Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macfantn · Mar 9, 2008, 10:58 PM

Breaking: Paul McCartney Signs $400 Million iTunes Deal For The Beatles Catalog

Are the Beatles that important? Sure they are great, but doesn't everyone already own their stuff? Not like they are releasing new material.

LegendaryPinkOx · Mar 9, 2008, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by macfantn

Are the Beatles that important?

Yes.

Originally Posted by macfantn

Sure they are great, but doesn't everyone already own their stuff? Not like they are releasing new material.

....good point actually.

macfantn · Mar 9, 2008, 11:12 PM

what next? Beatles music in video games? It makes me sick to hear Nirvana in video games. Courtney Love is a freakin' sell out. I'm sure Kurt would not want his music in video games.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 9, 2008, 11:12 PM

I'm sure some kind of images other then album art are going to be included with the downloads. lyric booklets or something.

turtle777 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:14 PM

Ok, it might be too late today, and I'm just plain stupid.

What does that mean ?

Did Apple buy the right to publish Beatles songs on iTunes ?
Or did they actually BUY the whole song catalog ?

I guess the former, but for THAT price ?

-t

macfantn · Mar 9, 2008, 11:20 PM

doesn't michael jackson own the rights to the songs? or did he trade them for child porn?

brassplayersrock² · Mar 9, 2008, 11:23 PM

he owns part of the shares. the info is in the linked story

macfantn · Mar 9, 2008, 11:28 PM

I read that, I just wanted to rip on Michael Jackson. He makes me sick. Is he even human anymore?

brassplayersrock² · Mar 9, 2008, 11:29 PM

"is it dead? kill it! kill it!"

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2008, 11:31 PM

From the story posted above:

McCartney may actually have to pay out a little more on his divorce settlement because of the deal. How that works is anyone's guess, but you gotta feel sorry for him; having to share all those millions is just plain malicious.

From a comment left by someone:

I don't know that his ex-wife can actually demand a greater settlement as a result. Frankly, she hasn't got a leg to stand on... Oh, right....

Laminar · Mar 9, 2008, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by macfantn

I read that, I just wanted to rip on Michael Jackson. He makes me sick. Is he even human anymore?

Congratulations, you've caught up with late night talk show hosts from 8 years ago.

Buckaroo · Mar 9, 2008, 11:38 PM

It appears as though the new super glue is working better than before. You can't see the seam lines between his real nose and the prosthetic.

Originally Posted by macfantn

I read that, I just wanted to rip on Michael Jackson. He makes me sick. Is he even human anymore?

ort888 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:55 PM

At least now we won't have to hear about it anymore.

I still don't get what the big deal is. So what if it isn't on iTunes. It's not like it's hard to find.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 10, 2008, 12:01 AM

I think the big deal is that apple records and apple computers have finally decided to do what's right and shake hands. they got into a huge legal rift over the similarities of names. which is why the beatles haven't been on itunes.

Buckaroo · Mar 10, 2008, 12:04 AM

I got all my Beatle songs from the CD's I bought almost 20 years ago.

Back when all we had was OS9, there was a program that would make it easy to rip songs from CD's. Apple bought the program from the developers and some of the code may have ended up in iTunes.

I can't remember that program. I know it was great and it worked on almost every CD I had.

The Godfather · Mar 10, 2008, 12:29 AM

Apple's 18 billion just turned into 17.6 billion for naught. How will they sell $400 million worth of Beatles' music?

faragbre967 · Mar 10, 2008, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I got all my Beatle songs from the CD's I bought almost 20 years ago.

Back when all we had was OS9, there was a program that would make it easy to rip songs from CD's. Apple bought the program from the developers and some of the code may have ended up in iTunes.

I can't remember that program. I know it was great and it worked on almost every CD I had.

Are you thinking of SoundJam?

Jawbone54 · Mar 10, 2008, 01:05 AM

The Beatles not being on iTunes forced me to do the smart thing and just buy and import the CDs at a higher quality than iTunes provides.

Jawbone54 · Mar 10, 2008, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Apple's 18 billion just turned into 17.6 billion for naught. How will they sell $400 million worth of Beatles' music?

It's called ultimate Steve-love. No one adores The Beatles quite like Jobs.

Kerrigan · Mar 10, 2008, 01:59 AM

It definitely confers a certain kind of legitimacy to the iTunes store.

Tiresias · Mar 10, 2008, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Apple's 18 billion just turned into 17.6 billion for naught. How will they sell $400 million worth of Beatles' music?

Because having them on iTunes will raise the prestige and comprehensiveness of their catalog which will, in the long run, improve sales?

Peter · Mar 10, 2008, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by macfantn

I read that, I just wanted to rip on Michael Jackson. He makes me sick. Is he even human anymore?

WHy? He has done anything wrong

ctt1wbw · Mar 10, 2008, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by macfantn

doesn't michael jackson own the rights to the songs? or did he trade them for child porn?

You mean that other glove?

goMac · Mar 10, 2008, 05:03 AM

Isn't 400 million just a little too much? I mean, that's like, as much money as you'd normally pay for full rights to most music.

nredman · Mar 10, 2008, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by macfantn

I read that, I just wanted to rip on Michael Jackson. He makes me sick. Is he even human anymore?

shamone

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Isn't 400 million just a little too much? I mean, that's like, as much money as you'd normally pay for full rights to most music.

I find the article(s) unclear.

Is this a one-off $400-million payment which now buys the right to sell the songs on the store for the same conditions as all other material?

Why does Paul McCartney appear from the articles to be the prime beneficiary, when credits for the bulk of the songs go to both him and the Lennon estate, and performance rights to the recordings aren't his to deal anyway (having sold them decades ago)?

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by macfantn

Are the Beatles that important?

Yes.

Originally Posted by macfantn

Sure they are great, but doesn't everyone already own their stuff?

No. And anybody who follows now and doesn't inherit the records on vinyl from their parents won't own their stuff, either (CDs don't count, as they only last nigh a decade).

Originally Posted by macfantn

Not like they are releasing new material.

Stolen Beatles' tapes hold 'unique last recordings' | the Daily Mail - probably worth a *lot* more than 400 million dollars over the next few decades.

turtle777 · Mar 10, 2008, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

I find the article(s) unclear.

Is this a one-off $400-million payment which now buys the right to sell the songs on the store for the same conditions as all other material?

Why does Paul McCartney appear from the articles to be the prime beneficiary, when credits for the bulk of the songs go to both him and the Lennon estate, and performance rights to the recordings aren't his to deal anyway (having sold them decades ago)?

Yes, my thinking exactly.

What KIND of rights were sold here ?

It doesn't sound like a license to sell Beatles music online, but rather, a once and for all SELL of those rights. Which means, Apple could in turn later SELL it to someone else ?!?!

-t

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yes, my thinking exactly.

What KIND of rights were sold here ?

It doesn't sound like a license to sell Beatles music online, but rather, a once and for all SELL of those rights. Which means, Apple could in turn later SELL it to someone else ?!?!

That would, of course, explain why it took so many years, and why mcCartney, Michael Jackson, Harrison's Estate, Ono, Starr, and Sony will be getting cuts.

OTOH, AFAIK, McCartney had no performance rights to those recordings at all, since he sold them! (And copyrights aren't saleable.)

TETENAL · Mar 10, 2008, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

CDs don't count, as they only last nigh a decade.

CDs last a century. For most people that counts.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

CDs last a century. For most people that counts.

Correction: Some manufacturers of optical media claim that the metal layer in their media will last up to a century. This is somewhat less unlikely today than it used to be, since manufacturers have switched from alumimium to chromium-alumimium alloys. The alu-based media have pretty much all died - or are dying.

And then there was the matter of dyes used in printing eating their way through the plastics and destroying the medium.

Nobody knows how the plastics will hold up, and whether the layers will stay fused.

With vinyl, we have 70 years of experience, and it's showing no signs of disintegrating..

ghporter · Mar 10, 2008, 10:02 AM

Just to help get rid of those afterimages of Michael...

Anyway, I do NOT own everything the Beatles ever did. I have had most of their library over the years, but my vinyl collection has suffered from multiple moves and storage. I have much of their stuff on CD, but not anywhere near all of what I want, let alone all of it. So being able to buy three different versions of "Revolution 9" from iTunes is a Very Good Thing® as far as I'm concerned.

Hawkeye_a · Mar 10, 2008, 10:50 AM

I love the Beatles' music, and have most of their albums anyway, so i dont see myself buying em off iTunes. I'm not sure if their music resonates with the youth today, at least not nearly enough to make a $400mil investment in.

Having said that, i think it makes for a more complete iTMS, and im sure that Steve made it a personal ambition from t he day iTMS launched to get their music on there.

Now... what about the Stones ?

Cheers

Big Mac · Mar 10, 2008, 11:04 AM

And Heather Mills is plotting this very minute to get $200 Million of it I'm sure.

BRussell · Mar 10, 2008, 11:18 AM

I don't buy it. How many rumored "beatles on iTunes" stories have there been? And the 400 (I've also read 600) million just makes no sense. Since when does Apple pay a lump sum, especially in that amount, to be able to sell tracks for a couple nickels' of profit per track?

::maroma:: · Mar 10, 2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't buy it. How many rumored "beatles on iTunes" stories have there been? And the 400 (I've also read 600) million just makes no sense. Since when does Apple pay a lump sum, especially in that amount, to be able to sell tracks for a couple nickels' of profit per track?

Possibly to be the only music download service that offers The Beatles. If its exclusive to iTunes, then that is a very big deal. Sure most of their fans have all of their stuff, but this isn't any normal band. This is a band that is constantly getting new fans. If this is indeed true (personally I have no reason to doubt it), then I think Apple is doing the right thing by investing in this.

I will most likely be buying the set when its becomes available. I have always been a "sudo" fan, or whatever you want to call someone who loves their music but never went out and got all of their albums. I have a couple, but I want them all. if I can get them all as a nice download package, I'd do it.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I love the Beatles' music, and have most of their albums anyway, so i dont see myself buying em off iTunes. I'm not sure if their music resonates with the youth today, at least not nearly enough to make a $400mil investment in.

The youth of today are the grown-ups of tomorrow.

The Beatles have stood up quite well to the past 45 years, and I'm sure they have more than that in them yet.

Kerrigan · Mar 10, 2008, 02:48 PM

As the boomer generation dies out / goes senile, the Beatles' prominence will diminish greatly. In fact, this process is already well underway.

starman · Mar 10, 2008, 02:58 PM

I still own a copy of The White Album on vinyl, complete with numbered cover, poster, and 8x10's of the band. Lovely stuff.

LegendaryPinkOx · Mar 10, 2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

As the boomer generation dies out / goes senile, the Beatles' prominence will diminish greatly. In fact, this process is already well underway.

As a 22 year old in college, I can attest that the Beatles are still going strong. Their music is diverse enough that it can be appreciated by nearly everyone. Not only appreciated, but people still relate to it even! Songs like "Yesterday" "Let it Be" "All You Need Is Love" are still anthems for people the world over.

They were arguably THE first global musical phenomenon, and will forever resonate throughout history!

Buckaroo · Mar 10, 2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't buy it. How many rumored "beatles on iTunes" stories have there been? And the 400 (I've also read 600) million just makes no sense. Since when does Apple pay a lump sum, especially in that amount, to be able to sell tracks for a couple nickels' of profit per track?

Hmmmm. I wonder if buying the Apple name is also part of the deal.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

As the boomer generation dies out / goes senile, the Beatles' prominence will diminish greatly. In fact, this process is already well underway.

I think it's safe to say that the Beatles have already become part of the cultural consciousness - like Beethoven, Dvorak, Gershwin, Elvis maybe- they're just never going to go away.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Hmmmm. I wonder if buying the Apple name is also part of the deal.

Now THAT is intriguing.

Did Apple, Inc. just become Apple Corp?

There's been talk of Apple founding their own music label - how much better would it suit them to be actually CALLED "Apple Records"? Featuring the Beatles catalogue as their flagship?

*That* would be nothing short of sensational, IMO.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 10, 2008, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

There's been talk of Apple founding their own music label - how much better would it suit them to be actually CALLED "Apple Records"? Featuring the Beatles catalogue as their flagship?

*That* would be nothing short of sensational, IMO.

That would be cool.

Just an aside, do record companies founded today still call themselves "___ Records?" Just seems odd since actual 'records' haven't been dominant in 30 years. Maybe Apple Recordings? Or perhaps it really doesn't matter. "Apple Records" as a label actually run by Apple would be awesome.

mdc · Mar 10, 2008, 08:57 PM

Maybe they'll bring out one of those U2-type collections & iPods for The Beatles.

imitchellg5 · Mar 10, 2008, 09:59 PM

Maybe we won't have to hear OMG1 teh Beetlzes is comin to I-TUNES now everytime an Apple music event is announced with some tinry reference to the Beatles.

Big Mac · Mar 10, 2008, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Did Apple, Inc. just become Apple Corp?

If anything it would be the other way around. Besides, Apple already settled with Apple Records.

lavar78 · Mar 10, 2008, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

So being able to buy three different versions of "Revolution 9" from iTunes is a Very Good Thing® as far as I'm concerned.

One version of "Revolution 9" is one too many.

"Revolution" and "Revolution 1" are great, but... no, John, no.

Love Calm Quiet · Mar 11, 2008, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx

As a 22 year old in college, I can attest that the Beatles are still going strong. Their music is diverse enough that it can be appreciated by nearly everyone. Not only appreciated, but people still relate to it even! Songs like "Yesterday" "Let it Be" "All You Need Is Love" are still anthems for people the world over.

Which is why music lovers of all ages (including today's teens) seem to *love* the "Across the Universe" film.

LegendaryPinkOx · Mar 11, 2008, 02:40 AM

John became pretty retarded in the later years. Wanting people to stay in bed and grow their hair as a means to stop the vietnam war, among other things... Unfortunately not everyone are billionaires who can afford to lay around and smoke hash all day. He was a great entertainer but I think he let this whole "bigger than jesus" thing get to his head. His heart was in the right place though, I think.