Beatles on iTunes Still Hung Up on 'Business Hassles'

[kallisti]

Readily available means on demand. That means no shipping and having to wait for it to ship. Having to wait several business days to get a physical product is not "readily available" when if it was available digitally I could download it in 15 minutes.

And that is 24 hours a day even.

Since the Beatles catalog isn't available for download, I would say the physical CD method is considerably "more available" than the iTunes option, despite that incredibly long delay of a couple of days....

Buy Beatles on CD: music available for your listening pleasure in a couple of days.
Wait for availability on iTunes: music available for your listening pleasure in a couple months? years? never?

Yes, I know I'm not being fair. Your point is that instant gratification is better than having to wait a day or two. But honestly, what is going on in your life that you can't wait a day or two for a CD to ship? Do your tastes change that quickly? Are you having a Beatles emergency where you must listen to the White album NOW?

 

[pdjudd]

Are you serious?

Well yes. Of I have to wait for something to be shipped and it contains lots of excess songs I dislike, that really isn't really "readily available". That's just "available" and it's only available as long as EMI and Amazon have stock.

Honestly, this is why the iTunes music store exists and why Piracy existed - people didn't want to waste time with a CD.

As a former small town resident, I entirely relate to what you say on availability. CD clutter isn't always attractive, but it is good to have a backup of ripped music. I rarely play CDs, and rarely buy them, though my wife still mixes CD for her car. There are few albums where I really love more than 50% tracks. These are the reasons I am a pretty loyal iTunes customer.

That is a valid point, however, I don't call a store bought CD as a "backup". I mean for the most part you keep your CD's at the same place you keep your digital tracks - at home. And CD's are not permanent records either. Any backup is only as useful as the medium it is stored on. And it's not as if digital content can't be backed up either. If you want to get detailed about it, nothing is really considered "backed up" unless it is in 3 different forms (even I don't do this).

My overall point is that CD's shouldn't be the only way to enjoy something. IMO that is a silly excuse to justify the status quo and does not address the root concern - there is demand for the Beatles on iTunes (or other services). Yes, the CD's are out there, but not everyone wants to get CD's. And no, having the complete CD's is not the only way to enjoy things - the fact that there are compilation albums and the fact that iTunes has been doing so well selling music individually proves this. All the people who are suggesting buying CD's and implying that everybody already owns it are making really broad suggestions.

Imagine it like this. I and lots of other people want to go from California to Florida. The problem, no airlines exist that will take me there (not even the private ones) since Florida airports hate California (despite the fact that the airliner want to offer that route). Any other plane route in (say connecting flights) is like ordering CD's - time consuming and takes me to places that I might not want to travel. If I want to go to Florida, people are saying "Big deal - just take the bus cross country, or a cab (better since you can see the country!) or walk" or "big deal, just take an indirect route and pay a little more and have the benefit of more travel. Yes, they are valid ways to get to Florida, but they ignore the root problem and their are band-aids at best and they don't fit everybody's requirements. Some people want to hitchhike, take the bus or do connecting flights. Not everybody want to do that and it is frustrating that despite what the airlines want to do, somebody is holding up convenience for the customer.

 

[KJ500]

That old Beatles chestnut is a pet project for SJ. Trust, NOBODY ELSE CARES!

 

[pdjudd]

Since the Beatles catalog isn't available for download, I would say the physical CD method is considerably "more available" than the iTunes option, despite that incredibly long delay of a couple of days....

Sure something is always better when the alternative is nothing at all. Having the Beatles play live in person for me at a whim is also really nice compared to going to a concert. Of course getting the Fab 4 (even just the living ones) to play for me anytime I want isn't as practical or possible compared to seeing them in a concert venue.

The only reason that concert venues are "more convenient" is that the other is not really possible or practical. Just like with the Beatles on iTunes - it's not a viable option right now. However I am arguing a hypothetical here - and at least the hypothetical presence of the beatles on iTunes is possible. and it would be more convenient.

Buy Beatles on CD: music available for your listening pleasure in a couple of days.
Wait for availability on iTunes: music available for your listening pleasure in a couple months? years? never?

My point is that we shouldn't have to be in this boat in the first place. I mean Boat A that is really nice, shiny and fast is ready to sail and the crew and passengers want to set sail. To bad the captain doesn't want to go out because the time isn't right for him. Instead we have to wait for the slower boat that isn't even at the dock yet to arrive and that boat isn't what we want.

Yes, I know I'm not being fair. Your point is that instant gratification is better than having to wait a day or two. But honestly, what is going on in your life that you can't wait a day or two for a CD to ship? Do your tastes change that quickly? Are you having a Beatles emergency where you must listen to the White album NOW?

You make that argument you might as well ask why anybody should bother publishing their music in iTunes in the first place. After all the labels had that same mentality for all of their content and people were pirating their content left and right instead of buying the CD's like the labels wanted them too.

My point is that we should have choice, an option. Lots of people want the Beatles on iTunes - Even the surviving Beatles do. It's the holdouts that are the problem here. And EMI is being really silly here since they are treating the Beatles as sacred while everyone else (other EMI musicians and the Beatles Solo stuff) have no problems.

 

[louis Fashion]

Technical Question

Is the sound quality better on the iPod when you copy the music from your CD?

 

[transmaster]

There's no reason for EMI to hold these tracks back - it's the Beatles that are the problem.

They are arguably the most important band of the rock era and have used their status to renegotiate at every opportunity in order to fill their pockets with more money. And they don't really get along - so every potential project crawls along.

There are many well-documented stories of these trials, so I'm surprised that anyone thinks EMI is looking to restrict their potential earnings or that Paul "I'm Not Rich Enough Yet" McCartney has the nerve to say it's EMI causing the delays.

What towering ignorance, you don't understand the "Beatles" aka Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr, DO NOT!!!!, own the publishing rights to their works. They are owned by the Michael Jackson estate, Sony/BMI, Yoko Ono owns some of John Lennon's music, and who knows who else has a piece of the Beatles. You have to remember there are Publishing rights, and performance rights. The remaining Beatles have performance rights, that is they can play their music, but they do not have the publishing rights which means Paul McCartney can not release a CD featuring the original recordings he made while with the Beatles. As an organization the Beatles no longer exist as a business entity with the Apple label they do. Paul McCartney, or Ringo Starr have no say about this music. Sir Paul tried to purchase the publishing rights for the Beatles music years ago but was out bid by Michael Jackson, it is reported he paid 250 million for them. You can be sure if Paul McCartney had the publishing rights they would already be on iTunes.

 

[louis Fashion]

Quote of the Day -- Fanned

What towering ignorance, you don't understand the "Beatles" aka Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr, DO NOT!!!!, own the publishing rights to their works. .

Well said, you would be FANNED if such options existed within the vast MacRumors world.

 

[SeattleMoose]

The Dinosaur Parasites of The Music Industry

The artists want it
The fans want it
Apple wants it

but no....the parasitical (and soon to be obsolete) "middle men" don't want it.

Good that the digital revolution has demarcated the heros and villains in the music industry. EMI falls solidly in the latter category......

 

[louis Fashion]

The Day The Music Died

+1.....

I'm sure some people can hear the difference since they have $300.00 earbuds or a killer audio system but it all sounds the same to most of us.

This is one sad quote. I will now tell you a story about how it USED to be, back in the old days. You can turn off the radio, if you do not want to hear my story. Anyway, back in the day, we used to try to get the best equipment, the best speakers, the high speed 15 inch capable tape decks, the cleanest most powerful amplifiers, what-ever, in order to squeeze the best sound out of our music budget.

Now days, with auto-tune, "singers" who are hired for their looks rather than their talent, corporate A&R schlock, and ugh compression, etc...most music sounds ...as Plutonius...states above...the same....sad.

 

[transmaster]

Well said, you would be FANNED if such options existed within the vast MacRumors world.

There is so much ignorance about how the music business works. People think musical acts are masters of their own world. The reality is 99 percent of them come and go and at the end of it they have nothing to show for their hard work, they don't own, or can even legally play their music. The Recording industry treats the vast majority of such acts as indentured servants. That is one of things I like about iTunes there are many independent artists that publish their music on iTunes. iTunes gets a 30% cut of the price. A band/artist getting 70% of the purchase price is unheard of in the RIAA world. This has the regular recording industry looking at Apple with great trepidation they can feel the consumer dancing on their collective business model graves. If you want to support an independent artist either purchase the music directly from their websites or go to iTunes. Each time you purchase music in this way you are driving yet another nail in the coffin of the traditional recording industry.

 

[louis Fashion]

...one of things I like about iTunes there are many independent artists that publish their music on iTunes. iTunes gets a 30% cut of the price. A band/artist getting 70% of the purchase price is unheard of in the RIAA world. This has the regular recording industry looking at Apple with great trepidation they can feel the consumer dancing on their collective business model graves. If you want to support an independent artist either purchase the music directly from their websites or go to iTunes. Each time you purchase music in this way you are driving yet another nail in the coffin of the traditional recording industry.

Again well said. I do worry about the future of music and your postings may give us reason to hope. Double fanned.

 

[JQW]

There is so much ignorance about how the music business works.

Yes, including your comments on publishing rights a few posts up - you don't appear to understand what those are either.

A publishing company collects the rights due to songwriters, composers and lyricists, and pays out respective royalties. They have little say in the actual release of recordings, other than the first legitimate issue of any individual song.

If McCartney did indeed control the publishing rights to his Beatles compositions it wouldn't have any impact on the current EMI deal, other than negotiations regarding seeking permission to include lyrics with the downloads.

 

[transmaster]

Yes, including your comments on publishing rights a few posts up - you don't appear to understand what those are either.

A publishing company collects the rights due to songwriters, composers and lyricists, and pays out respective royalties. They have little say in the actual release of recordings, other than the first legitimate issue of any individual song.

If McCartney did indeed control the publishing rights to his Beatles compositions it wouldn't have any impact on the current EMI deal, other than negotiations regarding seeking permission to include lyrics with the downloads.

I am a musician and have been in the business. You are talking about performance, and writers royalties. In the States these payments are over seen by The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) These rights have no bearing on the publication of an album. All this means is contractual royalty payments to those parties that have these rights. While this can hold up the publication in some cases normally this not an issue in a re-issue.

I understand middle executives at EMI that are the problem it is the usual thing, putting it on the internet in a digital form and somehow loosing control of it's marketing to iTunes, they want DRM, Apple is telling them no. The death of Michael Jackson didn't help, there is still fighting in the family over this issue so that is holding things up. To me this disco-war is a real howler there are plenty of people who would be more then willing to purchase the Beatles catalog on iTunes, Apple knows this, Paul McCartney, The Harrison estate, etc all know this. So what is happening, because people cannot find the Beatles anywhere online as a legal down load they are going to bit-torrent sites where they can find the entire discography of the Beatles encoded in FLAC, a +/- 4.8 gig file which, thanks to the large number of people seeding it, can be downloaded in just a couple of hours depending on your download speed. Talk about a bunch of losers EMI you know who you are.

 

[synth3tik]

At this point is there anyone who has not ripped their Beatles Discography?

 

[bobertoq]

I'm surprised so many of you find it absurd this still matters/is relevant/whatever. What really is absurd is that EMI is so greedy they don't realize this will make them money. Yes, that's right, they will make them money by making it easier for people to buy music from the greatest band in the world.

Anyway, back to seeding the 2009 remastered stereo box set .

 

[rajbonham]

At this point is there anyone who has not ripped their Beatles Discography?

I didn't! I bought the 2009 Remasters Box Set and it was worth every single penny.

I did however, just download your music for free. Good stuff by the way!