Beatles and iTunes At Last?

rjshirts writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the Beatles and Apple have signed a reported $400 million dollar deal to bring the entire Beatles Catalog to iTunes. From the article: 'As of today there is no time frame as to when the catalog will appear online, but it seems to just be a matter of time. McCartney himself even said in November that the catalog would be making its way onto the the store some time in 2008. While we have heard this sort of thing time and time again, this might just be the real deal. Prepare yourself — Beatlemania is coming to iTunes.'"

Comments

Hmmm

[LockeOnLogic]

Guess that means i'll have to buy the white album again

Re:Hmmm

[casualsax3]

If you want to repurchase any of the Beatles catalog in a restrictive format that you can't do anything with, I suggest going with vinyl.

Re:Hmmm

[Tackhead]

> Guess that means i'll have to buy the white album again

It's taken 30 years, but the irony is that the $400M is still cheap compared to the costs to everyone of relitigating the original lawsuit against... Apple Records, originally owned by none other than The Beatles.

The case in question is one of the landmark cases whereby trademarks can be deemed non-infringing, so long as there a "reasonable man" wouldn't be confused. In 1978, there was absolutely no confusion that the "Apple" that computers wasn't the same "Apple" as the one that made vinyl discs.

In the 80s, when computers started to be capable of producing sound (and especially when "Apple" computers started to talk MIDI), the "Apple" vinyl disc company tried again, and as a side effect, killed the Apple ][.

Every few decades, Apple Records tries to fuck Apple Computer out of a few million more bucks, and yes, they did it in response to the Mac, and in response to iTunes. It was only a couple of years ago that it was finally laid to rest.

For $400M in exchange for an agreement whereby Apple Computer can finally start selling the products of the Beatles (which, unlike the past few times, might actually be a win-win for both Apple and the Beatles), this had better be the last time this lawsuit rears its ugly head.

But much like the fact that the Beatles want to sell you the White Album every few years, this case will probably show up again.

400 Million?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Uuuuuuuh 400 Million for a body of works that's set begin expiring in 2013?

I guess $400 Million US Pesos is a only a few hundred pounds.

Re:400 Million?

[meringuoid]

At $1/track they'd have to sell more than one track to every man, woman, and child in the US to recoup it.

Who buys only one Beatles track? Let's say one person in ten buys music legally, and only half of those like the Beatles - one in twenty overall. If you like the Beatles, you'll download at the very least Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album. That's 57 tracks; you're looking at not far short of three tracks sold per capita.

The problem really is that the planet is saturated with Beatles music. Who in the world doesn't already have those albums on CD?

Re:400 Million?

[halcyon1234]

At $1/track they'd have to sell more than one track to every man, woman, and child in the US

Not quite. The tracks will probably be a loss leader. The profit is going to come from two different places.

1. The myriad of Beatles fans who will buy the albums, and then go on to buy a bunch of other "while I'm here I might as well" tracks.
2. The business that they won't lose to a competitor. If Amazon signed an exclusive with the same people, then people who wanted Beatles would go there, and probably stay there. Apple is paying a premium to keep their customers on iTMS.

While You're At It

[eldavojohn]

Uh, while you're at it, could you re-release their their Christmas Albums on something that's not flexi-disc? You know, so I don't have to pay some bootlegger for a piece of crap copy? I have one track from that legally off of the Free As A Bird (track 04) single.

Also, it's evident that you have hundreds of hours of takes by The Beatles in your vaults. I know it takes time to master them but doesn't greed and insane fans willing to pile money at your feet dictate that you should continue with the releases of music similar to the Anthologies? I mean, you could distribute this stuff on iTunes or (preferably) Amazon too without ever having to do the physical packaging and I would probably have to buy it.

You seem to be greedy as all hell so I thought I'd throw that out there and hope you publish everything recorded by what is considered by many to be the greatest musical group to ever live.

Guess I have to buy the White Album again

[rs79]

And I want these over the remeastered flacs I got off the net why exactly?

It's not like I haven't paid for every Beatles song many times over at this point.

There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vinyl

[eldavojohn]

If you want to repurchase any of the Beatles catalog in a restrictive format that you can't do anything with, I suggest going with vinyl. Well, I know people that still listen to The Beatles on vinyl. Especially The Beatles. If you read on Wikipedia:

The Beatles UK discography was released on CD in the late 1980s. However, the sound of the digital transfers of the current discs, produced by George Martin in 1987 and 1988 using the best equipment available during the early days of the format, no longer meet standards achievable using current techniques in Direct Stream Digital, HDCD, and others. The sound on the remastered catalogues of Bob Dylan, the Bee Gees, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones, among other heavyweights from the 1960s, have been greatly enhanced using technological developments that have occurred since Martin's initial digital mastering, and as of 2007, similar work for the Beatles is long overdue. In addition, many Beatles enthusiasts feel that the CD releases of the albums are inferior because the recordings were originally mastered to be played on vinyl, which, when played back, arguably possess a warm sound which CDs are not able to reproduce. Many purists today still listen to Beatles albums only on vinyl. So while you may claim that records are an inferior format, there is still a reason to listen to them on vinyl. Sadly, I listened to Revolver a little too much and it does not play well, it is muffled and worn. I will honestly say that the remasterings of bands like The Who do sound different than the late 80's CDs that I also own. Unfortunately, I cannot say this for many of my Beatles CDs. They do actually sound different on CD than vinyl. I have grown used to it though.

Michael Jackson & Sony Deny It

[eldavojohn]

From CNet:

Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the joint venture owned by Sony and singer Michael Jackson, has thrown cold water over reports coming out of London that the Beatles catalog would soon be available on iTunes. A spokeswoman for Sony/ATV Music Publishing told CNET News.com that the reports are "untrue."

Sony/ATV is a pretty good source. While EMI Group owns the recording rights to the Beatles catalog, Sony and Jackson own the rights to the vast majority of the catalog's publishing rights. Had a deal been cut, Sony/ATV would "absolutely be informed," the Sony/ATV spokeswoman said. So, somebody's probably not telling the truth here. We're probably being toyed with. In the Name of all that is Noodley and Good, I hate greed.

Re:I don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time

[justinlindh]

The reason The Beatles are so popular is because their music (and beyond) have stood the test of time. They're regularly mentioned as influences by bands, and the impact they had on culture at the time was huge.

Personally, I was born in '81 and didn't start listening to The Beatles until I was about 18. I almost immediately fell in love with the entire Beatles catalog (especially the later, less "poppy" stuff). Since then, I regularly listen to Beatles songs and include them in playlists. I'm not alone in being born outside of the Beatles era and still really enjoying the music. In fact, I'm probably in the majority. The Beatles are one of the only bands that I can play a song from in mixed crowd of mixed ages and have nobody complain.

So, yeah, this is actually a huge deal for Apple (well, both 'Apples' in this case I guess). It ought to take them a while to recoup their initial investment in this, but I definitely foresee it happening as I consider the music truly timeless and appealing to most.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

[Toonol]

I won't flame you; but I would like to correct you.

It's perspective. Recent music sells more because it's recent, but it will drop off, and in ten years nobody will buy it. The Beatles were huge, and even forty years removed, sells well... and will be selling well forty years from now. Ironically, If the Beatles weren't so valuble, they would have already been on I-Tunes. I have no doubt that Apple will make back that 400 million.

It's a bit like the gravitational attraction from the sun, compared to the gravitational attraction from the asteroid that's 100 meters away. The asteroid may, briefly, subject you to more force... but get a million miles away from both, and one's still pulling at you.

God, that's a strained analogy. Am I really going to submit this post?

I love the Beatles, but...

[Simonetta]

I love the Beatles, but this is just madness. These are forty year old song recordings. If you want them, then just go to the library, check out the CDs, and copy them, for Christ's sake.

  And no my friends, you don't have to buy the White Album again. When you bought the album 40 years ago, you bought a lifetime license to listen to the music on that recording. It wasn't specifically written, and the so-called entertainment lawyers of the present will disagree, but nevertheless it is real and valid in any real-world sense. And the glorious Slashdaughters here live in the modern real world. Where entertainment lawyers don't really mean much.

    Again, I love the Beatles. I download their MIDI files, run them through notation software and study all the little guitar turnarounds and chord progressions in their most obscure recordings. I remix their old audio recordings using the latest digital phase-cancelling and audio mastering software. Yes, I love the Beatles...

    But these are forty year old recordings. They came out between 1962 and 1969. Believe me, when they did come out there was nobody under the age of thirty who gave a shit about any pop music recording from forty years previously (the 1920s).

    So, yes, I understand why anyone under the age of 30 would feel a little annoyed by all the attention that this band and their records continue to receive in the present day. But, grow up and be cool a little. The Beatles were great. But their classic popular music now, along with all the rest of the classic popular music recordings.

    If you don't like them, then just ignore them. And ignore the people who rant on about them.

    If you like them or are just ambivalent, then just copy the songs and let it just be one more CD on the stack in the closet.

      And for God's sake don't give Sir Paul or Yoko Ono or EMI any more money! Or you'll be subjected to Beatles revivals every few years for the rest of your lives!