Talks to bring The Beatles to iTunes break down
Negotiations to bring the music catalog of The Beatles to Apple's iTunes Store have entered into an indefinite state of limbo with the band's multimedia corporation and former record label disputing the terms of digital distribution.
Speaking at the launch of his new album Electric Arguments, Beatles guitarist Sir Paul McCartney said he's eager to see his former band's catalog made available for sale on digital download sites, but once "heavy negotiations" between Apple Corps and former record label EMI have since "stalled."
According to a report published by the BBC Tuesday morning, EMI still owns the rights to the Beatles recordings and therefore must enter into an agreement with Apple Corps -- the company set up by the band to look after their catalogue -- before the tracks can be released for digital distribution.
"EMI want something we're not prepared to give 'em. It's between EMI and The Beatles I think - what else is new?," McCartney said. "Last word I got back was it's stalled at the moment. But I really hope it will happen because I think it should."
Rumors (1, 2, 3) that the Beatles and Apple were close to wrapping up an iTunes deal have swirled ever since the two sides ended their three decade-long trademark dispute almost two years ago. However, those plans apparently took a back seat last month when the band announced a landmark deal to have its legendary catalog form the foundation of a new video game from the makers of Rock Band.
When asked about the current situation surrounding iTunes, an EMI spokesperson said the label is "working hard to secure [an] agreement with Apple Corps to make the Beatles' catalogue available in digital form" but added "the various parties involved have been unable to reach agreement."
EMI hopes both sides can make some progress "soon."
Speaking at the launch of his new album Electric Arguments, Beatles guitarist Sir Paul McCartney said he's eager to see his former band's catalog made available for sale on digital download sites, but once "heavy negotiations" between Apple Corps and former record label EMI have since "stalled."
According to a report published by the BBC Tuesday morning, EMI still owns the rights to the Beatles recordings and therefore must enter into an agreement with Apple Corps -- the company set up by the band to look after their catalogue -- before the tracks can be released for digital distribution.
"EMI want something we're not prepared to give 'em. It's between EMI and The Beatles I think - what else is new?," McCartney said. "Last word I got back was it's stalled at the moment. But I really hope it will happen because I think it should."
Rumors (1, 2, 3) that the Beatles and Apple were close to wrapping up an iTunes deal have swirled ever since the two sides ended their three decade-long trademark dispute almost two years ago. However, those plans apparently took a back seat last month when the band announced a landmark deal to have its legendary catalog form the foundation of a new video game from the makers of Rock Band.
When asked about the current situation surrounding iTunes, an EMI spokesperson said the label is "working hard to secure [an] agreement with Apple Corps to make the Beatles' catalogue available in digital form" but added "the various parties involved have been unable to reach agreement."
EMI hopes both sides can make some progress "soon."
Comments
- the Beatles are missing out on a whole new audience that could discover the music
- but if it's not available in a modern, convenient form, then I think it's going to get forgotten about.
i think the Beatles need iTunes more than iTunes needs the Beatles
- the Beatles are missing out on a whole new audience that could discover the music
- but if it's not available in a modern, convenient form, then I think it's going to get forgotten about.
They have been forgotten long ago. Who cares. I already have the songs I like from CD's so having them on iTunes does nothing. I am sure most fans already have The Beatles in their iTunes libraries, so what would be the point?
but once "heavy negotiations" between Apple Corps and former record label EMI have since "stalled."
According to a report published by the BBC Tuesday morning, EMI still owns the rights to the Beatles recordings and therefore must enter into an agreement with Apple Corps -- the company set up by the band to look after their catalogue -- before the tracks can be released for digital distribution.
"You never give me your money."
"You only give me your funny paper."
"And in the middle of negotiations,
I break down."
Whoever said that, knew what they were talking about!
Oh wait...
EDIT: my bad , I didn't read the article at first, and my post should have been aimed at EMI.
i think the Beatles need iTunes more than iTunes needs the Beatles
- the Beatles are missing out on a whole new audience that could discover the music
- but if it's not available in a modern, convenient form, then I think it's going to get forgotten about.
The Beatles' music will never be forgotten. But as the Beatles generation dies out so will the relevance of their music. I mean, the music will always be relevant but more from a historical perspective than a current social perspective. Musicians will always listen to the Beatles and so will lots of 'music geeks', but your average teenager? Forgeddaboudit. Young kids may listen and sing along because of their parents and so they will always know about the Beatles but then they move on. (When I was a kid the fact that my parent liked something was reason enough for me to reject it out of hand!) But I do think NOT to have the Beatles represented makes any comprehensive music store / library incomplete.
What do you think to Apple buying EMI?
I believe it's about time Apple owned some content. Though it may cause licensing issues with the others, I think in the long term its going to be beneficial.
OK , I have been meaning to question you lot on this for a while, and this thread is close enough in relation so here goes...
What do you think to Apple buying EMI?
I believe it's about time Apple owned some content. Though it may cause licensing issues with the others, I think in the long term its going to be beneficial.
I think it highly unlikely that apple would go that route. Why would apple want all the baggage that would come from buying an existing label when they have the power, cash and distribution necessary to start their own label?
Who cares anymore.
Nobody.
Limewire does just fine. Bite on the Sir Paul....
Just sayin.
I think what iTunes needs/wants is the clout that the Beatles songbook gives them. Once again it pulls them a little step farther ahead than any of the other download services. Led Zepplin wouldn't hurt either...
Sure the songs are available in other places like Limewire, but look at all the crap you have to sort thru to get the song/quality/information you need. I like Limewire too, but there is a massive amount of s--t on there from folks that don't know their butt from a hole in the ground about music.
What really needs to happen is for Apple to get Apple Corps to release to iTunes all the "lost tracks", Christmas greetings, studio tapes and relevant interviews that are out there of which Apple Corps retains control. - That is one thing Limewire is OK at (but not good) if you have enough patience.
iTunes needs to be able to offer a little something more than all of our CD collections. - "oh, one more thing..."
The Beatles' music will never be forgotten. But as the Beatles generation dies out so will the relevance of their music. I mean, the music will always be relevant but more from a historical perspective than a current social perspective. Musicians will always listen to the Beatles and so will lots of 'music geeks', but your average teenager? Forgeddaboudit. Young kids may listen and sing along because of their parents and so they will always know about the Beatles but then they move on. (When I was a kid the fact that my parent liked something was reason enough for me to reject it out of hand!) But I do think NOT to have the Beatles represented makes any comprehensive music store / library incomplete.
You are assuming that iPod/iTunes is targetted exclusively at teenagers. What about the rest of us? I don't know about the US but in the UK at least if you look at the CD charts you will see that sales to over 35's is a significant proprtion of CD sales. I presume iTunes has or will have a similiar profile. As such adding 'older' bands such as The Beatles increases iTunes profile and acceptability amongst otherwise exclusively CD music buyers, encouaging them to switch from CD to iTunes. Plus imagine the free publicity iTunes would get around the world.
I hope The Beatles never become irrelevant just as I hope the great classical composers never become irrelavant. Truly great music is timeless.
They have been forgotten long ago. Who cares. I already have the songs I like from CD's so having them on iTunes does nothing. I am sure most fans already have The Beatles in their iTunes libraries, so what would be the point?
The fact that you have the songs shows they are not forgotten. I think you'll be surprised at how many people will buy the Beatles on iTunes once they're available. It's easy to criticize and make blanket statements, but it's a lot bigger world than you seem to think.
Who cares anymore.
AppleCare.