We kicked off discussion of Intellectual Property with a focus on copyright and trademark this week.
And almost on cue Tuesday, Apple announces that the entire Beatles catalog is coming to iTunes, the largest online music retailer.
This is a media law professor's dream -- here's a story that involves legal arguments about copyright and trademark. Beatles is owned by Apple Records, which had been in a legal dispute with Apple, the computer company, for 30 years.
Check out this audio clip from National Public Radio which aired Tuesday morning (Nov. 16). Click here.
And check out this short NPR audio clip that talks about music bands and artists whose music is not available on iTunes. Click here.
UPDATE: I've heard that some have had trouble with the link above. The filmmaker and producer of Rip! have distributed the documentary online, so it is available in a number of places. You can find it on YouTube, and on Hulu. Click here for the Hulu link.
After you give those clips a listen, consider these questions.
What do you think? Is it a big deal to you that the Beatles are coming to iTunes? What do you think of bands who choose not to release their music through digital music stores like iTunes?
Your thoughts, please.
24 comments:
Jessica Buck
2pm
I think that the Beatles finally being released on itunes is significant but definitely not a 'big deal' considering many people who enjoy the Beatles already have the albums and probably have transferred the songs to their ipods for listening pleasure already. And as for Garth Brooks, Tool and Other Artists I'm sure the same has already been done with their songs. So when they take this stand to not have their music on itunes I think its only hurt itunes sales because people will find a way to get the music they want on their devices. whether it come from the itunes store or not
As a musician myself, I know that sometimes doing things like delayed releases are due to publicity stints. Although the Beatles have no reason to (because they're already so famous) but I do understand the reasoning. Musicians have every right to protect their work, and it's their property.
--Megan Moede
9:30 a.m. T/th
I am of course glad that the Beatles are now on iTunes, but I, like so many, don't really see the large significance of it. People were able to put Beatles' music on their iPods and MP3 players long before the music was available on iTunes. Sure, now it's available to buy from the comfort of your own home, but any Beatles fan who wanted the songs on their devices before now would have already purchased the albums in stores and transferred it to their iTunes' library.
I think more than anything Apple (the computer company) was publicizing it the way they were to generate consumer interest. They knew that a large majority of people already had access to Beatles' music, and the reasoning behind all the promotion was just done to generate sales of the product.
I don't feel like it's a big deal for younger people, but I know plenty of older people who don't know how to download music digitally besides iTunes, so this is probably a big deal to them.
Apple was a bit too dramatic with the phrase "Tomorrow is just another day that you'll never forget" that they put up on the website before the announcement. And with all the little world clocks. I really hoped it would be something.. actually exciting.
I think bands should be free to do whatever they want with their music, but I do find it a little bit pretentious to refuse to have your music released digitally. No matter how much you try to prevent it, your album is still going to be downloaded illegally, and people will still listen to it out of order or only download certain songs. I know I downloaded a few random A Perfect Circle songs off Napster when i was 13.
The Beatles do sound about a million times better on vinyl, though. I'll give them that.
- Laurenne Smith
2 pm
Alyssa Ellis
T/TH 9:30 a.m.
Personally I don't think the Beatles coming to iTunes is a big deal, but it's because I'm not a huge fan. I guess I assumed that iTunes had all music. I didn't realize that artists can choose not to allow the sale of their music on iTunes. I assumed as long as people are still paying for the music why should it matter the form. It surprised me that AC/DC isn't on iTunes, or Garth Brooks for that matter. They are both well-known and appreciated artists. They obviously have enough money, but I would think sales on iTunes would increase their profits. Especially in this new technological age, artists who don't allow sales on iTunes are hindering their success and profit.
When it comes down to the artists, such as Garth Brooks and AC/DC, who choose not to go the digital route, I think they're more "stuck in their ways," for lack of a better phrase, and don't see what good could come of their music being available on iTunes. If things have been going well for them thus far, why fix what ain't broke? Apple Records may have had this mindset as well, which may be why it took so long for this "event" to occur. Speaking of which, I could care less. I know the Beatles are iconic but I'm not about to race to my iTunes library in a drunken stupor of happiness to download their music. Oh wait, that's right: I don't even have iTunes. Which is why this "event" has little to no meaning to me. No offensive to any Beatles fans.
Kiana Fitzgerald
9:30 a.m.
I think that it isnt really a huge deal that they are coming out on itunes. I understand why and how Apple, the computer company, could be so excited. I agree with previous posts, if you are a fan, you probably already have found a way to put the music on your computer or ipod, or whatever electronic device you have. I think that as musicians they obviously have the right to do with their music what they want, I personally think that it is stupid because it does hurt their overall sales, they could have been marketing this for the past decade after Metallica came out against Napster. Would have been interesting to see what Metallica would have done if the Beatles records or Michael Jackson's records were immediately tried to be marketed on Napster. Thats my take. Im out.
I agree with previous posts, anyone who wanted to have the Beatles songs on their mp3 player would have already put them on there by one means or another. I don't think it's a very big deal that the Beatles are finally coming to iTunes but I can see why Apple (computers) made a big deal out of it. I think it's naive for artists like Garth Brooks to think that if they don't allow their music to be sold on iTunes then their songs will only be listened to in true album form the way the artist intended.
Kaitlin W.
T-TH 9:30 a.m.
While everyone claims that The Beatles' release on iTunes is such a huge deal, I personally think they are late in the game. In regards to digital media, most music can be purchased or pirated in some form or fashion; introducing The Beatles' albums through iTunes will give listeners a better incentive to obtain the songs legally. I was watching the news the other day, and a report claimed Apple doesn't gain as much profit from music purchases, but merely uses iTunes as a platform to increase iPod and iPad sales. Bands such as Radiohead and Girl Talk have released albums to the public domain, making them available to download for free. The Beatles have been making music since the 1960s; if people want to obtain their music, it's guaranteed people have already done it without iTunes' help.
Everyone was so hyped with this "huge announcement" iTunes/Apple was coming out with, and it turned out to just be a huge disappointment. In everything I've read about the recent news, no one seems to be all that excited about the Beatles going to iTunes. Like everyone above stated, everyone who is a fan of the Beatles, owns the Beatles' music through one way or another.
As for the other artists who have yet to go digital, I think its their loss. However, the same that applied to the Beatles applies to these artists -- If people like their music, they will acquire it one way or another. This includes pirated music... I think they might as well jump on the bandwagon.
Selina S.
2 pm
T-TH 2 pm
So both of those NPR links were the same. I don't know if anyone told you yet.
Many people wanted the Beatles catalog to be released digitally so that it would get remastered. But a few years ago a box set was released that was remastered and the quality is superb. Some say it's even better than vinyl. I think that took out some of the excitement about the Beatles being released digitally.
I think that all of the bands she listed in the NPR clip who refuse to release their music suck anyway. Not because they won't release their music, but because their music is actually bad. It's funny because no one cares if Garth Brooks' music is on ITunes. Seriously. It's like all those Conservatives who said they were going to leave the country if Obama got elected. They're still here aren't they? And we could totally do without them couldn't we? Absolutely.
Haley -- thanks for letting me know about the audio clip. I have corrected it now.
Well there is so much to be said about online music sharing. For starters I believe music is created to be enjoyed by all, not just a source of income for artists. What artists need to realize is, that they profit from their music, only if folks enjoy it. The world is changing and online music sources such as i-tunes provide a great way for artists to broadcast their music so people will like it and attend their concerts, and even earn a direct profit. As for the Beatles, I am glad they decided to share their music and not hold out. Artists like Garth Brooks, and Tool are selfish. They have realized how easy life is in a recording studio and obviously have doubts about their on-stage performance. A true musician wants his/her music to be heard and will work hard on stage to make a living, and most of them are very successful thanks to fans. Its simple those artists that want their music to be heard will profit and those that think their music is too good to be shared will fail.
Just like the announcer said, anyone who loves The Beatles already found a way to put their music on their iPods, so it's not that great. I was hoping the announcement had to do with streaming music and doing away with MP3's. I don't get why iTunes made it out to be a bigger deal than it was. And for those artists who want their music to stay in album form...they are missing out on a LOT of $$$$ and maybe even listenership, especially now that Limewire was shut down. These old people need to adapt.
Jessica Brorman
TTH 2:00pm
I don't think that it is a huge deal for the Beatles to be on iTunes now, but it is exciting because I really like them! It definitely gets the band a lot of positive attention, which all bands want. I am on the divider as far as the situation with sharing music. If I were a musician, I'm sure that I wouldn't want my music to be shared freely without any compensation, but with technology nowadays, it's always going to be around. But I think it's kind of strange for artists to not put their songs on iTunes. HELLO... you can make tons of money! But hey, I'm sure they have their reasons.
Allison Sheffield
TTH 9:30am
I agree with most everyone's statement on here. I think it's really cool they're now selling their music on itunes. However, I don't think it's that big of a deal, given the fact that anyone who is a true fan already has their albums. Also, regardless of whether it took them this long to release their music on itunes... what does it matter, we have to pay either way!
P.S. I love the Beatles :)
Lindsey Milward
Tth 9:30-10:50
As others have said, I do think it's significant that The Beatles are finally available on iTunes, but a "big deal" it is not. At least not for many. Obviously people want access to their music in digital form (as evidenced by people asking Ringo and Steve Jobs if and when they would ever be available). But many, like myself, either bought their CDs, or already had them, and just ripped them to their mp3 players. Just because iTunes is the largest online music retailer, doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to get music. And one doesn't have to be very tech savvy to figure that out...
The Beatles are one of my favorite bands, and I don't feel they are hurting for money or fans. I mean, they were together only ten years, 50 years ago...and people still know who they are. They're still influencing bands today.
BUT, that said, I think by having their music on iTunes, maybe this will open up their music to a younger generation that hasn't really listened to them before.
As for bands that choose not to release their music on iTunes or other digital music stores, I can see their points. It's their music and should be their choice how it's distributed. Will it hurt them? I don't think so. Just think, the song clips that were played in the NPR clip--people know those songs. They're popular [classic] songs. And they're not current hits. So I don't think iTunes is going to make-or-break a band, but by having the band's music available online, it does open them up to more exposure, especially to the younger generations who DO get their music solely from iTunes. Except they're probably not the ones buying Garth Brooks or AC/DC...they're focusing on whatever is on the Top 40 charts right now.
shannyn b
9:30a TTh
Personally I feel like all the Beatles fans already have all their music on their ipod's already. So to me this is not a big deal but I can see how it is for Apple. This will obviously generate huge numbers in sales for them. When you go on itunes, in my opinion, you are overwhelmed by all the songs and videos.I think if they would have released maybe an album or two at a time it would have been better.
I think as far as Apple announcements go, this has been one of the weaker announcements they've come out with lately.
I feel like anyone who was that interested in owning and listening to The Beatles' music had probably already purchased it elsewhere and perhaps even already loaded it onto their iTunes.
I feel like most bands that choose not to release their music on iTunes do so in part b/c iTunes is becoming somewhat of a monopoly. You can now purchase movies, tv shows, music, audio books, text based books, games, and even rent content on iTunes. Where does that leave the future of independently owned video and music stores, or even other chains like Blockbuster? They're taking over b/c of America's laziness. We can now get any media content we've ever desired without getting out of bed.
I do use iTunes, and I do have Mac computers, and an iPhone, but I avoid buying content from iTunes if I can help it. I'm a fan of Apple devices, but they don't need to rule every industry. I feel that a lot of bands probably feel the same way.
Katinka Dufour T-Th 9.30
This is not a day that I will not forget. I feel like I have had access to the Beatles' music even though they were not on itunes. I understand that the Beatles is a big band in history and Steve Jobs wants to have them on itunes but i don't think it makes a big change for listeners or fans. Like many others have said, i think the time issue is important. It almost feels to me that the Beatles are getting to itunes too late. People who want to listen to specific songs have probably already downloaded them some other way.
I just saw a commercial on tv for this exact thing. It just had images and music of the Beatles and then it said Itunes. I think this is way over the top. I grew up listening to the Beatles and know all their songs by heart. allll of em! I learned how to play their songs on the piano because i love them so much, and I still have their entire discography on my computer (obviously illegally downloaded).
But as I grow older, i realize that the Beatles are not that big of a deal. They are not that great; I'm talking music wise. People rave about the Beatles all the time, but in my opinion, they themselves are not that great. I have heard better music. Paul McCartney had to school Ringo on how to play the drums all the time. John Lennon became a self centered prick. yes, their songs are catchy and everyone who is anyone knows them. They are just your typical pop band.So, in conclusion, if their music is not a big deal, then i don't think their music finally being on Itunes is a big deal.
I am a huge Beatle fan. However, to me this didnt effect me much. I already have all the Beatles music that I would want in album form. I can see where this would be a big deal to others, but to me its simple a matter of importing my CDs to iTunes. As for the others, I was surprised at some of the names mentioned that are holding out. I can see their viewpoint though; its their way of staying true to the music and the industry that supports them.
Kendra 9:30
2 p.m.
Like many others have said, I don't believe Beatles on iTunes is a big deal because (myself being one of them) people have already found a way to put their music on iPods.
Bands that choose not to release their music to iTunes are missing out on the money! People aren't buying CDs anymore. That NPR clip said artists such as Garth Brooks want to keep their music in album form, but why when no one is buying them? If they're worried about losing money, they are looking at the new online music era with the wrong perspective.
Post a Comment