Pink Floyd Wins Legal Battle Over Digital Sale of Individual Songs

[MacBram]

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.

As long as it's not just a ploy to get consumers to buy an album just to get the 2 or 3 good tracks on it, I'm in favour of it.

I am seeing a number of sentiments like this. It's nice and romantic and all, and I can sure appreciate it: the creator's intent for the whole creation as a cohesive unit and all that... Wonder why people just don't see it with Apple hardware and OS? Apple hardware and Apple OS, made to go together; it would be a crime to split them up.

So, is it "up to them how they sell their creation"?, or does the consumer get to dictate the terms and rip the heart and soul out of the creation, simply because the consumer should be allowed to do anything he wants with anything he can purchase?

Having said that, the two situations are a little different -- songs in a set are on a par with each other; I may well want the whole set of something, but may be more inclined to build it up over time.

OTOH, Hardware and OS complement and complete each other; which is more like the album art and the songs (I can see a real case for keeping original album art with songs even when the medium goes digital). I wouldn't want to see Pink Floyd album art with Carla Bruni's music; and I wouldn't want to use Mac OS X on a Dell. It would work, to a point; but, yuck, just not right, somehow.

 

[Small White Car]

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

Guess again. I don't like their music at all and I still side with them.

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.

Then why did they have to sue EMI to make it happen?

Since when do record labels dislike making more money? No one has answered this question for me yet.

EMI thinks this will be bad, financially. You think it will be good. What leads you to disagree with the record label here?

 

[Gasu E.]

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

This sense of entitlement amazes me. You think you are being screwed? DON'T BUY!!!!

 

[Small White Car]

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

Abridged books are done with the author's permission. That's not the case with Pink Floyd, clearly.

 

[tonyshucraft]

Indeed. Funny how "artistic expression" is only important when it doesn't negatively impact the artist's bottom line.

Problem with that statement, is that although they do make money off of their music, few do. I don't really have a problem with musicians making more money because the work they do is more than people ever really give credit for. And for some reason, I don't think them making less money has anything to do with people downloading from bittorrent. Record labels have been ripping off of artists for quite awhile now.

As for the issue with radio singles, I think that's a little different, legally. Radio was around back then and singles are controlled. In a perfect world, the artist would have a little more control over which songs of theirs could be played on the radio. The idea being to give people a taste. Today, that means crappy crappy songs that feel as if they are forced and you have heard them before.

I am on the side of Pink FLoyd here. The artists do need more control because the record companies have too much of it.

 

[Unspeaked]

For those of you playing the "radio airtime" card, remember that Pink Floyd has had but a handful of singles in their entire career and for the most part they were forced to release them by their labels.

Further, in the pre-iTunes/MP3 days, there were only a handful of Pink Floyd tracks that someone could walk into a record store and buy a single of, whether in the days of vinyl 45s or CD singles. Even in the era of music videos, the band didn't make any substantial contributions to MTV until the mid 90s. And most tellingly, they DID make feature films - so even in the visual genres, they preferred longer, complete experiences rather than short, fractured ones.

 

[tip]

Abridged books are done with the author's permission. That's not the case with Pink Floyd, clearly.

Not quite a parallel comparison. Something better might be a book of poetry, where there can be an author's preference for having the collection as a whole and yet each poem can stand on its own (much like an album). But of course, most books of poetry are collections that have been previously published individually in journals (much like singles).

 

[kernkraft]

Hypocrisy!

If it was really about artistic integrity, they would make us buy vinyl records and forget the utterly awful and inferior quality of the digital download.

CDs had some practical features but most young people would not believe the richness of the sound of those old vinyl records.

Even CDs were a step back from that quality (apart from the scratching and fine mechanical noise caused by excessive playing, worn pins and dust on the records. Digital downloads are even "further down the spiral".

I think Pink Floyd just wants to keep their albums intact as people who buy their music are more willing to buy whole albums, so there is potential to increase revenue without imposing serious risk to a stable number of customers.



Besides...

Who authorised the various Greatest Hits and who came out with those single records from right the beginning of their career?! They are a bunch of greedy, self-pretentious old farts! Even some of their best albums have fillers. And I don't mean those short intros.

 

[BlindGoldfish]

As long as it's not just a ploy to get consumers to buy an album just to get the 2 or 3 good tracks on it, I'm in favour of it.

If you like Pink Floyd, chances are you like 98% of their music. So the "2 or 3 good tracks on it" doesn't really apply to most Floyd fans like a lot of other bands out there.

 

[tip]

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

For much of this thread, yes. If the original article made the band anonymous or if this was a one-hit wonder, the reactions would not be quite the same.

 

[lex750]

Many of their songs on albums connect to each other musically and that is the argument. I can't see a reason to buy just one track from Animals, Dark Side of the Moon, or The Wall. If you like Pink Floyd (which I do), do yourself a favor and buy the whole album.

I totally agree with you. There are still a few true music artist in this world, Pink Floyd is one of them. They will probably loose money in sales but they don't care. It's about the art of their music to them. Cutting up their albums is like cutting up an opera. You just don't purchase one part of an opera. You don't go to an opera wait for your favorite part and then just leave, do you? Pink Floyd is an opera, and an experience. Money should never come before artistic expression. Pink Floyd Rocks!

 

[nicbrown]

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?

Because there is a third way which is to get the music as you like, but not to buy it. Restricting the choices of paying consumers could be bad for business in the long run.

 

[Small White Car]

Not quite a parallel comparison.

Which is exactly what I was telling andiwm2003 with that post.

 

[AlphaBob]

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....

Nah, you are confused. THAT is the roll of government, my friend, to tell you what you can and can't do behind closed doors.

Oops, did I say that aloud?

 

[OllyW]

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

It makes a change from defending Apple's consumer-screwing just because they like their products.

 

[Gasu E.]

Pink Floyd is greedy.

Not really. According to micoreconomics theory, they would likely make more money allowing singles to be sold. You assume people are forced to buy their albums, but clearly this isn't so. 99% of the iTunes-buying public will not buy anything from Pink Floyd. Most if not all of the die hard Pink Floyd fans already own the albums. So who is left? The people who want to make a casual pick up of a single Floyd song. Nothing is forcing them to buy a Floyd song, and there are so many other options for spending their $.99, so how many people are not just going to spend their $.99 on a song from some other group, rather than spend $10 for a Floyd single? Likely Floyd will lose a lot of single sales, and not make it up in album sales. If Floyd were intending to maximize profit, this would be a bad decision.

 

[Gasu E.]

Because there is a third way which is to get the music as you like, but not to buy it. Restricting the choices of paying consumers could be bad for business in the long run.

Oh, I absolutely agree! This is a bad business decision by PF. That's why I totally buy their claim that this is about artistic integrity.

 

[rwilliams]

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

Problem solved.

This is a very good idea. Prince released his 1988 album Lovesexy as one continuous track because he wanted people to listen to it from start to finish without skipping. It was released as a CD with individual tracks several years later.

 

[vstephenson]

tis true some albums should be listened to in their entirety to get maximum effect even when they contain some excellent tracks that stand up on their own...

I'm thinking of Bloc Party - A Weekend in the city and Muse - Black Holes and Revelations, Im sure you have yours

I wonder what these guys would think as I do *also* think that artists can be a bit precious about it when maybe its up to the listener and individual taste, i mean practically speaking, I dont have time to listen to the whole cd every time or I'd never play it at all !

 

[MacHiavelli]

My local restaurant has picked up on this idea and now insist you can't buy any single dish off the menu: you have to buy the whole menu. You can't even ask them to hold the meat dishes if you're a vegetarian: you've got to have everything to get their full-body-of-work experience.

Also, the local car dealers say they will only sell cars to buyers who buy all the extras.

People have broken up albums for years . . . . look at all the compilation tapes people used to make in the dark ages (I've seen them on old TV progs). Expect tons of people only have single Pink Floyd tracks. Hell, Pink Floyd themselves have sold single tracks from albums when they have released singles. Think their attitude is totally ga-ga.

 

[John.B]

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......

I don't see how you leap to that from the music discussion.

 

[Friscohoya]

Don't know why label wouldn't re-cut all of their existing contracts. I hope that their argument was more than an album is not the same as a digital track.

 

[trip1ex]

I agree except this just paves the way for every artist (and record companies) to get out of selling singles songs and instead sell whole albums like they did 10 years ago.

They'll all argue that the work is seamless and take superficial steps to show that - like let tracks overlap for a few seconds, etc.



And when is Pink Floyd going to stop selling its greatest hits album and stop collecting royalties from it?

 

[fifthworld]

Regardless if we like their music and whatever their reasons are (integrity, greedy, artistic value, hypocrisy, etc.) they are entitled to decide how their music is sold, not the music industry, apple or listeners. We are entitled to buy it or not.

 

[Hal Itosis]

I'm glad to see this upheld.
Who would buy a single track of a Pink Floyd album?

What... you want their names? It would probably be a long list. As someone who listened to 'Dark Side of the Moon' the year it came out (and under the "proper conditions" i may add), it doesn't take any imagination to realize that some folks might get off on listening to this 7/4 blues progression...

Money, get away.
Get a good job with more pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullsh*t.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

​

... more than most other tracks on that same album. The ironically-titled "Money" got tons of airplay, and many radio listeners probably had no clue as to the depth of the entire album as a whole. [not exactly pop music]

I'm not coming down hard one way or the other on this issue. Just saying that purchasing entire albums versus individual tracks is a choice best left to the individual.