Beatles Songs on iTunes?

[zap2]

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]

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]

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..!!

 

[zzcoop]

RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRR!!!

 

[50548]

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]

Don't you know

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]

Hmmmm

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]

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]

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.

 

[Super Dave]

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.

Rolling Stones (I think), Dave Matthews Band (even I was surprised), Madonna.

David