The Daily Swarm

BBC:

Their latest record deal, signed with EMI before legal downloads came along, said individual songs must not be sold without the band’s permission.

They argued that the same rule should apply to digital sales as well as CDs.

EMI disagreed but a judge has sided with Pink Floyd. The ruling is part of a long-running battle between the two sides over £10m in unpaid royalties.

EMI said it had not yet been ordered to stop selling single Pink Floyd tracks. That may come at a later stage in the case, however.

In court, Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt said the contract contained a clause to “preserve the artistic integrity of the albums”.

Guardian:

“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 legal team dismissed this interpretation, saying the album stipulation applies only to physical releases like CDs and DVDs. “In 1999, when [the contract] was negotiated, iTunes didn’t even exist,” EMI lawyer Elizabeth Jones told BusinessWeek.

Digital Music News:

One of the biggest bands in history is now embroiled in a contract dispute with EMI. Pink Floyd first signed with the label in 1967, though the contract in question was inked in the late 90s. At that point, the digital picture was mostly murky, and legal frameworks mostly rooted in physical formats. “It was unclear whether record companies would be selling direct to the consumer or through retailers,” attorney Robert Howe noted, while also noting that the iTunes Store had not yet arrived at the time of the contract.

The transitional signing offers lots of opportunity for interpretation – or misinterpretation – and the members of Floyd are disputing a number of analog-to-digital ‘extensions’. Among a basket of issues, Howe is contesting moves by EMI to ‘unbundle’ music into a-la-carte singles, dismissing claims that de-coupling blocks only applied to physical formats. Also under dispute is what royalty percentages should be assigned to new, digital formats.

Financial Times:

Elizabeth Jones, for EMI, told Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, that the restrictions in the band’s contract referred not to online sales but to the selling of physical albums.

“In 1999, when it was negotiated, iTunes didn’t exist,” said Ms Jones. “I can’t say it’s obvious from the agreement what the commercial intent of the parties was. I’m sure the claimants would have liked to protect their records and EMI would have liked to have had full control.”

Sir Andrew said he would give his ruling tomorrow.