Digital versions of the Fab Four's rock group are a double-edged sword for McCartney, according to the source. While posting the albums on iTunes would help pay for his divorce from Heather Mills -- providing as much as $403.5 million to be split between the group -- it may also lead Mills to demand a settlement of $60.5 million or more. She knows that the digital catalog will inflate McCartney's future income, the paper says.
IMO before being allowed to get married, all guys (from seventeen to seventy) should have to pass a test showing they understand how a divorce would affect them financially. In this case, I don't think Paul ever realized how completely different this marriage would be from his marriage to Linda. IMO, he was incredibly lucky in his first marriage and incredibly foolish in the second one.
Actually, with the release of the album "1", most of the singles that were never released on any of the original albums were finally available including "Paperback Writer", "Day Tripper", "Hey Jude", and "Lady Madonna". AFAIK, the only way to get some of the catalog like "Revolution" (the rippin' version that was techically the B-side to the "Hey Jude" single) is from I think Past Masters Vol. 2.
Likewise, I know a few people that would like to pick up a couple of key downloads from the White Album that don't want to shell out $30 for the two-CD set. There would be quite the demand for a song here and a song there, IMO. Of course at this rate, we may never know...
I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that he has been a very strong influence in the past in computer games. I don't know if he's still a relevant figure today. It's been a good while since his last major game / game engine, and it sounded like the response to that was tepid. Even if his recent work is solid, his influence has waned.
In a way, it's kind of like Steve Wozniak, I don't think Apple would exist without his input at the beginning, but, sad to say, he doesn't seem to have nearly the same creative influence today, even though he still does sound like a very bright individual. I know he's still active in the development of technology and active in society too, both of which are highly commendable. But as far as I know, he has no major pull with Apple or the direction of technology today, he's well known for what he did 30 years ago, but not for anything special that he did lately.
Carmack is not a 'Woz' type of character at all
- he's still very much active in game engine design
- he even demo'd the new id Tech 5 engine at the 2007 WWDC
I agree. the iPlayer is probably one of the best things our TV license fee has gone towards paying for!
I used it on my iPod Touch and found it great to use. It downloaded fast, and was ready to play within seconds. The quality was amazing, with both a good picture and sound.
A fantastic way to catch up on any missed Tv whilst laying hungover in bed on a sunday morning!
I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that he has been a very strong influence in the past in computer games. I don't know if he's still a relevant figure today. It's been a good while since his last major game / game engine, and it sounded like the response to that was tepid. Even if his recent work is solid, his influence has waned.
In a way, it's kind of like Steve Wozniak, I don't think Apple would exist without his input at the beginning, but, sad to say, he doesn't seem to have nearly the same creative influence today, even though he still does sound like a very bright individual. I know he's still active in the development of technology and active in society too, both of which are highly commendable. But as far as I know, he has no major pull with Apple or the direction of technology today, he's well known for what he did 30 years ago, but not for anything special that he did lately.
I think a lot of the tech 3/4 games have been pretty special and the tech 5 engine is looking really good. The man one of the few who is not afraid of Steve Jobs has no qualms about calling the iCEO out when he's dead wrong about something.
"The company that owns the rights to a vast majority of The Beatles music catalog has questioned reports that the Fab Four have cut a deal with Steve Jobs.
Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the joint venture owned by Sony and singer Michael Jackson, has thrown cold water on newspaper stories 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.
Stories about the Fab Four heading to iTunes crop up every few months, it seems, and rumors and unconfirmed reports have been circulating for years. This time, the story appeared to have legs as it was reported by three large British newspapers. They all cited unnamed sources.
Under media scrutiny, the stories began showing cracks on Sunday. One of the newspapers reported that Apple was willing to pay the Beatles about $600 million. The blog Silicon Alley Insider noted that Apple, which grosses about 33 cents for every song sale, would have to sell 1.8 billion Beatles songs to break even.
A high-level music industry source said an agreement between The Beatles and Apple could still get inked in 2008. They emphasized, however, that the British papers were wrong to say the deal was finalized.
Representatives for EMI and Apple declined to comment for the story.
Beatles-iTunes partnership would make sense
One has to wonder why these rumors and unconfirmed reports continue to crop up. Is it a case of wishful thinking on the part of Beatles fans or Apple?
The availability of The Beatles, the best-selling band of all time, on iTunes would send the most dramatic signal to date that digital downloads are an integral part of mainstream music, said Susan Kevorkian, a music analyst with research group IDC.
"It's important for iTunes and online music services in general because it legitimizes IP-based music services," Kevorkian said. "It also points to the fact that digital music services are maturing when important groups that have been high-profile holdouts come onboard."
In the last several years, Madonna, Led Zeppelin, and Metallica--artists who once spurned Internet sales of their music--reversed themselves and embraced iTunes.
Earlier Monday, Chris Castle, a music lawyer and former record label executive predicted that a Web-based Beatlemania would be big for iTunes and Beatles fans alike.
He said The Beatles could release formerly unreleased music "that they might have lying around," and the offering could also include some kind of video element. Even though The Beatles broke up nearly 40 years ago, Castle said Apple Corps, the band's media company, would find a way to "dress up the offering" so that it would create excitement even among longtime Beatles fans.
Jeff Jones, the new head of Apple Corps, "is known as a catalog genius," Castle said. "If there is anybody that can figure out how to make this work it's him. I would expect to see some pleasant surprises from Jeff."
Castle said that what fans likely won't find with a Beatles offering on iTunes is a discount.
"This is a band that has sold music at premium prices for four decades," Castle said. "They've never been discounted. I would be shocked to see any competition on price. Think about it. The Beatles have kept (their brand) precious and popular for a long time. They've done this by knowing how to treat their fans and knowing what didn't work for them."
The Beatles were unlikely candidates to join iTunes. Apple Corps had a series of trademark disputes with Apple Inc. going back to 1976 when Beatle guitarist George Harrison saw an ad for the then Apple Computer. The band thought the new company had infringed on their trademark and sued. The case was settled out of court.
There were other legal skirmishes along the way but last year, Paul McCartney told reporters in Great Britain that he thought a deal with Apple CEO Steve Jobs was close to being finalized.
If and when The Beatles arrive at iTunes, there'll be plenty of people who will ask, "Why all the fuss?" The music has been available for free on peer-to-peer sites for years.
According to Castle, The Beatles were an unprecedented combination of talent and timing, and even after all this time, still possess an enormous following of people who will be willing to pay.
"You had the musical genius, business genius, and extraordinary popularity that crossed all genres and formats," Castle said. "You've never had that before or since."
The Beatles are on iTunes... sorta. Last night's American Idol theme was The Beatles and iTunes has been posting the exclusive performances by the upstarts the following day in iTunes TV show fashion. This week they have n posted The Beatles song performances for $.99 but have posted the video performances for $1.99.
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
The Beatles are on iTunes... sorta. Last night's American Idol theme was The Beatles and iTunes has been posting the exclusive performances by the upstarts the following day in iTunes TV show fashion. This week they have n posted The Beatles song performances for $.99 but have posted the video performances for $1.99.
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
I don't understand why it's supposedly a change. That's not the same thing as The Beetles being on iTunes. Aren't there a lot of Beetles songs covered by other performers on iTunes? Helter Skelter has been on iTunes for some time in the form of U2's performance, not to mention as many as 48 other versions of the song performed by others.
The Beatles are on iTunes... sorta. Last night's American Idol theme was The Beatles and iTunes has been posting the exclusive performances by the upstarts the following day in iTunes TV show fashion. This week they have n posted The Beatles song performances for $.99 but have posted the video performances for $1.99.
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
Beatles songs have always been on iTunes, just always sung by other performers not the Beatles (just search on Yesterday to see). However, the AI show made a big deal about getting permission to use their works for some reason. It is puzzling since any act on TV could always sing a Beatles song if they wished. Of course Paul is on there now so we are half way there lol. Well, living Beatles that is ... But something is in the air for sure ... (not trying to use a Mac ad there)
Comments
Digital versions of the Fab Four's rock group are a double-edged sword for McCartney, according to the source. While posting the albums on iTunes would help pay for his divorce from Heather Mills -- providing as much as $403.5 million to be split between the group -- it may also lead Mills to demand a settlement of $60.5 million or more. She knows that the digital catalog will inflate McCartney's future income, the paper says.
IMO before being allowed to get married, all guys (from seventeen to seventy) should have to pass a test showing they understand how a divorce would affect them financially. In this case, I don't think Paul ever realized how completely different this marriage would be from his marriage to Linda. IMO, he was incredibly lucky in his first marriage and incredibly foolish in the second one.
Groan. Do we have to suffer through "The Beatles are coming to iTunes! The Beatles are coming to iTunes!" stories all over again!?
Does anyone seriously think there is a human being left on this planet who does not already have all of his/her Beatles on iTunes already?
If they are remixed, remastered, and rehyped
many people will repurchase them anyway.
If they are remixed, remastered, and rehyped
many people will repurchase them anyway.
Actually, with the release of the album "1", most of the singles that were never released on any of the original albums were finally available including "Paperback Writer", "Day Tripper", "Hey Jude", and "Lady Madonna". AFAIK, the only way to get some of the catalog like "Revolution" (the rippin' version that was techically the B-side to the "Hey Jude" single) is from I think Past Masters Vol. 2.
Likewise, I know a few people that would like to pick up a couple of key downloads from the White Album that don't want to shell out $30 for the two-CD set. There would be quite the demand for a song here and a song there, IMO. Of course at this rate, we may never know...
I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that he has been a very strong influence in the past in computer games. I don't know if he's still a relevant figure today. It's been a good while since his last major game / game engine, and it sounded like the response to that was tepid. Even if his recent work is solid, his influence has waned.
In a way, it's kind of like Steve Wozniak, I don't think Apple would exist without his input at the beginning, but, sad to say, he doesn't seem to have nearly the same creative influence today, even though he still does sound like a very bright individual. I know he's still active in the development of technology and active in society too, both of which are highly commendable. But as far as I know, he has no major pull with Apple or the direction of technology today, he's well known for what he did 30 years ago, but not for anything special that he did lately.
Carmack is not a 'Woz' type of character at all
- he's still very much active in game engine design
- he even demo'd the new id Tech 5 engine at the 2007 WWDC
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/11/id...le-conference/
I used it on my iPod Touch and found it great to use. It downloaded fast, and was ready to play within seconds. The quality was amazing, with both a good picture and sound.
A fantastic way to catch up on any missed Tv whilst laying hungover in bed on a sunday morning!
I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree that he has been a very strong influence in the past in computer games. I don't know if he's still a relevant figure today. It's been a good while since his last major game / game engine, and it sounded like the response to that was tepid. Even if his recent work is solid, his influence has waned.
In a way, it's kind of like Steve Wozniak, I don't think Apple would exist without his input at the beginning, but, sad to say, he doesn't seem to have nearly the same creative influence today, even though he still does sound like a very bright individual. I know he's still active in the development of technology and active in society too, both of which are highly commendable. But as far as I know, he has no major pull with Apple or the direction of technology today, he's well known for what he did 30 years ago, but not for anything special that he did lately.
I think a lot of the tech 3/4 games have been pretty special and the tech 5 engine is looking really good. The man one of the few who is not afraid of Steve Jobs has no qualms about calling the iCEO out when he's dead wrong about something.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-989...tag=nefd.pulse
"The company that owns the rights to a vast majority of The Beatles music catalog has questioned reports that the Fab Four have cut a deal with Steve Jobs.
Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the joint venture owned by Sony and singer Michael Jackson, has thrown cold water on newspaper stories 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.
Stories about the Fab Four heading to iTunes crop up every few months, it seems, and rumors and unconfirmed reports have been circulating for years. This time, the story appeared to have legs as it was reported by three large British newspapers. They all cited unnamed sources.
Under media scrutiny, the stories began showing cracks on Sunday. One of the newspapers reported that Apple was willing to pay the Beatles about $600 million. The blog Silicon Alley Insider noted that Apple, which grosses about 33 cents for every song sale, would have to sell 1.8 billion Beatles songs to break even.
A high-level music industry source said an agreement between The Beatles and Apple could still get inked in 2008. They emphasized, however, that the British papers were wrong to say the deal was finalized.
Representatives for EMI and Apple declined to comment for the story.
Beatles-iTunes partnership would make sense
One has to wonder why these rumors and unconfirmed reports continue to crop up. Is it a case of wishful thinking on the part of Beatles fans or Apple?
The availability of The Beatles, the best-selling band of all time, on iTunes would send the most dramatic signal to date that digital downloads are an integral part of mainstream music, said Susan Kevorkian, a music analyst with research group IDC.
"It's important for iTunes and online music services in general because it legitimizes IP-based music services," Kevorkian said. "It also points to the fact that digital music services are maturing when important groups that have been high-profile holdouts come onboard."
In the last several years, Madonna, Led Zeppelin, and Metallica--artists who once spurned Internet sales of their music--reversed themselves and embraced iTunes.
Earlier Monday, Chris Castle, a music lawyer and former record label executive predicted that a Web-based Beatlemania would be big for iTunes and Beatles fans alike.
He said The Beatles could release formerly unreleased music "that they might have lying around," and the offering could also include some kind of video element. Even though The Beatles broke up nearly 40 years ago, Castle said Apple Corps, the band's media company, would find a way to "dress up the offering" so that it would create excitement even among longtime Beatles fans.
Jeff Jones, the new head of Apple Corps, "is known as a catalog genius," Castle said. "If there is anybody that can figure out how to make this work it's him. I would expect to see some pleasant surprises from Jeff."
Castle said that what fans likely won't find with a Beatles offering on iTunes is a discount.
"This is a band that has sold music at premium prices for four decades," Castle said. "They've never been discounted. I would be shocked to see any competition on price. Think about it. The Beatles have kept (their brand) precious and popular for a long time. They've done this by knowing how to treat their fans and knowing what didn't work for them."
The Beatles were unlikely candidates to join iTunes. Apple Corps had a series of trademark disputes with Apple Inc. going back to 1976 when Beatle guitarist George Harrison saw an ad for the then Apple Computer. The band thought the new company had infringed on their trademark and sued. The case was settled out of court.
There were other legal skirmishes along the way but last year, Paul McCartney told reporters in Great Britain that he thought a deal with Apple CEO Steve Jobs was close to being finalized.
If and when The Beatles arrive at iTunes, there'll be plenty of people who will ask, "Why all the fuss?" The music has been available for free on peer-to-peer sites for years.
According to Castle, The Beatles were an unprecedented combination of talent and timing, and even after all this time, still possess an enormous following of people who will be willing to pay.
"You had the musical genius, business genius, and extraordinary popularity that crossed all genres and formats," Castle said. "You've never had that before or since."
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
The Beatles are on iTunes... sorta. Last night's American Idol theme was The Beatles and iTunes has been posting the exclusive performances by the upstarts the following day in iTunes TV show fashion. This week they have n posted The Beatles song performances for $.99 but have posted the video performances for $1.99.
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
I don't understand why it's supposedly a change. That's not the same thing as The Beetles being on iTunes. Aren't there a lot of Beetles songs covered by other performers on iTunes? Helter Skelter has been on iTunes for some time in the form of U2's performance, not to mention as many as 48 other versions of the song performed by others.
Aren't there a lot of Beetles songs covered by other performers on iTunes?
I know it's not the same, hence my first sentence.
All I know is that the iTunes/American Idol pattern changed and I have no good reason as to why.
PS: It's Beatles.
The Beatles are on iTunes... sorta. Last night's American Idol theme was The Beatles and iTunes has been posting the exclusive performances by the upstarts the following day in iTunes TV show fashion. This week they have n posted The Beatles song performances for $.99 but have posted the video performances for $1.99.
That is change from the previous weeks and I don't know how to interpret it. Does this mean that the talks were just to allow some facet of the beatles on iTunes, of which they settled on the contestant videos? Are music videos still seen as promotional, therefore circumventing any contractual limiter in place with Apple Corps and Apple, Inc.?
Beatles songs have always been on iTunes, just always sung by other performers not the Beatles (just search on Yesterday to see). However, the AI show made a big deal about getting permission to use their works for some reason. It is puzzling since any act on TV could always sing a Beatles song if they wished. Of course Paul is on there now so we are half way there lol. Well, living Beatles that is ... But something is in the air for sure ... (not trying to use a Mac ad there)