Itunes and Apple bickering over Beatles catalog
nefari
Posts: 1,227
I hope I'm putting this in the correct place but moments ago I was watching CNN and they were reporting how very long Itunes has wanted access to the Beatles Catalog and now there is talks of a merger between Apple and Itunes or something of the sort to get all of these Beatles songs available for download. I just found it a bit odd because right as they were announcing this across the bottom of the screen was Michael's name in regards to the new single with Akon.
Comments
<!-- m -->http://www.nme.com/news/the-beatles/53853<!-- m -->
Apple to announce Beatles iTunes download deal?
Company promises a day 'you'll never forget' in teaser advert
November 16, 2010 | 0 Comments
Apple are rumoured to be announcing today (November 16) that The Beatles' music is going to be available on iTunes.
An announcement from the company is expected at 3pm (GMT) today, with a teaser statement at Apple.com making reference to the band.
"Tomorrow is just another day. That you'll never forget," the statement reads. The homepage shows four clocks with the hands pointing to different times, recalling The Beatles' cover for their 1965 album 'Help!'.
If the insider rumours, reported by the Wall Street Journal, are true, it will end a three decade-long dispute between Apple Inc and Apple Corps, which owns the rights to The Beatles music. The two companies have had disputes over the brand name and logo use.
The rumours for the latest announcement come despite Yoko Ono claiming in August that Beatles fans shouldn't expect to see the band's music on the service any time soon.
In May, Paul McCartney suggested that The Beatles' record label EMI is to blame for the delay in their music being made available on iTunes.
"It's been business hassles, not with us or iTunes," McCartney stated. "It's the people in the middle, the record label. There have been all sorts of reasons why they don't want to do it."
Check NME.COM from 3pm for news from the announcement.
I guess I don't understand. Record Label - I guess this means Sony ATV or no? Why wouldn't the label want to do that? And I wonder what has now changed to allow that to happen...does someone understand enough to explain? Blessings.
The record label is EMI - see the second sentence I underlined in the article.
My guess is that EMI would have to speak with Sony and MJ/the estate (the owners of the Sony/ATV catalog), but I wouldn't know how things work - and why EMI was/is opposed to having Beatles songs on iTunes. There's so much we don't and can't know... behind-the-scenes stuff that's not ever going to appear in print.
Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt
November 16, 2010 12:41 PM
Getting Apple, Apple Corps., EMI, Sony/ATV and Yoko One to agree took some doing
Image: Apple Inc.
"While details remain to be worked out, Fortune has learned that iTunes is close to a deal to bring the Beatles catalog online."
So wrote Tim Arango, now at New York Times, in Fortune's Nov. 27, 2006 issue.
"As Fortune went to press," he wrote, "numerous deal points were still being hammered out. According to a music industry executive apprised of the talks, the parties were discussing how lengthy a window of exclusivity iTunes might get and how many tens of millions of dollars Jobs -- who is said to be personally involved in the discussions -- will commit to an advance for the band and marketing costs.
As we learned on Tuesday, it took another four years for the deal to be sealed and the Beatles' catalog to appear -- exclusively, as Arango suggested -- on the iTunes music store.
We don't know what finally broke the logjam, but thanks to some of the parties' inability to keep mum, we have a pretty good record of the sticking points.
A timeline:
Nov. 2007: "It's all happening soon," Paul McCartney told Billboard.com. "Most of us are all sort of ready. The whole thing is primed, ready to go -- there's just maybe one little sticking point left, and I think it's being cleared up as we speak, so it shouldn't be too long. It's down to fine-tuning. I'm pretty sure it'll be happening next year, 2008." ("Let me put that statement into American English," wrote Fake Steve Jobs at the time. "Paul wants more money.")
Nov. 2008: "The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process," Paul McCartney told reporters at a press conference for his latest album. "What happens is, when something's as big as The Beatles, it's heavy negotiations. We are very for it, we've been pushing it. But there are a couple of sticking points, I understand. They [EMI] want something we're not prepared to give them."
Aug. 2009: To coincide with MTV Records' release of The Beatles: Rock Band, Wired ran a long piece describing the complexities involved in cutting the deal. "The recording rights belong to the band's longtime label, EMI. Most of the publishing rights, on the other hand, are held by Sony/ATV (a joint venture with the late Michael Jackson). Complicating matters even further, additional publishing rights for certain tunes are held by Harrissongs, an independent entity set up by George Harrison, as well as by Starr's publishing company, Startling Music."
Aug. 2010: "We are holding out," Yoko Ono, who as John Lennon's widow has veto power over any deal, told Reuters. "Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy. There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. Don't hold your breath ... for anything!" she added with a laugh.
Nov. 2010: "We love the Beatles and are honored and thrilled to welcome them to iTunes," said Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs in Tuesday's press release. "It has been a long and winding road to get here. Thanks to the Beatles and EMI, we are now realizing a dream we've had since we launched iTunes ten years ago."
<!-- m -->http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/16/ ... unes-deal/<!-- m -->
Mj and sony own the publishing rights which is that if people want to use the beatles songs in adverts, games or sell online.. they need to have a contract with both signatures of who are the publishers which is MJ & Sony ATV, that contract would have had to be signed recently as you only have a certain time to get it back to the companies.. This also means that the catalogue is very much still MJ's but "Someone" signed the agreement with itunes to allow the music to be distributed online.. they still need both publishers permission if people want to use there songs in other projects.. MJ would have gotten a lump sum and everytime the tracks are sold online or played on the radio MJ also gets a cut of the sale price for every track played or sold so he is raking it n bigtime..
the estate could have signed the agreement if Mj is n fact gone but i doubt he would have given that authority as he never sold the full rights when he was n finanical difficulty.. Also remember that MJ owns the rights to pretty much every artist that is signed to sony and is getting well paid every couple of months from what he owns... MJ is losing out on nothing here, he is gaining alot... <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
-only Michael himself could give the permission for the use of the catalog
-the estate could have signed the agreement to let it be used but for the estate to can sign the agreement they should have Michael's previous agreement for it? or they could just sign it no matter if he gave permission or not?
Sony/atv couldnt do it on there own as they only legally own half and you need both parties for it 2 go ahead..
The only way the estate of mj could have signed the agreement is if mj had stated it in his will that the estate now has the rights to the cat which it dont so mj is behind this someway!!!
Well, we haven't seen MJ's REAL will... He could have given the estate permission to sign on stuff pertaining to the Sony/ATV catalog. And are you sure that the right to sign wouldn't have passed automatically upon MJ's death? What if MJ died intestate (without a will)?!
If you're referring to the 2002 will, there's been much debate as to whether it was really signed by MJ... One of his own brothers (Randy, I believe) cast doubt on the will's validity.
You're saying that Katherine could sign off on the agreement if MJ were gone... Maybe she did?! What I'm trying to say is, your statement re: signature is not conclusive proof that MJ is still alive. We don't know whether Katherine might have signed that agreement.