Posted: 18 May 2010 02:15 PM PDT

"Business hassles" are to blame for the continued (and conspicuous) absence of the Beatles' catalogue from iTunes, according to a recent interview with Paul McCartney on BBC Radio One's Newsbeat.

According to the former Beatle, the EMI Group, which owns the mechanical rights to the group's recordings, is the last holdout in a long—and most definitely winding—road that has seen the Fab Four's work entangled in a web of complications and finger-pointing on its way to Apple's music store, where it has yet to land.

"To tell you the truth I don't actually understand how it's got so crazy," McCartney told Newsbeat. "I know iTunes would like to do it, so one day it's going to happen."

Well, Sir Paul. Perhaps we at Macworld can be of some assistance and give our readers a short overview of the long-running saga.

By virtue of their very names, the relationship between the Apple Corps. and Apple Computer has never been particularly friendly. Troubles began at a time when the very idea of something like iTunes and iPods would have been considered more appropriate for a science-fiction movie than the family room; in 1978, Apple Corps., the holding company founded by the Beatles to manage their business affairs, sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court for an amount that was originally estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, but was later revealed to be a mere $80,000.

As part of their first legal encounter, the two companies agreed not to encroach on each other's business: the Beatles would not produce computer equipment, while Apple would refrain from releasing music products. But, over the next 10 years, the two rivals ended up in court twice more, both times over Apple Computer's addition of music-related functionality to its computer lines; the computer maker's continued legal fight with its British namesake led developer Jim Reekes (who is featured in the documentary Welcome to MacIntosh) to christen the Mac's startup sound "sosumi," a thinly-veiled homophone of "so sue me."

iTunes itself didn't come into the legal crosshairs of the British Apple until 2003, when it once again sued its Californian nemesis over the use of its trademarks in the iTunes Music Store. This time, the computer maker prevailed when a British judge found in Apple's favor and even ordered Apple Corps. to pay legal fees—though perhaps the event is best remembered for the fact that the BBC mistook a job applicant for the late security expert Guy Kewney and put him on the air to provide commentary on the judge's decision (which, somewhat fittingly, was based on a legal doctrine called "Moron in a Hurry").

In 2007, Apple Computer changed its name to Apple Inc. (thus making the act of writing an article about the two companies that much more difficult) and announced a new agreement with Apple Corps. that granted it all the rights to the Apple name in exchange for a hefty $500 million payment. At that year's Macworld Expo keynote, Steve Jobs was heavy with Beatles references—a fact that many took to signify a rapprochement and the imminent release of the group's music on the iTunes Store.

Fast forward to 2010, and we're still waiting for the opportunity to buy such classics as "Yesterday" and "Blue Jay Way" and sync them to our iPods, iPhones, and iPads. In the meantime, the Beatles' entire catalogue has been remastered in digital form and made available on CD, and even on a limited-edition USB key, while the songs that the four Beatles members have released individually have all become available through iTunes.

Of course, only the parties involved know what the obstacles are to finally resolving this debacle, but it's probably a safe bet that money has something to do with it—as does the fact that the number of people and companies that need to sign off on any agreement is substantial. In order to seal any any deal, it would need the approval of McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Olivia Harrison (wife of the late George), Apple Corps, Apple Inc, and EMI. Considering the sizeable business that the Beatles still command some 30 years after breaking up, and the fact that most of the parties involved have, at some point, been in a legal fight with one another, it's no surprise that things are dragging on a little; we can only hope that all involved will refrain from waiting until every person on Earth has purchased the Beatles' CDs before allowing us to purchase and download their songs directly.

Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Paul McCartney: Blame EMI for Beatles' Absence From ITunes

Posted: 18 May 2010 03:23 PM PDT

"Business hassles" are to blame for the continued (and conspicuous) absence of the Beatles' catalogue from iTunes, according to a recent interview with Paul McCartney on BBC Radio One's Newsbeat.

According to the former Beatle, the EMI Group, which owns the mechanical rights to the group's recordings, is the last holdout in a long--and most definitely winding--road that has seen the Fab Four's work entangled in a web of complications and finger-pointing on its way to Apple's music store, where it has yet to land.

"To tell you the truth I don't actually understand how it's got so crazy," McCartney told Newsbeat. "I know iTunes would like to do it, so one day it's going to happen."

Well, Sir Paul. Perhaps we at Macworld can be of some assistance and give our readers a short overview of the long-running saga.

As part of their first legal encounter, the two companies agreed not to encroach on each other's business: the Beatles would not produce computer equipment, while Apple would refrain from releasing music products. But, over the next 10 years, the two rivals ended up in court twice more, both times over Apple Computer's addition of music-related functionality to its computer lines; the computer maker's continued legal fight with its British namesake led developer Jim Reekes (who is featured in the documentary Welcome to MacIntosh) to christen the Mac's startup sound "sosumi," a thinly-veiled homophone of "so sue me."

iTunes itself didn't come into the legal crosshairs of the British Apple until 2003, when it once again sued its Californian nemesis over the use of its trademarks in the iTunes Music Store. This time, the computer maker prevailed when a British judge found in Apple's favor and even ordered Apple Corps. to pay legal fees--though perhaps the event is best remembered for the fact that the BBC mistook a job applicant for the late security expert Guy Kewney and put him on the air to provide commentary on the judge's decision (which, somewhat fittingly, was based on a legal doctrine called "Moron in a Hurry").

In 2007, Apple Computer changed its name to Apple Inc. (thus making the act of writing an article about the two companies that much more difficult) and announced a new agreement with Apple Corps. that granted it all the rights to the Apple name in exchange for a hefty $500 million payment. At that year's Macworld Expo keynote, Steve Jobs was heavy with Beatles references--a fact that many took to signify a rapprochement and the imminent release of the group's music on the iTunes Store.

Of course, only the parties involved know what the obstacles are to finally resolving this debacle, but it's probably a safe bet that money has something to do with it--as does the fact that the number of people and companies that need to sign off on any agreement is substantial. In order to seal any deal, it would need the approval McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Olivia Harrison (wife of the late George), Apple Corps, Apple Inc, and EMI. Considering the sizeable business that the Beatles still command some 30 years after breaking up, and the fact that most of the parties involved have, at some point, been in a legal fight with one another, it's no surprise that things are dragging on a little; we can only hope that all involved will refrain from waiting until every person on Earth has purchased the Beatles' CDs before allowing us to purchase and download their songs directly.

Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Unioto grad has rare Beatles recording

Posted: 19 May 2010 04:45 AM PDT

CHILLICOTHE -- While money can't buy you love, it could get you a rare, original audio copy of a 1966 Beatles press conference in which a Ross County native asks John Lennon about an iconic statement he made.

The tape began garnering worldwide attention after California auction house Bonhams & Butterfields announced it would be auctioning an audio copy of the Aug. 17, 1966, press conference. They claimed, at the time the auction was posted, it was the only copy.

Not so, according to retired veteran radio and TV newsman Larry Roberts, a Unioto High School graduate.

Roberts said he also has a tape of the press conference. As a result, the auction house included a note on its website that those interested should "please note that there are other similar copies of this recording now known to exist."

That fact has generated a lot of attention for Roberts and his family.

"We're down here on vacation trying to figure out what to do about that tape," Roberts said Tuesday via phone from Florida.

The tape that is being auctioned June 13 by Bonhams & Butterfields was expected to fetch between $20,000 and $25,000 before the existence of a second copy was revealed.

Roberts, who among other places during his career spent stints with WBEX-AM and WCHI-AM radio locally and NBC4-TV in Columbus, was working in radio when he attended the press conference at the King Edward Hotel in Toronto, Canada.

He can be heard on the tape asking Lennon what question the singer dislikes being asked most.

"At the moment, the question -- the one they're all asking when we first get in -- about the statement I made," Lennon responds, at which point Roberts gets a laugh from those assembled when he asks, "Can you tell us about that?"

The statement Lennon was referring to was one made to reporters at an earlier time about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus -- a statement that generated a great deal of controversy at the time and that Lennon said was taken out of context. The band also discussed such issues as the Vietnam war, draft dodgers, Christianity as a whole and the generation gap during the press conference.

The value of the recording, Roberts thinks, is that it chronicles the first time in a public forum with the entire band present that the question was asked.

Roberts also learned later that his question cut the legs out on plans by CHUM-FM, the largest station in Canada at the time, to grill Lennon on the statement.

The station, he said, apparently had hired a minister who was going to attack the statement -- until Roberts brought it out in the open first.

Roberts said the initial inquiry, about what question the singer dislikes being asked most, was simply use of a similar approach he had taken two years earlier with Beatle Ringo Starr. Starr at the time constantly was being confused with Lennon and being asked questions about how his book was coming -- the book Lennon actually was rumored to be writing -- and that was becoming annoying to him.

"I thought the question worked for me in Cincinnati in '64, so let's try it again," Roberts said. "With John Lennon, I had no idea -- no idea -- what he was going to say. It was the highlight of the news conference, I can tell you that."

Roberts said he still has radio tapes going back to the beginning of his career, although the Beatles tape is probably the only one involving celebrities that he's kept. He had the tape transferred to a few 45 rpm records in 1966 and attempted to sell them.

"We didn't sell any of them," he said. "Nobody was interested in buying them in '66, which I just couldn't understand."

He did not keep the records, and he had considered trying to sell the original tape later, but figured so much Beatles memorabilia was in circulation that it wouldn't generate much interest.

Then came the California auction house offering and news stories out of Dallas that he also had a tape, and phone calls from media as far away as the United Kingdom and Australia revealed that the interest is there now.

Roberts is in negotiations with Dallas-based Heritage Auction Galleries to offer the tape through that service. He also is giving consideration to trying to sell it on eBay.

He hopes to have a decision soon on which way to go.

Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Macca: “The Beatles Would Have Won X Factor”

Posted: 19 May 2010 03:55 AM PDT

added 19 May 2010 at 11.47

The Fabs would have walked the reality TV show, says their former bass player.

Paul McCartney has told Scotland's The Daily Record that The Beatles would have won The X Factor and been firm favourites of Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh. Speaking to the paper, Macca said,

"I think we'd have won it. Seriously. Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh would have been all over us like a wet washcloth.

"If you're talking of The Beatles on 'Love Me Do' – there's doubt. But if you're talking of when we'd developed some of our better songs …we'd cream 'em."

Paul, however, seems to have conveniently forgotten The Fabs' brush with a 'talent' contest back in 1958. Under the name of Johnny And The Moondogs, they entered the Carroll Levis Discoveries talent show at the Manchester Hippodrome. They came last.

Tagged as The Beatles, Paul McCartney, Awards

send to a friend

Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

The Beatles

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

“Paul McCartney: EMI to blame for Beatles' absence from iTunes” plus 3

“Paul McCartney: EMI to blame for Beatles' absence from iTunes” plus 3

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts