Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Beatles Songs on iTunes?

now a "beatles" iPod with the apple corp logo instead of apple computer would be a great collectors item
 
kansaigaijin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
Kernow said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
elgruga said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
davester said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • ipodroad.jpg
    ipodroad.jpg
    200.2 KB · Views: 254
JGowan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
JGowan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

sketchy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Let it be already.
 
JGowan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

;)
 
errr....

Leoff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
I think there's a lot more to it than that. Namely, the whole entering-the-music-business thing.
 
FoxyKaye said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
 
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
 
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.
 
rog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kabeyun said:
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
Click to expand...
You forgot songs about how being wasted is great. Not sure how that doesn't apply to today's idiot youths.
 
Ah well. At least Ringo's a Mac user. That's something, right? RIGHT?!

I'm much more interested in the remastered CDs anyway.
 
BRLawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

tny said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back