AfterDawn: News

iTunes, Beatles still in standoff, says Ono

Yoko Ono, the widow of the late John Lennon has said this week that negotiations between Apple and The Beatles are still at a standstill, so don't expect the popular catalog to hit iTunes or other MP3 stores anytime soon.

The band remains one of the few to not go legally digital, instead selling physical CDs like they did last year, with the catalog remastered.



Apple Corps (not to be confused with iTunes owner Apple), the group's holding company still cannot come to terms with the EMI Group, the label which licenses the Beatles' recordings.

Says Ono: "[Apple CEO] Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy. There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out. "Don't hold your breath ... for anything."

Apple Corps is jointly owned by Ono, Paul McCartney, Ringo Star and Olivia Harrison, widow of former member George Harrison.

While the company may seem closed off to new digital ideas, the band's music was reissued on CD last year, is available via the "Beatles: Rock Band" video game and through the Cirque du Soleil "Love" stage show.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 8 Aug 2010 16:38

• Previous article

• UMG music videos removed from MTV.com, VH1.com

• Next article

• Leaked pics of upcoming Verizon world phone surface

• 13 comments

• 99masond

  I’m a big Beatles fan but I do think they are being stupid in not making their music available on iTunes
  
  last I heard they were not happy with the price of individual tracks but it not even like the re-masterd cds are that expensive anyway so why not let people buy individual tracks.
  
  In saying that I don’t understand why people buy albums off iTunes when you can buy the cd for the same price or even cheaper sometimes

  8.8.2010 17:43 #1

• Ryoohki

  the only thing they are doing is missing out on potential revenue. most people prefer having something in digital format and the only thing they are doing is encouraging people to rip the cds themselves and share it online to meet the demand. j.k. rowling did something similar with her books. she refused to let places like amazon sell digital copies and you know what happened? every single one of the books had unauthorized copies available online :) you think a fan would care if it was a legal copy or not? so long as it was the real deal they wouldn't give a crap. i know i sure don't. she probably missed out on millions. she's already rich so i doubt she gave a crap though but it was still a stupid decision on her part.

  8.8.2010 20:49 #2

• VENOM79

  OH MY GOD IF YOU WANT BEATLE CRAP THAT BAD JUST DOWN LOAD IT AND TRUST ME I DONT THINK THEY NEED THE MONEY BESIDES DONT CARE WHAT ANY ONE SAYS THEY ARENT THAT GOOD

  8.8.2010 23:47 #3

• sssharp

  she the only remaining benefactor? i think shes rich enough, plus does a real amount of people really want there music forcing this big fight over the prices. i personally dont use an mp3 player or buy any cd's, the radio does everything for me.

  9.8.2010 00:26 #4

• ddp

  VENOM79, knockoff the caps lock as is referred to as shouting which is a forum rule no no.
  

  9.8.2010 00:38 #5

• tnt1125

  Originally posted by VENOM79: OH MY GOD IF YOU WANT BEATLE CRAP THAT BAD JUST DOWN LOAD IT AND TRUST ME I DONT THINK THEY NEED THE MONEY BESIDES DONT CARE WHAT ANY ONE SAYS THEY ARENT THAT GOOD They were that good. Think about it, their music was put out 40-45 years ago, before alot of the high tech crap out there today.

  9.8.2010 00:57 #6

• aldan

  you can bet the dragon lady is behind this.and yeah,they were that good.half the bands in the time since the beatles were either directly or indirectly influenced by them.that having been said i guess it could all be in the ear of the beholder.
  

  9.8.2010 01:39 #7

• KillerBug

  The beatles are available in MP3 format, they just are not for download because Yoko thinks the downloads are a rip-off. A few months ago, they released a flash drive that looked like a green apple; the stem pulled out the USB flash drive. They put all the remastered tracks on there, and sold it for less than the price of downloading the songs individually, or even as a set (also cheaper than the CDs)...plus you got a cool looking flash drive holder...and apple fans probably loved how it looked, even if it wasn't missing a bite.
  
  I really don't think Yoko has a problem with what the Beatles get paid; I think her main issue with iTunes and Amazon are the huge markups...The Beatles own their own content, they are like a record company to themselves...they usually get something like 50% or more of the CD sales price...and that is after printing, shipping, store markup, etc...but when they are sold on a site like Amazon or iTunes, they get less than that percentage, even when there is no printing, shipping, or physical store front...I think that is her main complaint. After all, if Amazon/iTunes was paying the Beatles what they make on selling a track via CD, amazon/iTunes would still make a huge profit charging just $1 per track (most remastered Beatles albums have 15 or more tracks, and sell for $15 or less).
  

  
  

  9.8.2010 02:57 #8

• elbald90

  if you dont want to make money selling it digitally then people can get it elsewhere ,one look at the pirate bay gives a plethora of choice
  

  9.8.2010 03:01 #9

• xboxdvl2

  give it another 5 or 10 years and their copyright will of expired anyway.
  

  PS2 with 12 games.
  pc-windows 7,intel core quad Q8400,4 Gb ddr2,WD 500 GB hdd,ATI Radeon HD 4550 graphics,AOC 22inch LCD moniter.

  9.8.2010 06:52 #10

• Invasian

  Originally posted by KillerBug: The beatles are available in MP3 format, they just are not for download because Yoko thinks the downloads are a rip-off. A few months ago, they released a flash drive that looked like a green apple; the stem pulled out the USB flash drive. They put all the remastered tracks on there, and sold it for less than the price of downloading the songs individually, or even as a set (also cheaper than the CDs)...plus you got a cool looking flash drive holder...and apple fans probably loved how it looked, even if it wasn't missing a bite.
  
  I really don't think Yoko has a problem with what the Beatles get paid; I think her main issue with iTunes and Amazon are the huge markups...The Beatles own their own content, they are like a record company to themselves...they usually get something like 50% or more of the CD sales price...and that is after printing, shipping, store markup, etc...but when they are sold on a site like Amazon or iTunes, they get less than that percentage, even when there is no printing, shipping, or physical store front...I think that is her main complaint. After all, if Amazon/iTunes was paying the Beatles what they make on selling a track via CD, amazon/iTunes would still make a huge profit charging just $1 per track (most remastered Beatles albums have 15 or more tracks, and sell for $15 or less).
  They only own publishing rights to some of their songs. If I remember correctly Michael Jackson's ATV and Sony hold most their songs (most of their hits).
  However the share of the profits would probably be as you mentioned minimal compared to what they want.

  9.8.2010 14:16 #11

• Jemborg

  @Invasion, McCartney bought that back when Jackson started running out of money.
  
  I think KB is right, Ono just wants more of the cut... sounds like her. She puts Madam Mao in the shade.
  
  Or maybe her personal psychic told her not to go with the deal.
  
  PS: Yeah, we all know about TPB and all but most suckers don't have a clue. For instance, when my brother told me he was downloading episodes of True Blood I assumed he was torrenting them... I fell over when he told me he was getting them from iTunes.
  

  Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
  
  
  

  10.8.2010 08:24 #12

• six60six

  why don't they just sell them on their own site for what price they want? problem solved, everybody wins. its 2010 ffs!

  11.8.2010 19:41 #13