Beatles Songs on iTunes? [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 12, 2006, 09:44 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to Starpulse (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/04/11/beatles_catalog_to_be_remastered_offered), the Beatles catalog is in the process of being remastered for distribution on iTunes.

"We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages. I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

This was reportedly revealed in court by Neil Aspinall of Apple Corps record label during the Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330165738.shtml) trademark dispute. No confirmation is available at this time.

Photorun

Apr 12, 2006, 09:47 AM

(head spins).

No way!

hoppo99

Apr 12, 2006, 09:52 AM

The accuracy of this seems dubious, surely it would have been reported elsewhere first! Hopefully the case will resolve will Apple Computer making some sort of good will pecuniary concession to Apple Corps., who will in turn provide the Beatles back catalogue available exclusively on iTunes for 3-6 months. This case is about money after all and a resolution like this would benefit both parties.

Jerry Spoon

Apr 12, 2006, 10:00 AM

How many other artists have we seen not on itms and then later put up loads of their work. RHCP for one and I was eagerly awaiting their work so I could buy a couple of cd's that I had lost or ruined.

The same is true of the Beatles. They're in it to make a buck and I'm sure this litigation didn't stop them from seeing that they would need to get their work ready for itms eventually, so why not get it ready now and put it up as soon as the litigation is over.

nostaws

Apr 12, 2006, 10:07 AM

I know some people have floated this idea previously - but Apple Computer has a lot of cash - How much would it cost to just buy Apple Corp?

Seriously, they would rid themselves of these annoying law suits and lawyers fees that pop up every few years. Not to mention not having to every worry about crossing into the music arena.

Then spin the company off (a la filemaker) and expand beyond the beetles catalog, and have it be more of an idie producer of music. It might even be cool if they exclusively promoted British indie bands to extend the legacy of the Beetles to future musicians.

Give some noname acts access to itunes. And create synergy between Steve, Paul, Ringo and future stars

aprilfools

Apr 12, 2006, 10:22 AM

Absolutely will not happen. Just a delayed April fools Joke.
:)

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 10:22 AM

I see that the only source of this story is World Entertainment News Network. The stories they distribute are purely gossip, with no fact checking involved. Treat this like a Digitimes story, only light amusement unless a real source verifies it.

For fun, here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/588/) is their "news" feed.

I know some people have floated this idea previously - but Apple Computer has a lot of cash - How much would it cost to just buy Apple Corp?
Apple Corps Ltd. is owned by the Beatles and their heirs. It's certainly not going to be sold while any of them are still alive.

macnews

Apr 12, 2006, 10:46 AM

Frack the Apple corps. I have all my Beetles songs in iTunes just clicked "import cd". Problem solved.

Granted, I highly suspect this won't happen given the current lawsuit and what has been said. Eventually, sure but I think it is going to take a year or so after the lawsuit is over for the losing party to get their panties unbunched.

Kernow

Apr 12, 2006, 10:55 AM

waveman216

Apr 12, 2006, 11:16 AM

And someday Apple will use Intel chips and allow us to run Windows on their computers. What a buncha crap.

mproud

Apr 12, 2006, 11:28 AM

If the Beatles are making their way to the iTMS then surely the two parties are coming to an agreement in court.

mproud

Apr 12, 2006, 11:31 AM

dashiel

Apr 12, 2006, 11:48 AM

michael jackson owned/owns (there seems to be some debate) the publishing rights to the beatles songs. so whenever anyone, including the former beatles, want to release an album, concert program, book that has lyrics or the music tabs they owe jackson or whomever now owns those rights.

apple corps should really get over themselves they stand to make a lot more money working with apple than suing them over some dubious legal agreement some 20 years ago.

apple records grants apple computer an exclusive contract for the entire re-mastered beatles catalog; apple creates a limited edition "white album" ipod which much like the U2 ipod comes with a coupon for the beatles digital box set that includes all albums, all singles, all movies, etc... apple agrees in a special one time deal that all profit from beatles ipod sales goes to apple records.

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 11:51 AM

My copyright law is a little rusty (i.e. non-existent), but who would have the final say as to whether Beatles songs could be used on iTunes? iMeowbot says that Apple Corps is owned by the remaining Beatles and their heirs, but does Apple Corps own the rights to all the Beatles songs. I could be imagining it, but I thought that Michael Jackson owned the rights to some of the songs at one point, or is this something else entirely?
There are two kinds of copyright involved. One is for the composition (the underlying words and music) and the other is for sound recordings.

The Lennon-McCartney compositions (and some Harrison works) were published by a company they set up called Northern Songs Ltd. This is the company that ended up under the control of ATV (which in turn is now controlled by Sony). The Beatles and their families still get royalties whenever these compositions is used, but they do not have real control over where they are used.

Apple Corps Ltd. owns the Beatles' sound recordings (and a few others) and some related trademarks and artwork. The families do have a fair amount of control over where this material is used.

There is a reasonable accounting of Northern at Wackypedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs), also one for Apple Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps). I see some errors in those articles about holding companies (some of the ownership relationships are reversed), but it's close enough for a general idea.

nagromme

Apr 12, 2006, 11:53 AM

Note the "woulds" when he talks about iTunes. If this is even true, the way I read it is that the music is being re-mastered--NOT "for iTunes"--but that it WOULD make it a good time to go iTunes if that were to happen. (Which I'm inclined to doubt but we'll see.)

And the mention of booklets says nothing about PDFs--probably just CD booklets. (But I wish more iTunes albums had PDF liner notes.)

QCassidy352

Apr 12, 2006, 12:09 PM

If it stops the lawsuit (because it signals an agreement has been reached) I'm all for it. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.

irmongoose

Apr 12, 2006, 12:10 PM

Apple Corps confirms reports (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14357). Bottom of article.

:eek:

irmongoose

Kernow

Apr 12, 2006, 12:14 PM

BRLawyer

Apr 12, 2006, 12:25 PM

There are two kinds of copyright involved. One is for the composition (the underlying words and music) and the other is for sound recordings.

The Lennon-McCartney compositions (and some Harrison works) were published by a company they set up called Northern Songs Ltd. This is the company that ended up under the control of ATV (which in turn is now controlled by Sony). The Beatles and their families still get royalties whenever these compositions is used, but they do not have real control over where they are used.

Apple Corps Ltd. owns the Beatles' sound recordings (and a few others) and some related trademarks and artwork. The families do have a fair amount of control over where this material is used.

There is a reasonable accounting of Northern at Wackypedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs), also one for Apple Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps). I see some errors in those articles about holding companies (some of the ownership relationships are reversed), but it's close enough for a general idea.

This is partly wrong; there is no difference in the copyrights involved in Beatles songs. By definition, what is protected is something called "musical composition", which comprises both lyrics and sound arrangements/recordings; and originally, this protection is always in the hands of the authors.

So the issue is not about "two copyrights"; copyright, as a "droit d'auteur", involves several modalities of utilization. It's up to the author to license/sell them or not, as happened in the case of the Lennon-Macca duo, by means of the Northern Songs as PRODUCER...

What happened (although I don't have the details of the deal) is that MJ (or Sony now, dunno) got the rights partially linked to phonographic production (these must have been licensed by Lennon-Macca), comprising reproduction and distribution of their songs in general. That's why you never listen to the majority of Beatles songs in radios, apart from "Something" and others that belong to Harrisongs et al.

Going back on topic, I would love to see the Beatles on iTunes...this would settle the legal hurdles once and for all, and give iTunes a GREAT edge over any other music store in the market.

kenaustus

Apr 12, 2006, 01:07 PM

Maybe Apple Corps actually started about how well the U2 iPod sold as well as over a billion songs sold on iTunes to date. Maybe they are actually trying to get their act together in the event that the judge isn't too impressed with their crying about how much they are hurt. Let the judge rule in Apple Corps favor, but then award Apple Corps one pence for their suffering.

Whoever has been advising the Beatles on the iPod/iTunes movement obviously misjudged big time. Lots of lost dollars to date from that screw up. They also didn't understand that everything the Beatles have recorded has been passed around the internet free for years.

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 01:25 PM

This is partly wrong; there is no difference in the copyrights involved in Beatles songs. By definition, what is protected is something called "musical composition", which comprises both lyrics and sound arrangements/recordings; and originally, this protection is always in the hands of the authors.

So the issue is not about "two copyrights"; copyright, as a "droit d'auteur", involves several modalities of utilization. It's up to the author to license/sell them or not, as happened in the case of the Lennon-Macca duo, by means of the Northern Songs as PRODUCER...

No, you are missing several important aspects. Permission to use the recordings is contingent upon permission to use the underlying compositions, but those rights were already settled by pre-existing contracts long before the ATV buyout.

It is most definitely not correct to assume that the author of a composition receives rights to do arbitrary things with recordings of those compositions. The rights to those are indeed distinct.

Northern Songs is the publisher for most of those works, but not the producer. The producer is EMI or Apple for virtually all those recordings, with control largely in the hands of Apple Corps.

What happened (although I don't have the details of the deal) is that MJ (or Sony now, dunno) got the rights partially linked to phonographic production (these must have been licensed by Lennon-Macca), comprising reproduction and distribution of their songs in general. That's why you never listen to the majority of Beatles songs in radios, apart from "Something" and others that belong to Harrisongs et al.

Except that those other songs do turn up on radio, and frequently. I wish that some of the oldies stations would take a break from incessantly playing "In My Life". Are you at all familiar with compulsory licenses?

dejo

Apr 12, 2006, 01:40 PM

Kingsly

Apr 12, 2006, 02:22 PM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 02:23 PM

iMeowBot, I'm still confused. If some company (maybe Apple Computers, maybe someone else) wants to release online versions of the Beatles' catalog, who do they have to license it from? Apple Records or Sony/ATV Music Publishing?

Both, if it is a recording of a Beatles performance.

Apple Corps will not have much say when it is someone else's recording of a Beatles song, that's why there are plenty of those on iTMS.

This wouldn't be quite so complicated for the download services if something like them existed at the time all those songs were created. All the old contracts were really geared toward physical records, radio, film and performance. Newer contracts can take streams and downloads into account and avoid some of the mess.

phatpat88

Apr 12, 2006, 02:35 PM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

seriously, is this the end of the world as we know it?

next the israelis and palestinians will be singing christian rock together.

BRLawyer

Apr 12, 2006, 03:16 PM

No, you are missing several important aspects. Permission to use the recordings is contingent upon permission to use the underlying compositions, but those rights were already settled by pre-existing contracts long before the ATV buyout.

It is most definitely not correct to assume that the author of a composition receives rights to do arbitrary things with recordings of those compositions. The rights to those are indeed distinct.

Northern Songs is the publisher for most of those works, but not the producer. The producer is EMI or Apple for virtually all those recordings, with control largely in the hands of Apple Corps.

Except that those other songs do turn up on radio, and frequently. I wish that some of the oldies stations would take a break from incessantly playing "In My Life". Are you at all familiar with compulsory licenses?

Sorry Meow, but I must disagree again...I am talking about the prime source of the copyright, which is only one thing: the song and its elements.

As you said, recording rights were settled via contracts, and that's what I said...there were previous licensing agreements for usage of recordings and related things.

Again, the author indeed has ALL rights (although this is slightly different in Roman law systems, which employ the concept of inalienable moral rights, not totally accepted in the US and other Anglo-Saxon systems)...

This "total rights paradigm" obviously exists up to the extent that the author makes use of a producer such as EMI or Apple Corps (you are right in one thing: NS were not the producers, but in fact THE copyright holders)...consequently, Apple Corps has the producer's ancillary reproduction/distribution rights which arise from the author himself (when he decided to use a separate producer).

And then, Northern Songs has sold most of its rights to MJ et al., as far as I know.

Compulsory licenses? For what, songs? Please clarify...

mjstew33

Apr 12, 2006, 03:27 PM

Sweet, I love the Beatles, you just gotta love 'em. :)

Kingsly

Apr 12, 2006, 03:51 PM

seriously, is this the end of the world as we know it?

next the israelis and palestinians will be singing christian rock together.
Purchased on iTunes, of course.

ppnkg

Apr 12, 2006, 04:55 PM

I seriously doubt this. Beatle-Apple protect Beatle songs like a national treasure because they charge (much) more for everything. The prices on Beatles cd's are still outrageous, as, I suspect, they always have been. I can't see how this would fit the itunes shop price structure.

joebells

Apr 12, 2006, 07:52 PM

while maybe the beatles catalog will be coming to itunes I think his statement was probably to say to the court that they will be entering online distribution themselves in some form and thats why this will really be hurting them. Or something like that. I'm not a wordsmith.

Doctor Q

Apr 12, 2006, 09:15 PM

Might this milestone be the result of the legal case? In other words, did haggling over rights to the Apple logo or name, for use in the music business, bring the parties together and actually contribute to a deal to bring the Beatles music to the iTunes Music Store?

MrCrowbar

Apr 12, 2006, 09:36 PM

Maybe my ad for OSX Leopard will come true. "full 64 bit support" along with the chorus of the Beatle's "When I'm 64". :D

Seriously, I hope this whole legal issue finds an end. I kinda like the Beatle's iPod idea. I want it white with the famous crosswalk album art engraved on the back.

aswitcher

Apr 12, 2006, 09:37 PM

I bet they offer the whole collection for a special price! I wonder how much...

Photorun

Apr 12, 2006, 09:46 PM

I bet they offer the whole collection for a special price! I wonder how much...

I think you're onto something there. Like they did the U2 catalogue. Maybe something similar for one fixed price, this gets them around the current, vastly superior but probably to be effed up by big evil dumb record companies soon, 99 cent pricing. If they say sold 80 songs for $100. Who knows, I'm still a bit skeptical this will come true.

VanNess

Apr 12, 2006, 09:56 PM

Generally the record label owns and controls the original master recordings and can usually do with them what they see fit. Even if the performer is also the author and copyright holder of the song, the master rights for the original recordings remain with the label.

hughdogg

Apr 12, 2006, 10:08 PM

From Win to Mac

Apr 12, 2006, 10:11 PM

It only mentions that they're remastering it, not that it's coming out on iTunes.

Could be Windows Media, just to piss off Apple.

edit: You have got to be kidding me lol, good call hughdogg.

Xtremehkr

Apr 12, 2006, 10:11 PM

It's quite the hate/love relationship they have.

rosalindavenue

Apr 12, 2006, 10:12 PM

Did anyone read the quote, he just says they are re-mastering the tracks for digital downloads...he never says for iTunes. Has anyone seen the court transcript, maybe the qoute was in response to a question about ITMS, but it seems premature to speculate the just because they are remastering them for digital downloads, that it automatically means ITMS. Wasn't there news/rumors a few months ago about MS offering Apple Corps big bucks to have their songs be in one of the 'Play for Sure" stores?

?
H

You beat me to the punch-- nowhere does the article say the remastered Beatles tunes are being prepared for itunes. That catalog could float a new store; or give legitimacy to one of the miserable failures like napster or real or microsoft. Plus a move like that would really serve as a sharp stick in the eye of Apple computer--

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 10:18 PM

Sorry Meow, but I must disagree again...I am talking about the prime source of the copyright, which is only one thing: the song and its elements.

No, recording rights are distinct animals. This is spelled out in the Rome Convention (1961), amplified by the Phonograms Convention (1971), and expanded by WPPT (1996).

Those rights have different names in different locales. In countries aligned with the UK convention, they are called phonogram rights. In the US, they are sound recording copyrights. In the strange strange land of WIPO, they fall under the vague moniker of "related rights" -- even though they are not necessarily related to other rights!

I will explain by example. Take the song "To Anacreon in Heaven", written about 1765. (US readers will know this as the melody to "The Star Spangled Banner".) This melody is old enough to be in the public domain everywhere.

There was a very famous performance of this public domain piece in 1969, by Jimi Hendrix at the Woodstock festival. This performance was recorded, and a film was also made of the proceeding. Three separate sets of rights were thus created: the right to the performance, which originated with Hendrix; the phonogram rights, belonging to Warner Bros-Seven Arts; and the film copyright, also belonging to Warner.

Now, there were some interdependencies here. Warner had to somehow obtain the right to use the Hendrix performance in their sound recording, and they separately had to obtain those rights for the film (although, as an expedient, a single contract may well have covered rights for both uses). This did not, however, transfer the film copyright or phonogram right to Hendrix; those belonged to the people who did the filming and recording. Despite all those rights (which are still in effect), the composition itself remains in the public domain.

In a simpler example, Chopin has been dead for over 150 years so all his work is in the public domain. A new recording of his work will still be protected. Likewise, if the copyright in a composition expires, that does not affect recordings of that composition; those rights expire independently.

(It is possible for these situations to become more complicated, if a newer arrangement is used; there will be a copyright attached to the new arrangement.)

Compulsory licenses? For what, songs? Please clarify...
Yes, these exist in many countries, usually for radio, but increasingly for other uses like internet streams as well. Under such systems, broadcasters can play any released recordings, on the condition that they keep track of what they play and hand over a predefined fee, normally set by each country. Conventionally, performing rights organizations in each country are responsible for collecting these royalties and distributing them to publishers.

Doctor Q

Apr 12, 2006, 10:22 PM

Did anyone read the quote, he just says they are re-mastering the tracks for digital downloads...he never says for iTunes. Has anyone seen the court transcript, maybe the qoute was in response to a question about ITMS, but it seems premature to speculate the just because they are remastering them for digital downloads, that it automatically means ITMS.It's big news if they are indeed going with iTMS. And equally big news if they go with another service (or services) but not iTMS. If it was the latter, however, I'd be surprised that Apple Corps would speak of it while the trial is still in progress. So my money is on iTMS.

Leoff

Apr 12, 2006, 10:23 PM

First off, according to the Starpulse article, "the company is currently battling Apple Computer over its logo." The Lawsuit is not about Apple's Logo.

Also, according to this post, "the Beatles catalog is in the process of being remastered for distribution on iTunes." Nowhere in the Starpulse article, or the quote from Aspinall, does it mention iTunes. It simply said they're getting it ready for digital distribution. It may not be on iTunes.

Stella

Apr 12, 2006, 10:26 PM

I would love to be able to buy Beatles music online... so I hope this is correct.

Beatles music is excellent, and timeless. Far better than a lot of today's music.. if you can call it 'music'.

This took talent, a lot of of modern music doesn't.

EricNau

Apr 12, 2006, 10:28 PM

How many other artists have we seen not on itms and then later put up loads of their work.
...and Madonna

Lebowski

Apr 12, 2006, 10:34 PM

...and Madonna

....DMB....

still waiting for Radiohead......

ppc_michael

Apr 12, 2006, 10:43 PM

Hi, my name's Apple Corps. I'm going to sue you, but I also want to use you to make more money.

And yes, where the hell is Radiohead??

MikeAtari

Apr 12, 2006, 10:45 PM

Sweet, I love the Beatles, you just gotta love 'em. :)

What are these "Beatles" you speak of, and aren't you all spelling it wrong?
Isn't it "Beetles", and why would you want a "Catalog" on beetles in ITunes, in the Video section?

Oh, You guys are Lovers of Science! Entomology! I love it too!
But, if you're going to offer Scientific Video section, why not start with Nasa?
;)

JRM PowerPod

Apr 12, 2006, 10:46 PM

seriously, is this the end of the world as we know it?

next the israelis and palestinians will be singing christian rock together.

It must be the end of the world check out this link

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/e9355ea0ee6c2a6085257021004f90c5!OpenDocument

"Palestinian singer Wissam Murad, from the musical group Sabreen, and Israeli pop star David Broza collaborated to perform the featured song in the films. Both sing the same message of peace and humanity -- in Arabic and Hebrew, respectively."

Oh well.... I lived a good life

MikeAtari

Apr 12, 2006, 10:48 PM

Hi, my name's Apple Corps. I'm going to sue you, but I also want to use you to make more money.

And yes, where the hell is Radiohead??

Did someone steal Bill Gates?
Apple Corp. will have to pay a royalty to Microsoft for stealing their "Innovation".

plinkoman

Apr 12, 2006, 10:50 PM

it seems hell froze over again. it's been doing that allot recently.

Gary Cohen

Apr 12, 2006, 10:50 PM

SeaFox

Apr 12, 2006, 10:54 PM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

Aren't you forgetting about multi-button mice and Intel chips in Macs?

It's official! We now have the four signs of the Mac Apocalypse!

Doctor Q

Apr 12, 2006, 11:01 PM

Just READ the quoted article in Starpulse. It says the catalog is being prepared for a download service. It does not say iTunes is that service. Apple Corps only confirmed the download part. They did not say iTunes was involved.Your point has already been made several times in this thread.

Fact: starpulse says that the Beatles catlog will be distributed through the iTunes Music store.

Fact: Apple Corps confirmed that the catalog will be going online (somewhere).

Rumor: The Beatles catalog will be distributed through the iTunes Music Store.

kansaigaijin

Apr 12, 2006, 11:01 PM

davester

Apr 12, 2006, 11:02 PM

kansaigaijin

Apr 12, 2006, 11:06 PM

Doctor Q

Apr 12, 2006, 11:13 PM

Uh oh, I just thought of another angle. Steve Jobs loves secrecy and making big announcements himself.

Perhaps if Apple Corps is speaking in public about going online, that's a sign that Apple Computer isn't their choice of online distributor.

In any case, I will change my prediction to this:The Beatles music will be added to iTunes. Steve Jobs will make a big announcement and introduce a "Beatles on iTunes" ad campaign. Then Apple Corps will sue Apple Computer for using the word "Beatles" to advertise a product related to the music business.

iMeowbot

Apr 12, 2006, 11:21 PM

Just to refresh memories, the plan to sell Beatles tracks over the Internet has been in the works for some time. The last time there was buzz about this (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/internet/ecommerce/0,39020372,39157139,00.htm), Apple Corps were shopping the catalog around to the various download outfits, to see who could do the best job of presenting it.

starflyer

Apr 12, 2006, 11:26 PM

seriously, is this the end of the world as we know it?

next the israelis and palestinians will be singing christian rock together.

well kinda...

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1521598/20060125/index.jhtml?headlines=true

whatever

Apr 12, 2006, 11:38 PM

reminds me of the Bittersweet Symphony controversy

The Verve wrote the lyrics and 99.8% of the music, but the recording contains a sample of a riff in a Stones song circa 1970.

The Verve's lawyers negotiated with the Rolling Stones, and when agreement was reached, they called Richard Ashcroft (the singer). Cruelly they told him the royalties would be split 50/50.

50% for Jagger, and 50% for Richards.

The Verve got thier due when they sold the commercial use of the RECORDING to Nike for a reported $25 miliion.
Richard Ashcroft made one major error, he stole from The Rolling Stones.

He was no better than Vanilla Ice claiming that he wrote the bass hook for Ice Ice Baby!

And remember The Verve's lawyers were in no position to negotiate with The Stones, since if they refused the song would have been pulled from the Album.

FYI: The publishing rights to this went to Allen Klein, The Rolling Stones' former manager. The Stones signed a very lopsided contract with Klein early in their career, and had to make huge concessions in order to get out of it. Part of the deal gave Klein the publishing rights to all of the Stones' songs through 1969. He made, and continues to make, far more money than anyone else from this song.

nagromme

Apr 13, 2006, 12:12 AM

Without more context, I'm skeptical of such advanced plans for iTunes--maybe the re-mastering was being done anyway, and Apple Corps had some reason to want to emphasize their openness to working with Apple?

But at the very least, they do sound very open to the idea. That would be a great outcome. And of course, Apple will have to have triple disclaimers from now on:

Don't Steal Music.

If It Hurts You, Turn It Down.

We Are Not The Beatles.

.

Play Ultimate

Apr 13, 2006, 01:08 AM

it seems hell froze over again. it's been doing that allot recently.

And I thought we were only concerned about global warming.

elgruga

Apr 13, 2006, 01:19 AM

Its a shame that the surviving beatles are broke. I understand that Thingo is down to his last $300 million, and McFartney only has $700 million left!
Poor old Koko, the widderwoman of the Lenin guy has $27 trillion and she still worries about the price of coffee at starbucks.
Harrison didnt seem quite as insanely GREEDY as the others.....

Screw the beatles, and their ancient music with its simple tunes and schoolboy lyrics, mostly whining about teenage luv issues.
Its relevance has gone, as it should.

If you like the stuff, someone will give you a copy, I'm sure. Check Limewire maybe?
That will really get Koko the Japanese Accountant (sorry, Artist) really howling.

WTF this has to do with Apple Computers I cant quite see.

As for the court case, its just evidence of the Koko woman and the other two nitwits being unable to shake their addiction to getting money.
As the lawyer said, only a half-witted moron would confuse Apple and Apple Corps.
Apple make things and are famous and Apple Corps is an unknown corporation that looks after the interests of some old greedy blokes and a Japanese loony chick.

Judge should order Koko to serve 200 community hours in a homeless shelter for wasting court time.

chasemac

Apr 13, 2006, 01:29 AM

Until it happens, iTunes is not complete! I'm sure you know what I mean?
If you don't, I don't care to listen.:)

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 02:20 AM

I know some people have floated this idea previously - but Apple Computer has a lot of cash - How much would it cost to just buy Apple Corp?Paul McCartney has always prevailed in getting he what concerning The Beatles and considering all that he did in the band, for the band and after the band, who can blame him.

He is already a Billionaire (literally, with £1.1bn in 2002) so money is not the issue here. Not for selling Apple Corp nor with even selling Beatle music.

Ringo on the other hand, would probably welcome a buy-out, if he even has a hand in Apple Corp which I highly doubt. Also, since Ringo never wrote any of the songs of the Beatles, probably would welcome any type of deal to make some sort of money.

This has never been about money, really. It's been about McCartney standing up for what he thought was right. I love his music, but his stubborn attitude is a blessing and a curse.

The signs are right for this to be real. The article on Macworld refers to "digital booklets to accompany the downloads" which sound just like several PDFs that I've received when buying iTunes music (U2 comes to mind). Also, this sounds just like the kiss-and-make-up thing that Paul and Steve would come up with. Also, Paul giving away video ipods to people on his tour shows that he knows a good gift. Lastly, if The Beatles are going to want the type of exposure needed to make this great, why would they go to any other type of service. ITunes is far and away number one.

Also, I see this as the perfect time to introduce higher-quality downloads. A special Beatles iPod would be very welcomed with signatures from all the band mates and The Beatles & APPLE CORP logo would be fantastic!

I hope this rumor is right and that people will be able to Beatles music on iTunes. What a story that will make!

knackroller

Apr 13, 2006, 02:27 AM

I wonder what the big deal is all about. I'm thinking that the majority of ipod, apple users would have easy access to CDs, and you could easily buy a Beatles CD and rip it onto your ipod. There are enough Beatles compilations and best ofs and bootlegs to satisfy any combination you may like. It's not like there will be a lot of people who have not heard of the Beatles and would like to test out a single song or two?

jicon

Apr 13, 2006, 08:33 AM

So hold on... Apple Corps is waiting for their umpteenth remastered works of the Beatles catalog, before they distribute the works in a lossy format thru some sort of digital download...

How is this news? Apple Corps reeks of greed. I'm not buying.

rdowns

Apr 13, 2006, 08:41 AM

Here'a a press release from a few minutes ago

Beatles set to join online music revolution

Reuters 8:31 am April 13, 2006

By Adam Pasick

LONDON, April 13 (Reuters) - The Beatles are preparing to sell their songs online after years of refusing to take part in the Internet music boom, according to testimony given by the head of their record company.

Neil Aspinall, a former Beatles road manager and managing director of Apple Corps, was a witness in the company's trademark lawsuit against Apple Computer .

He said that the company was digitally remastering the entire Beatles catalogue, which would pave the way for selling the songs online.

"I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters," he said in a written statement submitted to the High Court in London earlier this month.

"It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

A spokeswoman for Apple Corps confirmed Aspinall's statement, and said that the company is preparing to make the Beatles catalogue available through online music services.

"There's no firm date on any of this at the moment. There are a lot of projects that Apple are working on at the moment," she said on Thursday.

The Beatles have been high-profile holdouts from the booming online music sector, which saw sales triple to $1.1 billion in 2005.

Apple Corps, owned by Beatles Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison, have accused Apple Computer of violating a 1991 agreement by using the Apple name and logo to sell music downloads through its market-leading iTunes Music Store.

The trial ended on April 6, with a decision from the judge due after Easter.

deadturtle

Apr 13, 2006, 08:42 AM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

Hmmm and a pig just flew by my window, suprisingly carrying two apples, one rainbow, one green, in its mouth.

Glad to see this though, my mom keeps telling me her White Album LP is off limits, and my CD is cracked........

AfroCab

Apr 13, 2006, 08:52 AM

Lovely article.

Keep up the great work.

It will be nice to be able to check out the re-mastered versions

---------------------
web design london (http://www.wirah.com)

JQW

Apr 13, 2006, 09:16 AM

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 09:17 AM

Ringo never wrote any of the songs of the Beatles

What JQW said. Not that either has made much of a dent in the grand scheme of things.

So hold on... Apple Corps is waiting for their umpteenth remastered works of the Beatles catalog, before they distribute the works in a lossy format thru some sort of digital download...

Uh... Apple has remastered the entire Beatles catalog exactly once. And that was way the hell back in 1987 to standardize for CD distribution. Seems like now's a great time to do it again.

Granted, in the mean time they've given us the remastered Yellow Submarine Songtrack, 1 and the new Capitol album re-releases, but that really doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. I'd kill for a remixed and remastered UK Beatles catalog... especially if they follow Capitol's lead by including the mono and stereo versions on the same disc. Looks like I'll have to buy the White Album again.:)

I'm a big enough Beatles fan that I'll always stick to the CD releases, but I think digital distribution is a good thing. As long as they do it via iTunes.;) But knowing Apple Corps, the possibility of them creating their very own exclusive Beatles download service isn't entirely out of the question.

freeny

Apr 13, 2006, 09:17 AM

I have read several stories about this subject and no where do I see any mention (except in the "headline" of this stories link) that The Beatles songs will be distributed on iTunes. There are only mentions of "Online distribution" and no mention of iTunes. There is no official mention anywhere from Apple Corps. that they plan on allowing the iTunes music store to distribute The Beatles music.:confused:

nerd05

Apr 13, 2006, 09:32 AM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

Actually, that already happened. Apple announced that hell froze over when they released iTunes for Windows. Now that they have Macs powered by Intel processors AND booting into Windows, iTunes for Windows really seems like a trifle.

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 09:59 AM

Screw the beatles, and their ancient music with its simple tunes and schoolboy lyrics, mostly whining about teenage luv issues.
Its relevance has gone, as it should.

You've never actually listened to The Beatles, have you?

Aussie John

Apr 13, 2006, 10:13 AM

now a "beatles" iPod with the apple corp logo instead of apple computer would be a great collectors item

rjstanford

Apr 13, 2006, 10:15 AM

reminds me of the Bittersweet Symphony controversy

The Verve wrote the lyrics and 99.8% of the music, but the recording contains a sample of a riff in a Stones song circa 1970.

The Verve's lawyers negotiated with the Rolling Stones, and when agreement was reached, they called Richard Ashcroft (the singer). Cruelly they told him the royalties would be split 50/50.

50% for Jagger, and 50% for Richards.

The Verve got thier due when they sold the commercial use of the RECORDING to Nike for a reported $25 miliion.

Sounds reasonable to me.

What? You think its too much? Look at it this way - without recalling the tune, that riff was obviously critical to the success of the song. Why do I say that? Because, if it wasn't, it would have been a lot easier to redo the song without the sampled riff in it. If they'd rather give up a ton of cash than to remix the song, I'd say that it was a pretty critical component and, as such, the royalty split sounds (at first glance) somewhat reasonable. Obviously they agreed, since they made the deal.

Trekkie

Apr 13, 2006, 10:25 AM

Yay. I might actually own some beatles songs soon. i never bought an album of theirs on CD so might have to buy a few of their songs I like.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer!

tny

Apr 13, 2006, 10:38 AM

Kabeyun

Apr 13, 2006, 10:50 AM

What are these "Beatles" you speak of, and aren't you all spelling it wrong?
No, we aren't.

Isn't it "Beetles"?
No, it isn't.

-K

P.S. Sorry, I reread your post and you must have been kidding. :}

Kabeyun

Apr 13, 2006, 11:02 AM

Its a shame that the surviving beatles are broke. I understand that Thingo is down to his last $300 million, and McFartney only has $700 million left!
Poor old Koko, the widderwoman of the Lenin guy has $27 trillion and she still worries about the price of coffee at starbucks.
Harrison didnt seem quite as insanely GREEDY as the others.....

Screw the beatles, and their ancient music with its simple tunes and schoolboy lyrics, mostly whining about teenage luv issues.
Its relevance has gone, as it should.

What's with the hostility? Needed a place to vent and were banned from political forums?

You're entitled to your opinion about their music. But you should've done your homework and not stopped listening to them in 1964. After that, their music frequently addressed such trivial, petty subjects as war & peace, the draft, the human soul, racial & ethnic harmony, and optimism versus pessimism about our collective future.

Or is "I'm into havin' sex, I'm not into makin' love" more your speed?

-K

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 11:31 AM

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 11:44 AM

Perhaps Apple Corp have made a deal with Apple: We'll let you sell our catalog on iTMS, but we reap 100% of the proceeds from it... and we'll forget about that contract you signed all those years ago. Possibly that's part of it -- I would imagine that U2 didn't see HALF of the profits of the U2 iPod, but I imagine something like that would certainly plausible if Apple Computer comes out with a Beatles iPod (up to a certain figure). You can't just keep letting Apple Corps reap 100% or even 50% from now on.

Also, here's a 1920 x 1200 Desktop of the Beatles listening to their ipods that I did for Spymac some time ago.

FoxyKaye

Apr 13, 2006, 12:25 PM

So, lemme get this right - the same company that is suing Apple for selling music through iTunes is preparing its catalog to sell on iTunes?

It's gettin' mighty chilly down here in hell...

sketchy

Apr 13, 2006, 12:28 PM

Considering the trial ended on April 6, with a decision from the judge due after Easter, it seems likely that an agreement of this type between the two Apples has happened. I think it would be too coincidental otherwise.

my other thought -- what if Apple Corps is going to start their own download service. if apple computers wins the court case would they be able to sue apple corps for using an apple in the download music business.. because more people know what apple and itunes is compared to apple corps.

though I think Apple and Apple made some sort of deal. Just imagine -- beatles music and all the movies for sale, plus the yellow submarine ipod

FoxyKaye

Apr 13, 2006, 12:36 PM

...Screw the beatles, and their ancient music with its simple tunes and schoolboy lyrics, mostly whining about teenage luv issues.
Its relevance has gone, as it should...
Judas!

*faints*

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 12:38 PM

Also, since Ringo never wrote any of the songs of the Beatles, probably would welcome any type of deal to make some sort of money.

He did write Don't Pass Me By and Octopus's Garden, and had co-writing credits for What Goes On and Flying.

I knew when I wrote that about Ringo, I just KNEW someone would needle me. I was well aware that he had penned something. Compared to the others, he was nothing as a writer. It's a figure of speech. He also wrote "Taking a Trip to Carolina" when he was a Beatle (Listen to Fly on the Wall from Let It Be... Naked and you'll hear why I didn't want to include the few "gems" that Ringo put to paper.

Ok, for you, JQW: Since Ringo practically never wrote any of the songs of the Beatles, probably would welcome any type of deal to make some sort of money.

I forget sometimes on this board, that you better say everything just perfectly, word everything just so, cross yer T's and dot them I's.

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 12:42 PM

Considering the trial ended on April 6, with a decision from the judge due after Easter, it seems likely that an agreement of this type between the two Apples has happened. I think it would be too coincidental otherwise.

my other thought -- what if Apple Corps is going to start their own download service. if apple computers wins the court case would they be able to sue apple corps for using an apple in the download music business.. because more people know what apple and itunes is compared to apple corps.

I truly think this case is going to settle ALL of the disputes with the two Apples.

Let it be already.

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 12:48 PM

I forget sometimes on this board, that you better say everything just perfectly, word everything just so, cross yer T's and dot them I's.

You don't dot capital 'I's, JGOWAN!

;)

suzerain

Apr 13, 2006, 12:50 PM

First off, according to the Starpulse article, "the company is currently battling Apple Computer over its logo." The Lawsuit is not about Apple's Logo.

Errr....yes it is. Apple Corps objects to the fact that iTunes marketing materials have the Apple logo at the end. If it didn't have that, they wouldn't be complaining...

Perhaps the more correct way to put it would have been "the company is currently battling Apple Computer over the use of its logo."

But that's splitting hairs...

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 12:59 PM

I think there's a lot more to it than that. Namely, the whole entering-the-music-business thing.

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 01:04 PM

So, lemme get this right - the same company that is suing Apple for selling music through iTunes is preparing its catalog to sell on iTunes?Sure,... it's simply a compromise... an agreement... part of the negotiation. It's good for both parties.

This isn't all about saving money. It's about saving face. Apple Corp was first conceived to be the ONE record company that anyone could go to and get a fair deal. If you had talent, you would be represented and you would be treated honestly. This never happened. They didn't really do much for anyone else. Now it's embarrassing that another Apple took on the music realm and is kicking ass. I'm sure there's some jealousy, too on Paul's part about this.

Also, the last time they were in court, it cost $50M, I believe (be kind Ye of All Knowledge)... this is nothing to these guys. The EXPOSURE of the publicity of the press that this generates does nothing but keep people thinking about them both. As the saying goes, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"...

Unless it's about Mike and little 8 year olds. :eek:

Placeholder

Apr 13, 2006, 01:07 PM

Have a read about what engadget has to say on this: http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/apple-to-sell-music-online-but-probably-not-through-apple/

intlplby

Apr 13, 2006, 01:16 PM

it would be nice if they could release the original British Pressings and some of the other sought after pressings in lossless without mastering....

for example, the Japanese pressing of Abbey Road sounds sooooooo much better than other pressings...... you'd be surprised how much difference there is between pressings..... for those who haven't had the chance of listening to the difference, go out and find lossless recordings of different pressings and check out the difference on good equipment

MFSL recordings are also stellar

rog

Apr 13, 2006, 01:17 PM

Sorry, but I didn't see anything in the article that said they plan to sell on iTunes. They will probably do on other services except iTunes.

Placeholder

Apr 13, 2006, 01:22 PM

Sorry, but I didn't see anything in the article that said they plan to sell on iTunes. They will probably do on other services except iTunes.
I know, that was my point (I retitled it as "NOT on Itunes) - easy to miss though. It seems like Itunes wont be given rights - or at least it'll be used as more leverage in the case.

JAT

Apr 13, 2006, 01:23 PM

What's with the hostility? Needed a place to vent and were banned from political forums?

You're entitled to your opinion about their music. But you should've done your homework and not stopped listening to them in 1964. After that, their music frequently addressed such trivial, petty subjects as war & peace, the draft, the human soul, racial & ethnic harmony, and optimism versus pessimism about our collective future.

Or is "I'm into havin' sex, I'm not into makin' love" more your speed?

-K
You forgot songs about how being wasted is great. Not sure how that doesn't apply to today's idiot youths.

JGowan

Apr 13, 2006, 02:06 PM

MJ selling to Sony?! This looks bad for Apple Computer... D@MMIT!

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 02:15 PM

Ah well. At least Ringo's a Mac user. That's something, right? RIGHT?!

I'm much more interested in the remastered CDs anyway.

Maestro64

Apr 13, 2006, 04:25 PM

What happened (although I don't have the details of the deal) is that MJ (or Sony now, dunno) got the rights partially linked to phonographic production (these must have been licensed by Lennon-Macca), comprising reproduction and distribution of their songs in general. That's why you never listen to the majority of Beatles songs in radios, apart from "Something" and others that belong to Harrisongs et al.

Well based on this article http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?fn=2006/04/13/229222.html&cvqh=itn_jackson It looks like MJ still owns the Beatle stuff and may soon sell it to Sony.

Michael Jackson (or whoever may have bought them from him) owns the publication rights to the sheet music, and the rights for other artists to perform the songs. The Beatles partnership owns the rights to all the recordings. So no, Michael Jackson is not involved in this process, just the four Beatles (and their estates).

I think he might own more then the sheet music, since they value Beatle as well as the Elvis music at over a $$ Billion. I doublt very much that sheet music is work that much alone. I have also hear Paul make statements he can no longer sing certian Beatle songs since he does not own the rights to those songs anymore. But he can sing those that he was the soul writer on.

zap2

Apr 13, 2006, 04:26 PM

i think Apple Comps should settle with Apple Cor and get All beatles, Wings and Solo songs, and any otehr bands they were in, by all the people in the Beatles because they would sell like fire!

Doctor Q

Apr 13, 2006, 04:44 PM

Here'a a press release from a few minutes ago

...A spokeswoman for Apple Corps confirmed Aspinall's statement, and said that the company is preparing to make the Beatles catalogue available through online music services...The telltale plural means it's not just one service. Which makes sense given Yoko's handling of John's solo work.

Also, here's a 1920 x 1200 Desktop of the Beatles listening to their ipods that I did for Spymac some time ago.Nice photoshopping, JGowan. :)

Have a read about what engadget has to say on this: http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/apple-to-sell-music-online-but-probably-not-through-apple/Their conclusion about iTunes seems to be simply speculation.

i think Apple Comps should settle with Apple Cor and get All beatles, Wings and Solo songs, and any otehr bands they were in, by all the people in the Beatles because they would sell like fire!If the Beatles and their heirs are greedy, as some have said here, why wouldn't they be interested in using the hottest distribution service (iTunes)? Is the feud so personal that they don't want to make money the best way possible?

Peace

Apr 13, 2006, 04:57 PM

The telltale plural means it's not just one service. Which makes sense given Yoko's handling of John's solo work.

Nice photoshopping, JGowan. :)

Their conclusion about iTunes seems to be simply speculation.

If the Beatles and their heirs are greedy, as some have said here, why wouldn't they be interested in using the hottest distribution service (iTunes)? Is the feud so personal that they don't want to make money the best way possible?

It's Yoko Ono..she has it in for Apple Computer and she also holds John's rights so she has a huge influence on what Apple Corp. does.

It's ALWAYS been Yoko..!! :D

zzcoop

Apr 13, 2006, 05:00 PM

RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR!!!

http://homepage.mac.com/aaroncooper/yoko.jpg

BRLawyer

Apr 13, 2006, 06:20 PM

No, recording rights are distinct animals. This is spelled out in the Rome Convention (1961), amplified by the Phonograms Convention (1971), and expanded by WPPT (1996).

Those rights have different names in different locales. In countries aligned with the UK convention, they are called phonogram rights. In the US, they are sound recording copyrights. In the strange strange land of WIPO, they fall under the vague moniker of "related rights" -- even though they are not necessarily related to other rights!

Yes, these exist in many countries, usually for radio, but increasingly for other uses like internet streams as well. Under such systems, broadcasters can play any released recordings, on the condition that they keep track of what they play and hand over a predefined fee, normally set by each country. Conventionally, performing rights organizations in each country are responsible for collecting these royalties and distributing them to publishers.

Thanks for the lengthy answer, but that's exactly what I said...phonogram/recording rights are ancillary or, in your words, related rights. So they still arise from the musical composition, and can only appear when the activity of production per se arises.

And the meaning of producer is clear in law: it's the person/entity which takes the initiative or the economic responsibility for first recording of the phonogram, whatever the supported physical means are. And for such activity it receives "ancillary" rights somehow close to those of the author, who approached the producer in the first place.

As for compulsory licenses, yes; I am aware of them, but I think you're mixing up some concepts here...compulsory licenses are a technical term for the mandatory opening up of patent rights under, for instance, the TRIPS agreement. They are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry for AIDS-related treatments and so on, if Roche or others don't feel like granting production licenses on reasonable terms (my country, Brazil, has been extremely successful at that, probably because of its size and political/financial clout).

What you mention is not exactly a compulsory license; it's a way for performing artists' associations and fee/royalty sharing offices to distribute the revenue of rights to its original holders...you're not wrong, but we're using different meanings for the same terms here.

fluidinclusion

Apr 13, 2006, 08:37 PM

First windows on a mac, now The Beatles on iTunes! Looks like Hell froze over, folks.

Don't you know that the reason Apple Computer came out with Boot Camp was solely to please the Apple Corps owners main complaint that they couldn't run Windows on Apple hardware? That's what this is all about!

;)

fluidinclusion

Apr 13, 2006, 08:49 PM

Actually, that already happened. Apple announced that hell froze over when they released iTunes for Windows. Now that they have Macs powered by Intel processors AND booting into Windows, iTunes for Windows really seems like a trifle.

Sounds like with all of this endothermic activity that there is going to be a surplus of heat energy that will need to be released soon. Armageddon?

gco212

Apr 15, 2006, 02:55 AM

Well based on this article http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?fn=2006/04/13/229222.html&cvqh=itn_jackson It looks like MJ still owns the Beatle stuff and may soon sell it to Sony.

I think he might own more then the sheet music, since they value Beatle as well as the Elvis music at over a $$ Billion. I doublt very much that sheet music is work that much alone. I have also hear Paul make statements he can no longer sing certian Beatle songs since he does not own the rights to those songs anymore. But he can sing those that he was the soul writer on.

I'm not an expert in the subject, but I'm fairly sure that basically, the rights that Michael Jackson owns or owned (I know he sold at least a portion of them) were to the rights of selling them to commercials and whatnot. I know that MJ sold Revolution for a comercial (I think it was for the Dodge Caravan), and Paul was very upset because that wasn't what Revolution was all about. The Beatles, or, I guess, Apple Corp. owns the rights to selling CDs and whatnot.

Doctor Q

Apr 15, 2006, 03:03 AM

I'm not an expert in the subject, but I'm fairly sure that basically, the rights that Michael Jackson owns or owned (I know he sold at least a portion of them) were to the rights of selling them to commercials and whatnot. I know that MJ sold Revolution for a comercial (I think it was for the Dodge Caravan), and Paul was very upset because that wasn't what Revolution was all about. The Beatles, or, I guess, Apple Corp. owns the rights to selling CDs and whatnot.You're expert enough. That's the gist of it: Jackson owns the rights to royalties for use of the sheet music and performance of Beatles music by others, while Apple Corps has rights to sales of the Beatles own recordings.

And it looks like Jackson will be selling half of his Beatles music rights to Sony to deal with his debt.