MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

could really care less....

Until this Beatles issue is settled Apple will miss out on the massive geriatric digital music demographic.

Just my $0.02

Mar 11, 08 - 09:08 am Comment from: flappo

zzzz

the beatles are probably the most overrated band of all time

ok , john lennon WAS a genius , he stood head and shoulders above the rest of the band - without him they'd be nothing , but paul mc cartney makes me want to vomit with his whiny voice and his crappy songs - the frog song ? eeurgh

ringo was a useless drummer and harrison was a mediocre guitarist at best - live they sucked and all their best stuff was due to george martin's genius at post production

i'm more interested in movie rentals and tv programmes on appletv than some clapped out pop group that is only here to pay paul's divorce off

ummm... most of the young crowd (apple's major audience) cold care less about the beatles.

If they did they would already have the songs they wanted from file sharing sites.

yawwwwwnnnnnnnn.

The Beatles were the reason that I quit listening to country music, but I have outgrown the Beatles many years ago.

Don't they will be that much of a seller.

Mar 11, 08 - 09:17 am Comment from: TowerTone

"This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead"

Mar 11, 08 - 09:33 am Comment from: NavyTim

No deal yet....and still no one cares.

Mar 11, 08 - 09:35 am Comment from: Jay-Z

Whether or not they sell well or the younger generation cares about them, the Beatles on iTunes would be great for PR – the rumors flying around for years are proof of that.

Mar 11, 08 - 09:35 am Comment from: Jamie

If you want the Beatles digitally, head on over to piratebay.org.

This is such an old, boring debate, I'm boring myself just typing about it.

Wow, a rousing round of indifference so far. I think that may be underestimating the appeal that still exists for The Beatles across all demographic groups. When the group's recordings were released on CD in 1987, they shot to the top of the charts. While the Beatles Anthology documentary flopped on ABC, the Anthology discs all hit #1. The "1" CD was a huge #1 a few years ago, and 2006's remix "Love" was an international #1 as well. While they were only average as musicians and singers, their songwriting put them on a different level. The person who said it was all George Martin in post-production is being very disingenuous...Martin was very important to their success, but it's ridiculous to assume he could have turned mediocre music into classics.

A Beatles iTune release would be big, real big...and, with the right combo of extras, would drive new users towards the iPod (if Apple can pull off an exclusive).

Heck, if you are so hot for the Beatles, buy the CDs, rip them to your iPods!

Mar 11, 08 - 09:59 am Comment from: CheekyGit

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Mar 11, 08 - 10:41 am Comment from: Bluefin

What a long and winding road this has been...

The Beatles are so irrelevant that everyone drops everything else and rushes to their keyboards to declare how irrelevant they are every time their name is mentioned!

Mar 11, 08 - 11:14 am Comment from: DRM sucks

Yawn.

The issue is not about the importance or current relevance of the Beatles. The issue is that digital distribution significantly diminishes the importance of a single act on the overall business. Unlike the record/CD business of old, profit in online digital distribution is less driven by major acts being the sole profit provider.

It will be great for Beatles fans, but the overall effect on iTunes sales will not be very noticeable. Could it be an event that legitimizes online digital distribution to the 45+ demographic? Could be.

Mar 11, 08 - 11:58 am Comment from: The Other Steve

So. . . . this is a story saying that there is. . . . no story?

Stop the presses!

(always wanted to say that but never had the chance, even though I work for a newspaper)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If EMI had complete power to release these tracks they would have done so long ago. Its the Beatles that are holding them back for whatever reason. Perhaps they are trying to milk CD sales for as long as they can

Mar 11, 08 - 01:25 pm Comment from: LordRobin

I thought it was a little odd when the previous story said that McCartney was making the deal, as if he could do so all by himself, or as if he was the only one holding such a deal up. My understanding is that the most recalcitrant one was Yoko Ono.

------RM

I thought Michael Jackson owned the rights to the Beatles music.

Anyway, they're making too much money selling their tunes to TV commercial producers.
Hey La?

Folks, this jerk just pulled this story from his butt. The "story" above contradicts quotes from Sir Paul himself about this. Increasingly, journalists are becoming paid mouthpieces of PR firms and the corporate giants behind them, and have prostituted their former journalistic integrity (if they ever had it to begin with) to have a night with some high priced hooker paid for by a large nameless corporation.

Stop and think: why would this dork spew a story like this? Well for one, Microsoft is probably going to have to get in line behind Apple, and Mr. Ballmer's not to pleased about losing a huge deal like this. So what does monkeyboy do? Spew FUD, of course, which is what Microsoft's PR minions do better than anyone else short of the Clintons. (Just ask Vice President Obama...)

What you are seeing is a PR war. And we're the innocent bystanders. Somebody has an axe to grind with Apple, and it's being played out in the press. Do you want to know why Apple stock has dropped so in the past several months? It ain't poor earnings, kiddies. Instead, it's a concentrated effort by some very powerful forces to beat down the company, short its stock, and spew negative stories wherever possible. If you don't think that PR is behind much of what you read, hear and see, think again. Where do you think most news stories come from? Typically, it starts with a press release, or a well-rehearsed pitch from a PR firm to an editor.

Think of this: in the past few days following the release of the iPhone SDK, all of a sudden, a bunch of two-bit analysts, pundits and "industry experts" have crawled out of the woodwork to throw water on Apple's enterprise plans for the iPhone. Do you honestly think that was spontaneous? Get real. And to read that RIM "had no comment" in an article, but an obviously pro-RIM analyst was predicting doom and gloom for Apple gets trotted out and quoted extensively in the story, my BS meter went off the charts. This ain't news, folks. It's a PR war.

Why do I know? Because I'm a PR flack myself. So shoot me. Please.

Uh, not quite, dude. Michael Jackson owns only PART of the Beatles' catalog, mostly early songs. The other parts are owned by Sony/EMI, and the surviving Beatles and members' estates.

As for the bull that the Beatles don't want to release their albums, that's crap. Given the growing digital sales and declining physical media sales, there is every incentive to market their music this way. The story above is total garbage.

And to those of you who think the Beatles don' matter, you are SO wrong. Everything you hold dear in terms of contemporary music has been influenced by them. And once their music does come out on iTunes, their albums and songs will dominate the sales of the iTunes Store for quite some time.

From all the blah comments, I now understand why the post-Beatles crowd, the post-boomers are called...

... the ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-Generation.

@@rdbvideo

Michael Jackson owns half of almost every major Beatles' songs (251 exactly); only mere few do not belong to his co-owned with Sony company called Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

Contrary to what author of the article wrote, EMI owns only copyrights on the songs, but not publishing rights. Back in 1993 Michael Jackson signed contract that allows EMI to manufacture and distribute all kind of copies of those songs on albums and radios. EMI gets small manufacturers/distributor's fees as exclusive copyright holder for those songs. Then Jackson got $70 million of two years advance fees for his ATV Music Publishing company.

Since Jackson sold copyrights to EMI, it is usually considered that exactly this company should handle negotiations with Apple (computer company). However, since iTunes is new media, there is possibility that such case is not covered completely by contract between Sony-Jackson's Sony ATV Music Publishing and EMI.

Thus negotiations can be more complex. Michael Jackson and Sony should probably vote "yes" to allow that contract with Apple to happen. They are going to be biggest beneficiary, not the likes of MacCartney, who only get smaller performer and author fees.

Addition:

Back in 1995, Jackson agreed to merge his ATV Music Publishing company with Sony Music Publishing to form Sony-ATV Music Publishing. Since Michael Jackson's asset was more profitable at that time he got $110 million for agreeing 50-50 ownership of the united company.