Hmmm
EMI Stationary Dept need to order a new box of JFDI forms...
Sir Paul McBeatle: 'Me, I'd love Beatles to be on iTunes'
You can blame him for "Band on the Run" or "Ebony and Ivory," but according to Sir Paul McCartney, it's not his fault that the Fab Four's oeuvre isn't available on iTunes. "It's been business hassles," the world's most famous left-handed bass guitarist told the BBC's Newsbeat. "Not with us, or iTunes. It's the people in the …
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 06:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Who owns the rights?
I thought McCartney owned the rights, then sold them to Michael Jackson, who then sold half of them to Sony when he was in debt and then handed over the other half to them once he was in even more debt? So surely Sony have something to do with this, not EMI?
Does anyone know who actually own the rights to The Beatles anymore? Surely, the whole point of setting up Apple was to keep the rights themselves and just let EMI be a distributor?
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
No
The publishing rights were sold (who gets paid when sheet music is sold, when people cover the song, the rights to the tune and words)
EMI own the mechanical rights, the rights to the recorded sound captured in the 60s in Abbey Road, the actual albums themselves.
So no, Sony are not involved.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 09:19 GMT Peter Gathercole
It's complex
..because the rights include the sheet music, the right to perform and the recordings.
I *think* that it was the sheet music and the right to perform the songs published on Northern Songs that was sold (and if I remember my history, it was NOT any of the Beatles who made the decision to sell, it was Allen Klein and the board of Apple Corp. who were in control. The members of the Beatles had a 50% share in Apple Corp, but crucially the casting vote in any split decision went to the Chair of the Board.)
I believe that Sir Paul has since bought at least some of these rights back, even though they always had retained the right to perform the songs themselves.
The ownership of the recordings always remained with EMI, and was one of the cornerstones of their profitability. It is interesting to note the rash of new mastered copies and compilations that appear to be hitting the shelves in the run up to the copyright on the recordings expiring. Is this one of the things that is bringing EMI down?
And Rik. Why the obfuscation about their names. What's wrong with Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey?
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 12:45 GMT Peter H. Coffin
Or (yet another alternative)
People have simply bought up CDs second-hand and ripped them into the formats of their choosing.
While that may be a challenging proposition for someone devoted to an obscure jazz artist who's popularity peaked in the years either side of 1958, and who had a grand total of 10,000 albums sold world-wide, forever, it's not particularly difficult to pick up the entire Beatles collection over time out of jumble sales and from fellows standing near open car boots, for astoundingly little money. Quite probably less money *per CD* than iTMS charges per track.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 10:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Overrated?
Yes, actually. And a bit of a dweeby muso's band to boot. I once read a piece by Douglas Adams which took him down a step in my estimation, his argument in favour of the Beatles over the Stones was that the Beatles music was more complex and essentially clever. So what? Music is entertainment for all but the pretentious few. Music is perhaps the one form of art that can entirely bypass the itellect and wire itself straight to your emotions.
Macca is indeed a cracking bass player. Ringo is actually a pretty clever drummer. Most of the songs haven't stood the test of time, although I can understand that some of them were pretty ground breaking at the time. When it comes down to it they were just a pop band, which is fair because nobody had really thought of what came to be known as raawk when they started out. And that's most of where music has moved on since the sixties. Maybe, just maybe, if the Beatles were formed today they would be producing something much better than what they produced back then - mainly because their talent would have so many more influences to call on. However the post Beatles output of all four of them does nothing to support this theory.
Music have moved on and it's amazing how many tracks you once thought of as the complete musical experience sound lightweight and trivial when you revisit them twenty years on.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 14:33 GMT Peter Gathercole
Hindsite is a wonderful thing
but having lived through (albeit at a young age), what the Beatles did in the 60's was ground-breaking. It may not appear unique or novel now, but it was then. It is a matter of perspective. I wonder how old the people making the Overrated comments are.
I do not like the Beatles/Stones/Beachboys who's-the-best arguments, because all of them have merit, and there are many more contemporary bands that produced worthy music, but the Beatles were THE wedge in the door that made the record companies look for other talent. This is in the same way that Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly were in their time.
Sometimes the music was pretentious, sometimes twee, sometimes just plain weird (I still can't get my head around Revolution #9 on the White Album), but it was often first of it's type to market. They had the power and influence to put on vinyl what other artists could not, getting the audiences to listen to new types of music. But it was popular then, and even now.
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:37 GMT ZenCoder
The contracts never anticipated digital downloads.
The contracts tend to get complicated and the various rights were probably sold and resold multiple times. And obviously all of those contracts fail to specifically address digital distribution rights.
They pretty much though talking about physical recordings would cover any future technology.
Its possible that legally its a mess.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:37 GMT irish donkey
the beatles were $hite
Now I have your attention.....
This excitement about whether or not they get onto iTunes is $hite.
Got to eBay, (there is loads for sale refer to title and you shouldn't buy new CD's as it supports the evil distributors) buy a CD of the Beatles pop it into you CD/DVD Drive launch iTunes and 'Rip'
The Beatles in iTunes and the record companies had nothing to do with it. All this excitement over getting them properly onto iTunes is just another way to get suckers to pay for the same thing yet again.... Tape - Album - CD - MP3 - M4P...
ohhh but t soo clear... its soo lossless....
You only have one set of ears and they will process an M4P in the very same way as a MP3.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:37 GMT indicator
EMI owns the mechanical rights
EMI owns the mechanical rights, ie the rights to the actual recordings.
The publishing rights, ie the songwriting writes, are the ones that were passed around from jackson to sony et al
Therefore its up to EMI wether or not its wants the recordings it owns available on iTunes or not. Though they probably don't want the recordings on iTunes as it would eat into their next tedious boxset release.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
The recordings themselves are still owned by EMI
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_the_Beatles%27_music&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Who_owns_the_rights_to_most_of_the_beatles_music
"Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog, but has sold much of it to Sony Music. (There have been rumors that Jackson left his remaining stake to McCartney.) The individual Beatles still retained songwriters rights and we paid for it each time a song in the catalog was licensed.
The recordings themselves are still owned by EMI (distributors of the Beatles' recorded music), and Apple Corps Ltd, the Beatles' own company.
Actually, MJ owns only 50% of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which in turn owns most of the Beatles publishing rights. McCartney, as well as Lennon's estate still retain the songwriting rights and receive about 50% of the ongoing publishing revenues for composing the music."
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 08:38 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: Who owns the rights?
I thought Sony were EMI, or is it the other way round. Anyway, there's all sorts of rights associated with music (performing, publishing, distribution? I don't know, ask a lawyer.), so it doesn't surprise me that some minor player has some minor right that lets them block this.
-
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 11:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
So.
That's what the aricle says:
Yoko's Husband = Paul
One of the top 10,000 pluckers in Liverpool = George
Pete Best's replacement = Ringo.
Read it again slowly, tracing the words with your finger and forming them with your mouth if you like, and then you'll get it. In the mean time, don't mouth off until you've read the article carefully. Saves embarassment.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 12:21 GMT Captain TickTock
Get it right the both of you
Sir Paul = Paul
Yoko's Husband = John
One of the top 10,000 pluckers in Liverpool = George
Pete Best's replacement = Ringo.
Read it again slowly, tracing the words with your finger and forming them with your mouth if you like, and then you'll get it. In the mean time, don't correct someone else mouthing off until you've read the article carefully. Saves embarassment.
Doesn't it just...
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 11:20 GMT shadowphiar
Misleading sub-title, anyone?
I know you lot have it in for Apple Inc, but could that subtitle have been any more misleading?
> EMI: 'Us too'. Jobsians keep schtum
heavily implies that both McCartney and EMI are waiting to resolve some blocking issue by Apple Computer. But the actual article suggests something entirely different. And as for 'Jobsians keep schtum' there's nothing here to suggest you even asked them for a comment.
-
Tuesday 18th May 2010 11:24 GMT Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
Oh great.....
The copyright mafia want us to pay for the Beatles all over again.......
Lets face it, there was only one good sogn writer in the beatles, may he rest in peace.
I remember a comedian taking the piss out of McBeatle, Lennon was just after been shot and McBeatle decided to sing “give peace a chance” at a gig, the audience continued singing for about 5 minutes after Sir Beatle of Kodiak finished. As the comedian remarked,
“can you imagine if it wasn’t John Lennon that been shot?
Do you think John Lennon would have any problem stopping the audience from singing
“Bom bom bom - aye-i-yah”
Or
“Thomas the tank engine was felling rather poorly”
I suspose that if they start selling Wings.... eh..... sounds on the iStore that they will have to refer to them as iTunez
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
