<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in No Apple/Beatles today, say McCartney and EMI catalog chief</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/no_applebeatles_today_say_mccartney_and_emi_catalog_chief/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:23:25 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: No Apple/Beatles today, say McCartney and EMI catalog chief</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/09/no-applebeatles-today-say-mccartney-and-emi-catalog-chief/#comment-16276088</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">seizethenight</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:23:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: No Apple/Beatles today, say McCartney and EMI catalog chief</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/09/no-applebeatles-today-say-mccartney-and-emi-catalog-chief/#comment-16273130</link><description>&lt;p&gt;“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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Manaka59</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:08:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: No Apple/Beatles today, say McCartney and EMI catalog chief</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/09/no-applebeatles-today-say-mccartney-and-emi-catalog-chief/#comment-16252166</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Will people really care about The Beatles ? in a music world dominated by sensational press: Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady GaGa, Rihanna&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Engago </dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:47:32 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>