• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple Battled with Google and Amazon over Beatles Library



    On Tuesday, Apple announced that it had finally secured the rights to the Beatles' music catalog for inclusion in the iTunes Store. And while it took much longer than most Beatles fans would have preferred, the Beatles have now found their rightful place within music's grandest digital storefront. But fewer than 24 hours after Apple's big announcement, more details are becoming known about the struggle that took place to seal the deal.

    According to a report Wednesday in The New York Post, Apple was engaged in a fierce battle with Google and Amazon to reach an agreement with the band's label, EMI. Ultimately, the deal secured by Apple is one of exclusivity that will last throughout 2011. By Wednesday morning, the Beatles' album "Abbey Road" cracked the top ten spot on the iTunes album charts.

    If you're thinking, however, that EMI's decision to openly embrace (for the first time) the world of digital music downloads was made strictly for the benefit of music and Beatles fans, think again. As the Post reported, EMI is in deep debt and the financial distress weighing down the company was likely the biggest factor considered when digital rights were given to Apple. It isn't yet clear just how much money EMI will pocket from the deal, but the Beatles' music will likely generate substantial sums of money for the embattled label and the surviving members of the band and their families.

    New York Post
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Battled with Google and Amazon over Beatles Library started by Michael Essany View original post
    Comments 30 Comments
    1. madczech's Avatar
      madczech -
      Just to let you guys know: apple paid 500'000 pound for the rights! Craaazy
    1. steve-z17's Avatar
      steve-z17 -
      Quote Originally Posted by billmilo View Post
      wow, the beatles were a homoerotic boy band. in all their pics, they are very very close to each other.
      Why do you have hate on them just because you don't like them? Do you just have nothing better to do then to make immature comments?...it's so lame to just make stupid comments just because..

      Anyway, I'm glad they finally got The Beatles up, their music is amazing. They've inspired a ton of artists that are big in today's music biz!
    1. Acill's Avatar
      Acill -
      Quote Originally Posted by yentrog31 View Post
      When did this happen?..Oh yea yesterday,the day I could never forget that I did forget already...Good job Jobs.
      Apple wasnt being smug on this announcement, it was a reference to the Beatles song. Tom Merit from Tech News Today even has a guess at it being this the day before on his show.
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      There have always been rumors about John and the first manager, Brian Epstein, having had a short affair early on. But the band being *** (why would it matter to you or anyone else?), no. Psychologists suggest that highly homophobic people (***-haters) are themselves worried about their own gender orientation and make comments and/or act out against gays to cover up those feeling of self-doubt. By your reckoning, every male team sports hero you hold dear to your heart is "***" because he showers with guys, pats them on the butt, touches them (oh, wait, that would be every American football player, every basketball player, every soccer player, every rugby player) during play, etc. If you are still in high school, YOU may be showering with guys and touching them during PE.
      So how about a stop to anti-*** attitude here, ok?

      Michael Jackson went to court several times for inappropriate behavior towards young male children, settled one suit against him for $1 million, and admitted in court that he slept in the same bed with 12-14 year-old-boys for "companionship." Let's be clear about who is what.

      Oh, and Mr. Jackson's estate only owns the second half of the Beatle's catalog, the part Allan Klein sold off. They don't own the first half. So they will only get a percentage of one-half of this windfall profits that EMI/Apple/Apple/Capitol/The Beatles and their estates will reap. Might as well get our facts straight.
    1. athleticswimmer's Avatar
      athleticswimmer -
      I personally dont care if they had to "battle" over the Beatles, but surely millions of people do so I say yea good job Apple...but when you release 4.2 for the ipad, thats a day ill never forget!..not this one.
    1. Zokunei's Avatar
      Zokunei -
      Quote Originally Posted by athleticswimmer View Post
      I personally dont care if they had to "battle" over the Beatles, but surely millions of people do so I say yea good job Apple...but when you release 4.2 for the ipad, thats a day ill never forget!..not this one.
      Well, considering their last WiFi screw up, and the incredible laginess of 4.1 (yes, sometimes the keyboard even lags on 4th gen devices), they should beta test for a few days since they just released another version. Or else you'll be complaining way more about 4.2 than the "g@y" Beatles.
    1. raduga's Avatar
      raduga -
      Quote Originally Posted by steve-z17 View Post
      Why do you have hate on them just because you don't like them? Do you just have nothing better to do then to make immature comments?...it's so lame to just make stupid comments just because..
      If a cool and studied Hate spells better, then you in your wrothful haste should reconsider?

      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      There have always been rumors about John and the first manager, Brian Epstein, having had a short affair early on. But the band being *** (why would it matter to you or anyone else?), no. Psychologists suggest that highly homophobic people (***-haters) are themselves worried about their own gender orientation and make comments and/or act out against gays to cover up those feeling of self-doubt.
      But is the converse necessarily true?

      Are all of us who worry for our gender, who make comments and/or act out, who try to cover up feelings of self-doubt, highly homophobic?

      By your reckoning, every male team sports hero you hold dear to your heart is "***" because he showers with guys, pats them on the butt, touches them (oh, wait, that would be every American football player, every basketball player, every soccer player, every rugby player) during play, etc.
      For what it's worth, I hold my iPod dearer to my heart than any team sports hero of either gender.

      You?

      If you are still in high school, YOU may be showering with guys and touching them during PE.
      So how about a stop to anti-*** attitude here, ok?
      For those of us NOT still in high school, showering with guys and touching them during PE would be highly inappropriate. Sharing a bed with them for "companionship" would, too.

      Which leads us to....

      Michael Jackson went to court several times for inappropriate behavior towards young male children, settled one suit against him for $1 million, and admitted in court that he slept in the same bed with 12-14 year-old-boys for "companionship." Let's be clear about who is what.
      Which part do you object to?
      That he slept with (for companionship, NOT actually for lewd purposes) males? Or that his bed contained people much younger than him? Or are both of them together somehow even more objectionable?

      Oh, and Mr. Jackson's estate only owns the second half of the Beatle's catalog, the part Allan Klein sold off. They don't own the first half. So they will only get a percentage of one-half of this windfall profits that EMI/Apple/Apple/Capitol/The Beatles and their estates will reap. Might as well get our facts straight.
      Yep. Since the only rights they hold here are "mechanical reproduction" rights to the songs, its even smaller. If they could argue that they're entitled to "print publishing" royalties too, I would LOL pretty hard but it seems wildly improbable.

      ....

      It bothers me less that people would mock the Beatles (or MJ) for gender anomalies, than that people who raise such mockery be themselves quieted.

      Bigots who spew vile, hateful venom - hurt people's feelings. That's pretty sad. But.... they also open a door that can't easily be shut. Google "Archie Bunker". On the other hand, Closed-minded, closed-mouthed haters who keep their anger bottled up, are the ones that bear most watching when that bottle opens.

      P.S. if u highlight this text, it automatically turns u g4y. 100% fact.
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      Let's see- one small grammar error (though I like things to be perfect, all I'll say is, oops).

      Homosexuals have not been shown to hate straight people, or to commit hate crimes upon them. They don't rape people to the degree straight people do (or much at all). The worst I've ever been called is a "breeder," which is both factually true and not, to my mind, a slur, merely a descriptive. And most homosexuals do not suffer from inherent self-doubt, they suffer from living in societies which denigrate their "behavior/lifestyle" as if it is a choice, not a genetic marker like left-handedness (which I "suffer" from, and which was so reviled that the word "sinister" meant left-handed). As to "gender worry," my point was that people who are highly homophobic are thought to have same and that is their reason for acting as they do. If your question is, you are worried about your gender and don't wish to be called homophobic for having those feelings of worry, I suppose only you know if you are homophobic or just worried about your own orientation. One does not necessarily lead to the other, but the latter can be tied to the former. If you "act out, " as you say, making slurs and/or physical attacks (am I reading your point correctly?), then your behavior is overt and yes, I would consider my comment to be correct.

      I have no love for sports. My PE days are long past. However, I worked for many years in the field of professional sports, and I saw many athletes touch, hug, kiss, pat and shower with each other without being homosexual. Male bonding (or female bonding, though I didn't work in the area of female sports) does not necessarily lead to homosexuality, which is dna based, not a learned experience. Oh, and I really like my iPhone but I LOVE my wife and children.

      As to Mr. Jackson, my objection is to pedophiles, not homosexuals. Can anyone defend a pedophile? If you are a parent, will you allow a famous music star to sleep (for companionship!) with your 13-year-old child? If Mr. Jackson chose to sleep (for companionship or sex) with adults, I would have had no objection. Every adult has the right to choose his own (willing) partners. That's a basic human right. To have questionable contact with children is not, and should rightfully be both censured and punished.

      As to the rest of your post I am mostly in agreement.

      I had issues with All in the Family, as I thought the line between showing bigotry to illuminate it and showing it to revel in it was sometimes blurred, if not for the makers then for the viewers.

      As to open mouthed vs. closed mouth bigots, both worry me. I can only deal here with the open mouthed ones, as they are speaking out in a bigoted manner. I don't know who the others are until they speak or act or pass a bill which becomes a bigoted law. I agree they are more dangerous, but the ones who speak out can at least be answered directly, in the light of day, for all to see.
    1. Rob2G's Avatar
      Rob2G -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      Let's see- one small grammar error (though I like things to be perfect, all I'll say is, oops).

      Homosexuals have not been shown to hate straight people, or to commit hate crimes upon them. They don't rape people to the degree straight people do (or much at all). The worst I've ever been called is a "breeder," which is both factually true and not, to my mind, a slur, merely a descriptive. And most homosexuals do not suffer from inherent self-doubt, they suffer from living in societies which denigrate their "behavior/lifestyle" as if it is a choice, not a genetic marker like left-handedness (which I "suffer" from, and which was so reviled that the word "sinister" meant left-handed). As to "gender worry," my point was that people who are highly homophobic are thought to have same and that is their reason for acting as they do. If your question is, you are worried about your gender and don't wish to be called homophobic for having those feelings of worry, I suppose only you know if you are homophobic or just worried about your own orientation. One does not necessarily lead to the other, but the latter can be tied to the former. If you "act out, " as you say, making slurs and/or physical attacks (am I reading your point correctly?), then your behavior is overt and yes, I would consider my comment to be correct.

      I have no love for sports. My PE days are long past. However, I worked for many years in the field of professional sports, and I saw many athletes touch, hug, kiss, pat and shower with each other without being homosexual. Male bonding (or female bonding, though I didn't work in the area of female sports) does not necessarily lead to homosexuality, which is dna based, not a learned experience. Oh, and I really like my iPhone but I LOVE my wife and children.

      As to Mr. Jackson, my objection is to pedophiles, not homosexuals. Can anyone defend a pedophile? If you are a parent, will you allow a famous music star to sleep (for companionship!) with your 13-year-old child? If Mr. Jackson chose to sleep (for companionship or sex) with adults, I would have had no objection. Every adult has the right to choose his own (willing) partners. That's a basic human right. To have questionable contact with children is not, and should rightfully be both censured and punished.

      As to the rest of your post I am mostly in agreement.

      I had issues with All in the Family, as I thought the line between showing bigotry to illuminate it and showing it to revel in it was sometimes blurred, if not for the makers then for the viewers.

      As to open mouthed vs. closed mouth bigots, both worry me. I can only deal here with the open mouthed ones, as they are speaking out in a bigoted manner. I don't know who the others are until they speak or act or pass a bill which becomes a bigoted law. I agree they are more dangerous, but the ones who speak out can at least be answered directly, in the light of day, for all to see.
      How did this tread end up being about homos and M. Jackson?
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      Um- because some mouth breather used the three-letter word for homosexual in relation to the Beatles being a bit too friendly to each other, in their opinion. And here you are continuing the tradition with the four-letter word for homosexual.

      "Mr." Jackson was brought into it because he (and now his estate) owns a good part of the Beatle publishing, and much of the profits will flow to him/them. So, logically, in a discussion about the gender orientation of a band well-known for its womanizing, a discussion of a man well-known for being a pedophile seemed in order as well.

      Isn't Utah, where your sig says you are living, that place where polygamy was legal, and is still practiced in the hinterlands?