Does this mean that musicians can now sign up under the Apple inc. music label? Instead of getting .08 cents a song they could possibly get .60 cents? It'll be cool to see where Apple takes this since they've reached an agreement.
And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.
I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already (or a lesser amount of songs that they like) to the point where not even a remastered version will compel them to buy it.
Too little too late.
Eh, I think you're underestimating the draw of the Beatles. If there's some period of the Beatles exclusively on iTunes, it will sell, and it will sell huge.
And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.
...
Too little too late.
The rumors suggest that the remasters will be considerably better than anything that's currently available.
Valintines day still didn't happen. And let's not forget Steve had Beatles Album artwork on the iPhone where he made the statement; "look at this gorgeous album artwork."
Does this mean that musicians can now sign up under the Apple inc. music label? Instead of getting .08 cents a song they could possibly get .60 cents? It'll be cool to see where Apple takes this since they've reached an agreement.
Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.
To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.
If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.
I wonder how many Beatles tracks will appear in the UK chart once/if they become available on iTunes?
EMI predicted The Beatles would fill out the Top 10 UK Chart the week iTunes has their catalogue. We shall see what happens. Perhaps it will be as insignificant as some are touting, but I doubt that.
The question is which single will be number one. I feel it should be A Day in the Life.
So in other words, this means that Apple could release the entire Apple Corps catalog and choose not to license it to other online music download stores right? Unless of course this was one of the conditions that Apple Inc would license the songs back to Apple Corps?
I wonder how long till Apple Inc own Apple Corpse entirely Sounds like this was Steve?s personal dream for a long time now! Then again, does Apple Corps own the Beatles catalog? I can't keep track who bought it or if Apple Corps bought it back \
So in other words, this means that Apple could release the entire Apple Corps catalog and choose not to license it to other online music download stores right? Unless of course this was one of the conditions that Apple Inc would license the songs back to Apple Corps?
The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.
I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already...
Too little too late.
You and your thieving friends...
Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.
Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...
Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.
Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...
Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.
Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.
To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.
If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.
If Apple negotiated a deal with Merlin, the new union/license agent for independant labels, they'd be able to instantly corner 30% of the market, with little or no overhead, because the infrastructure is already established. I doubt the majors would care much. It would finally afford indys a seat at the big boys table; Apple would have that much more music to sell, and fledgling musicians with talent but no money would have a better chance to make some. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
Hmm, one of the problems with doing that in the past was that your music wouldn't sync back to your Mac if it was on your iPod, because syncing was only one way. But one of the new features is that iTunes store music on your iPod will now sync to your Mac... So how many gigabytes would the Beatles complete discography take up?
about 700 MB going by the 12 albums from "please Please Me" to "Let it Be" at 128kbps
The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.
I guess that's where I was confused.
So in either case, Apple Corps should just change their name? If that's the case I vote for Banana Corps....oh wait....that was already taken by the Rutles 8) Just kidding.
The way I see the catalog on iTunes Store is this; it's not so much for the older generation, or the generation that already has every album on CD or vinyl but the new generation that prefers to download their songs rather than purchase the physical albums.
A lot of my friends these days only have 'ripped' CDs or they are downloading their songs.
I for one prefer the physical CD, and if available a vinyl copy as well. Nothing beats going down to Berkeley to find vinyl albums for a couple bucks a piece.
AppleInsider, I am really interested to know what the details of the settlement were. Since Apple Inc now has about a bazillion bucks in the bank, I bet it involved the exchange of many, many greenbacks.
I agree with the earlier comment about physcial ownership. If I want a copy of Sgt. Peppers, I would rather have a physical CD so that I feel that I own it and can give it to a family member or import it into computer using whatever quality or format I want. I have used iTunes for the most part to buy individual songs that I like rather than complete albums. I have only bought complete albums when it was very difficult or not cost effective to obtain the original CD.
Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
All my Beatles music is on 30 year old records. I have no CDs to rip from. I have not downloaded the songs illicitly despite having the technical knowhow and even a defeldable moral position (I already bought them, artists got paid...) to give me moral cover.
Bottom line: High interest in downloading Beatles music contrary to the previous poster's claim that anyone who wanted Beatles music would have already aquired it via file-sharing.
AppleInsider, I am really interested to know what the details of the settlement were. Since Apple Inc now has about a bazillion bucks in the bank, I bet it involved the exchange of many, many greenbacks.
I have to admit, I didn't even consider all these possibilities of Apple (nee computer) expanding into the music buisness once this was settled. It might be worth it if they had to pay some serious $$ if they have real plans to expand their presence in the music arena (beyond online distrobution domination)...
Comments
And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.
I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already (or a lesser amount of songs that they like) to the point where not even a remastered version will compel them to buy it.
Too little too late.
Eh, I think you're underestimating the draw of the Beatles. If there's some period of the Beatles exclusively on iTunes, it will sell, and it will sell huge.
And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.
...
Too little too late.
The rumors suggest that the remasters will be considerably better than anything that's currently available.
Still no Led Zeppelin. Will Stevie have to have a séance with Jimmy page to get that to happen?
..... or Frank Zappa, with whom Stevie will really need a séance to be able to communicate.
Does this mean that musicians can now sign up under the Apple inc. music label? Instead of getting .08 cents a song they could possibly get .60 cents? It'll be cool to see where Apple takes this since they've reached an agreement.
Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.
To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.
If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.
I wonder how many Beatles tracks will appear in the UK chart once/if they become available on iTunes?
EMI predicted The Beatles would fill out the Top 10 UK Chart the week iTunes has their catalogue. We shall see what happens. Perhaps it will be as insignificant as some are touting, but I doubt that.
The question is which single will be number one. I feel it should be A Day in the Life.
I wonder how long till Apple Inc own Apple Corpse entirely
So in other words, this means that Apple could release the entire Apple Corps catalog and choose not to license it to other online music download stores right? Unless of course this was one of the conditions that Apple Inc would license the songs back to Apple Corps?
The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.
I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already...
Too little too late.
Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.
Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...
Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.
Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...
Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.
Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.
To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.
If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.
If Apple negotiated a deal with Merlin, the new union/license agent for independant labels, they'd be able to instantly corner 30% of the market, with little or no overhead, because the infrastructure is already established. I doubt the majors would care much. It would finally afford indys a seat at the big boys table; Apple would have that much more music to sell, and fledgling musicians with talent but no money would have a better chance to make some. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
Hmm, one of the problems with doing that in the past was that your music wouldn't sync back to your Mac if it was on your iPod, because syncing was only one way. But one of the new features is that iTunes store music on your iPod will now sync to your Mac... So how many gigabytes would the Beatles complete discography take up?
about 700 MB going by the 12 albums from "please Please Me" to "Let it Be" at 128kbps
so you COULD have YELLOW shuffles!
The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.
I guess that's where I was confused.
So in either case, Apple Corps should just change their name? If that's the case I vote for Banana Corps....oh wait....that was already taken by the Rutles
A lot of my friends these days only have 'ripped' CDs or they are downloading their songs.
I for one prefer the physical CD, and if available a vinyl copy as well. Nothing beats going down to Berkeley to find vinyl albums for a couple bucks a piece.
I agree with the earlier comment about physcial ownership. If I want a copy of Sgt. Peppers, I would rather have a physical CD so that I feel that I own it and can give it to a family member or import it into computer using whatever quality or format I want. I have used iTunes for the most part to buy individual songs that I like rather than complete albums. I have only bought complete albums when it was very difficult or not cost effective to obtain the original CD.
Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
All my Beatles music is on 30 year old records. I have no CDs to rip from. I have not downloaded the songs illicitly despite having the technical knowhow and even a defeldable moral position (I already bought them, artists got paid...) to give me moral cover.
Bottom line: High interest in downloading Beatles music contrary to the previous poster's claim that anyone who wanted Beatles music would have already aquired it via file-sharing.
AppleInsider, I am really interested to know what the details of the settlement were. Since Apple Inc now has about a bazillion bucks in the bank, I bet it involved the exchange of many, many greenbacks.
I have to admit, I didn't even consider all these possibilities of Apple (nee computer) expanding into the music buisness once this was settled. It might be worth it if they had to pay some serious $$ if they have real plans to expand their presence in the music arena (beyond online distrobution domination)...
Good for Steve, good for The Beatles, good for us!!!