Posted on 08/10/2010 2:17:03 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
Don't hold your breath waiting for Beatles songs to go on sale at iTunes or other online retailers, Yoko Ono said on Thursday.
The Fab Four have long resisted the allure of digital downloads, instead selling millions of old-fashioned compact discs last year after remastering the catalog.
Apple Corps, the group's holding company has been unable to agree on terms with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. And then there's the unrelated Apple Inc, owner of iTunes, the world's largest music retailer.
Apple and Apple have had a difficult history over rights to the name. But that trademark dispute was settled in 2007, and speculation has regularly popped up ever since that the two companies would strike an iTunes deal.
"(Apple CEO) Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono, the 77-year-old widow of John Lennon, told Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out.
...Ono said her comments did not necessarily reflect the opinions of the three other equal shareholders in Apple Corps -- McCartney, bandmate Ringo Starr and Olivia Harrison, the widow of George Harrison. But she added that the infamous rancor of the past has been replaced by smooth consensus because "we're older and more experienced."
...Ono was reluctant to discuss upcoming Beatle-related activities, but has plenty of projects in the works to commemorate Lennon's 70th birthday on October 9, and the 30th anniversary of his murder on December 8.
"LENNONYC" will premiere nationally on November 22, as part of PBS' "American Masters" series...
..."I'm 77, so I think this could be my last effort, so I'm really trying very hard," she said...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Thank you for not giving in to the “everybody does it” mentality.
Those who fork over $90 for a used mono pressing LP are denying the Beatles money for the music they listen to.
Garth Brooks realized artists get denied full tracking (and dividend) of album sales when there is a heavy used market that exists. In the 1990s he tried to coerce his label not to stock his albums at any store that sold used CDs (and there were some large chains that did this).
Apple Corp and others are trying to change British copyright law. As it stands, works that are 50 years old lapse into the public domain (so Sinatra, Little Richard, Elvis, etc. recordings are PD over there).
NOW that the relevant British music industry is being affected (the beginnings of the British Invasion and Saint Cliff Richard), they feel it is time to change things.
Without action, those first Beatles albums will become public domain and Apple Corps won’t have as much power.
The day Paul pushed off Yoko onto John Lennon, she hit the lottery.
Had he lived, I doubt they would have remained together for 40 years. He’d already left the relationship for a famous affair. He’d already left his first wife.
But she became a 25% voting member of the band.
Yoko’s advice fine for the rest of us, but I hope she does not take it. Because, the longer she holds her breath, the longer we won’t have to listen to her spine-chilling, infernal yowling.
So you have no Beatles bootleg recordings in your collection? Only Rarities (US and UK versions) and Anthology I,II,III to satisfy any desire for outtakes and unreleased songs?
No purchased used records, tapes, CDs either?
My comment is not a support for downloading (legal or illegal), just probing the full context of your stance.
Bands like the Beatles (apart from the mythmaking of things like $2,000 butcher-shot LP covers, etc.) receive nothing from used sales yet there is NO (zero zip nada) legal resale value for digital downloads.
If it is all about seeing bands paid for every transfer of ownership of a recording, then digital download ONLY would be the model to go with.
Right now I’d recommend to anyone who does undergo that task to transfer personal recording that they NOT travel internationally with that ipod because it is subject to search at customs.
You can claim all you want that you did the transfers at home from your own personal copies of the albums, but will be subject to whatever local security wants to do.
Hence my theory that Yoko "knew" Mark David Chapman, if you know what I mean.
I think the final format release of all of these back catalogs (not just the Beatles) will be multitrack digital versions, where some “new” soundboard device can be used to bring up or bring down the mix.
Basically “Guitar Hero” replaced by “Recording Engineer 2.0”. Make your own custom mixes. Bring up the vocals. Drop the vocal tracks and use it for karaoke games at home. Listen for the odd background clatter that is lost in the “true” mix... etc.
And there is no reason these would have to be $15 releases, they could be $75, $150, or even $1000.
Prince had an offer where for something like $1000 you could buy usage of his back catalog for sampling purposes, the ad was at the end of one of his DVDs. That was not just for a single cut, that was for the whole thing.
No, classic rock stations have moved from 60s-70s, to 60s-70s-80s and now they have become 70s-80s-90s stations.
There were efforts in the 1980s to prohibit libraries from lending out CDs because the industry said “you can make perfect home copies from them”.
I have not the slightest tingle of remorse for downloading 40 year old tunes. NONE of it should be under copyright anymore.
That is legal under the terms of copyright and fair use for a SINGLE USER... but if your hypothetical "someone" then takes on the Herculean task of making his MP3s available on the internet for every Joe Schmoe to download and load onto his/her iPod, then that is Piracy and Hercules should be brought up on charges and appropriately fined.
As it happens, that's correct.
> No purchased used records, tapes, CDs either?
No purchased-used. I do have some LPs that were given to me by a friend when they cleaned out their record collection years ago and gave everything away.
> My comment is not a support for downloading (legal or illegal), just probing the full context of your stance.
Probe away... it's a Wide Stance™ :)
> Bands like the Beatles (apart from the mythmaking of things like $2,000 butcher-shot LP covers, etc.) receive nothing from used sales yet there is NO (zero zip nada) legal resale value for digital downloads... If it is all about seeing bands paid for every transfer of ownership of a recording, then digital download ONLY would be the model to go with.
Interesting point.
The Beatles themselves are not a good example for me to use for my stance on downloading, except to say that I plan to wait until they get their stuff on legit digital download of some sort, and I can evaluate what portion of that I feel compelled to have myself. My CD->MP3 versions are of the CD mixes, for instance; better mixes might tempt me.
But really, my philosophy derives from the bulk of my collection which is jazz and blues, genres in which the artists were systematically ripped off for decades. For many artists, it's too late to compensate, but I want to do right by the ones that are around.
There are UFOs over New York, and I ain’t too surprised.
I still have all my old Apple records. I don’t know if you can buy a record player anymore
There are lots of turntables on the market. I got a usb turntable and have been recording my old records into itunes and burning some on to cd. http://www.ionaudio.com/ionttusb10
And this is where you are WRONG. There were plenty of artists who signed away their songs in dishonest contracts over the years (even the Rolling Stones had their American publishing rights taken from them by Allen Klein).
IF the songs were public domain, the older performers who are still out there performing (or doing infomercials, etc) would be able to release their OWN compilation of their songs and receive all of the money from said release.
As it stands now, too many of them don't see anything from their albums and are bitter over it but still play.
And then there were the artists like Ruth Brown who made Atlantic Records much money but did not see any of their payments from the label for decades after lengthy lawsuits.
If the monopoly of Big Media were busted, the playing field for the artists would be leveled. Right now it just benefits a handful of companies, not the established artists or upcoming talent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.