Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Beatles and Apple Still Unable to Reach iTunes Distribution Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Beatles fanbase buy their CDs. They're old school. They're compilation CD "1" was the best selling CD of the last decade at 11.5 million sold. They're remastered CDs have sold millions. The Beatles impact on music will never be diminished at this point. They certainly don't need Apple.
People who are pirating will always pirate. They still sell a lot of CDs, and the Beatles still make a ton of money off remakes from people who do offer the songs on iTunes. McCartney is worth $700+ million, he's doing just fine.
People who are pirating will always pirate. They still sell a lot of CDs, and the Beatles still make a ton of money off remakes from people who do offer the songs on iTunes. McCartney is worth $700+ million, he's doing just fine.
How does this really affect anyone?
Really? I mean if you want the Beatles music in your iTunes library then just buy the CD and rip it yourself.
Why this is news, I have no idea.
Really? I mean if you want the Beatles music in your iTunes library then just buy the CD and rip it yourself.
Why this is news, I have no idea.
Apple and Apple Records kissed and made up a number of years ago. The terms were secret, if I recall, but the result was Apple had full rights to the Apple name and Apple Records got money.
This.
And you can have them at lossless quality, too. iTunes has always mystified me on this one point. People pay good money to allow convenience to trump quality. Until the bandwidth isn't an issue, and Apple starts to offer lossless rips, I don't see me buying a thing from iTunes, Beatles or not.
I thought Sony bought the beatles musicrights from Michael Jackson? I have no idea if Sony is a friend or foe to SJ?
She's 77 years old. I think "never" has a fairly short time horizon in this case.
If you're a Beatles fan, buy the remastered boxed sets that were released last year and rip them at high bit rate, then you're covered.
Unfortunately, people who may want only one or a few Beatles tracks are not covered, they have to buy the entire CD.
Irrelevant? Well they had the best selling album of the decade from 2000-2009 with "1". So, they're certainly relevant enough to sell more of that CD than any other artist on the planet sold any one of their CDs. The remasters are selling millions and Paul McCartney is breaking records selling tickets for his concerts ($41 million for 11 shows in 2009).
http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/pa...les-break-world-record-4000-tickets-7-seconds
http://blogcritics.org/music/article/who-has-the-biggest-selling-album/
Edit: Any music distributor on the planet would want the Beatles, which is why Apple continues to pursue them to this day.
hmm. This sucks.
Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to listening to The Beatles on vinyl. It's better that way anyway.
Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to listening to The Beatles on vinyl. It's better that way anyway.
Who cares anymore? Anyone that wants the Beatles on their iPod has already found a way to do it. No one has been sitting around for 7 years waiting for the Beatles to appear in the iTunes store.
Does this have to do with the fact that Michael Jackson's estate own some of the Beatle's songs? Is this still a fact?
That's REALLY old news. $$ has changed hands long ago to smooth over that rift. This is simply a matter of having lost touch with the 21st century.
Sad... The Beatles catalog would sell like hotcakes (albeit microwavable, 21st century ones.)
This is all part of Yoko's plan to become the most unpopular person in the whole world. Ever.
I'd put her in at No.3 currently, just behind Stalin and Hitler.
I'd put her in at No.3 currently, just behind Stalin and Hitler.
Well, he's a huge fan!
"My model for business is The Beatles" - Steve Jobs 60 Minutes interview.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/60-minutes-steve-jobs/9742-1_53-50004696.html
I also thought McCartney had bought it back (or someone had bought it) as a result of Jackson's financial mess.
Anyway, the 'who cares' folks need to understand that some music actually has staying power and resonance. I know that's hard to understand in a period when music is 'product', and the output is 'recordings', not 'songs'. Check back with me on 30 years and tell me what voice-corrected hack from today is still around.
The Beatles still will be.
That's a real pain when you can easily download them from an illegal source. It's not even about avoiding spending the money. Everyone nowadays listens to their music in a digital format, their going to get it there the easiest way they can.
Nothing at all. Jackson simply owned ATV Music who themselves had a majority shareholding in Northern Songs, who owned the publishing to the majority of Beatles hits. As many artists don't own their publishing company, it's not a big deal.
The main issue is due to the complex nature of the Beatles' contracts with EMI.
Don't worry Yoko, if you continue to wait your husband's music will be come even more irrelevant and nobody will want to buy it regardless the format.
Greed and holding grudges only hurts you in the end. People can live without their music or just buy a CD in a used music store and rip it themselves.
I hope that you realize how you are wasting your life holding on to the past before it is too late.
