The surviving members of Pink Floyd have won their court case against record label EMI. As reported in Spinner, the prog supergroup where forced to take EMI to court over a dispute relating to download royalties and whether the label had the right or not to sell Pink Floyd's catalogue online as individual tracks and not complete albums.

In a landmark ruling, the court found in favour of Pink Floyd and ordered EMI to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs. The judge has yet to rule how much the beleaguered label is to pay in fines. In a further ruling, EMI has also been banned from selling Pink Floyd's music online.

The case came to court over a dispute about a clause in Pink Floyd's 1999 contract. Signed five years before the advent of legal downloads, EMI argued that clause allowed them to sell the band's music in any way that it saw fit. Pink Floyd's argument rested on the assertion that the clause -- "there are no rights to sell any or all of the records as single records other than with permission" -- included digital as well as physical formats.

Pink Floyd has begun legal action against music label EMI Group Ltd. over the way royalty payments are calculated in the digital era.

The group's lawyer, Robert Howe, told the High Court that the band was disputing the way royalties for online sales are worked out.

He said the group also wants a ruling on whether EMI can sell tracks "unbundled" from their original albums.

Howe said the band's contract prohibits selling tracks "otherwise than in the original configuration of the Pink Floyd albums." EMI claims the rule applies only to physical albums, not the Internet.

Pink Floyd signed with EMI in 1967 and became one of its most lucrative acts.

Tuesday's hearing was the start of what is expected to be a lengthy legal battle.

Charlie and Brooke Sheen are due in court today. The actor faces arraignment on his Christmas Day domestic violence arrest in Aspen, Colorado. Their attorneys want the restraining order thrown out so the couple can be back together for their twins and to work on their relationship.

This despite, Brooke telling officers that her husband put a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her. The couple will arrive separately and the judge will decide if they can leave together.

The music industry will have to make some very tough choices within the next week about file sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset.

The Recording Industry Association of America wants to put the Thomas-Rasset affair behind it. The Brainerd, Minn., mother--who refused to settle with the RIAA for $5,000 over copyright infringement allegations, instead fighting it out in court--has been found liable of willful copyright infringement by two different juries and was ordered to pay damages of $222,000 in her first trial (a decision later thrown out) and $1.9 million last June in her retrial.

On Friday, Michael Davis, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, made what some legal experts say is an unprecedented move involving statutory damages in a copyright case, when he reduced the jury-awarded amount by 97 percent. Davis called the $1.9 million amount "monstrous and shocking," changing the damages to $54,000, which he said was still "significant and harsh."

Davis has given the music industry seven days to decide whether to challenge his decision and schedule a trial on the damages. To figure out how to proceed, RIAA leaders and lawyers huddled on Monday, according to my music industry sources. An RIAA spokesman declined to comment.