Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Beatles and iTunes At Last?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the wearing-the-face-that-she-keeps-in-a-jar-by-the-door dept.

246

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.'"

cancel ×

246 comments

Bad joke. (3, Funny)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709336)

What's yellow and lives on dead beatles?

Yoko Ono.

Really does apply to this context.

Re:Bad joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709444)

Better joke.

The beatles are SHIT! Worst. Band. Ever.

Oh, wait, that wasn't funny, that was fact.

Seriously, who gives a shit about music that sucks?

Re:Bad joke. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709536)

And why is Apple paying 400 million for it? Oh they sold another ipod, I guess they have to spend that sale's money somewhere.

Re:Bad joke. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709484)

why is slashdot trying to bury NY governor Elliot Spitzer's prostituion news? Is it because the callgirl was none other than Kathleen Fent, Rob Malda's "wife" (CmdrTaco paid her to pretend to be his "beard" so the VA Linux crew wouldn't think he was a homo. )

Re:Bad joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22710110)

Didn't he want the job then? Everyone knows Linux is for fags.

(CAPTCHA is 'falsify' - haha, not a damn thing ;P)

Hmmm (4, Funny)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709348)

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

Re:Hmmm (4, Funny)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vinyl (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709504)

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:There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vin (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709724)

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.

Re:There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vin (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710006)

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.

Re:There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vin (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710036)

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:There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22710046)

The output level on a turntable is too low for a line in, you need a phono pre-amp.

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

c_forq (924234) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709532)

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

Re:Hmmm (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709604)

^ AAC format.

Re:Hmmm (4, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Hmmm (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709976)

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.

Re:Hmmm (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710048)

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 buyout with this added... investors would NOT have liked that hit to the books.

Go ahead, get the puns out of the way... (3, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709350)


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

Re:Go ahead, get the puns out of the way... (3, Funny)

El_Isma (979791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709906)

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.

The best things in life are free ... (0)

opencity (582224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709352)

Now who's the last hold out? Led Z?

Re:The best things in life are free ... (3, Informative)

GiMP (10923) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709568)

Zepplin is on iTunes, as of last year.

Re:The best things in life are free ... (1)

opencity (582224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709702)

whoops yeah you're right of course. my brains gone soft (from all that loud music)
bought it all on vinyl and then CD so chances are I won't pony up for the mp3

400 Million? (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709360)

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? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709450)

How will Paul McCartney's great-great-grandchildren get by if the Beatles albums become public domain!? I'm sure by now he's exhausted his paltry pensioner's income and is well on the way to the poor house.

Re:400 Million? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709552)

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? (4, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#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?

Re:400 Million? (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709750)

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:400 Million? (2, Interesting)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709758)

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.

Re:400 Million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22710198)

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 don't! I find their music to be tremendously bland and uninspired, generally unlistenable. I realize that they inspired a lot of the bands I do enjoy listening to, but for some reason the source material doesn't do it for me at all. But overall your analysis seems generally correct.

Re:400 Million? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710302)

Let's say one person in ten buys music legally, and only half of those like the Beatles - one in twenty overall.
Huh? one person in ten, what, in the whole world? are you honestly trying to suggest that 660,222,417 people "buy music legally". Do you mean online? Or do you just mean they buy CDs? Cause I honestly think you would have trouble finding 10% of the population of the USA who have bought a CD this year, let alone bought music online, let alone all the people in the rest of the world.

The vast majority of people on this planet are not customers of the music industry.

Re:400 Million? (4, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709666)

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:400 Million? (2, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709680)

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.

Re:400 Million? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709576)

It's a game of chicken and the MoP will back down senses in 2-3 years when they realize how much tax revenue is involved.

doesn't matter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709366)

Itunes is still gay.

Re:doesn't matter (1)

Kev647 (904931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709458)

(*sarcastic-tone-of-voice*)

Yup, iTunes is totally homosexual.

(*end-voice-modifier*)

At least present yourself with some supporting points why you think this. Do you find the overall GUI to be feminine? Is it too fashionable and works too well with the fashionable iPod? What is it?

-----------------------

On another note, I think this is going to be great for Apple and iPod owners everywhere.

And lastly, some interesting facts about the Beatles:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/movies-music-books/56135-some-strange-mundane-facts-about.html

The hold up? The owner of the Beatles' catalogue (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709376)

Jobs finally got him to say, "ooo hoo" and sign on the dotted line. Reality Distortion Field meets Thriller!

Re:The hold up? The owner of the Beatles' catalogu (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709570)

No need to expend the powers of the RDF on that old white lady... MJ just needed the cash, *BADLY*.

While You're At It (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709380)

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:While You're At It (2, Interesting)

pnevin (168332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709788)

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.

wow, 400 million (1)

despeaux (1254096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709384)

Are they really worth that much?

I mean, come on.

Although there's been a new interest in them with American Idol finally allowed to do Beatles.

Re:wow, 400 million (1)

LoneGNUman (882696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709602)

I think it's a tie-in. I believe idol is doing beatles tunes this week....

Re:wow, 400 million (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709628)

Steve Jobs may be a lot of things but he is definitely not stupid. If smart business people will pay for that much then yes they are worth that much. Just because normal people can't concieve what 400 millions dollars is really worth doesn't mean there aren't things in that price range.

Re:wow, 400 million (1)

jaguth (1067484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709712)

at 99 cents a song (round up to $1), itunes would have to sell 400 million songs before the beatles would break even. I'm skeptical that itunes would sell that many copies, although i guess we'll see what happens. IMO, the beatles generation was from around the 60's to the 80's, and out of those generations, how many know how to use computers, let alone know how to use itunes? i've only met a few, and even then, they are the exception.

Re:wow, 400 million (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22710150)

Hey junior, you know the generation from around the 60's to the 80's? Um, they pretty much INVENTED all the computer stuff you're using today.

Why did Apple have to pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709392)

Why did Apple (the inventors of Music) have to pay?

Is this really a big deal? (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709396)

I would think that any one that really wanted the beatles would already have them on their IPOD by now, probably ripped from their own cd's or from the internet. I don't really see that much of a demand for them now, when was the last record they even made anyway, I doubt that I was even born yet, and I'm now 26. Yes I understand that they were hugh at one point, but I don't really see anyone that would buy their stuff that doesn't have it already. I don't know but that's just my humble opinion, please don't flame me if I'm wrong.

Re:Is this really a big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709470)

I understand that they were hugh at one point
Some of the members went by the name The Quarrymen [wikipedia.org] before they were the Beatles, but I don't think any of them were in a band called Hugh.

Re:Is this really a big deal? (3, Insightful)

vidarh (309115) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709664)

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? (2, Insightful)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709738)

I think you're wrong, but I promise not to flame you!

I became a Beatles fan in about 1993, aged 14. My parents weren't big fans, I just somehow got into them, and ended up with all their music, special edition and rare stuff, hundred of books, lots of memorabilia... and so on. While everyone around me was into Kylie Minogue and Take That, I loved the subversiveness of listening to a band who produced everything from crazy crappy pop (Love Me Do) to soulful ballads (This Boy) to psychedelic weirdness (Tomorrow Never Knows), via rock, comedy, ethnic fusion, electro-experimentation... I think that's the key thing about the Beatles. They never stayed in one place for long, so most people who like popular music of any sort like at least some of their stuff. And once you like some of it, it's difficult to resist listening to all of it, because they really are pretty damn good.

This is why the Beatles keep being rediscovered by successive generations. It's rare for non-classical music to become classic, but they seem to have managed it.

Re:Is this really a big deal? (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710104)

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?

Guess I have to buy the White Album again (4, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709398)

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 (3, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again (1)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710176)

Since I mostly listen to those albums on earbuds or in my car, does it really matter?

Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709928)

Of course you must buy all these Beatles songs again. Remember that your money will go straight to enforcing eternal copyright monopolies, censorship and surveillance of the Internet and, most importantly, promoting old stuff and make active musicians beggars.

Remember that copying is stealing! You don't want to steal from dead people, do you? They have so much use for their money and you can survive without loads of music and only listen to those 10-100 albums that you can afford.

Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710178)

It's like beating a dead horse that smells like potpourri every time you hit it. Sure, you know it's wrong but it feels so right at the same time.

And yes, I will have to get another copy of the white album. For some weird reason I keep on losing the second album every single time I get a new copy.

Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again (1)

dpninerSLASH (969464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710284)

You don't own remastered versions of any Beatles material that isn't available to the general public. Quit embarrassing yourself.

Bloody hell (3, Funny)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709404)

Steve Jobs must've promised to give every future Macworld keynote dressed as Ringo Starr or something, knowing how belligerent Apple Corps are.

Publishing rights holder Sony/ATV seems to differ (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709420)

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.

Re:Publishing rights holder Sony/ATV seems to diff (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710092)

And you think Michael Jackson is going to turn away apple's money ?

$400 million sounds ridiculous (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709432)

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?

I also find myself wondering if AAPL expects to make all that money back before the entire beatles catalog enters the public domain. Of if the beatles catalog will ever enter the public domain.

Lastly, I find myself wondering if Jacko can avoid foreclosure on Neverland ranch with his piece of the pie.

Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous (3, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709572)

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 (3, Informative)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709606)

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:$400 million sounds ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709946)

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.


But you know that even with all that money, Paul getting a hundred million from this deal is what's going to give a few more people that push to make some great music. Mark another victory for copyright's purpose of encouraging creation and sharing of the arts.

Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709740)

Paul McCartney's net worth is currently around 1.5 billion. When John Lennon died, his net worth was around $250 million.

fab four (0, Flamebait)

HAVOCtheHedgehog (1235824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709456)

who the hell still wants to listen to that poor excuse for music, damned drug addicts

Re:fab four (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709560)

To be fair the Beatles music was great....50 years ago when it first came out.

To think that anyone who wants to listen to them doesn't have their discography is kind of mind boggling. Unless they hope to get money from those that don't know how to rip CDs, you know what I mean, paying twice for the same product and all.

Re:fab four (1)

jaguth (1067484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709762)

thats a bit of an oxymoron, considering that all great musicians wrote great music during drug addiction phases. -Bill Hicks:See I think, drugs have some done good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us. Do me a favor, go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your CDs, and burn them. 'Cause you know what? The musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Reeeeeeeal fucking high on drugs.-

I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp... (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#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...

Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (2, Insightful)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709670)

<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.

Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709800)

"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. :'(

Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (1)

themushroom (197365) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710118)

Neither does Apple Corp, John, Paul, George, or Ringo. (Yeah, two don't eat anything anymore... one eats too much.)

Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (2, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709918)

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 supporting the one hit wonder of the day with their or their companies funds. So yeah, the system is fucked and the still living Beatles members will never see a penny from the blanket tax that allows me to legally download their music for free, but then again if this action would be illegal I'd still do it.

I will break any and all laws that satisfy my little formulae with some added weights: (how strong I feel about the issue)*(my moral status on the issue) - (risk of punishment)*(severity of punishment) >= 0.

If a given action is legal and I'm morally okay about it, I'll do it. If it is illegal, it depends on how much I'm willing to sacrifice for the cause. Not all laws should be followed and there are laws that are just morally wrong. I use my own judgement primarily and I do not follow the law without thinking. That leads to facism.

That's not how we do things here. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710068)

"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.

Re:That's not how we do things here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22710370)

Yes, but at some point, Paul McCartney was richer than God. I'm guessing he still has a bit left over to pay off monopod strumpets. "The Beatles Catalogue" is a bad example to use to support payment of musicians and lyricists.

The Beatles? (3, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709544)

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'.

Re:The Beatles? (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709634)

...and I am pretty sure Ringo never actually existed.
Now that's funny stuff.

Do Michael Jackson and Yoko One really need more money?

This just kills me:

Jackson purchased half of the catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million, and it is now valued at $1 billion

Re:The Beatles? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710070)

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 Harrison's songs, which (other than perhaps the very earliest ones) were not published by Northern Songs, so Michael Jackson/Sony does not owe such major works as While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes The Sun and Something. I don't mind this at all, because he was genuinely screwed over by the Lennon-McCartney songwriting monster.

Is this only itunes? (1)

spotter (5662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709548)

or is it going to be available on things like Amazon, and rhapsody? If not, that a major coup for Apple.

I'm waiting... (1)

pchoppin (864344) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709564)

...for someone to hack iTunes and get this stuff out on the black market.

And no! I am not doing it. It's illegal, so don't ask. Sheeeesh!

What was the name of the record company... (1)

RyatNrrd (662756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709592)

...that the Beatles founded?

Wasn't it Apple?

Re:What was the name of the record company... (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709662)

Your point being?

And you're also wrong. It's "Apple Corps [wikipedia.org] ".

Re:What was the name of the record company... (1)

El_Isma (979791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709970)

Maybe that this post is in the "Apple" category? I find it mildly amusing that the names collide.

Re:What was the name of the record company... (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710062)

Neither company thought it was funny. They had been throwing law suits at each other for almost 20 years un Apple (formerly Apple Computer) bought all the rights to the "Apple" trademarks and re-licensed them back to Apple Corps.

5 more years (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709610)

In 2013 the sound recording copyrights expire..

Then there will be a total legal snafu.

The copyright on the score, etc, will not expire for another 100 years.. Assuming McCartney dies soon.

Of course, if you believe McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike, then I guess the clock started in 1980.

Re:5 more years (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709992)

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.

Money talks. (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709622)

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?

Re:Money talks. (1)

billsf (34378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709830)

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".)

Re:Money talks. (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710052)

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.

Michael Jackson & Sony Deny It (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709734)

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 don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709748)

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.

Re:I don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time (4, Insightful)

justinlindh (1016121) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:I don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710098)

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.

Who cares? (1)

JasonEngel (757582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709798)

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.

Who Cares? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22709824)

This is why there is no reason to care:
1. iTunes is for computer illiterate idiots and self righteous assholes who pay for what should be free information.
2. No Slashdotters are cool enough to do drugs, thus they don't listen to the beatles
3. The Beatles suck.

Who paid who? (1)

Namishman (732689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709874)

I guess Apple paid the record company and not the other way around.
Hasn't McCartney and his companions made enough money on this old music already?

Neat...but... (1)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709924)

What about the option of buying a custom beatles IPOD that lets everyone around me know that I'm listening to the beatles? I want everyone near me to think I'm hip and cool just like in the commercials. I'm thinking maybe off the wall color ear buds or maybe a custom faceplate with a picture of the band. Whoops, sorry I forgot that I stopped listening to the beatles years ago.

Damn... (1)

Talkischeap (306364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22709944)

Damn...

I thought that, "phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust".

Crap, now I have to listen to them all over again, in stores (not legal, but "everyone" small does it), in public, everywhere, aaarrrggghhh.

And the fashion world will take heed, and design clothing, and "asscessories" for the mass to consume.

Yum! Buuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!

And I even liked The Beatles music, but there are worlds of unheard music "out there" that goes unlistened to, because people are afraid to listen to something thats not "familiar" to them.

In case no one's noticed yet... (1)

perdue (1153995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710256)

Apple is now apparently denying [macrumors.com] that there is a done deal for the Beatles' catalog.

w-w-wait a minute... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22710316)

So Apple paid the Beatles 400 mil just for the privilege of having their catalog on iTunes ? I don't get it... I know retail, and this doesn't make sense to me.

Does this mean they won't be paying per-song royalties to the artist ? Even then, Apple would need to sell quite a bit more than 400 million songs to recoup their investment. I sure as hell don't charge vendors for the "privilege" of selling my product, I sell them the actual product and they mark it up, or from the reverse perspective the vendor sells my product for a set price and I get a piece of that action.

I realize this is the music industry, where everything is crooked, but where's the logic ? Where's the business justification for this sort of thing ? iTunes was fine without the Beatles, it's not like the addition of that catalog is going to add much value to the service. Everyone who ever cared about that band already owns multiple copies of their favorites, on vinyl, tape and CD.

It's been almost 40 years since the Beatles disbanded, die already!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...