McCartney: Talks to get Beatles on iTunes stalled

Updated at 8:45 p.m. PST to add comment from EMI.

Talks to make The Beatles' catalog available on Apple's iTunes have "stalled," according to Paul McCartney.

Apparently the impasse is between the band's representatives and record label EMI, McCartney told the Associated Press in London on Monday. EMI, the smallest of the four top recording companies can't close a deal with iTunes or any new music formats without the authorization of the Beatles: McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the estates of the late George Harrison and John Lennon.

McCartney made the comments at an event to kickoff his new album, Electric Arguments, the AP reported.

"The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process," McCartney said. "I really hope it will happen because I think it should."

Apple Corps has long declined to allow Beatles music to be offered over the Web and things looked bleakest after Apple Corps sued Apple over a trademark dispute. The case was resolved last year.

An EMI representative told CNET News late Monday that it hopes to have an agreement soon.

"We have been working very hard to secure an agreement with Apple Corps to make The Beatles' legendary recording catalog available to fans in digital form," An EMI spokesperson. "Unfortunately the various parties involved have so far been unable to reach agreement, but we really hope that everyone can make progress soon."

[The_Decider]

If copyright laws were sane, the Beatles crap would be public domain by now and McCartney would actually have to produce something new to make a living.

[Perry_Clease]

"If copyright laws were sane, the Beatles crap"

Thank you! I come from that era, when the Beatles were the "Fab Four." Their music was okay, but most of it was not great, in my opinion, and there were better musical artists around at that time. They were pop at best and got worse when they got on drugs, they were just in the right place at the right time.

Gotta run and eat supper while my guitar gently weeps.

[M C]

If by "have to produce something new to make a living" you mean "have to produce something new to add to the millions he would have made when the songs were hits and then wisely invested for four decades" you're absolutely right.

[polythenepod]

Beatles crap? Wonder what kind of music you two are interested in... if Beatles music was really crap, young people wouldn't be picking up their music in this decade. As a college freshmen, I know that is not true.

The remasters the albums have been in the works for far too long. As long as they will be released within the next year...or two...or three, I'll be patient.

[TheFunkyChicken]

For folks who say The Beatles are crap: it clearly shows you know nothing about popular music.

[Motospark]

You can learn more of a History lesson through Beatles music than any high school text book dared to examine. The Beatles shared an outlook on the world few would dare to have put into song. Crap? your just afraid of the words.

Moto

[Perry_Clease]

"you know nothing about popular music"

Right, the Beatles were pop music, and then stoner music.

[ddesy]

I guess you don't know who listens to the Beatles then.

I am a fan of classical, jazz, and progressive rock primarily and have little tolerance for most pop. All the same, I am a Beatles fan. If you take the time to listen to the music, even much of it from their heavy drug using days is actually not too poorly written and contains plenty of musical sensibility.

Although I think iTunes should be able to sell the Beatles catalog, I also think that the sound quality would be done another disservice by getting compressed in a lossy format. For listening to music in a digital format I buy compact discs.

[craigar]

I suppose that last night's American Music Awards show was good music? I'll take the Beatles anyday, in fact I'd take them 8 days a week.

[ewelch]

How about a comment on the topic at hand, rather that losers who have no taste in music. I was there and I wasn't on drugs, and the Beatles were a major reason the British invasion began, which saved America from lame music. Maybe they weren't the greatest band in the world - that's Led Zepplin - but they sure beat the crap that passes for music now with pretend musician boy bands and rascist head-banger nonsense. Not to mention narcissistic, misogynistic, talent-challenged gangsta' rap.

Oh, wait, comment on the topic. Right.

Why don't Paul and Ringo and the rest of the Apple Corps get a clue and let Apple sell their music. What might be lost to piracy is nothing compared to what they lose by not being on iTunes.

Me? I'll buy used Beatles CDs on Amazon until they wise up I suppose.

[kirasaw]

The Beatles/Apple Corp has really missed the boat on this one. While I am sure they will sell tons of songs once they are on iTunes I would guess the vast majority of people who really want Beatles tunes in digital format already have it. The music has been pirated on the internet for years and was sold by allofmp3.com before it was shut down by the Russians. The Beatles needed to get on iTunes at least 2 years ago this wait was just to long for most :(

[Vorgamorth]

Copyright laws are perfectly sane. If you are capable of offering a creative work of any kind that others are willing to pay to add to their collection, then you deserve to make money on that for at least as long as you're alive.

Just because current law doesn't give you the right to steal music doesn't make it insane. In fact, your desire to own it for nothing rather makes you greedy and unappreciative. You are NOT entitled to the creative work of others simply because you are too cheap to purchase it.

As to the quality of the Beatles' catalog, it speaks for itself. The fact that the group owns a very large number of the top songs ever recorded and enjoys more worldwide recognition than any band before or since trumps any adolescent assessment of their musical abilities, and the sense of entitlement that demands people sacrifice their hard work at the feet of a group of drooling Philistines. The Beatles do not, at any point, require your endorsement in order to be legitimate. Now go coo over the newest Slipknot album and ****.

[voyager529]

You had me at "copyright laws are perfectly sane". Let's establish a few things here:
-I pay for my music. If you'd like to see iTunes/Napster/CD receipts, just ask.
-I don't believe that copyright should be modified to allow for the unreciprocated trade of music.

That said, I've got two questions for you:
1. What do you believe that you pay for when you purchase a song/album?
2. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a public domain, and do you believe that it is something worth contributing to?

I believe that when I purchase a song, I have paid for the right to listen to it anytime, anywhere. Copyright laws, in their present form, make many means of doing this illegal. For example, iTunes has a way of seeing my laptop as a different computer each time i install Windows. The system they use to enforce copyright, independent of any checks and balances, is just as heinous as the acts it's used to protect against.

Why do you assume that those opposed to present copyright restrictions are all MP3 swappers, and anyone who doesn't swap should be fine with them? Honestly, take a look at the heinous restrictions put on media today. Is it really a sane system?

For extra credit, consider this. Take a look at the Billboard charts from just five years ago. Have even half of the artists released a new song or album in the past five years? There's a select handful that have, but the vast majority release a hit or two and that's it. The public domain is a means of ensuring that artists continue to contribute to our culture. You and I don't get to just work for a day or two, then get residuals for the rest of our lives. Such is the trend in the industry these days, and a reasonable time limit on copyrighted works (say 10-15 years) works all around.

Joey

[ddiddy415]

Thank you limewire..... :)

[artistjoh]

The Beatles success was a mixture of talent, hard work and tough business sense. It worked well for them in the pre-PC days. Unfortunately there is a fine line between clever business practices and greed. The Beatles made so much money that it has insulated them from the radical economic changes that the digital revolution has brought to all cultural industries. I suspect that like the record company's the remaining Beatles just might have an unrealistic attitude to the real world value of digital copies. Steve Jobs has been very good for the digital music industry by establishing a baseline value for music that the public has been prepared to pay and kept things simple with minimal variations from the formula. If the reason for the delays is old fashioned greed on the part of the Beatles I hope Apple sticks to its successful formula and does without the Beatles if need be. By sticking with a CD distribution model the Beatles will soon discover how quickly physical media are disappearing and that they have missed the boat for legal digital sales.

[ddesy]

Funny thing... compact discs are the original consumer digital media! Based on that, the Beatles have done quite well with legal digital sales.

[oldguytoo]

EMI/Capitol/Apple have always charged top dollar for thier releases. Other artists in EMI/Capitol have done the same: Pink Floyd, Garth Brooks (before he "retired"), Nat King Cole and many others. Of course this is a reason the digitari have justified their stance that music should be free. However, in the Beatles case, the recordings are classics in every sense of the word, and the fabfour realize once it's legitimized onto the internet, their earned income stream will diminish, as will the record company's. So obviously the lack of an agreement is due to the split of the profit of 99 cents per song, which is a ridiculously low price for such work. Steve Jobs handcuffed his ability to get the Beatles to agree to their music being downloaded when he set that price for a song.
Visit your local record store.

[EnvoyPV]

Those who want , in digital format, what The Beatles have released already have it, whether through legitimate ripping of personally owned media, or illegal downloads. This is a non-story.

[ducttape36]

agreed, anyone who is a beatles fan has their music anyways. and kids can just borrow their parents records if they want to listen to it. thats what i did when i was younger. in fact, we didnt even have the internet then! we went to the store to buy our music. imo the advantage of an online store is to get things you wouldnt normally find in a regular music store. you can find the beatles anywhere, they were arguably the worlds greatest band. who cares if they are on itunes or not? their franchise is doing fine without apple.

[johnwbishop]

This story smells like a PR play, to get fans interested in the Beatles catalogue before it comes to iTunes.

[tecmic]

Hi,

It's just hasn't been possible to maintain the level of output achieved by the early POP music artists and especially the Beatles. Even contemporary industry pundits admit that much of what's produced today is dross by comparison.
Something akin to comparing food at McDonalds to a Michelin starred resturant. You can't!

[gsmiller88]

Chances are, most Beatles fans don't use iTunes or the internet anyway so I doubt Apple losing many sales because of this.

[ejeon1989]

The day that the Beatles are on the iTunes music store will be the day that Apple's servers all die.

[Thomas, David]

Anyone who has the sheer audacity to down-play the Beatles, in any way, is blinded by sheer stupidity. If ignorance is a factor, they should pull their heads out of their collective butts. Do that quick before you realize that your closed mind misses out on everything else.

[make_or_break]

Beatles? What the hell is that? Bugs?

Oh...a band? Really? Oh yeah...I kinda remember them now...Sgt. Pepper's and all that...you know, Tomorrow Never Knows....now shut up and pass the hash pipe, please...(ah, the memories).

As for the music, iTMS or any other digital media delivery outlet SHOULD have their music by now. For all of those people who have the attention span of a...uh, beetle...and who can't bring themselves to order their CDs on Amazon or hop in the car for a trip to the CD store...or are feeling guilty about their carbon footprint, downloads is the only way to go, never mind the sonic consequences. EMI and AppleCorps has waffled too long on this; perhaps they'll see the (Inner) light before the Paul and Ringo become worm feed themselves.

[HighwayHome]

For about 2 bucks I can buy a Beatles vinyl record at the locat record. Not only is the sound much better than this CD/MP3 overpriced compressed crap they're pushing these days, I can record it to any medium I see fit (up yours DRM!) and continue to play it with a few scratches. That's 2 bucks...just about as much as The Beatles music is worth.

As for the younger generation listening to Beatles music, I don't blame them considering the other rubbish which is being released today. By comparison, it even makes the Beatles overplayed, overrated music tolerable (although the album "Revolver" is the *****).

[vmlenigma]

Only Good thing about the Beatles is that there are only 2 Left,
I'm taking Bets on who kicks the bucket Next.

She loves you, yeah yeah yeah, she loves you, yeah yeah , She loves you, yeah Yeah yeah
Why in the hell would anyone want crappy music like that with cheesy lyrics like that?