Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Beatles and iTunes At Last? 246

Posted by Zonk
from the wearing-the-face-that-she-keeps-in-a-jar-by-the-door dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beatles and iTunes At Last?

Comments Filter:
  • Bad joke. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:47PM (#22709336)
    What's yellow and lives on dead beatles?

    Yoko Ono.

    Really does apply to this context.
  • Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by LockeOnLogic (723968) on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:47PM (#22709348)
    Guess that means i'll have to buy the white album again
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by casualsax3 (875131) on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:53PM (#22709424)
      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.
      • 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.
        • I totally did not claim that records were inferior - I said they were restrictive. I listened to Abbey Road last night on vinyl :) I was drawing a comparison that if you wanted to buy the Beatles catalog *again* - why do it with DRM'd AAC? Go vinyl.
          • by toleraen (831634)

            I said they were restrictive
            Last time I checked my record player had analog audio out. Last I checked my sound card had analog audio in too. Coincidentally, I just started playing the White Album on my HTPC.
            • DRM'd AAC/WMV has the same analog loophole, nothing new, and not exactly convenient. I also have my record player hooked up to my soundcard FWIW.
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by CastrTroy (595695)
              Yeah, but records are restrictive in the fact that you can't just push a button to skip tracks.
        • You want to reproduce the "muffled and worn" sound of an oft-played favorite album?

          You're in luck! I have the digital equivalent - a 128Kpbs MP3!

          It sounds just like a worn out record, not quite enough oomph... but you never have to waste time and money wearing out another vinyl copy again!

          Disclaimer: I sold all my vinyl records in the late-80's and gave my player to my parents, who still use it for Elvis vinyls and Reader's Digest collections.

        • Let's not forget the "re-mix" albums Let It Be....Naked, and Love, both of which were released to much acclaim (with many, including McCartney himself preferring the new version over the original).

          For starters, the "Wall of Sound" technique used on the original Let It Be was essentially optimized for playback on AM radio and cheap jukeboxes.
      • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)

        by c_forq (924234) <forquerc+slash@gmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:02PM (#22709532)
        If it is part of iTunes Plus than it is a completely unrestricted, higher quality, MP3 format.
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tackhead (54550) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:10PM (#22709632)
      > 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.

      • by terrymr (316118)
        Actually apple records lost the relitigation of the case - All trademarks are now owned by apple computer and licensed to apple corp (the record company) by virtue of a settlement made to prevent Apple corps. appealing.

      • I'm surprised this is in ADDITION to the buyout of Apple records. That's why last year Apple changed from Apple Computer to Apple inc. They bought out Apple Records trademarks for a big pile of cash, then "rented" the Apple Records name back to them. That's when former Beetles solo acts started showing up in ernest.... wonder why Apple didn't get the Beetles proper release included.

        They could have structured the deal to pay out over a few years though, it's hitting close to $1 billion dollars for the buyo
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by leamanc (961376)

      An important thing to remember is that the Beatles catalog is owned by EMI, so it will almost assuredly be available in iTunes Plus.

      The bit rate (256kbits) is good enough for pseudo-stereo recordings (singing in one channel, music in the other) that are 40+ years old. And the only bit of DRM on them is metadata with your ID; they will play on any player or software that supports MPEG4. Or, like any iTunes purchase, just burn to CD, re-rip and enjoy in the format of your choice. (Yes, I know, lossy form

  • by sczimme (603413) on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:47PM (#22709350)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by El_Isma (979791)
      Listen, do you want to know a secret?

      You know, I just woke up, fell out of bed. And red this news. It's like they say, tomorrow never knows. But, please, Don't let me down! Let they be good quality mp3s, or even better, oggs! Don't ask me why, but I guess they did it now because we never gave them our money. I can't wait, though I know It won't be long, yeah! yeah!

      I'm so tired... I'll get back to bed.
    • By the time the Beatles' catalogue makes it to iTunes, they will have broken up.
  • 400 Million? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:48PM (#22709360) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      It does seem like an awful lot of money. At $1/track they'd have to sell more than one track to every man, woman, and child in the US to recoup it. Are the boomers really buying that much music online?
      • Re:400 Million? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by meringuoid (568297) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:12PM (#22709654)
        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?

        • I am sad to admit that I only own the "Love" album and the "1" albums. The others I am willing to look at.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          But haven't yet stopped being popular with new generations, and when those people discover the Beatles, they'll probably buy their stuff on iTunes rather than buying CDs. It would be a problem if only the Beatles' original audience wanted their music, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
        • by WMD_88 (843388)
          I don't have the Beatles on CD, nor does my dad, who still has his records (not that he listens to them much).

          The Beatles CDs don't sound too great anyway.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tingeber (1129619)
          The point is that Apple *needs* the Beatles catalogue. It's a question of prestige, marketing power and looks. I guess a lot of people will buy the Beatles' songs, but many more people will go "hey, they've got Beatles in their catalogue now, which means they must be the best and I should choose them over [insert music download service here]". Of course, Apple Inc can and will market the hell out of it too.
      • Re:400 Million? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:14PM (#22709666) Journal

        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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gEvil (beta) (945888)
        Are the boomers really buying that much music online?

        I know my dad is. He lost most of his music collection in Katrina. He's been rebuying things as he wants to hear them from iTunes.
        • by SETIGuy (33768)

          Are the boomers really buying that much music online?

          I know my dad is. He lost most of his music collection in Katrina. He's been rebuying things as he wants to hear them from iTunes.

          There's a new invention that your dad should hear about. It's called a used CD store. You can find one in most every large town. They sell music in a non-DRM format, it's generally cheaper than iTunes if you want the whole album, and even better, the MAFIAA doesn't get a cut.

          • by c_forq (924234)
            Used CD stores require travel, if you live more than 15 miles from one that may mean you lose your money saved in gas. If there is a good bus route that still takes time, which is very important to many people. You also have to spend time looking for what you want, and hope they have it. Frankly, if your time is valuable then iTunes is much more convenient and worthwhile than a used CD store.
      • by tenton (181778)
        It does seem like an awful lot of money. At $1/track they'd have to sell more than one track to every man, woman, and child in the US to recoup it. Are the boomers really buying that much music online?

        They do have a few other places to sell it; there are 20+ stores worldwide and the Beatles do have worldwide appeal. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but there is a wider market than the US for it.

        (then again, we aren't going to be privy to all the contract details, so there may be things we're not seeing that
    • Though they'll never be worth as much to me as the singles we'd go buy at the 5 and 10 every week or so.

      I wish I knew where those were...

  • Jobs finally got him to say, "ooo hoo" and sign on the dotted line. Reality Distortion Field meets Thriller!
  • While You're At It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:50PM (#22709380) Journal
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pnevin (168332)
      If you go back and listen to the Anthology CDs, you realise just what a godsend they are to unauthorised mashup creators. CCC's Revolved relied heavily on Anthology samples, for example.

      As much as I'd love to hear the studio stuff, they'd have to have an eye on that sort of reuse.
    • http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42540 [thetradersden.org]

      Still a seeder left. Grab it while you can.

      By the way, if you're really worried about hearing Beatles extra takes and the like, grab A/B Road. It'll keep you busy for YEARS. For the unaware: that's the complete, unedited tape reels from the Get Back sessions (which became Let It Be). 97 hours of studio sessions, with dialogue, warmups, rehearsals, and recorded takes, spliced together into the most continuous form possible by an anonymous bootl
  • by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:51PM (#22709398) Homepage
    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.
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:22PM (#22709728)
      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.
      • Since I mostly listen to those albums on earbuds or in my car, does it really matter?
      • I think Purple Chick might have gotten his/her hands on the Sgt. Pepper's master tapes or copies. The Sgt. Pepper Deluxe bootleg has separated mulitrack recordings for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, With A Little Help From My Friends, She's Leaving Home, and A Day in the Life. That shouldn't be possible without copies of the multitrack masters (then again, I thought the multitracks of Who's Next were lost, and there they are in Rock Band).

        That said, I don't know how good Purple Chick's transfers
  • Bloody hell (Score:3, Funny)

    by jrothwell97 (968062) <(moc.llewsorton) (ta) (nahtanoj)> on Monday March 10, 2008 @06:51PM (#22709404) Homepage Journal
    Steve Jobs must've promised to give every future Macworld keynote dressed as Ringo Starr or something, knowing how belligerent Apple Corps are.
  • http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9890124-7.html [news.com]?

    Sony/ATV who owns most of the Beatles publishing licenses, says they haven't made any deal.
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:02PM (#22709524)
    ...and I'm damn proud of it. It's in 320kbit mp3 format, the quality is superb, idv3 tags are correct and the download speed was fast.

    What do you mean by "buying it"? Considering that copyright exists for being an incentive to creation and I see the creators are either dead or have no living standard problems, I see that no further payment is necessary. This is how the system is supposed to work, right?

    Also, I promise I didn't steal anything. That'd be an awfully wrong thing to do, to deprive someone of their hard earned property, not to mention someone might get hurt while someone is shoplifting a CD or breaking into the John Lennon archive...
    • <blockquote>This is how the system is supposed to work, right?</blockquote>

      "The system" expects you to obey the law, not make it up as you go.
      • by Xtravar (725372)

        "The system" expects you to obey the law, not make it up as you go.
        Systems don't have feelings or empty stomachs to feed. :'(
        • Neither does Apple Corp, John, Paul, George, or Ringo. (Yeah, two don't eat anything anymore... one eats too much.)
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Who said I didn't obey the law?

        I can freely download any music or video files, even if they are under copyright protection. This is legally allowed because of a blanket tax on empty CDs, DVDs, memory disks, etc. 10% of that tax revenue goes away for administration costs and 90% is distributed based on national sales figures plus some black magic.

        I haven't bought a single empty CD or DVD in the past 6 years, but I'm sure the local linux users group and system administrators are really glad they are suppor
        • by Sentry21 (8183) on Monday March 10, 2008 @08:57PM (#22710658) Journal
          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.
          • No, I wasn't citing the Canadian Copyright Act, blank media tax/levy exists in a few other countries aswell other than Canada.
    • "have no living standard problems"

      So if you are able to get buy on the wages you are making, you would turn down your next raise, right? Oh wait, we're not communists in this country, so people expect to be paid what they're worth, not what they need. This is America, it's from each according to his abilities to each according to his abilities in this country. If the music is worth a dollar to you, pay a dollar for it. If it's not, don't listen to it.
      • So if you are able to get buy on the wages you are making, you would turn down your next raise, right?

        Getting a raise means that the employer considers it a fair deal to give me that raise. It means the agreement is mutually agreeable. I don't expect rich copyright holders who game the system to stop wanting to preserve the copyright system (which is what your false analogy supposed), but I would expect society as a whole (being the other party to the copyright agreement), to negotiate a fair deal, which i

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mosb1000 (710161)
          "but I would expect society as a whole (being the other party to the copyright agreement), to negotiate a fair deal"

          Yeah, that's what they have. They agree to give us music and we agree to pay a dollar per song. It's fair because both parties agree to it. It would not be fair to say "no, you have to give me the music for free after you've made enough money", unless of course they agreed to it. Likewise it wound not be fair for them to say, "you have to give me a dollar". It's the fact that both sides a
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Yeah, that's what they have. They agree to give us music and we agree to pay a dollar per song. It's fair because both parties agree to it. It would not be fair to say "no, you have to give me the music for free after you've made enough money", unless of course they agreed to it. Likewise it wound not be fair for them to say, "you have to give me a dollar". It's the fact that both sides agree to it that makes it fair. This is not rocket science.

            "I will not shoot you unless you give me all your money" is a

            • "Copyright is not property, it is a license for a monopoly. "

              All property is a government enforced monopoly. In this regard, IP is no different.

              "create derivative works"

              Copyright does not bar derivative works, though it does limit them. You may have noticed that it is extremely common in pop culture to reference or spoof other works which are still protected by copyright.

              "a short copyright term would still allow the vast majority of profits to be made from a given copyrighted work"

              Do you have any reason t
  • The Beatles? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Itninja (937614) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:03PM (#22709544) Homepage
    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'.
    • Well, the key decision makers will most certainly be Paul, Ringo, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, so I guess it stays in the family. Michael Jackson's ownership is Northern Songs, so he'll certainly get a cut (or more properly Sony and all the people that maniac owes money to), but the sound recordings are controlled by the Beatles and their heirs and EMI.

      There's a real difference between ownership of the sound recording copyrights and the publishing rights. Besides, the publishing rights don't apply to Har
  • ...that the Beatles founded?

    Wasn't it Apple?

    • by MouseR (3264)
      Your point being?

      And you're also wrong. It's "Apple Corps [wikipedia.org]".
  • Yeah, right - so much for "You keep out of the music business, and we won't sell computers".

    How long until we see a shiny new Macbook and iPod as a special edition, complete with the familiar green logo?
    • by billsf (34378)
      Yeah, right - so much for "You keep out of the music business, and we won't sell computers".

      My very thoughts. Beatles on vinyl is also interesting (and DRM free). As has been mentioned above, many have beat iTunes to this punch. I'm no big Beatles fan (slightly before my time) but the few I got from mp3.com were either vinyl rips or from the master tapes at 384kbps. Even $300Million probably won't bring that kind of quality to the consumer. (DRM free, but some nations are crying "foul".)

    • Yeah, right - so much for "You keep out of the music business, and we won't sell computers".

      And if you'll recall, there was a pretty big lawsuit just a few short years ago over that original settlement. IIRC, Apple Computer ended up winning that one.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:23PM (#22709734) Journal
    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.
  • I never really liked the Beatles because I just wasn't old enough to appreciate much of any music at the time. So Apple can spend a billion as far as I care.

    I was born in the early 60's so I really never had any mania over them. I wonder if this new Apple "Beatlemania" is part of the so called "musical cycle" where certain types of music go in and out of style in two or three decade intervals? Or their derivations follow the same cycles.
    • by justinlindh (1016121) on Monday March 10, 2008 @07:54PM (#22710076)
      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.
    • I never really liked the Beatles because I just wasn't old enough to appreciate much of any music at the time. So Apple can spend a billion as far as I care.

      So you can only "appreciate" music that was created in your lifetime? What a narrow focus your life must have.
  • If you want the Beatles on your iPod, rip the CDs and transfer. Bingo - Beatlemania hit my iTunes/iPod years ago. Best of all, most of the CDs I bought were obtained at used CD stores for just a few dollars each. Score! $400 Million, Apple? You guys got ripped off. I will only be impressed if they are released on iTunes as a complete digital box set in Apple Lossless without DRM.
  • Unless the Beatles are the ones paying the $400m. I fail to see how Apple can come out on top with this kind of deal. Selling 400 million Beatles songs won't even allow them to break even (remember they don't keep much of that 99 cents plus they have lots of operating costs).

    I suspect it's just Steve Jobs' own fanboism of the Beatles that motivated this deal.
  • by BearRanger (945122) on Monday March 10, 2008 @08:25PM (#22710394)
    And here I thought phony Beatlemania had bitten the dust...
  • Now I have the opportunity to buy, at exhorbitant prices, digital versions of all the same Beatles album which I own (all of them).

    I still fail to see the value add over torrent--certainly at this pricepoint.
  • Hopefully, in the middle of negotiations, they won't break down. ;)

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...