backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by EODetroit.. on Nov 26 at 9:44 AM

The stall is between Apple Corp and EMI according to Paul McCartney

Apple's iTunes Music Store has come to be the biggest seller of music in the digital age with many of the most popular and influential bands offering their tracks and albums. There are still some notable holdouts that aren't on the iTunes store including The Beatles.

Negotiations have been ongoing to get The Beatles music on iTunes with some of the issues revolving around a legal battle between Apple Inc. (the company behind the Mac and the iTunes store) and Apple Corp. (the holding company that The Beatles set up to manage their music catalog). One look at the company names will tell you what the legal spat was about.

In February of 2007, the two companies set aside their legal issues and were moving forward with negotiations to bring Beatles music to the iTunes store. In March of 2008, reports began to trickle out that negotiations were on that would bring the Fab Four's catalog to the iTunes store.

Sir Paul McCartney, one of the surviving members of the band, has now come out and said that negotiations to add The Beatles to iTunes have stalled. McCartney told BBC News, "We'd like to do it. We are very for it, we've been pushing it. But there are a couple of sticking points, I understand."

EMI was the label behind The Beatles during the bands heyday and owns the tracks. However, the label needs the permission of Apple Corp. to release the band's music in new formats.

A spokesperson from EMI said, "We have been working hard to secure agreement with Apple Corps to make the Beatles' legendary recording catalogue available to fans in digital form. Unfortunately the various parties involved have been unable to reach agreement but we really hope everyone can make progress soon."

McCartney didn’t comment specifically on what exactly EMI wanted Apple Corp. to agree too that it wasn't willing to offer. In these sorts of negotiations, the sticking points typically revolve around money.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Ryanman on 11/25/2008 12:15:08 PM , Rating: 3
...If they'd just shut up about the name thing and put their stuff on one of the world's largest music selling platforms.

Even though I hate Itunes, this really is an incredible no-brainer.




By bighairycamel on 11/25/2008 12:22:38 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not ready to defend iTunes yet either. This is good IMO; maybe it will lure people away from iTunes and towards another provider like Amazon. Pretty much every Beatles song imaginable is up on Amazon.


By Baked on 11/25/2008 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon MP3s are 256 bit, has no DRM, so you can put it on as many MP3 players as you want.


By mmntech on 11/25/2008 1:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
And the service is only available in the United States.
I personally don't know of any DRM-free music download sites in Canada other than iTunes Plus, which still has a vary limited catalogue. I'd like to see Beatles come to iTunes so us non-Americans can download their tracks, but only if they're on iTunes Plus as well.


By kelmon on 11/25/2008 5:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's very possible that iTunes is also going DRM free given recent reports and the fact that, as of today, the iTunes Plus link has disappeared. Various reports flying around of people finding music from the likes of Sony and Universal appearing as Upgradeable (although not purchasable, if that makes sense). I'm expecting an announcement either today or later this week. Something is definitely afoot...

With respect to Amazon, I'd be happy to consider them if only they'd make the service available outside the US.


By OPR8R on 11/25/2008 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a huge fan of iTunes either but it's all about the iPod.

I wish Amazon would develop some software that organizes music and sinks with a variety of DAP's. There needs to be a useful alternative to iTunes- one that has a good enough interface to pull people away.

I know a lot of readers here will say there's a ton of stuff already available but we're probably not "typical" iPod users.


By mondo1234 on 11/25/2008 6:53:42 PM , Rating: 3
Are you sure? I see all of the songs, but none of them look like they are performed by the Beatles. They all look like they are by some one else. The hard copy discs are there, but I dont see the mp3's


By bighairycamel on 11/26/2008 8:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wow I guess you're right. It's a little misleading because they have their own artist page on Amazon, but yah I guess they're just tribute bands.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Beatles/dp/B000QK2XVI/re...


By zshift on 11/25/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
according to the article they (the two "apples") settled disputes over that problem last year. the current issue seems to be between Emi, the company that owns the songs and originally managed the beatles, and apple corp, which is currently in charge of managing the beatles.

they should stop being greedy and start making money.

ps: rtfa


By omnicronx on 11/25/2008 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Almost all of this money will go into Pauls/EMI's pocket, Pete Best (the drummer) hardly gets any royalties when compared to McCartney. He's very rich, so I don't think he cares too much about a few extra bucks that he will make from iTunes..

This kind of makes you wonder what EMI is asking for here..


By rmlarsen on 11/25/2008 6:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Pete Best? He left The Beatles before they had much commercial success, and played on very few (if any) of their popular recordings, so it is hardly surprising if he gets very little in royalties. Did you mean to refer to Ringo Starr?


By Aloonatic on 11/26/2008 3:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe if Ringo got a few more pennies in royalties he'd be able to afford the stamps to respond to fan mail again.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pUsBqDfnIzk

Peace and love, peace and love v


Great
By Tequilasunriser on 11/25/2008 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 3
Now if EMI could pull their heads out of asses far enough to realize we would also like proper 5.1 Dolby and DTS mixes of each album we'll be set.

Though I do love the unofficial TOUP upmixes that are floating around out there. If only I could find TOUP's White Album. :\




RE: Great
By rmlarsen on 11/25/2008 7:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, those early mono and two-track "stereo" recordings are SO COOL in 7.1 surround sound. /sarcasm

Good luck up-mixing those. I prefer listening to the originals the way George Martin and The Beatles conceived them, thank you very much!


Beatles - why care.
By BZDTemp on 11/26/2008 4:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Who would buy the music anyway. Sure my parents have their music but I can't think of anyone I know using an iPod which cares for Beatles.

And I certainly do not. It's like the most overrated band ever. The only thing they had going was that the other bands at the time was even worse.

Sure they could write songs but the quality of handling the instruments and singing... not so impressive.




RE: Beatles - why care.
By Aloonatic on 11/26/2008 6:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
One thing you have to remember is that their recordings were made at a time before digital enhancing was even thought of as a good idea.

Many of their recordings had to be done in a couple of takes on equipment that is pathetic in comparison to what the most amateur of garage band takes for granted today.

There was an interesting program on TV last year (in the UK) celebrating xx years (I can't remember how many exactly) since the release of Sgt Pepper where they tried to get modern bands to reproduce the tracks using equipment as close to that that Beatles had to use and all the performers (who only had to do 1 song each) struggled greatly.

This goes for all artists recording at the time too, so the quality of the recordings themselves are often quite poor compared to what we are used to today and certainly not as well polished and produced as they are today simply because it was not possible or ridiculously expensive and time consuming back then.

As for not liking their songs in general, well that's just going to happen as times and tastes change.

You may be surprised however, to know that there are more people in the world than you and your friends and a lot of people have Beatles tracks on their portable MP3 players/iPods.

I have several albums on my mobile phone for example and almost everyone I know have at least their most well known albums in their collection.

Unsurprisingly, they and I probably don't have many albums in common with you or your friends, but I wouldn't use that as a reason to write those performers off or say they are overrated, especially if they are some of the highest selling albums of all time and often sighted as being influential by many other artists.


Maybe if...
By EODetroit on 11/26/2008 9:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
... the Beatles didn't suck, I would care.




Apple Inc. should buy XM Sirius
By Lord 666 on 11/25/2008 7:43:26 PM , Rating: 1
Based on the ultra cheap stock prices, Apple could pick up two Satellite networks and have mechanism's to further to distribute media.

It would a great way to test the subscription model vs iTunes ala carte.

If the Beatles deal happens, owning XM Sirius would pave the way to a dedicated Beatles channel.




By kayronjm on 11/25/2008 8:27:15 PM , Rating: 1
(see subject line).




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki