Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I believe that copyright is not a natural property right. You cannot own what someone else has in their head. Once you express music, it will be beyond your control and can be a source of inspiration and enjoyments for others. The only thing that prevents people from just making copies of the same work is the law itself. With digitalised music, it's literally just bits that make up a work. Compare this to a painting, you can make a copy of a painting, but it will never be the original work. You can hold on to a painting forever, just as you can hold on to a vinyl, but you can never control the music itself.

To some extent that is reasonable, to protect and nurture the artistry, but for works that were made in the 60s, there should be no one who owns the rights anymore, especially with something as culturally important as Beatles' songs. Copyright nowadays extends to 70 years after death of the artist. This is beyond ludicrous and does not promote the artistry as such. In fact, copyright is doing a disserve at this point when it prevents people from getting access to music that society at large benefitted from, especially considering that a lot of wealth has been generated for the artists already.

Did you know that you can download lots of ebooks at Apple iBooks that are now in the public domain? Important books of science and philosophy and lots of classic fiction. I really like the concept of public domain and it is so underused in digital media. Think of all the media that you will never see again, because copyright owners do not make it available. Should society not a have right to those works after a while?
i don't believe so, personally. somebody owns that music. if they want to allow others to listen to it and people are willing to pay, why shouldn't they be allowed to make money off of what they created or now currently own. nobody is forced to pay for it. it shouldn't matter when you created something. you should be rewarded for your work. and nobody should be able to set a limit on how much you're rewarded. just my personal opinion, though.
 
Why is this even news? When other bands get added it's not news. This is irrelevant as I doubt the numbers of really old people using streaming services are very high.
 
Why is this even news? When other bands get added it's not news. This is irrelevant as I doubt the numbers of really old people using streaming services are very high.
pretty arrogant of you to assume that because YOU don't care for a band that nobody else should. i don't really care for the beatles either but how can you deny that they've been a huge influence on millions of peoples' lives? and not just old people.
 
More importantly Spotify the masses can listen and be exposed to the Beatles coupled with some ads for free.
 
Finally some exposure for these plucky upstarts from across the pond.

Is it deserved? One of them is a wife beater who abandoned his son, mocked the retarded, pummeled some guy nearly to death because of homophobia, etc, who also got heckled by peers that said "Only a millionaire would write about a song about having no possessions". Amazing how much that guy gets defended, since most of us don't need to have done all those nasty things and still try to live and believe the words he merely cashed in on from the gullible.
 
This is an amazing Christmas gift! I didn't think they'd ever come to Apple Music! Yay!


IT IS NOT A GIFT. YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT. EVERY PURCHASE OF ANY SONG ON APPLE GOES TO PAY FOR THESE ROYALTY CONTRACTS. If it's a gift, then Apple is getting it for free and is choosing to pass the savings along to you. it is not a gift
 
IT IS NOT A GIFT. YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT. EVERY PURCHASE OF ANY SONG ON APPLE GOES TO PAY FOR THESE ROYALTY CONTRACTS. If it's a gift, then Apple is getting it for free and is choosing to pass the savings along to you. it is not a gift
well since he's gonna still be paying the same price he was paying for Apple Music before the beatles were added, some may interpret that as a gift
 
  • Like
Reactions: imnotthewalrus
so anything that was created a long time ago should be free?

I'd reduce the copywrite down a long long way before it hit public domain
It used to be a lot shorter that it is now.

Crazy that I can work for 1 year, then 50 years later STILL expect to be paid for the 1 year work, then I die and my kids can then also expect money from it.

Just think if every profession expected that.
 
and nobody should be able to set a limit on how much you're rewarded. just my personal opinion, though.

That is the point. The fact that you can create artificial scarcity through copyright law is itself a limit that we nowadays take for granted, even though it is purely fictional. You can only own music in a legal sense. You can own devices and storage media with music on them, but you cannot physically own music itself. It is impossible, because of what music is. As such, in nature, nobody even has a right to prevent people from reproducing music, because you do not own it in a meaningful sense of the word.

But the law pretends that you can with copyright law. Without copyright law, you could never own music once it leaves your head. Copyright law is economic and cultural policy only, it was originally meant as an instrument to incentivise authors to create more works, by protecting their works for a limited time. Copyright law has been perverted into a self-evident pseudo-property right. I am not saying that copyright law is bad, but the current extent of it is.

So when you said that “anything that was created a long time ago should be free?”, I say yes. I am not saying that because I think that music should be free, but because nobody owns music and the limitations that copyright law imposes (in the US it is 70 years on top of the author’s lifetime) are far from reasonable.

Crazy that I can work for 1 year, then 50 years later STILL expect to be paid for the 1 year work, then I die and my kids can then also expect money from it.

Just think if every profession expected that.

It is absolutely absurd. Not to mention, artists would likely create the same amount of music even if the copyright term was just 10 years. It is a position of privilege that we should not keep up.
 
All Beatles music? Not true. The mono versions never even made it to the iTunes Store. Several of the albums available are the 1987 remixes, not the originals.

Help! and Rubber Soul are the only two that Martin created new mixes for back then (I believe the only two) because the left/right mix they did on those early recordings for stereo was bad. However, although they are using the Martin mix for those, the sound quality is 1000x better than it sounded in 1987. For the physical CD box, or on one of those I have, you get the original mix and the Martin mix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: dennysanders
IT IS NOT A GIFT. YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT. EVERY PURCHASE OF ANY SONG ON APPLE GOES TO PAY FOR THESE ROYALTY CONTRACTS. If it's a gift, then Apple is getting it for free and is choosing to pass the savings along to you. it is not a gift
Wow. I'm sorry I offended you.

...Calm down, dude. Why does it hurt if I look at it as a gift? Leave me be.
 
To be honest I agree that they are the most overrated band of all time.

John Lennon is spoken about like he was god, yet he was actually a dick. People make comparisons between him and Steve Jobs, the difference is that away from hardcore Apple fans Jobs gets a rough time over his mistakes. Lennon gets praise all the time.

Also the Beatles weren't the first ones to get a cult following, Elvis had cult following beginning in the 50's, others probably before that but on less of a scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lostanddamned
To be honest I agree that they are the most overrated band of all time.

John Lennon is spoken about like he was god, yet he was actually a dick. People make comparisons between him and Steve Jobs, the difference is that away from hardcore Apple fans Jobs gets a rough time over his mistakes. Lennon gets praise all the time.

Also the Beatles weren't the first ones to get a cult following, Elvis had cult following beginning in the 50's, others probably before that but on less of a scale.
Elvis' relevance sharply declined as his original fanbase aged. Why? Because he never really evolved beyond simple, hokey love songs that newer generations couldn't relate to.

The Beatles still manage to carve-out an audience for themselves with new generations because they evolved into writing more complex, challenging music.

My teenage daughter knows how to play Across The Universe on her acoustic guitar. She picked that up on her own.
 
Elvis' relevance sharply declined as his original fanbase aged. Why? Because he never really evolved beyond simple, hokey love songs that newer generations couldn't relate to.

The Beatles still manage to carve-out an audience for themselves with new generations because they evolved into writing more complex, challenging music.

My teenage daughter knows how to play Across The Universe on her acoustic guitar. She picked that up on her own.
Thank you!
 
Elvis' relevance sharply declined as his original fanbase aged. Why? Because he never really evolved beyond simple, hokey love songs that newer generations couldn't relate to.

The Beatles still manage to carve-out an audience for themselves with new generations because they evolved into writing more complex, challenging music.

My teenage daughter knows how to play Across The Universe on her acoustic guitar. She picked that up on her own.
I love The Beatles, but you should come to Graceland sometime. There is a constant stream of visitors ( about 500,000 a year tour Graceland...each year that number grows) and on the day he died you will see people from all over the world waiting ( and often sobbing) outside the gates for the candlelight vigil. I have been there a couple of times on that date and honestly there is nothing like it.

I think they both have their fans. Even John Lennon idolized Elvis, so his current fans are in good company. John has said that Elvis got him out of Liverpool and before Elvis there was nothing. I think that is a much higher review than from people that don't really understand the unparalleled impact that Elvis had on music and culture.

I just checked and The Beatles are all over the " New" page. I already matched all of my albums, but it will be nice to access some the curated playlists.
 
Ok I'm sorry this is just horrible. Really Apple?

2pyp6s7.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I noticed the documentary videos are grayed out in Apple Music. If you purchased the box set way back when how do you access these videos? Is there a reason the Beatles Anthology isn't included in this streaming deal?
 
Ok I'm sorry this is just horrible. Really Apple?

2pyp6s7.png

That is horrible. Once they fix the awful UI, I may switch from Spotify . I got interested by streaming cause of Apple Music, stopped using it due to the layout in the trial, and with Spotify trial at the moment cause it's clean and easy to navigate
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Elvis' relevance sharply declined as his original fanbase aged. Why? Because he never really evolved beyond simple, hokey love songs that newer generations couldn't relate to.

The Beatles still manage to carve-out an audience for themselves with new generations because they evolved into writing more complex, challenging music.

My teenage daughter knows how to play Across The Universe on her acoustic guitar. She picked that up on her own.
Loads of people, even new generations still like Elvis' songs, even I (26 years old in 3 days time) like his songs. I'm not one to rave over him, then again I never rave over any celebrities really, but I appreciate his music still and I know many people who are well passed his age demographic who do.

Anyway in my opinion if Lennon had never been shot then there is no way he would be looked upon so well now. Had he still been alive then Paul McCartney would have been the one who gained the praise, Lennon would have just been viewed as douchbag who is out of touch with the modern world.
Anyway that's a whole different subject.

I guess this news is good for fans of the Beatles, not something that will interest me though.
 
All Beatles music? Not true. The mono versions never even made it to the iTunes Store. Several of the albums available are the 1987 remixes, not the originals.

No trolling intended here, but dude - first, the catalog in iTunes is the 2009 remasters, not the 1987 "remixes" (they were not remixed), and secondly; roughly 2/3 of the Beatles' mono output is available in iTunes via "The US Albums" collection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alvindarkness
This is awesome news because they will reach a wider amount of people now. I don't see why 80 percent of this thread is filled with nastiness though. Hate the beatles? Awesome but you should find better hobbies as hating anything is not a good way to live.

Their impact on music is obvious and without them we would not have the artists we have today. I happen to be a George harrison fan myself as opposed to the whole group but once again their impact is historical. It's silly threads like this that descend into anger show me where peoples priorities really are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imnotthewalrus
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.