Skip to Content

Beatles receiving direct royalties in iTunes deal

by Chris Rawson Jan 7th 2011 at 6:00AM

Citing "industry sources," Reuters claims that direct royalties may be part of the deal that finally got The Beatles on iTunes. According to Reuters, "superstar artists" (like The Beatles) typically get 20-25 percent of retail revenues, which would equate to between 18 to 22.5 cents per track sold on iTunes. Supposedly, The Beatles secured a deal with Apple that gives the surviving band members (and the estates of John and George) far higher royalties than that, though it's unclear just how much higher; Reuters's sources didn't put any firm numbers on the deal. Earlier reports indicated that it was primarily disputes between The Beatles and music label EMI that kept the band's music off iTunes for so long, and it's very likely that royalty distribution was at the heart of the matter.

To be honest, I'm not sure why it's taken this long for artists to get a bigger cut of digital sales. Under the old brick-and-mortar sales model, it seems like music labels would have had to pay out a lot more to market and distribute music than under a purely digital sales model. If The Beatles are getting a bigger slice of the profits from sales of their music, I see that as a good thing, and frankly I hope that becomes the rule rather than the exception.



View Tags

Related Stories

Categories

iTunes

Citing "industry sources," Reuters claims that direct royalties may be part of the deal that finally got The Beatles on iTunes. According...
 

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

11 Comments

Filter by:
Rick

I would like to see the artists get as much money as possible, since they're the ones that created it in the first place

January 07 2011 at 3:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Bill

I still freaks me out that songs created in a few hours/days can still be paying such large royalties nearly 50 years later.

January 07 2011 at 8:46 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Bill's comment
TIm

You must be going mental when seeing the prices for a Picasso then.

It's art.

January 07 2011 at 9:31 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Brett

And it blows my mind that people are willing to pay such extravagant fees for Super Bowl seats so they can sit in the cold, pay even more money for crappy food, and watch a distant game with far too many breaks.

But hey, if people are willing to spend their money on things, that's fine with me. Capitalism is a beautiful thing.

January 07 2011 at 9:47 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
imperahimperah

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Michael Jackson ( estate ) own the publishing rights to the Beatles catalogs, except for "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." ?

January 07 2011 at 8:13 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to imperahimperah's comment
rogerruthberg

Michael Jackson sold off at least half of his interest in the Lennon/McCartney catalog to Sony in order to maintain the menagerie at Neverland. And what he owned were the publishing rights to the songs, not the Beatles' recordings. So he gets a publisher's royalty, just like EMI gets a recording royalty every time a copy of "I Feel Fine" is sold. EMI only gets a cut for the Beatle recording, but Michael Jackson's estate still gets a small cut regardless of who recorded the song, so that LaToya can still leech off Michael even after he's passed on (see "maintaining the menagerie", above).

January 07 2011 at 10:36 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
andy

Artists can do better to sell directly using Topspin http://topspinmedia.com or roll their own.

January 07 2011 at 7:36 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Galley

Record labels will screw artists at every opportunity.

January 07 2011 at 6:54 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Galley's comment
redcard

The artists usually give them permission to.

January 07 2011 at 8:32 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Alice Bevan-McGregor

As an artist (with the "indie" online record label TuneCore) I get paid roughly 79¢ per 99¢ sale. (Or $7.99 per $9.99 album.) Apple takes the remainder; this proportion may be familiar to those who have followed the App Store policies.

Sucks to be an indentured servant to an old-world record label.

January 07 2011 at 6:30 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Alice Bevan-McGregor's comment
Brett

If you're happy with your situation, that's great. But I imagine that 70% of 1000 sales is less than 30% of a million.

Record labels are terrible and need to change, but they do serve a purpose.

January 07 2011 at 9:44 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.