___looks like Sir Paul McCartney made the power move__

Messages
5,542
Reaction score
18
all this talk about the music biz struggling
nerd.gif


[h3]http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/03/09/mccartney-reportedly-inks-deal-with-apple[/h3]
[h3]McCartney reportedly inks deal with Apple[/h3]
By Jeff Smykil | Published: March 09, 2008 - 07:43PM CT
beatles-1.jpg

Multiple UK news outlets are reporting today that Sir Paul McCartney has reached a deal with Apple to offer the Beatles catalog on the iTunes Store. The deal, reportedly worth $400 million, comes after months and months of speculation and relentless torrents of rumors. As best as we can tell, this is the real deal, and will lead to the most popular band of all time finally finding its way onto an online marketplace.

While McCartney will be keeping much of the money, several other parties stand to benefit from the deal. It is being reported that portions of the sum will be going to families of the deceased members of the Beatles, Ringo Starr, Sony, EMI, and the former owner of the catalog, Michael Jackson.

As of today there is no time frame as to when the catalog will appear online, but it seems to just be a matter of time. McCartney himself even said in November that the catalog would be making its way onto the the store some time in 2008 While we have heard this sort of thing time and time again, this might just be the real deal. Prepare yourself-Beatlemania is coming to iTunes.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/03/09/mccartney-reportedly-inks-deal-with-apple
 
The music business is a joke these days. The execs at the labels haven't caught on with the digital revolution and this is why the profits are lagging.Kudos to P.M. for getting his while the getting is good. It won't hurt the Beatles and it sure won't hurt him after his wife took him for thatcake..
laugh.gif
 
Yea when did Mike lose the catalog? That's ridiculous if he lost it due to money issues. That !@$ is worth a fortune. Paul gets 400 mill as well as he getsbread from when people buy the songs from Itunes right? How could MJ lose that !@$?
 
i'm pretty sure Mike never owned all the rights, but rather a percentage of their publishing/royalties/etc.

there's a reason why Sir Paul is worth over $2 billion...
 
Mike owned 50% of the publishing company that owned the Beatles publishing. (He still owns part of the company, but his stake isn't as much). I don'tbelieve he has executive decision over the re-release of the music, which is more about owning masters(which it seems McCartney has pull over).
 
Originally Posted by Barack 0drama

What was MJ's purpose in owning their shh anyway?

I woulda told his ghostly lookin' @ss to come up off my lifelong creations with the quickness.

What's the purpose lol? To make money lol. Whoever advised Mike to cop that cateloge is a genius. He bought it for 48 mill and now its worth 400million? That's the purpose right there.

i'm pretty sure Mike never owned all the rights, but rather a percentage of their publishing/royalties/etc.

This will clear up what Paul and Lennon or Ono owns:

Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, %%%% James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while %%%% James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.


How he let this %++ go is beyond me.
 
This is only the beginning.
One day, your favorite artist will be signed by apple.
They are the future of music.
 
So if Mike sold it, why can't he pay for his crib.
Janet's album is not going to save Neverland.
 
Mike still owns the catalog. His financiers have collateral over it and that's why its not moving the way its suppose to move.
 
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif


Good God, Such a sad day for Beatles Fans... I love the Beatles and hearing this makes my heart break in two...
frown.gif
frown.gif
frown.gif

alien.gif
alien.gif
alien.gif
 
Originally Posted by yeahitsRUST

smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif


Good God, Such a sad day for Beatles Fans... I love the Beatles and hearing this makes my heart break in two...
frown.gif
frown.gif
frown.gif

alien.gif
alien.gif
alien.gif

Because people get to listen to their music, and maybe new fans will emerge? What kinda logic is this? Actin like being a Beatle fan is an exclusiveduty.
 
Originally Posted by rocyaice

Originally Posted by Barack 0drama

What was MJ's purpose in owning their shh anyway?

I woulda told his ghostly lookin' @ss to come up off my lifelong creations with the quickness.

What's the purpose lol? To make money lol. Whoever advised Mike to cop that cateloge is a genius. He bought it for 48 mill and now its worth 400 million? That's the purpose right there.

i'm pretty sure Mike never owned all the rights, but rather a percentage of their publishing/royalties/etc.

This will clear up what Paul and Lennon or Ono owns:

Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, %%%% James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while %%%% James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.


How he let this %++ go is beyond me.

I've heard and read that McCartney himself, back when he and Michael were friends, had advised Michael to the benefits of owning the rights to songs,and that when Michael bought the Beatles rights, he and McCartney had a major falling out.
 
Originally Posted by Big J 33


I've heard and read that McCartney himself, back when he and Michael were friends, had advised Michael to the benefits of owning the rights to songs, and that when Michael bought the Beatles rights, he and McCartney had a major falling out.

This is true. I've heard Paul McCartney confirm this story in an interview.
 
[Lee Corso] NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND [/Lee Corso]
March 10, 2008 2:02 PM PDT
[h1]Michael Jackson's company denies Beatles coming to iTunes[/h1]
Posted by Greg Sandoval | 21 comments

The company that owns the rights to a vast majority of The Beatles music catalog has questioned reports that the Fab Four have cut a deal with Steve Jobs.

Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the joint venture owned by Sony and singer Michael Jackson, has thrown cold water on newspaper stories out of London that The Beatles catalog would soon be available on iTunes. A spokeswoman for Sony/ATV Music Publishing told CNET News.com that the reports are "untrue."

Sony/ATV is a pretty good source. While EMI Group owns the recording rights to The Beatles catalog, Sony and Jackson own the rights to the vast majority of the catalog's publishing rights. Had a deal been cut, Sony/ATV would "absolutely be informed," the Sony/ATV spokeswoman said.

beatlesWEB_270x189.bmp

The Beatles' official Web site
(Credit: Apple Corps)

Stories about the Fab Four heading to iTunes crop up every few months, it seems, and rumors and unconfirmed reports have been circulating for years. This time, the story appeared to have legs as it was reported by three large British newspapers. They all cited unnamed sources.

Under media scrutiny, the stories began showing cracks on Sunday. One of the newspapers reported that Apple was willing to pay the Beatles about $600 million. The blog Silicon Alley Insider noted that Apple, which grosses about 33 cents for every song sale, would have to sell 1.8 billion Beatles songs to break even.

A high-level music industry source said an agreement between The Beatles and Apple could still get inked in 2008. They emphasized, however, that the British papers were wrong to say the deal was finalized.

Representatives for EMI and Apple declined to comment for the story.

Beatles-iTunes partnership would make sense
One has to wonder why these rumors and unconfirmed reports continue to crop up. Is it a case of wishful thinking on the part of Beatles fans or Apple?

The availability of The Beatles, the best-selling band of all time, on iTunes would send the most dramatic signal to date that digital downloads are an integral part of mainstream music, said Susan Kevorkian, a music analyst with research group IDC.

"It's important for iTunes and online music services in general because it legitimizes IP-based music services," Kevorkian said. "It also points to the fact that digital music services are maturing when important groups that have been high-profile holdouts come onboard."

In the last several years, Madonna, Led Zeppelin, and Metallica--artists who once spurned Internet sales of their music--reversed themselves and embraced iTunes.

Earlier Monday, Chris Castle, a music lawyer and former record label executive predicted that a Web-based Beatlemania would be big for iTunes and Beatles fans alike.

He said The Beatles could release formerly unreleased music "that they might have lying around," and the offering could also include some kind of video element. Even though The Beatles broke up nearly 40 years ago, Castle said Apple Corps, the band's media company, would find a way to "dress up the offering" so that it would create excitement even among longtime Beatles fans.

Jeff Jones, the new head of Apple Corps, "is known as a catalog genius," Castle said. "If there is anybody that can figure out how to make this work it's him. I would expect to see some pleasant surprises from Jeff."

Castle said that what fans likely won't find with a Beatles offering on iTunes is a discount.

"This is a band that has sold music at premium prices for four decades," Castle said. "They've never been discounted. I would be shocked to see any competition on price. Think about it. The Beatles have kept (their brand) precious and popular for a long time. They've done this by knowing how to treat their fans and knowing what didn't work for them."

The Beatles were unlikely candidates to join iTunes. Apple Corps had a series of trademark disputes with Apple Inc. going back to 1976 when Beatle guitarist George Harrison saw an ad for the then Apple Computer. The band thought the new company had infringed on their trademark and sued. The case was settled out of court.

There were other legal skirmishes along the way but last year, Paul McCartney told reporters in Great Britain that he thought a deal with Apple CEO Steve Jobs was close to being finalized.

If and when The Beatles arrive at iTunes, there'll be plenty of people who will ask, "Why all the fuss?" The music has been available for free on peer-to-peer sites for years.

According to Castle, The Beatles were an unprecedented combination of talent and timing, and even after all this time, still possess an enormous following of people who will be willing to pay.

"You had the musical genius, business genius, and extraordinary popularity that crossed all genres and formats," Castle said. "You've never had that before or since."
musicchart.jpg


eek.gif
@ MC selling 76.5 million reocords.
 
same thing thats been going on...
smh.gif
i just wanna see the days sales the 1st day the catalog hits itunes...

and from the stories i've read...the portion MJ and Sony own is still in tact...MJ used his to get a 300mil loan from Sony...so if he defaulted the wholething would go to Sony...and it looks like thats whats about to happen

they would stand to make alot of $ from this so i'm sure if all parties got together and talked $ it would be smooth sailing...
 
Originally Posted by Big J 33

Originally Posted by rocyaice

Originally Posted by Barack 0drama

What was MJ's purpose in owning their shh anyway?

I woulda told his ghostly lookin' @ss to come up off my lifelong creations with the quickness.

What's the purpose lol? To make money lol. Whoever advised Mike to cop that cateloge is a genius. He bought it for 48 mill and now its worth 400 million? That's the purpose right there.

i'm pretty sure Mike never owned all the rights, but rather a percentage of their publishing/royalties/etc.

This will clear up what Paul and Lennon or Ono owns:

Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, %%%% James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while %%%% James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.

How he let this %++ go is beyond me.

I've heard and read that McCartney himself, back when he and Michael were friends, had advised Michael to the benefits of owning the rights to songs, and that when Michael bought the Beatles rights, he and McCartney had a major falling out. But someone had to advise Mike to cop that Beatles catelog. Maybe it was common sense on his part I guess since the Beatles are probably the biggest act in history and their catalog was for sale.


Ahhh you know what you're right. I do remember that story. Paul was extra salty about that $%+.
 
Back
Top Bottom