Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The on-again, off-again rumors of the Beatles' music catalog coming to iTunes continue, this time with John Lennon's widow saying she doesn't expect it to happen anytime soon.

"Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono said in an interview with Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out."

She continued: "Don't hold your breath... for anything."

Last year, the entire Beatles catalog was remastered and re-released in a box set that came on on Sept. 9. That was the same date that Apple introduced its updated line of iPods, and the timing led some to expect that a deal would be announced. But the dates turned out to be purely coincidence.

Rumors of the band's songs appearing on iTunes have existed for years. Apple and the parent company of The Beatles, Apple Corps, were engaged in a lengthy and bitter trademark dispute for decades, but that issue was resolved in 2007.

Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.

Reuters noted that Apple Corps has been unable to come to terms for digital downloads with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. From there, another deal with iTunes would need to be struck.

OK, we'll just keep stealing them, then.\

I might be just me, (and I'm out of the demographics that buy a lot of music), the lack of Beatles albums on iTunes (or anywhere) has never been more than a yawn to me. (Truth be told, I listened to the Beatles when their music first came out. I'm not much interested in music for nostalgia's sake).

I might understand the issues between EMI/Beatles and Apple, but I don't care.

That would make many people very happy.

I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.

If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.

If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.

It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.

Is there really anybody on the planet that wants Beatles music that doesn't already own Beatles music? I mean, it's been 40+ years. I can't imagine that sales will really go up much just because it was made available on iTunes.

"the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format."

The title of the article could be interpreted to mean that the Beatles recordings are available on other digital music sites and that only iTunes is being denied. Then the article rehashes the trademarked name battle, further supporting the idea that iTunes is the real problem. Why do editors do stuff like this? Words plant ideas and I can't believe AppleInsider didn't do this intentionally. The editor intended to spin this as a purely Apple vs Beatles issue when the truth is something else.

last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.