EMI sues BlueBeat over Beatles downloads – 4 November 2009

Wednesday 4 November 2009 | Beatles catalogue and digital music | By Beatles Fabdom

On 4 November 2009, news of EMI’s legal action against BlueBeat.com drew attention to an online service offering Beatles recordings for 25 US cents a track. The Beatles’ catalogue had recently been remastered for CD, but an authorised catalogue-wide download service had not yet arrived.

EMI had filed its federal lawsuit in California on 3 November 2009. The following day’s reports covered a dispute over the distribution of the recordings, not an announcement of an approved Beatles download deal. BlueBeat maintained that its service was legitimate; the courts would subsequently reject the company’s defence.

Beatles downloads before the official iTunes deal

By late 2009, buying music as individual digital tracks was an established part of the record business. The Beatles remained a conspicuous absence from the major authorised download stores. Their original recordings were available on physical releases, while negotiations about online distribution had not produced an iTunes launch.

That distinction matters when looking back at the BlueBeat reports. The recordings themselves were not unavailable to listeners. Rather, the catalogue had not been released through an authorised online download arrangement of the kind BlueBeat appeared to offer.

The year had already brought a major Beatles reissue programme. Apple Corps and EMI released the remastered original catalogue on CD on 9 September 2009, alongside The Beatles: Rock Band. Stereo and mono boxed collections formed part of the CD campaign.

Digital remastering described the preparation of those recordings. It did not mean that the remastered tracks were automatically authorised for sale by an independent download website.

Abbey Road was part of the original album catalogue at the centre of the wider digital-release story. Explore its songs and recording history in our Abbey Road complete deep dive.

What BlueBeat was offering

BlueBeat began offering the Beatles recordings on 30 October 2009. It sold MP3 downloads and also streamed music through its website. The company was a subsidiary of Media Rights Technologies, a business associated with digital-rights-management technology.

The advertised price was 25 US cents per track, with a reported 30-cent processing fee. Contemporary coverage described an extensive selection: remastered recordings, earlier versions of the catalogue, Anthology releases, Love, Let It Be… Naked, Live At The BBC and the 1 compilation.

The low price attracted attention, but the dispute was about permission to distribute the recordings. EMI had not authorised BlueBeat’s sales. The presence of familiar albums and a working payment system did not amount to a licensing agreement with the record company.

EMI’s lawsuit and BlueBeat’s response

EMI brought its action in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Although the Beatles catalogue generated much of the publicity, the case also involved recordings by other EMI artists.

BlueBeat disputed the allegation that it was simply selling unauthorised copies. Its website stated that its MP3s were “fully-licensed audio-visual works” and that the service paid applicable royalties.

Hank Risan, the businessman behind BlueBeat and Media Rights Technologies, advanced a further explanation. He described the files as products of “psycho-acoustic simulation” and claimed that the process had created new recordings in which he held rights.

This was BlueBeat’s argument, not a licence granted by EMI or Apple Corps. The dispute therefore concerned both the service’s distribution of the tracks and its claim that its processing had produced independently owned recordings.

The “psycho-acoustic simulation” defence

BlueBeat’s explanation became one of the most widely reported features of the case. Rather than presenting an ordinary agreement to distribute EMI’s masters, the company claimed that its technical process had created new works.

The court did not accept that account as a justification for the sales. In later reporting on the case, Judge Josephine Tucker’s ruling was described as rejecting versions derived from commercially purchased CDs. The judge characterised the company’s explanation as “obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language” and a long-winded description of sampling.

The distinction between BlueBeat’s claim and the court’s finding is essential to the history. Contemporary reports in early November recorded a contested position. By December 2010, the court had ruled against the company.

From the restraining order to the 2011 settlement

A federal judge halted the disputed online sales soon after EMI filed suit. The service’s brief period of Beatles distribution nevertheless involved a substantial number of tracks: the BBC later reported that more than 67,000 Beatles downloads had been distributed before the shutdown.

In December 2010, the court found against Media Rights Technologies. The subsequent agreement resolved the damages phase rather than validating BlueBeat’s earlier claim.

In March 2011, BlueBeat and Media Rights Technologies agreed to pay US $950,000 to settle the case. Reporting on the agreement also described restrictions on further distribution of recordings controlled by the labels involved and an agreement not to appeal the judgment.

The settlement was the later outcome of the dispute reported on 4 November 2009. It should not be confused with a payment negotiated in advance to authorise the original download service.

The official digital release followed a different route

The Beatles’ move into downloadable music eventually came through an agreement announced jointly by Apple Corps, EMI and Apple on 16 November 2010.

The iTunes launch included the thirteen remastered studio albums, the two-volume Past Masters compilation and the Red and Blue collections. Listeners could purchase albums or individual songs. A digital Beatles box set also included the film of the band’s 1964 Washington Coliseum concert.

The companies involved should be distinguished: Apple Corps was the Beatles’ company; Apple operated iTunes; and EMI was the record company involved in the catalogue and the BlueBeat litigation.

The authorised iTunes release came just over a year after the BlueBeat controversy. It was a separate commercial agreement, not the continuation or approval of BlueBeat’s service.

Timeline: Beatles remasters, BlueBeat and iTunes

Explore the Abbey Road catalogue

For the music itself, our Abbey Road guide explores the album behind one of the best-known images in the Beatles catalogue. That crossing artwork also features on the Abbey Road junior guitar and Abbey Road ukulele.

Frequently asked questions

What happened on 4 November 2009?

News coverage described EMI’s lawsuit against BlueBeat over its Beatles downloads and streams. The lawsuit itself had been filed on 3 November.

How much did BlueBeat charge for Beatles tracks?

It advertised downloads at 25 US cents per track, with a reported 30-cent processing fee.

Did EMI authorise BlueBeat’s Beatles downloads?

No. EMI sued over the distribution, and the court later rejected BlueBeat’s defence.

What was “psycho-acoustic simulation”?

It was BlueBeat’s description of a process that it claimed created new recordings. The court rejected that argument as a defence for the disputed sales.

How did the BlueBeat case end?

After a ruling against the company in December 2010, a $950,000 settlement was reported in March 2011.

When did the Beatles officially arrive on iTunes?

On 16 November 2010, through an announcement by Apple Corps, EMI and Apple.