Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
from the well-that's-compelling dept
The WSJ is reporting that Apple is getting set to announce that the Beatles' music is finally available on iTunes, something that tons of online music stores have been trying to offer for years and years without any luck. Given that Steve Jobs allegedly named his company "Apple" after the Beatles' "Apple Corp." -- it's been a particular goal of Jobs to get their music into his store (even with the legal fights that have been had over the name). Either way, while I'm sure Steve Jobs will make this out to be the most amazing thing since the invention of electrical power, it's kind of worth pointing out that the Beatles' music has been widely available online for years via file sharing options. Putting this in perspective, all this is really doing is giving people a chance to pay money for music they've probably already been getting for free. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, and makes you wonder what the hell took so long.
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
Too funny
Most of them don't feel a twinge of guilt over "pirating" what they have, either, having already paid for the rights, artwork, royalties, distribution, and myriad other costs so many times.
Silly humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, Beatles!
We didn't do it because we were cheap. We did it because it was the only way to get the music.
Sorry, Beatles! You're too late. I already paid someone for your music. Too bad it couldn't be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha 12 years late
sides the beatles don't need any more money, and they aren't creating new works....so what is copyright supposed to do for them again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that is funny right there
Now this is funny right here. SJ does have a way of making things sound much bigger than they are. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now that is funny right there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
Neither of those things is very pleasurable. I'll take the Stones, Elvis, Zepplin, the Doors, and The Who over the any day of the week....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
Listening to the Beatles after Dylan introduced them to pot was like listening to a bunch of high school kids. "Oh, everything is pretty! Can't we all just get along?"
No. No we can't. Because this is the end, my only friend. The end. So come on and light my fire, peace frog....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now that is funny right there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beatles
Actually, the Beatles catalog did very well in the past decade: "1" was the best-selling album and the Beatles were the second best-selling act, after Eminem. (This is in the U.S., according to SoundScan, counting 10 songs as an album.) On a relative basis, they did better then they have since the sixties.
The lack of iTunes availability may have inconvenienced you, but there's very little evidence that it hurt the band.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beatles
And I wouldn't purchase it from iTunes, anyway. It was the lack of digital availability. I live in a relatively large city and we still didn't have any stores that carried a any Beatles CDs and, of course, this is the first really legal digital download.
So my statement stands. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beatles
I, for one, have never bought their albums on CD. For a reasonable price, I may have bought them on MP3. My inconvenience may have hurt them. You know, like most bands, I might have dipped into their albums a song or 2 at a time where I may not have bought their full albums at $15 or whatever a pop. Just like those people who played Beatles Rock Band and only wanted to buy the songs they liked playing - usually teenagers unfamiliar with the albums who might find that to be a decent road into their music.
It's not the fans - who most likely would have bought their music on CD already - who were inconvenienced. It's the casual listeners who wouldn't buy full albums at full price. The inconvenience is the band's loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn the expense!
That being said, they just remastered pretty much the entire Beatles collection last September, does anybody remember the price for the box set? It sold for $260 in stores. How ridiculous is that for a bunch of pop music that everybody has already. Its hard not to feel in the right when downloading their library illegally.
So whats the remastered library gonna be available on iTunes at the new sales price of $200?
Lets just think about what John Lennon would have said about all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
I can list a ton of 'better' bands, that were heavily influenced by The Beatles. And I've played many pieces influenced by them, that doesn't mean I have to 'like' the source material (as in actually sit down and listen for pure enjoyment compared to listening for 'work').
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
Yes, yes, you can. Fairly easily, in fact. You know, because descriptive such as the words 'like' and 'better' are all subject to, you know, those pesky things called opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
/arrogance
No, really. Thanks. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
My point is, just because the roots of music goes somewhere, doesn't mean you like that somewhere.
I like The Doors, the big bopper, Cherry poppin daddies, infact I love music period. Do I buy country music or current R&B music also known as rap crap? no. I do however like some songs from it, and I do feel they are music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
what john lennon did say about all this:
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damn the expense!
Get a job, hippy!
Good music died with Sinatra!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
no one appreciates snobbery being shoved up their snouts.
/likes the beatles
//likes pretty much all music -except rap and country
///i have a feeling that like others from that era, he would probably have a similar view as david gilmore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
As Berenerd already pointed out, all music is influenced by something else. The Beatles were influenced by other music (though, since I don't listen to the Beatles, I don't know who their influences were). I have news for you, most (popular) music after the Beatles was probably influenced in one way or another by them.
Try applying that same logic to other genres (art, literature, movies, books, etc) and see how well they work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn the expense!
That's perfectly possible, you know, due to that being a completely subjective opinion and nothing to do with fact.
"And you can't say you don't like the Beatles and then list of bunch of "better" bands that were all highly influenced by the Beatles sound."
Why, yes indeed you can. Everything before The Beatles was not influenced by them, and many ripped off by The Beatles themselves. As for afterwards, well please illustrate how, say, Public Enemy, The Prodigy and Burial were influenced by them. This should be an interesting revelation, if you're up to it.
"How ridiculous is that for a bunch of pop music that everybody has already."
Apart from the new generation who have never heard one of their albums, of course, let alone people in their 30s like me who have never bothered to listen to a full album because all the major hits are played ad infinitum everywhere...
Yeah, $260 for all the albums is silly, but don't assume that everyone already has them.
"Lets just think about what John Lennon would have said about all of this."
I'd hope he would be disgusted by the modern music industry and have fought to stop it taking certain turns along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The greedy jerks behind The Beatles is what took so long.
I know some will consider this to be a vile troll comment, but I haven't considered The Beatles to be relevant since the 70's. The only people I know that are still excited by them are 15+ years older than I am.. but they already own everything on CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snarky often?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snarky often?
Any remarks about "piracy" are probably meant to be tongue-in-cheek and possibly to make fun of Apple Fanboys that like to portray anything not bought from Apple as pirated.
Media that I am free to use any way I like is ultimately of more value. It actually becomes MORE valuable in dollar terms rather than less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Goody
Such a privilege I must say.
I think I'll hold out for the complete Beatles Catalog in Flac.
Something I hope to have before I'm dust in the ground 25 years from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete BS
As far as the format changes were concerned the record companies could always say they had to charge for materials. If I buy the mp3, what material am I paying for???? DRM software?
As far as Im concerned, Im not "stealing" or "pirating" this music at all. I'm getting something Ive paid for a few times for free from P2P networks. The gravy train of format change is over. The record companies should be HAPPY it lasted as long as it did. Now they have to actually work and think of new ways to screw their employees and customers, because Im done being robbed by format changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't use it anymore
It's getting dark too dark to see
Feels like I'm knockin' on heaven's door"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must consume now!
I once had a music provider, or should I say it once had me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still would download the Beatles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
The members themselves no longer profit, and I dont see fit to give the money to others, who played no part (other than purchasing rights at the right time) in creation of the art.
Nuff said, I dont pirate because Im cheap, I pirate because I know the artists make much more profit (not money, profit) off of merchandise such as T-Shirts (which I cannot pirate).
Thats why I am wearing a Linkin Park T-Shirt, but I pirated the album. I refuse to give money to the greedy middlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait... So.... What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]