Beatles May Get Their Own Music Download Store
from the can-they-get-their-own-format-too? dept
People have pointed out in the past that one of the major limitations to online download music stores is the fact that certain popular artists have not allowed their music to be (legally) offered online yet. Exhibit number one is always the Beatles. Well, now it appears that the Beatles are finally warming up to the idea, but only if someone is willing to pay them lots and lots and lots of money for the right to set up an exclusive Beatles store. That's right, the music wouldn't be available in just any download store, but a Beatles-only music store that would be run by some other company. While the article mentions Apple iTunes as a possibility, this seems unlikely unless the Beatles and Apple patch up their legal problems first. Either way, this points out just how ridiculous all these different online stores are. Would the Beatles have ever become famous if you could only buy their music in exclusive Beatles-only record stores, which would then only play on special Beatles-only record players, that had all sorts of limitations on what you could do compared to other music you owned? The Beatles may have been great musicians, but they now appear to be greedy and shortsighted in their attempt to move into the online world.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Who owns the Beatles?
Didn't Michael Jackson try to buy it all up at one time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Beatles?
Even though it's awkward for us, it seems to make good business sense for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Beatles?
If they make it *easy* and *convenient* to get their music, they're more likely to sell more than if they make it difficult. By demanding a huge upfront fee, they're basically saying they have no faith that their music will sell and can stand on its own, so they need a big upfront fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Beatles?
Just about anybody that's going to own a Beatles recording already does. The availability of thier catalog on iTunes or anywhere else is of little issue to their "fans" as fans already own copies of Beatles records, and are apparently just fine with CD's and LP's.
By asking for a big, upfront fee, the Beatles are saying that their catalog is going to translate to boffo $$$'s for whomever they license to, and whoever it is better pony up big time. As they should.
And it's already "easy and convenient" to get their music; you do remember record stores, yes?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Beatles?
For that matter I purchased my first Beatles album a few years back when they released their collection of #1 hits. I was never a big fan of theirs but the collection had quite a few songs I liked. If it had cost substantially more than other CDs available at the time I wouldn't have purchased it.
Also for that matter my wife who is younger than me is a huge Frank Sinatra fan. He did all his best work before she was even born. And I have a coworker who is a huge Elvis fan and was only about five when he died. So don't assume that an artist won't or can't ever attract new fans. The great ones always do. Otherwise no one would listen to classical music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsidizing Mchela Jackson's child moletations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subsidizing Mchela Jackson's child moletations
Honestly, what percentage of their fans will ever even find out they have any sort of "internet" store, let alone have any kind of opinion about its existance, let alone a negative one.
What do you think, roughly, is the percentage of Beatles fans that would be pissed off? I'm going to go with very low single digits
The point is that the beatles sold and still sell so much music that they don't need to bother with doing things the "right" way. They can make a whole lot more money doing this from the up-front fee, which will more than offset the tiny little chunk of money they stand to lose by aggravating you and I and maybe my upstairs neighbor Kevin, who will either refuse to shop at a Beatles-only store out of principle or find it so inconvenient that they will take their online music-buying business somewhere else and get the new Beastie Boys song (they've got a new one, right?).
Surely, it doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things and makes more problems for everyone else. But for the Beatles, it makes excellent financial sense, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]