Yesterday, Beatles Downloads Seemed So Far Away
from the apple-music dept
A good percentage of online music buyers have probably, at some point, tried downloading a Beatles song, only to be informed that none were available. The band has been notably absent from the online music revolution, refusing to let their songs appear on various services. Some even speculated that the lack of some acts, like the Beatles, would impede the success of online music. It hasn't been an impediment at all, showing once again that content creators need the internet more than the internet needs them. By not joining in, the Beatles only encouraged file trading of their music, or at the very least cut themselves off from a new generation of fans. It has come out through their trial against Apple that the band is set to let their music to be sold online. It's not clear what prompted the change of heart; maybe it was something about money or album sales -- love alone don't pay the bills.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
beatles music
i guss paul would like to buy his wife a new seal fur coat?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Seals
For Paul it would be Walrus
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I am the egg man
Doesn't Michael Jackson now own the Beatles catalogue? Perhaps he's running out of dough in Bahrain and wants to open up Never-EVER Land there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Aw, fellas, be nice
The music biz seems to turn nice people nasty. The Beatles made enough money from their music to buy anything they want for another three lifetimes. You'd think by now they'd say, Let's give something back to the people who made us multi-millionaires (billionaires?). Let's let them download our songs cheap, or even free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Beatles Music Downloads
I know I have searched for legal music to download from the Beatles online, and when there is none, I know personally, and from friends, that you resort to the free downloads.
Going out and buying a Cd takes more time than downloading.
Im glad they are having a change of heart.
Music you pay for always sounds better =P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sounds like ca-ching to me
"Music you pay for always sounds better"
Yeah, if I could find somewhere to pay for music but still be able to play it on all my devices and get it at a good sounding bit-rate. Read my lips: locked-down DRM is stupid.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And here I thought it was common knowledge
Michael Jackson (yes...Jacko the Clown) owns the rights to the Beatles music.
So, I guess it's not a new car for Paul, but defense attorney bills for Jacko.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mr. Jackson = Los-er
I was led to believe that he lost the rights to the music during all of the recent court schtick.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I am the egg man
I thought he owned (Michael Jackson ) the rights to the sheet music
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The music is more than 15 years old, What the heck would Michael Jackson want to do with it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Micheal Jackson is creepy, that is all that we need to be sure of.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
beatles and Jackson
Sony Music/ATV currently owns half of the Lennon-McCartney Beatles catalog with Michael Jackson; recent stories have speculated that Jackson is about to offer Sony the option to buy up to 25 per cent more of the catalog. Rights to original recordings of Beatles songs have always been highly protected -- that's why they mostly don't show up on "Best of the British invasion"-type TV CD collections, etc. I don't know if that is Sony/ATV/Jackson, or Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney exercising control over the performance rights, but I'd say they were right to keep the Beatles above the cheesy compilation discs, and wrong to keep them off online services.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: beatles music
A seal fur coat and a new wooden leg...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'll tell you exactly why they are doing it now...
They are doing it now because of the Apple lawsuit against Steve Jobs' Apple. They want to be able to tell a judge that they are involved in computery-online things and hope to bolster their contention that the consumer would confuse the two Apples.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Beatles for Sale
Sounds like an album,,you techies must be daydreaming non believers. There is a site with over a hundred Beatle albums and beatle tribute bands,you choose the bitrate, download method, and more than just the beatles,pretty much any artist you can think of.I have gotten over 300 downloads from them, all clean all clear all legal. did Allman Brothers "Eat a Peach" Double CD for 1.88, yes thats a dollar and 88 cents. Download single songs or entire cd,s less than 2 bucks, no I do not work for this company, nor do I profit from this company. And Jacko only owned part of the catalog which he or his people are trying to unload now. lets hear from all the naysayers now
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"showing once again that content creators need the internet more than the internet needs them"
didnt you say something like this (not) about the telcos wanting to charge google?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment