Apple doesn't "share" profits with anyone, esp on iPods. I could see a deal on a branded Beatles iPod for a limited period of time, as that would be trackable.

And with Apple's marketshare, exclusivity would be nice, but isn't that big a deal for Apple, as long as they can sell Beatles tunes.

Typical Fox reporting!

iTunes will get the majority of the business because 80% of downloads will go on iPods. Let the rest squander for the measely 20% left overs.

I noted with amusement this: "The report also claims that the recent Apple brand name agreement between the two firms includes a royalty agreement for every iTunes song or iPod bought, guaranteeing revenue for the music label regardless of perceived losses due to brand confusion."

Remember the Beattle's song "Imagine," where all the ills of the world are eliminated by destroying religions, nations and private property. Forgetting the perhaps 2 billion people you'd have to murder to even begin to apply its principles, it's beyond a doubt the most hypocritical song ever penned by human hand. No one clings to "their property" like the Beattles. Take away your religion--fine. Take away even a penny of their millions--no.

What that song said was intended for all the little peasants (us) who don't deserve rights and must pay this Apple Corps tax on our iPods. For the Celebrity Class, the rules are different. Property as copyright and trademark exists, even at the ugly, greedy level of getting money for doing nothing and for an alleged confusion in the marketplace that doesn't exist. Greed, greed, greed.

This also why Celebrities posture about global warming, while flitting about in private jets and living in climate-controlled 20,000+ square foot homes. Living a low CO2 footprint is for peasants. So what if these Celebrities generate more CO2 in a year than much of the world's population generates in their lifetime.

No cruel ruler in ancient India, living in luxury while those under him starved, was more vain, egotistical and greedy than the members of this Celebrity Class.

At least the remaining British Beattles, to my knowledge, aren't as phony as Ireland's Bono. They may evade every tax they can and exploit every possible source of income, but they don't also lecture governments about feeding the poor with other people's taxes. In hypocrisy, it's hard to beat Bono.

Wow, they go to all the trouble to remaster the albums, and then give them to digital download services so they can compress them up and make them sound just like they used to...

Your point is a good one - it would seem silly to remaster a recording just to apply compression to it. But this should be obvious to everyone, and hopefully the remastering is being done with the specific intention of optimizing the material for this process. On the other hand, we have certainly reached a point where every time a company re-releases a recording, they "remaster" it. The term has become a buzzword that causes the consumer to think that it MUST be better than before. And that's simply nonsense.

On the issue of iPod profit-sharing, I think this is simply another revenue opportunity for Apple. By offering 50 cents or a buck to a partner for every iPod sold, Apple would get a helluva committed partner. The question is: has the market reached a point where Apple needs to play this card, or will they continue to make more money by keeping all iPod sales to themselves? It seems that they do NOT need to share iPod sales since the labels are starving and need to get the best possible deal with Apple for online music that they can get right away.

Get your music knowledge straight.

"Imagine" is NOT a Beatles song. It was written by John Lennon and sung by John Lennon as a SOLO artist. Not the Beatles.