“Startup HipSolve Media is currently in talks with several companies who are interested in acquiring the firm, including Apple, which has made a $3.6 million offer to quietly take over the company,” Ryan Katz reports for Think Secret. “Founded nearly three years ago with the intention of reformulating how artists and labels distribute music, Vacaville, California-based HipSolve Media is the exclusive distributor of the iHoopla Label Edition solution. Launched in January, 2005, the Windows-based iHoopla offers music labels and publishers the ability to distribute their music directly to customers, complete with digital rights management, with a more favorable financial model.”
“Sources close to HipSolve Media say a deal could be announced as early as next month, although it’s unknown whether the firm is leaning towards joining Apple or another suitor,” Katz reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Yoko’s gonna have a cow if this comes to pass.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Beatles vs. Apple Computer: outcome is far from a lock for Beatles – September 30, 2004
Apple vs. Apple settlement to result in iTunes Music Store Beatles exclusive? – September 23, 2004
Apple’s iTunes Music Store to land exclusive Beatles deal? – September 20, 2004
Apple vs. Beatles could be solved with fat check and spinning off iTunes from Apple Computer – September 17, 2004
Apple’s settlement with Beatles could be ‘biggest settlement in legal history’ – September 13, 2004
The Beatles to sell songs via Apple iTunes Music Store? – June 08, 2004
Apple loses: Apple v. Beatles to be heard in Britain – April 06, 2004
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple; 1991 agreement allows Mac maker ‘data transmission services, even music – February 26, 2004
Apple Computer to contest Beatles’ U.K. lawsuit in court today – February 25, 2004
Jobs: Apple vs. Apple ‘could drag on for years – it’s unfortunate because we love the Beatles’ – September 28, 2003
Forbes: Apple vs. Apple; iTunes Music Store just might end up with exclusive Beatles deal – September 12, 2003
Sosumi: more on the Beatles’ lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. – September 12, 2003
The Beatles sue Apple Computer over iPod, iTunes – September 12, 2003
The Beatles’ Apple Records could be gearing up for fight with Apple Computer – August 12, 2003
The Beatles gearing up for a fight over Apple’s iTunes Music Store – June 03, 2003
MDN, there’s nothing in the article that connects any specific band to HipSolve, let alone The Beatles and/or Yoko Ono. Can you be more specific?
Isn’t Yoko a Vegan?
Moooo!
The labels will so shit on Apple if this happens. Expect some to pull their catalogs.
MDN magic word: “carried” as in Yoko Ono is gonna want the mighty Job’s head carried-in on a platter if this happens.
“Huh?” – Read the related MacDailyNews articles.
Yoko’s not going to eat that cow, she’s going to give birth to it, Bart.
Apple Computer and Apple(Beatles) had an agreement that the Apple computer would never be involved in the music business…..
Huh? Apple enter an agreement with the remaining Beatles members not to enter the “music business” as part of a settlement to use the Apple name, which the Beatles have for their own Apple Records.
The Beatles (or their laywers) want Apple out of the music business or who knows what in damages. Apple meanwhile, has been growing its foray into the music/consumer electronics industry.
My take is Apple is quietly gearing up for a fight against that major recording labels. Especially in the wake of the “not so strong arming” to raise music prices/or record industry percentages. Apple always knew this day would come. I remember Steve Jobs mentioning in year one of the iTunes Music Store that the goal was to get the labels to sign multi-year contracts so that the temptation to raise prices and change the terms of agreement wouldn’t happen to rapidly (not exact words).
With the recent wake of major labels squawking, I assume Apple knows the time has come to offer direct distribution to artist who have some control over their music. I’m somewhat certain Apple doesn’t want to become a label, but it will be interesting what variation of distributor/technology company they can come up with, that will shake the music industry.
This is gonna piss Apple off that this came out. Note the word “quietly”. They probably wanted to get it all set up and deliver it as a fait Accompli to the labels. Oh well, in this digital world we live in, the cat seems to get out of the bag more often than it stays in.
“Yoko’s gonna have a cow if this comes to pass.”
Or maybe that’s a dogcow?
If it will piss off the Beatles, I’m all for it.
LOL
Very few people have actually seen the contract between Apple Computer and Apple corps. I’m guessing no one here has? We do know that it gives Apple Computer exclusive right to the Apple name in all things except those few limited areas prohibited by the contract.
I saw a post from someone who had seen the contract which was secret, but had to be filed as part of the curent litigation. After all, that’s what the current case is about, this contract. He said that the only areas retained by Apple corps specifically were that of a “record label” distributing music on physical media.
Further, there have been comments that this contract really did not imagine the digital world in any specific way. So the judge will decide if Apple Computer’s current activities violate that contract or not. It’s not a slam dunk for either party. If the judge interprets the contract narrowly, Apple computer wins. A broad interpretation may favor Apple Corps.
What does seem clear is that this time around, Steve Jobs is not gonna allow another round of Beatles extortion.This time the issue is likely to be resolved once and for all.
MDN – LABEL THIS AS RUMOR, you fskin’ idoits!!!
“Sources close to” IS A FSCKIN RUMOR!!!!
NOT NEWS!!!!
What deckless wonders you are!!!!
Protocol_J and others:
Actually, so long as Apple doesn’t change the name of HipSolve (to Apple) or integrate it as an Apple division, the agreement with the Rutles is still in place.
Personally, I still think Apple should buy EMI Group plc and then we’d see how Apple Corps feels about the company that really “owns” The Beatles’ recorded work.
I believe I read somewhere that this takeover was meant to prevent possible market loss to a potential rival. But the idea of Apples own label sounds interesting, If Apple plays the cards right they can just distribute and not do any advertising for the bands outside of iTunes, letting the bands record their own music. Wasnt there an article about Apple having developed software for musicians to record and digitally sign their works sometime last year?
Apple Computers should go ahead a purchase Apple Records or whatever the Beatles called their company, and use it to sell music as part of the iTunes Store, that would take care of that once and for all. At least that would get that thorn out of the way.
If Apple bought EMI, it would further sour its relationship with the rest of the music industry, who’d worry that Apple would give preferential treatment to its own artists. The iTunes store worked in part because Apple could be even-handed with all music companies, since it didn’t have its own properties to promote.
There’s a good article in the current issue of The Economist about Sony’s recent troubles that discusses how it made enemies by being in both the content business and the consumer electronics business at the same time, and mentions that Apple wisely side-stepped the problem with iTunes. Maybe I’ll post it in the PSP thread.
Who knows, perhaps one reason Apple signed on with Blue Ray is an agreement to purchase the Beatles music rights that Sony holds. That’s right Sony hold some Beatles rights as well as EMI. Now there’s a rumor for ya!
idiots!!!,
It’s called a “chill pill”… Take a few! FAST!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
& let us have our fun alright?
apple buying EMI.. holy crap.. relax people.. this is preposterous!
I can’t believe people think Apple wants to take over every aspect of the music business.. sheesh.. they’re an online store.
Wonder what would happen if Apple bought Michael Jackson’s remaining half of the Beatles library? He needs the money, and they have it…
I’m not sure if MJ still has that much left in terms of ownership of the Beatles library. I’m fairly certain that the reason Sony owns any of it is due to MJ selling it to them. But I could be wrong.
[Wow. an internet first: someone freely admitting they don’t know for sure if what they’re saying is true!!!]
what transgeek said, which is supported by previous articles pointed out by MDN
another MDN headline with pertinent info: here.
“The computer company’s lawyer said that the 1991 agreement allows Apple Computer to use the name for data transmission services, even if the data included material such as music, which was within the record label’s ‘field of use,'” Reuters reports.”