Pink Floyd Wins Legal Battle Over Digital Sale of Individual Songs

[zorinlynx]

I think Pink Floyd is being foolish.

Yes, Pink Floyd albums tend to flow together well as one performance, but on the other hand, many of their tracks do stand well on their own:

- Money (DSotM)
- Comfortably Numb (The Wall)
- Have a Cigar (Wish You Were Here)

and several others. There's no reason people who like those songs shouldn't be able to buy them individually without investing in the entire album.

Pink Floyd is one of those rare exceptions where the entire album generally tends to be good, as opposed to one good song and filler employed by so many other bands. However, it should still be up to the customer what they want to buy.

 

[widmark]

pretty sure it's not about Wright's royalties, as he's dead, and pretty sure it's not about money at all, as even Mason is worth about 50 million pounds.

It's about how they perceive their artistic output being distributed...and other then what's in the contract, they don't have control, they don't own the music, EMI does. The music business is a complicated, messy, and stupid thing.

I wouldn't be surprised though if by further lawsuits or some other sort of agreement or compromise, Floyd convinces EMI to make the LPs available only as a complete album download. But I also think most other artists won't bother to do that, and don't have that power anyway.

 

[Henriok]

Hasn't Pink Floyd ever released a single or performed just one song from their albums, like on a TV show. (Yes they have) And how about radio? Why are stations allowed to cherry pick their songs but the consumer can't? And performing live, have they ever mixed the songs from several albums, and rearranged the order of them? Yes they have, and that's their prerogative of course, but it shows that the integrity of an album isn't carved in stone. If it's an integral work, a complete album, why stipulating that there's discrete songs on the record?

Pink Floyd is greedy. It's as simple as that. As if they haven't sold enough records to live a decent life.. And on top of that; their families will have the pleasure of raking in cash long after they are dead. I have a creative profession but when I die, my works won't generate income for my children, and their children in turn.

What's next? Shouldn't we be able to just buy Season 2 of Friends or just Empire Strikes Back or just The Return of the King (the book)?

This is a disgrace. I don't feel sorry for them at all.

Edit: And.. they didn't complain when these albums were released as single sided CDs even though they comprised of several records and sides at the original release.

 

[nagromme]

Good. I like buying single tracks, but I also like the idea that an album can be crafted as a whole, and it should be up to each artist’s choice and vision. That’s between the artist and the label, and if a certain artist/label’s decision is to sell only full albums, then Apple has long offered that feature in the iTunes Store.

Most of the stuff on iTunes will remain as individual purchases anyway. This is the exception, not the rule. But it’s a good exception.

Then why don't Pink Floyd release their album on iTunes as one big track?

Problem solved.

A) Because of the loss of the user-friendly consistent UI that iTunes and iPod users expect. Why should it be harder to skip to a certain point in an album with an iPod than with a 1900s CD-player? Pink Floyd should be able to control how their work is packaged and sold, but they can’t control how someone listens to it. (They can’t force you to listen to a sing to the end when the phone rings either.) So why make hassle for your fans?

and B) Because Apple already offers another solution, the “Album Only” flag, which has worked great for years

and C) Because it’s a dispute between the artist and their label, which is important to any artist I’m sure—and they’d still need to resolve that dispute to make the album a single track.

 

[nicbrown]

I hope your "posterity" has the equipment (or desire) to play that vinyl.

At the moment, they will inherit half a dozen turntables, but might have to fight it out for amps and speakers.

Vinyl will be around for a long time yet, as the mastering and pressing businesses were sold off (a lot of the time to the plant employees) rather than being scrapped by the labels.

Linn (famous audio equipment maker) has stopped making CD players, and only produces turntables and hard drive players. If you need a physical format and artwork, then vinyl will be the long term choice.

 

[AlphaBob]

Let the artists decide -- its their work and income at risk

Pink Floyd comes from the era of "Rock Opera", in which artists told a story through all of the songs on an album. Another example of this would be Quadrophenia by The Who, or Tales of Mystery and Imagination by the Alan Parsons Project. All of these were meant to be played from start to finish as a single experience.

Today people have the attention span of a gnat, and flit from one crappy 2 minute pop song to another (Will anybody buy more than one or two tracks of Ke$ha for example -- or any at all -- shivers at the thought). Clearly artists have responded to their potential audience by making songs shorter and not dependent on each other.

Pink Floyd licensed their work with a clause that clearly retained their right to have it performed in the manner of their choice. If the buying public is put off by not being able to purchase Money as a single, and they don't feel like buying all of The Dark Side of the Moon to get it, then that is their choice -- Pink Floyd will lose income, but their artistic integrity will remain intact.

Seriously people, just because "you" want it doesn't mean "you" are entitled to it. I am sure Pink Floyd could care less about a loss of future income, having seen so much success over the years. If that irritates you, then go buy some Ke$ha -- I'm sure you will find that more to your taste anyway.

 

[bmk]

Hurray to limiting options for consumers!

When people start thinking that you 'consume' music rather than listen to it, that's when you start getting 'product', rather than music.

Good for the Floyd - at least there are some artists out there have principles and are willing to put the values of their art over those of the market economy, who would rather lose digital sales than pander to the 10-second attention span of the listening (or should that be consuming) public.

 

[Small White Car]

Good for them.

I don't buy full albums but I absolutely think Pink Floyd should have this right.

This is exactly the same as the movie directors who complained that cable networks were pan-and-scanning their movies. Those directors should be able to say 'play letterboxed or don't play it at all' and Pink Floyd should have this right too.

Anyone who disagrees needs to get something clear: It's THEIR music, not yours. Don't like it? Don't buy it. I won't be buying it and I still agree with them.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Pink Floyd is one of a number of high-profile bands that have objected to the splitting up of what it considers to be single pieces of work.

So what Pink Floyd is saying is that they are overcharging for the sale of their "single"?! Do the fans of Pink Floyd have a case? Class Action lawsuit, anyone, who paid an album's price for a "single piece of work"?! Their is no set time limit for a single. I've heard song singles that lasted two minutes and even 4 minutes. I guess Pink Floyd singles are 30 minutes plus, but yet these greedy capitalists insist on raping their fans where it hurts... their pocketbooks!

Music is in the ear of the beholder. What passes as music to Pink Floyd may be "TV Snow" to others. Just because there are musical notes where once their was silence from one song to the next, does not mean, I'd be interested in them, especially when it comes to buying a part of that "single piece of work"! The Beatles, who I am their number one fan, with their Sgt. Pepper record, were the first at "cohesive structure and careful sequencing of and transitioning between songs on the album, as well as the use of the Sgt. Pepper framing device, have led the album to be widely acknowledged as an early and ground-breaking example of the concept album", had songs that I could have done without!

* "-" Wikipedia

 

[Digital Skunk]

not the way things are done today with one hit song and seven fillers on an album.

The bad artists do it that way. There are many MANY great albums out there that still make tracks that way.

And there are many that have great filler songs.... dare I say (not to get anyone's emotions in a tizzle) better than Pink Floyd.

p.s. Old people never respect the new stuff, and are surprised to see young cats respecting the old.

 

[dernhelm]

I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan (I already own most of their albums on vinyl and CD), but there is something I do not understand. The band had already released compilation albums that picked work from various previous albums and mixed it together. Yes, they were in charge of what tracks from what albums were placed where, but for the most part, the "original intent" of the album was already sacrificed.

Now, suddenly, when the consumer wants to do it on their own - there is some problem?

I think this is more Pink Floyd (and other artists too, I'm sure) chafing under the record label (EMI) and the crummy way the music industry is run. I'm certain this has little or nothing to do with the money.

 

[wallinbl]

I side with Pink Floyd on this. I love their work and I want to listen to them from start to finish. I think they should go after radio stations that play just one of their songs instead of the whole album.

Radio is the exact proof that they are making **** up. They released singles to radio stations and encouraged radio stations to play individual songs for the purpose of increasing interest in their work. They should not be surprised that the result was interest in their songs. If the entirety and sanctity of the album were so important, then why bust out with singles on the radio? Additionally, why play the songs out of sequence in live concerts? If the album is a single piece, why did you butcher it on stage? What about greatest hits albums? Same thing. They're just making **** up.

 

[Small White Car]

While a fan, I find it hard to believe they felt breaking the songs up was hurting their artistic value. My guess is they prefer to sell full albums at full price versus partial albums at single track price; I am inclined to believe it is about the financials.

Then answer me this: Why did they have to fight their label to do it?

Clearly EMI thinks they'll be making less money now or they would've done it without being sued.

So EMI thinks it will hurt sales. What, exactly, leads you to believe the opposite?

 

[AirWave]

I don't know why I should even consider buying Pink Floyd on iTunes when I can buy them on CD (many even remastered versions) at my local music store at half the price of iTunes.

This for me is the biggest problem with iTunes. I love the iTunes Music Store but most of the time back catalogue albums are way cheaper on CD.

iTunes works best for single tracks but often have to buy the album anyway to get the longer tracks.

 

[markm49uk]

I agree with the OP on this, despite not having physical numbers. Just look at the amount of devices sold, in the past 5 years. With the sales of devices that can play CDs, LPs, and Cassetts going down quite quickly, it has to be in relation to what type of media people are consuming. If people aren't buying CD players, it is likely that they aren't buying the media that is used inside those devices.

I don't like this fact (I love my jewel cases, and LPs of even some recent music), but I think it is the unfortunate truth.

Looks like physical is losing out to digital (quoted from RollingStone.com):

The 2009 year-end Nielsen SoundScan numbers reveal that Taylor Swift edged Susan Boyle in terms of album sales, and that the Beatles and Michael Jackson can still move major units. But how did the music biz do overall last year? Slightly better than the year before. Total music purchases were up 2.1 percent over 2008, as ‘09 brought in 1.545 billion overall music sales — which factors in albums, singles, digital tracks and music videos — compared to the 1.513 billion combined in 2008.

(Check out Rolling Stone’s Best Albums and Best Songs of 2009.)

Despite the two percent increase, total album sales continued to slide at an alarming rate. Physical and digital sales combined for 373.9 million albums sold in 2009, down from the 428.4 million in 2008 for a 12.7 percent decrease. The number of albums purchased via online retailers also dropped significantly, from 27.5 million in 2008 to 25.3 million in 2009, an eight percent slide. However, more consumers flocked to digital services for album purchases: the year-end figure of 76.4 million albums sold is a 16.1 percent increase over 2008’s figures. It appears only CDs were affected by the album slump, as vinyl sales were also up 33 percent over 2008 figures.

The sales decline was spread across all genres: rock sales were down 11.1 percent, rap sales down 20.9 percent and Latin music down a staggering 34.3 percent. Only the country genre, which saw its total sales slump slightly from 47.6 million to 46.1 million, and jazz, whose sales only fell 0.1 percent from 2008, seemed to have bucked the trend.

The 2009 market share chart reveals some major labels are more major than others. UMG led the charge once again by selling 30.2 percent of all albums bought in 2009, down slightly from their industry-leading 31.5 percent a year ago. Thanks in large part to Michael Jackson, Sony’s numbers were well up, grabbing a 28.58 percent market share compared to their 25.3 percent total in 2008. Warner Music saw its share drop from 21.38 percent in ‘08 to 20.55 percent in ‘09, while EMI made up that difference by jumping from 8.97 percent in ‘08 to 9.21 percent in ‘09. All other labels combined factored in for an 11.47 percent market share.

The best sign for the industry: Digital track sales topped the billion mark for the second consecutive year, besting 2008’s record with 1,160,000,000 downloads combined. Eighty-eight songs alone topped the million-download mark in 2009, up from just 71 songs last year. Additionally, in 2008, Rihanna was the top digital draw with 9.9 million downloads. In 2009, four artists topped that: Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift. To make a long sales story short: Digital > CD.

 

[ogee]

Assuming I would even buy a PF album, does this mean they will now have a way to ensureI listen to the whole album in correct order?

Will I get a knock on the door at 2am cause I listened to only 1 of the tracks????

Crazy.

 

[Lepton]

I understand this. Most albums are collections of separate songs. Some, like several Pink Floyd albums are truly meant to be a unit. This isn't about money, Pink Floyd has plenty of money, it is about artistic integrity.

Take Dark Side of the Moon. You've got a single artistic work. The songs are like chapters in a book. You don't sell individual chapters. On this album, you can take one or two songs as a single, such a Money, which was indeed released as a single. Why not let the band sell an album as a unit, and break out some singles, just as was done with vinyl? It should be up to them.

You've got albums, and singles. It's a (mostly) artistic decision how to split things up.

 

[nicbrown]

When people start thinking that you 'consume' music rather than listen to it, that's when you start getting 'product', rather than music.

Good for the Floyd - at least there are some artists out there have principles and are willing to put the values of their art over those of the market economy, who would rather lose digital sales than pander to the 10-second attention span of the listening (or should that be consuming) public.

Once you have released your music for sale, what the public does is out of your hands. People form personal and lasting relationships with music in their own way. Whether you sit still, dance, or try to work out a bands tune on a guitar, it is all good for the artist in the long run.

 

[batchtaster]

Being a professional musician, I'm sure I'm out numbered in terms of preferring cd's.

I don't mean any offence by this but I remember when CDs were considered gauche, and it was vinyl records that were the measure of a true musician. CDs were "too perfect" and had no soul or some other junk I barely listened to. (Although there is something to that - consider Britney's and Whitney's complete inability to "sing" a note without error-corrective software.)

I wonder how long until MP3 is held with reverence and fondly remembered in comparison to whatever's-next (presumably also digital, as I don't see any way back from music - or anything else for that matter - having become insubstantial and having no physical mass).

ObTopic: I don't care. Never liked P.F, so they can do whatever the crap they want. If it heralds in a new era of selling only entire albums then so be it. Market dynamics will nip this in the bud when people walk away once they're told they can't buy single packs of Funions, that they have to buy a case.

 

[Gasu E.]

It's up to them how they sell their music, and then it's up to the consumer to decide if they want to buy it or not.

Exactly. If Pink Floyd considers an album to be a work of art, they are free to treat it as such. It is up to the individual consumer to decide whether he wishs to buy the album or not. If you only want one song, and you don't think the song is worth $10, then don't buy.

 

[Small White Car]

Assuming I would even buy a PF album, does this mean they will now have a way to ensureI listen to the whole album in correct order?

Will I get a knock on the door at 2am cause I listened to only 1 of the tracks????

Crazy.

No, it's like a book. If I buy a book I can re-read chapters in any order I want. That's fine.

But an author would get pissed if his publisher sold a book with only half the chapters. That has NOTHING to do with how I read it.

Which part of that don't you understand?

 

[andiwm2003]

gee, apple tells us how to use and not use their devices and the artists tell us how to listen and not listen to their music.

next thing is they tell us what coffee to drink while we are on a computer.......

No, it's like a book. If I buy a book I can re-read chapters in any order I want. That's fine.

But an author would get pissed if his publisher sold a book with only half the chapters. That has NOTHING to do with how I read it.

Which part of that don't you understand?

I don't understand the part where many books are sold in segments or even in abridged versions and everybody is happy with that.

 

[chriszzz]

Its funny how everyone is defending Pink Floyd's consumer-screwing just because they like their music.

I don't think of this as them wanting to present their albums as one continuous piece of art, but as businessmen who understand people only buy individual songs and they want to force consumers into the whole album.

 

[Gasu E.]

However, it should still be up to the customer what they want to buy.

Why? They created it. They can choose to sell it only as a whole, in parts, or not at all. Why should the consumer have any rights other than to buy or not to buy?

 

[jmcguckin]

...hence why I will always buy my music on physical media as opposed to some online store selling digital downloads. not to mention the fact that owning a physical copy of an album allows me to have a lossless copy of it and then choose whether I want to import it to my computer/put it on my iPod (as well as the quality settings at which I want to encode my music).

as others have said, I'm glad to see that bands like Pink Floyd still treat their albums as art vs. just a product that will make them money and would rather lose digital sales than allow their albums to be split up into/sold as individual songs. the music industry is already saturated with sell-out artists who would rather go the cookie-cutter route just to make a $, so it's good to see there are still a handful of artists with some respectability.