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.'"

Hmmm

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

Re:Hmmm

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.

There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vinyl

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 [wikipedia.org]:

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.

Re:Hmmm

If it is part of iTunes Plus than it is a completely unrestricted, higher quality, MP3 format.

Re:Hmmm

> 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 [wikipedia.org] the original lawsuit against... Apple Records [wikipedia.org], 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.

Go ahead, get the puns out of the way...

You know, it's been a long and winding road, etc, etc, etc.

400 Million?

Uuuuuuuh 400 Million for a body of works that's set begin expiring [businessweek.com] in 2013?

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

Re:400 Million?

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?

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

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

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.

Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again

What were the remasters you got sourced from? To the best of my knowledge, no officially remastered versions have ever been made available anywhere yet. There are some "remastered" versions that are high-quality digital encodes of the original vinyl, but there isn't anything that's actually been re-encoded from that master tapes.

The Beatles?

I am not up to date on most current events, but didn't the Beatles cease to exist several decades ago? John and George are dead, Paul's memory is almost full, and I am pretty sure Ringo never actually existed. Maybe, when they say 'The Beatles made a deal' they really mean 'the people who own the rights to the Beatles music made a deal'.

Michael Jackson & Sony Deny It

From CNet [news.com]:

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.

London Calling

And here I thought phony Beatlemania had bitten the dust...

Re:The best things in life are free ...

Zepplin is on iTunes, as of last year.

Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous

So I find myself wondering if the beatles have grossed $400 million in total for their music since it was written. I'm sure it's possible but would like to know for sure. Anyone?

Oh God yes. $400 million is about £200 million, is £50 million per Beatle. McCartney's offered £25 million just to buy off Heather Mills in this divorce thing.

The Beatles were, are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, huge.

Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous

Considering that McCartney is worth £900M (~$1600M) himself I have very little doubt that they've grossed that much. I am still endlessly amazed just how much they have grossed in the end.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

My guess is that this will sell iPOD's to a huge number of people that haven't bothered before. The actual sales of Beatles tracks may only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of increased revenue for Apple on this one.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

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?

Re:5 more years

In 2013 the sound recording copyrights expire..

On the earliest recordings from 1962. It's going to take until another seven years for the bulk of the catalog to expire.

But let's also remember that there is a substantial amount of unreleased material sitting in the vaults, by all accounts hundreds of hours of alternate takes. That probably won't help with the early stuff (1962-1964), but by 1965 they were doing a lot of studio work, and that probably means all sorts of alternate instrumental and vocal takes. You can be damned sure that we're going to start seeing new versions of songs from Rubber Soul right on through Abbey Road. There are still a few unreleased songs that didn't appear on the Anthology series as well.

Now I may be wrong, but I'll wager if you pop out a new mix of I Am The Walrus or Dear Prudence with previously unreleased recordings, you're probably going to reset that clock. And, Let It Be Naked aside (which I understand didn't sell so well), this kind of stuff still sells quite well. Look at Love.

I don't think they would ever make the kind of money they made during the real heyday of successful Beatles released and re-releases during the 60s and 70s, but it's my understanding that Anthology alone refilled Harrison's and Starr's coffers, and even made Pete Best (whose drumming appears on a good part of the first Anthology set) a moderately wealthy man.

There's still gold in them thar hills. And that's not assuming that Parliament doesn't reverse itself and give has-beens like Cliff Richards a bazillion year extension.

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

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:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp

Just for reference, the parent is citing the Canadian Copyright Act [cb-cda.gc.ca], section 80 [cb-cda.gc.ca], subsection 1:

Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Subsection 2 disclaims this privilege for renting, selling, or performing, as well as distribution. Thus, it is legal to make a copy of a friend's CD for your personal use, but not legal for your friend to make a copy of his CD for your personal use. Opinion has varied, but the general consensus (including that of the courts, IIRC) is that internet filesharing involves the recipient making the copy, which thus falls under subsection 1 but is not excluded by subsection 2.

Note that this section of the act applies specifically to audio recordings, and specifically to 'an audio recording medium', but since audio can be recorded onto pretty much any digital medium, I doubt that that qualifier makes that much of a difference.

I love the Beatles, but...

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!

Re:Bad joke.

I agree with Michael Stipe of REM, who referred to their music as "elevator music". Maybe it was ground breaking at the time, but it doesn't hold up.

Elevator music? You clearly have not ever sat down and listened to the Beatles albums. Sure, they have some slower songs, but there isn't a rock style they didn't touch on or invent whole cloth. The Beatles pretty much invented heavy metal music. Listen to Helter Skelter (yeah, that's elevator music) or I Want You. I Feel Fine was the first song to use guitar distortion. Listen to the hard rock baseline on Hey Bulldog.

Do yourself a favor and really listen to their albums. The breadth of different styles they did is astounding and unmatched by any other band.