruling
(UKPA) – 54 minutes ago
A High Court judge is due to rule in a dispute between rock band Pink Floyd and record label EMI.
The band, whose Dark Side Of The Moon is one of the best-selling albums in music history, is challenging the legality of EMI's decision to make individual tracks from their albums available online.
The case also concerns how online royalties are to be calculated.
Robert Howe QC, appearing for the group, said earlier this week an agreement negotiated in the 1990s contained a clause that prohibited single track downloads without express consent.
It banned what was referred to as "unbundling" - the selling of record tracks, either physically or online - "other than in their original configuration".
EMI argued that the prohibition "applies only to the physical product and doesn't apply online".
Mr Howe told Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, the band was well known for producing "seamless" pieces of music on albums and "wanted to retain artistic control".
The legal dispute is focused on an agreement reached several years before the download market was launched in the UK by Apple through the iTunes Music Store in 2004.
Mr Howe said both parties had been faced at the time the agreement was drawn up with a whole new world of potential exploitation of music "and quite simply they didn't know how that would work out".
He said it would have been "a very odd result" if members of Pink Floyd 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".
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h5qkA6iy4On91nOTzpe8-AtD_lMQ
|
|
Adena
Moving
This time around we dance - we're chosen ones
Posts: 611
|
Post by Adena on Mar 11, 2010 14:20:02 GMT
This is the sort of thing that makes me glad that I live in the world of alternative music - because most alternate bands are signed to tiny little record labels that won't fall through in a million years.  Just as long as Kate doesn't sell her soul along with EMI, I don't think I mind. |
|
|
|
Post by tannis on Mar 11, 2010 15:27:31 GMT
Pink Floyd win EMI court battle over online sales
Pink Floyd have won a High Court battle to stop their record label EMI selling individual songs online.
The rock legends, signed to EMI since 1967, said their contract meant their albums could not be split up without their permission.
A judge agreed, saying the contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums".
EMI has been ordered to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs, with a further fine to be decided.
The group, whose latest contract was signed before download stores like iTunes appeared, also disputed the way royalties for digital sales were calculated.
In court, Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt declared that the contract means EMI is not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.
The band largely avoided releasing singles during their career, instead preferring fans to listen to entire albums such as Dark Side of the Moon, which has sold more than 35 million copies around the world.
Earlier this week, Robert Howe QC, appearing for the group, said the the band's deal with EMI stipulated that their "seamless" albums should not be split up and that they "wanted to retain artistic control".
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".
The band were not present to hear the judgment at the High Court in London.
The issue of selling individual tracks online has been a thorny one for many artists, who want their albums to be seen as complete works. Bands also receive less money if fans pick and choose tracks instead of buying a full suite of songs.
It is believed to be one reason why The Beatles - whose catalogue is also owned by EMI - have not appeared in download stores like iTunes.
Garth Brooks and AC/DC are among the others who have objected to their albums being split up.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8561963.stmDoes this make me a synthetic philistine for skipping "Money", "Welcome to the Machine" and "Have a Cigar" ... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry SR Gowing on Mar 26, 2010 9:41:38 GMT
EMI are currently looking at ways of staying viable - apparently they made £200 million in the last year but owe so much money that they still can't afford to repay the interest on their loans. In response their backers (a company called "Terra Firma") are now suing Citibank, claiming that Citibank defrauded them. Citibank are the people to whom EMI owe most of the money.
You see, what happened was that Terra Firma took over management of EMI about 2 years ago, based on the idea that EMI was worth around £4.5 billion. To do that, Terra Firma had to borrow about 2 billion pounds from Citibank. Now they are claiming that EMI was vastly overvalued and that Citibank lent the money under false pretences.
Another option EMI are looking at is leasing out the catalogue of their American subsidiary, Capitol Records. This would include the American rights to stuff like Pink Floyd and The Beatles. If they can find a taker then they could get an immediate cash injection of several hundred million which in addition to their profit from last year would enable them to stay viable for quite some time - about another four years.
What does this mean for Kate? My understanding is that she owns all her later recordings - HOL and after. However, I have heard that she recently bought the rights to her earlier albums from EMI. This would effectively make her a free agent (since she would own everything). She might continue to allow EMI to release her albums, but she would be under no obligation to stay with them.
The little tribute video to Kate that EMI posted yesterday, that I mentioned in the News section, might be an indication that EMI are willing to offer Kate a little extra something as an inducement to stay with them. I would think that they would be quite keen to promote a Kate "Best Of" DVD collection along with a new "Best Of" CD (and download) package to replace "The Whole Story". Of course, they'd be even happier to receive a brand new Kate album for Christmas 2010 so that December really could be magic again, but that would be too optimistic to expect!
--Paul--
|
|
