Fans of the influential British group the Beatles will finally be able to download their catalog via iTunes.
Apple confirmed that they’d reached a deal with Apple Corps and that The Beatles back catalog will now be available on iTunes, effective immediately.
According to a press release, the songs from the band’s 13 albums will be available for $1.29 per track, $12.99 per album and $19.99 per double-album. The two-volume “Past Masters” collection and the “Red” and “Blue” collections will also be made available, and, Apple being Apple, iTunes even earned an exclusive out of the deal: the special digital “Beatles Box Set” includes “Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964,” a concert film capturing the Beatles’ first concert in the U.S.
The mini-film is available for free stream for the rest of the calendar year; click here to check it out, along some promos for the group.
“We’re really excited to bring the Beatles’ music to iTunes,” said Sir Paul McCartney. “It’s fantastic to see the songs we originally released on vinyl receive as much love in the digital world as they did the first time around.”
“I am particularly glad to no longer be asked when the Beatles are coming to iTunes,” said Ringo Starr. “At last, if you want it-you can get it now-The Beatles from Liverpool to now! Peace and Love, Ringo.”
“In the joyful spirit of Give Peace A Chance, I think it is so appropriate that we are doing this on John’s 70th birthday year,” said Yoko Ono Lennon.
“The Beatles on iTunes – Bravo!” said Olivia Harrison.
It will be the newly digitally remastered versions of the Beatles’ albums that will be sold through the digital music retailer; those were released with much acclaim in 2009.
Woo-hoo! Finally, an easy way to replace my collection, and for a bit less than I had paid (well, about the same when you adjust for inflation) for it before.
Am I missing something? The entire Beatles collection (stereo or mono) is available on CD for $129 at Amazon. Even at only $12.99 per album, 13 albums from iTunes is $168.87 and they are compressed.
With the discs I can rip FLAC and create my own 320K MP3 files for the iPod.
But it's Apple, therefore you and everyone you know will want it.
Unless the iTunes versions are super whamodyne circuses for the ear canal, I plan to stick with what I have. While it's cool that they've finally gone digital for those who were holding out, they've missed the bus for those of us who have already spent the time and money to create our own high quality digital versions.
So. yeah, AndyMac is spot on. Shop well and shop smart.
Well, I already have 1 and Let It Be... Naked, so I really only need to get the songs not on those albums. Oh, and I think I have a CD of rare recordings from 1962 around here somewhere.
OK, maybe I didn't think this through all the way, but I've been ripping all my CDs to computer and selling them anyway. I need the storage space (and the money).
And here I thought that was illegal . . . but I guess if you need the money . . .
As far as the Beatles, never was much impressed with their music. Yes, there was some (very little) good stuff there, but almost none of it stood the test of time for me.
Besides, I was never one to buy into all of the music from any one group. That's the advantage of today; I can purchase individual songs instead of buying the whole album to get one song. I do not miss those days, and don't see the sense of buying the entire collection of any one band or entertainer. I guess I'm weird that way . . . and many more..
Arkle: Just so you know, that is illegal. You no longer own the license to the songs you have ripped when you sell the disc. Legally you are obligated to delete the copies whether they be on other discs, tape mixes or in your case MP3.
ejdalise: I will buy the occasional track of a song I like from Amazon (not iTunes) but I still like to own the actual CD if I like the group. I am in control of the quality and usage (no DRM) when I own the CD. If I could buy FLAC or some other uncompressed format I would buy more digital but until I have that option or can't buy compact disc anymore I will continue to own the CD.
No, I've been selling the CDs, to like used music stores, and pawn shops and stuff. I should've been clearer on that.
Oh, I see; it's all clear now . . . no wait, that's still illegal. Heck, it's illegal even if you give them away, unless you erase the copies on your PC.
But I get it; some people make their own rules. I think they are called "criminals".
Well, if I'm a criminal than so are Black & Read books, my Aunt Jenny, and EZ Pawn. If it's so illegal, why haven't the cops shut these dens of evil down? I mean, take Black & Read. They buy books, vinyl, DVDs, and video games too, right out in the open! Next to a Hobby Lobby! Won't somebody think of the children?!
Buying the CD from you isn't illegal. Selling the CD to them and keeping your ripped music is the illegal part. So Black & Red isn't committing any crime. When they buy the CD from you they take possession of the license for the music on that CD. You give up the license for that music and so you no longer are allowed to own any copies of it.
When I ripped my CD collection I got rid of all the jewel cases and stored them (about 400) in a single case that sits in my closet. If anyone shows up I can prove that I own every single track in my library.
Ah yes it reminds me when I would dupe my friends cassette tapes or record their albums to tape. I remember the flea market in town here were people were often selling fake re-records of tapes. Full on photocopied covers and the whole package. Man those were some HORRIBLE recordings...
But anyways...
Somehow I don't think the police are going to show up and take you away to jail Arkle. So we call all breathe a sigh of relief that your illegal activities are safe for now! Hell I say you should PROUDLY fly a pirate flag on your person at all times! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
It would be a WHOLE different story if you were ripping the CD's, selling them back and then SHARING them on the internet...well let's just say the RIAA and its lawyers would like to speak with you to try and get some AMAZING amounts of cash from you!
I also doubt the police or RIAA are going to show up either. I just wanted to make sure he realized the possible consequences of his actions. Perhaps from now on he should hang on to those discs.
Brian: Exactly. I don't file share. And just so no one gets the wrong idea about me, these are all CDs I've had for a long time, many as long as 10 years (I take care of my equipment), and I'm not really making a profit off this deal. It's just circumstances; I just don't have have enough room anymore, please I need some extra cash to tide me over until my store recovers from the budget it lost when our cooler broke down last week.
It's like talking to children . . . which I probably am.
No matter how old, how long you have had them, or not "really" making a profit from them, it is illegal to sell them and keep copies. Sharing them would add to the illegality, but not sharing them does not somehow make what you are doing legal.
That said, it's mostly a personal matter because, as others pointed out, you are not likely to hear the heavy boots of the law come running up your drive.
Given that, if one has no compulsions to obey the law, and they are comfortable with that, nothing one can say will all of a sudden imbue them with honor of any kind.
To my mind it does speak to a mentality I find foreign, and one I can't help but be critical of. It is much, much, much easier to draw no lines and rationalize based on personal convenience and gain, than it is to abide by the law.
I am not judging the law. It may have merit, or it may be bad, but the response is to change it, to challenge it, to voice opposition, not to circumvent it.
Now, there are always exceptions. Civil disobedience is sometimes a valid form of protest. But this is strictly a matter of personal gain. One has either been taught honesty, or to look out for one's self.
I could draw the parallel to the way the country is going as almost a direct result of the breakdown of personal responsibility, honor, and the advent of the "if it's helping me, it's OK" mentality, but things are more complicated than that.
Still, it troubles me when I hear someone willfully disregarding any law, bragging about it as if it were an accomplishment, and not be willing to admit what they are doing is criminal.
. . . and I am thinking of the children . . . I'm thinking their parents are likely not much better than the children they have foisted onto the world. The sad part? The children will likely reproduce, and offer no better example to their offspring than what they have learned.
ejdalise: Bragging about criminal activity? No, more like talking about increasing my storage space, you pontificating jerk. Spare me your "death of society" rigmarole. I'm a guy making back-ups, not Al F-ing Capone, chill the frak out.
Sorry, no can do. Pontificating jerkiness is my raison d'etre.
But I am impressed with the eloquence of your post. It does a better job of making my point than I could ever do. I would swear back at you, you know, so we could communicate, but I'm not in high school any more, and I lost both my appreciation and facility with profanity.
Oh, and it's not "death of society". It's society changing to the lowest common denominator, as it has done throughout history. You seem well adapted to it.
Arkle, I agree with you on a lot of stuff (Meghan Fox is a no-talent skank) but you are WRONG about this. What you are doing is illegal. You aren't making backups or increasing your storage space. You are stealing.
Sorry we tried to educate you on this and even sorrier that you aren't getting it (or maybe you are and just don't care) but facts are facts. If you rip a CD, then sell or give away the CD then you don't own the music ripped from the CD. If you borrow a CD and rip the music, then give the CD back you don't own the music. If you download the music from a site without paying for it you don't own the music. If you don't own the music and you still have the music then you have stolen the music.
And yeah, bragging about it on a public internet forum is actually pretty frakkin' stupid. It's almost like putting a sign on the front of your house that says "I have illegally obtained music on my computer! Come and get me!"
Definition of BRAG
intransitive verb
: to talk boastfully
This is not what I have been doing, despite what the retards above would have you believe. I have merely been trying to quash the a-hole ej's spin of me. To hear him tell it you'd think I was the guy behind Pirate Island, as opposed to just a guy stumbling into the digital age. I still buy music BTW, in fact my first comment on this thread was about me wanting to buy music. Don't beelive me? Scroll up and look for the following;
"Woo-hoo! Finally, an easy way to replace my collection, and for a bit less than I had paid (well, about the same when you adjust for inflation) for it before."
Not the ej noticed I'm sure. It doesn't fit with his narrative.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to talking about The Beatles? Did anyone else have the sound drop out on the last few minutes of that video of the Washington '64 show?
So you buy it, rip it and then sell it? This is from your post above which you told me to scroll up and look at "...but I’ve been ripping all my CDs to computer and selling them anyway. I need the storage space (and the money)." That's not buying it. That's borrowing the CD, ripping the music and then reselling the CD. Which as I explained before is STEALING the music.
If you want to steal music then go ahead. If you want to delude yourself that that isn't what you are doing that's your prerogative as well.
Any respect I may have had for you has been totally blown by your responses in this thread. Calling people retards and pontificating jerks is the response of an immature person. The only immature person I have time for in my life is my 3 year old grand-daughter.
I, on the other hand, have a dearth of immature persons in my life, and I'm finding out that I miss them. They offer a fascinating glimpse into a world of insecurities and distorted sense of self-importance. It's what makes them easy to wind up.
Unfortunately, at some point forum administrators step in and put a halt to the festivities. That's generally around the time the name calling starts, so I don't know how much more effort I want to put in on this, as it may end at any moment.
Still, the boy does have a point. This be about the Beatles . . . they have a particular song I have always liked. Nowhere Man. Although along those lines I prefer Remittance Man by Jimmy Buffet. In ways I can't explain I identify with those as they play to my . . . ah, I'm meandering again. Sorry
Right. Okay.. move along folks. We've flogged this horse to death already about what is "right" and what is "wrong" in each of our minds and we haven't even really touched on how the spirit of the laws are twisted and interpreted by each individual to suit their own needs. *cough*
So WOOO! Beatles on Itunes!! I can finally replace all the CD's my ex took and mostly scratched to hell and back.
Brian, maybe someday you can explain the never-ending luv for The Beatles to me, because I just don't get it. I didn't get it back then, and I most certainly don't get it now, given the near-50 years of better music that's come along after. Tastes like ordinary to me.
Andy: This is what I mean by spin. I don't go out, buy a CD, rip it, then sell it the same or next day, I'm just trying to increase my storage space so I don't have to start stowing books in the linen closet, and I have said that multiple times. Plus, that wasn't the post I wanted you to look at; the one I was talking about came before that. It was the first comment, hard to miss. You lied. And I'm the immature one?
ej: I also love Jimmy Buffet. I've been a Parrot Head for years.
@Summer: I don't think you can "explain" love for a band. Either you dig it or you don't. Nobody's gonna be able to explain it to you. But I will say that you could make a comparison to Star Wars. When it came out, it was groundbreaking, revolutionary, and nobody had ever seen anything like it. Now, it's effects are a bit dated and they look like what we've seen in so many other films from the 80s. Still, you kinda have to appreciate it for what it represented when it came out.
@Arkle: I've read all the posts, and I definitely see both sides. I copy music sometimes, and I admit I'm doing wrong. Probably, you could do a lot for restoring a little dignity if you'd admit that what you're doing is illegal. You don't have to back down from your stance that you're just doing it to save on space. You can still mean that and just admit that you do realize you're not really allowed to do it. As this thread stands, it sounds like you're saying it's not illegal to do what you're doing... and that's why you're getting so much flack.
One interesting story . . . well, interesting to me, anyway.
In the 70 part of what I listened to were covers of popular songs by orchestras. Some might call it Easy Listening on steroids. Well, it turns out many of my favorites were in fact Beatles songs (minus the words, of course). I was surprised by that.
So maybe it's not so much I disliked what they played, as I disliked the way they played it.
@maluba - yes, they were something new, but not unique. Others from the era I still like. I mean individual songs, not necessarily the all offerings from a given group.
Unless we are talking about the Moody Blues )up to the mid-to-late 70s). A lot of their stuff was good then, and is still good (in my opinion).
Oh . . . is we are talking about over-rated bands, none can top The Stones. And they are ugly, too.
@maluba - thing is, in the 70s, people were still talking about how great the Beatles were, and while I was very young and just becoming musically aware, it still sounded "plain" to me. I don't know what you'd call the pop radio fluff that was airing in the early 70s, but the first to kick down that real music rock-n-roll door for me was Santana, followed closely by Motown, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and then Springsteen a couple years later.
It became even more confounding to me when I started hearing older music by James Brown and BB King... still couldn't figure out what the Beatles hype was all about, so for me, beyond doing an okay cover of Twist and Shout, and having a cool guitar line in Blackbird, the whole Beatles thing for me was like someone trying to justify oatmeal as high cuisine to get me to eat it all the time. I don't think so.
It became a surreal form of hell when I got to high school, when my sweet but still-a-flower-child guitar teacher subjected me to 4 years of 90% Beatles music, turning my indifference to them into an abject hatred, which still exists today (no one should be subjected to playing Rocky Racoon for 2 solid weeks... it's gotta be a violation of the Geneva Convention). The only saving throw in that time was that we also got to play The Doors, who I hadn't heard anything by until 8th grade, and became enamored with in subsequent years.
@ejd -- I wouldn't call the Stones overrated, not entirely. I used to have a Best Of 2-CD collection of theirs covering 1968-1972 or 1974, (which I lost during a move and would love to find another copy of again), and I would rank that pretty high. Haven't paid attention to them in any way since 1985 though, and the overrated tag could apply to what they've done since then, but I'm not in a position to argue or defend that
I do think that the fact they are still alive and performing is the basis of a science fiction story: either the result of secret experimentations, or possibly sorcery
Never much cared for the early Beatles in their Capital Records days (mid and late 60's), they seemed like just another bubble-gum pop music band with a new look and screaming girls (a carry-over ala Sinatra and Elvis). But, I became a real fan once they started doing psychedelics and visits with the Maharasha and began producing such tracks as Abby Road, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, the White Album, etc. I'm also a huge fan of Harrison's stuff. He turned out to be my favorite Beatle and after-Beatle performer. I'd have to put Ringo second because he is pure Rockabilly and has stayed true to that genre right up to his newest album which was just recently released.
Lennon was just OK and McCartney still tilts toward poppish bubble-gum.
"Arkle, this is the RIAA. Come out of the house with your PC's hard drive raised above your head."
Arkle, you are not alone. I used to make cassette tapes copies of LP's and mix tapes; like John Cusack in High Fidelity, for friends back in the day. However, as the music industry had a "pirate tax" imposed on blank cassettes, my sin was not as great as yours.
Actually, the attacks made against your behavior; whether in jest or serious, are PROBABLY legally incorrect. (Law is always a slippery subject.) According to 17 U.S.C. § 1008, as legislated by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings is not copyright infringement. Non-commercial includes such things as resale not in the course of business, perhaps of normal use working copies which are no longer wanted. This does not include sale of copies in bulk.
Then again its possible that legal obscenity know as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act overturns everything I just said and also says your guilty just for letting anyone else listen to your CD's, for good measure.
Kurt: If you still owned the LP you weren't doing anything illegal. Making copies and mixes for your own use is fair use of the LP you OWN. If you had copied to tape and then sold the LP that would be different.
maluba: I thought I was; making it clear I was only doing it to save space, that is. I guess I failed.
Summer: The music teacher story explains everything IMHO. I imagine I would hate any song, even one of my favorites like to pick a non-Beatles example Thirteen by Big Star, if I had to play it over and over and over for weeks on end.
Plus, look at it from my perspective a little; the music that my generation was listening to when I was becoming musically aware? New Kids on the Block and Vanilla Ice! Can you blame me for running screaming for my parents' music collection?
Of course, I'm a bit weird like that. I can honestly say I was the only kid in my 1st Grade class who knew who Stan Freberg and Tom Lehrer were.
Arkle: now take that one or two weeks, and repeat it for every Beatles song you can think of and many you wish you never had, during 4 years of high school guitar classes. 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year, 4 years. Yeah, you can call it rage.
The true saving grace besides The Doors, and playing popular stuff from Boston, Kansas, America and Aerosmith was that we also played a ton of classical music, which was a joy for me, both practicing and performing. I could play a song off a cold read as easy as breathing, but I couldn't improvise (jam) worth a damn. Weird how the brain works, huh?
ej: I also love The Moody Blues. I got to see them live when they did their second show with the Colorado Symphony Orchestra. They played at Fiddler's Green back when it was still called that. It's called Coors Amphitheater now, so now I can't go to a show there again on principle, but that's another story.
Summer: You're making me glad I never took music classes.