No Apple/Beatles today, say McCartney and EMI catalog chief

September 9, 2009 | Paul Boutin | Comments | |

pmccBuried somewhere across the Atlantic on a Financial Times blog is solid reportage from two major UK newspapers that refutes the rumors that Apple’s super-secret product launch on Wednesday will debut the Beatles’ music in Apple’s iTunes music store. EMI, Paul McCartney told a reporter, worries about being sued silly should the iTunes copies get widely pirated:

[Apple's] San Francisco event will come the same day as the release of the remastered Beatles catalog, although that material itself won’t be available via Apple’s online store iTunes.

“Conversations between Apple and EMI are ongoing and we look forward to the day when we can make the music available digitally. But it’s not tomorrow,” Ernesto Schmitt, EMI’s global catalog  president, told the FT’s Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson.

The holdup is EMI’s conern about the prospects for piracy, Paul McCartney told The Observer.

The ex-Beatle said he, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison wanted to release the music on iTunes, but EMI, which owns the master recordings, objected.

“If one [EMI] employee decides to take it home and wap it on to the internet, we would have the right to say, ‘Now you recompense us for that.’ And they’re scared of that,” Mr McCartney said.

topInstead, the Financial Times says Apple’s big reveal on Wednesday will be the project supposedly named Cocktail, an interactive multimedia wrapper for music that attempts to bring double-gatefold album art and extended liner notes into the 2010’s.

Apple’s tagline for the event borrows a Rolling Stones lyric, “It’s only rock and roll, but we like it.” So I’m still holding out for Mick Jagger.

[Photo: PaulMcCartney.com]

Next Story: Halo film’s cancellation led to the latest Microsoft game, Halo 3: ODST
Previous Story: TweetDeck adds MySpace support, directory of Twitter users

Bookmark and Share

Tags: ,

Photo of Paul Boutin

About the Author, Paul Boutin

Paul (paul@venturebeat.com) covers Apple & the iPhone, social networks & social media, digital music & video, and any crazy Internet story. Paul wrote and edited for Valleywag from 2006-2008, after several years with Wired magazine and Slate. He writes regularly for The New York Times' technology section and sometimes for Wired and The Wall Street Journal. He studied computer science at MIT in the early 1980s, and worked as a software developer and network administrator for 15 years before becoming a professional writer. Follow him on Twitter at @paulboutin, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • Will people really care about The Beatles ? in a music world dominated by sensational press: Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady GaGa, Rihanna
  • Manaka59
    “If one [EMI] employee decides to take it home and wap it on to the internet, we would have the right to say, ‘Now you recompense us for that.’ And they’re scared of that,” Mr McCartney said.

    That's hogwash. Apple wouldn't legally be on the hook for that. EMI itself would, since it would be their employee (if using this example). I think there are other reasons for the Beatle's music not being available digitally other than DRM.
  • seizethenight
    Haven't we been through this? DRM doesn't work. You either make money selling it or deal with piracy. Sell the LP content so that people want to buy it. I'd fork over quite a bit to replenish my current electronic Beatles content (Yes, I converted my CDs legally), with new remastered and additional content (via Apple's LP format).

    I understand there are larger legal ramifications, but to me it doesn't make sense. I'm sure there are hundreds of copies of "Abbey Road" floating around on the net somewhere. The Beatles and EMI are seeing none of that revenue stream. Does this mean that EMI is responsible because they produced a CD that someone ripped and uploaded? Produce a product that people want to buy and you cut off the head of piracy.