That’s the pact that Apple (AAPL) and Sony (SNE) have reached this week over the upcoming release of the Jackson’s newest stuff: Anyone who wants to buy a copy of “This Is It,” the song, via iTunes will also have to buy some extended-play version of “This Is It,” the album

Here’s the official word from Apple, following a couple days’ worth of erroneous and confusing reports (one of which I wrote):

We look forward to offering the new Michael Jackson album, as well as a digital-only EP with six previously unreleased tracks, providing fans a great way to get all of the new songs. The iTunes Store will offer the album-only single “This Is It” on both the album and EP starting October 26.

To spell that out: Apple will not be selling the single by itself.

That’s an unusual arrangement for Apple, which generally insists that labels sell their music on a track-by-track basis. If the labels had their way, they would consistently force customers to buy an entire album for $10 or more. No word on pricing yet, but it’s a fair bet to assume that even the six-song EP will sell for more than $1.29, Apple’s highest price for an individual song.

Apple does make an occasional exception here and there. For instance, many of the songs on iTunes soundtracks are only available as part of an album. But while “This Is It” does accompany a movie by the same name, it’s not technically a soundtrack, so that’s not what’s going on here.

Sony has sold a staggering amount of Jackson’s stuff since his death last summer, so it’s possible that Apple is simply trying to take advantage of what appears to be insatiable demand. But that doesn’t sound right to me: Even a huge hit on iTunes does very little for Apple’s books.

My guess: Apple maintains a vise-grip on the digital sales, but every now and then likes to throw the labels a bone. For instance, it used to insist that all of the labels sell all of their songs for 99 cents, but earlier this year, Apple changed its policy and now offers three different price points.

EARLIER: After Michael Jackson died, fans flooded iTunes to snap up his music. But when “This Is It,” the singer’s final work, comes out this month, they’ll have to look somewhere else: Apple’s digital store won’t be selling the album.

So says Digital Music News, citing “confidential information.” The problem, supposedly, is that Sony (SNE) and Jackson’s estate want to sell the entire double album as a set, while Apple insists that all of the music it sells needs to be available as singles.

I’m checking with Sony and Apple to confirm, but the story is a familiar one, because it’s a longstanding dispute between Apple (AAPL) and the music business. The industry, for both financial and artistic reasons, has tried to keep music bundled together, while Apple insists on selling it a la carte.

Apple usually wins these disputes: Even the stubborn iconoclasts in Radiohead eventually bowed to Steve Jobs’s will and turned their precious albums into individual songs.

If there is a clamor for the new Jackson music online, it will reportedly benefit Amazon (AMZN), whose MP3 store does offer album-only releases.

But I’m not sure how loud the clamor will be: As best I can tell, the “new” release contains only a smattering of Michael Jackson you haven’t heard before: Two versions of the title song, plus “a recently discovered spoken word poem.”

The rest? Greatest hits you can already buy, song-by-song, on iTunes.

Via Reuters/Billboard:

Guns N’ Roses and Universal Music Group’s Interscope-Geffen A&M label were sued by British label Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss.

Singer Axl Rose and Guns N’ Roses band members and album producers copied portions of two of Schnauss songs–”Wherever You Are” and “A Strangely Isolated Place”–for a song used on the band’s last album called “Riad N’ the Bedouins,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday but made available on Monday, seeks $1 million in damages. A spokesperson for Interscope-Geffen A&M, owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, was not available for comment.

You might have thought the labels suing the band and Universal Music would have done so last fall, when there was a biggish to-do about the album and when the band and Universal Music were siccing the federal government on bloggers who posted links to unauthorized MP3s from the album.

Anyway, it’s another good opportunity to remind the young people of today why the young people of 20 years ago were really into Guns N’ Roses: They used to be great!

Also, I am still trying to track down a recording of any of the songs from the Axl Rose-inspired “White Trash Wins Lotto,” the best musical I’ve ever seen (the version I saw featured a pre-“Ratatouille” Patton Oswalt, I think). Any help greatly appreciated…

But here’s a very slight twist: The sales decline slowed in the most recent quarter. U.S. sales dropped 11.1 percent in Q3, compared to a 14.5 percent drop in Q2, according to Nielsen Soundscan.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Michael Jackson isn’t going to pass away again–and that unless they finally do come to Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes, there probably isn’t another way to repackage the Beatles again. Billboard:

Renewed interest in the Beatles and Michael Jackson slowed the decline of U.S. album sales in the third quarter, although the industry is still on track to fall for the eighth time in nine years….

Music retailers are hoping that the continued performance of Jackson and Beatles albums and a strong fourth-quarter release schedule will continue to make up lost ground.

During the quarter, Jackson’s June 25 death fueled sales of about 5 million units, and the September 9 re-release of the Beatles catalog has sold 1.3 million units so far.

So far this year 11 albums have topped the 1 million-unit mark, the same number as in 2008. In 2008, the top seller was Lil Wayne’s “Tha Carter III,” at 2.5 million units; this year’s top seller is Jackson’s “Number Ones,” at 1.8 million units.

What about the company’s awesome new iPhone app, the one that will let you stream music directly to your handset? You know, like the one that Apple (AAPL) just approved for Spotify, the superhyped service you can’t even get in the U.S. yet?

Don’t hold your breath says Best Buy (BBY). That Napster app is not coming anytime soon. And neither are apps for Google’s (GOOG) Android platform or Research In Motion’s (RIMM) BlackBerry.  And it’s because of those darn music labels. From a press note the company sent out this morning:

One of the most common questions Napster receives is, “When will you offer an iPhone app?” Well, Napster has created an iPhone application that allows subscribers to stream music on-demand to their iPhone—including personal playlists, albums and radio stations. You can imagine the company is also looking at streaming applications for several other mobile platforms as well (Blackberry, Android). However, due to the high licensing fees for streaming to a mobile phone, Napster has not yet submitted the iPhone app to Apple for approval or attempted to bring the application to market.

Now that’s an interesting approach–something akin to showing off a shiny new sled in a toy store window below a sign that reads “Not coming soon, not our fault.” Or that bank ad where the jerk takes the truck from the chubby kid.

I also don’t know if Napster’s explanation tells the whole story: Best Buy/Napster and the big labels already have an agreement that lets the company stream unlimited music to your PC for $5 a month. Just how much more would the company have to charge to accommodate the fees the labels want for mobile streaming? I’m supposed to talk with Napster folks later today, and if there’s anything I can pass along, I will.

UPDATE:  A little clarification from Napster president Brad Duea. His company’s position is that it doesn’t want to move about its $5 a month price, and that it would have to do so in order to offer streaming.

Why would it have to do that? Duea won’t spell it out. But henotes that RealNetworks’ (RNWK) Rhapsody, which has submitted an streaming music app to Apple, charges $15 a month for “on the go” service it already offers, and assumes it will charge the same for a service that works with the iPhone. Similarly, Spotify charges the equivalent of $16 a month for its premium service in the UK.

Of course, it’s possible that RealNetworks or Spotify will try subsidizing some of the cost for a mobile app in order to grab market share, and offer their iPhone/mobile services for something closer to Napster’s $5 fee.

[CORRECTION: My assertion about NPD's unit sales data below is incorrect: The tracking service counts 12 digital download singles as the equivalent of one CD. That makes Apple's share of the market that much more impressive, since singles make up the majority of iTunes sales.]

Ready to toss dirt on the old, unloved CD? You’re going to have to wait a while. Compact discs are increasingly hard to find (at least in physical stores), but someone out there keeps buying them: The ancient format still makes up the majority of music sales in the U.S.

Here are the data for the first half of the year, via the NPD Group consumer-tracking outfit: CDs made up 65 percent of the music market, while paid digital downloads accounted for 35 percent. The digital share has increased from 20 percent two years ago, and Apple’s iTunes (AAPL) alone makes up 25 percent of overall sales*, so you’re going to hear lots of proclamations about Steve Jobs’s ascent to the to top of the music industry.

But hold off on that, just a bit. Because those numbers are skewed even more in favor of the CD than they appear at first glance: They’re measuring unit sales, not dollars. And given that the majority of digital sales are in the single format (i.e., a dollar or so a pop), that means CDs (at $10 or so a pop) still account for the vast majority of music revenue.

Which is why the industry is still tied to CDs, even though no one you know buys them anymore. And it explains why the industry is working on two separate digital formats (dubbed “Cocktail” when sold by Apple, and CMX when sold by anyone else) designed to induce buyers to pay for CD-like bundles.

It won’t work. At best, they’ll convince some digital album buyers to upgrade, but the music business is once again a singles business, and it’s going to remain that way. But you can’t blame the industry for trying.

By the way, there are decent odds you’ll hear about Cocktail at Apple’s September event, which Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski says is scheduled for Sept. 9. Mark your calendar.

*If you’re keeping track: Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT) trail Apple in the overall market. And iTunes still dominates the digital download market with a 69 percent share, while Amazon (AMZN) is a distant second with eight percent.

But in true Apple fashion, the company has been noncommittal about the exact date of the event and what it will be showing off.

I’ve asked Apple for comment and will report back if the company responds. But the timing makes sense and shouldn’t come as a surprise since Apple (AAPL) has traditionally used the week following Labor Day to show off new products and refresh existing product lines.

Two years ago, for instance, Apple introduced the iPod touch, which has since become a key part of the company’s arsenal. Last year, the event featured less substantial changes, like an overhaul of the iPod Nano.

Given that Apple has tipped off music industry executives, it’s a fair bet that the event will incorporate music in some way. Perhaps it will show off the new “Cocktail” format that Apple has been working on, which bundles full-length albums with other goodies like album covers and interactive bells and whistles.

But unless Apple unveils its so-called iTablet, a touchscreen device that’s supposed to be a cross between an iPhone and a full-fledged MacBook laptop computer, there are going to be a lot of disappointed Apple acolytes.

The other big appearance the Apple faithful will be looking for will be Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who hasn’t made an official public appearance since a keynote presentation last October.

During Apple’s September 2008 keynote, Jobs took time to dismiss reports that he was in failing health. But in January, Jobs said a “hormone imbalance” required him to step away from day-to-day leadership at the company, and news later surfaced that Jobs had undergone a liver transplant last spring. He’s been officially back at work since late June.

My story about EMI’s lawsuit against Web music start-up Grooveshark elicited this email from Ben Patterson, who runs indie Web music distributor DashGo, about his experience with the service.

I think Patterson’s remarks are useful because they spell out Grooveshark’s business plan, or at least part of it: Charge labels to promote their acts on the service’s search engine. And I think it’s also helpful to hear an obvious but little-voiced argument about the “free Web music = valuable promotion” thesis: It works best when the act or label is playing along. With Ben’s permission, I’m publishing his entire email.

I’ll caveat this by saying they are nice guys and big music fans and I’m always rooting for new music services that work for bands and music fans alike.

Back in 2007 DashGo signed a deal with Grooveshark that basically amounted to a digital download service delivered via P2P. Users who used Grooveshark’s P2P service to search for songs would be presented with a download / buy link and the revenue would be split between fan hosting the file, Grooveshark and the band.

A couple months later we got a nice packet–a t-shirt, letter and wax-sealed, yes, wax-sealed, envelope with a check for $0.59 in royalties. (Coconut Records “West Coast” I think)

Then I didn’t hear much for 6 months. No checks, no real action. At the end of 2008, they reached out and told me about their new music search engine at listen.grooveshark.com–basically Seeqpod / Songza / all other stream song aggregators…not what we licensed for, but not egregious enough to get huffy.

Of course, that was before they offered to sell me advertising for my bands as the default search keyword. For $0.05 per search, I could make the default phrase “DashGo Band Name” instead of “Search here.” I had to ask–am I getting paid per play? No of course not. Because “[they] are not profitable and can’t afford to share that advertising revenue.” So I’m paying, not even for a play, but for a search term on a service where they have users and can sell ads ONLY because people can listen to music, and because it’s free, what incentive is there EVER to buy the song?

So we don’t deliver there anymore.

I’ll tell you why all these free streaming music services are broken–because they rely on music advertising to pay the rent but give away the advertisers product. If I got free McDonald’s and Budweiser by watching the Super Bowl, why would I buy the food? As an advertiser, why would I pay a CPC to advertise streaming music and promote listens when the per stream rate a existing subscription services is AT BEST $0.02 per play?

It sucks to get sued. I’m sorry Grooveshark, but really..what did you expect? You’re soliciting labels and bands to pay your bandwidth, rent and operating costs and giving away the product.

While I’ve got this soapbox out, let me preach one more gospel; offering free music accessible via a search engine is NOT promotional if the band hasn’t opted in.

If a user SEARCHES for the music and listens to it for free in an environment where someone ELSE has posted the music and the band doesn’t have the option to ask for an email address or even pitch a tour or merch or actual album; then the service is just ripping off the band by giving free content to someone who asked for it–not promoting it to a new fan or adding a filter that helps expose and distinguish music.

[Image credit: Mrs. Logic]

No way, says reader Joy Sherman, who insists that they’re “all over” YouTube, and pointed me to a clip from WMG’s new Green Day album.

And sure enough, there’s the video for “Know Your Enemy,” the new single from one of the label’s biggest acts.

But I’m not sure about the “all over” part. I can find one live version that’s pretty good. But the other clips I’ve found with the same label are either bait and switches or appear to be disabled in some way.

So. You can find some Warner’s stuff on YouTube, some of the time. But aren’t all of  Warner’s videos–and songs–supposed to be off of YouTube altogether, the result of a licensing dispute that flared up in December?

No official comment from either the label or the video site. But the unofficial story seems to be this: YouTube has variety of methods to take down content that’s not supposed to be on the site, including its ContentID system, which can automate the process for copyright owners that use it–that’s why YouTube wasn’t completely overrun with clips from NBC’s Olympics coverage last summer and why very little footage from ABC’s Oscars coverage made it onto the site earlier this year.

And Warner Music Group (WMG) is a ContentID user. But the system isn’t foolproof, and it’s bound to work much better when YouTube and the content owner are working together instead of fighting over royalties and revenue splits.

So here’s the Green Day video that’s not supposed to be on YouTube, and may not be for much longer once I post it. So enjoy while you can:

And, per MTV VP’s John Loscalzo’s request, I’ll note that Viacom’s video site has a perfectly legally version of the song that won’t get taken down. You can see it here.

But that was when people still bought CDs. Now everyone from Britney Spears down to the smallest indie band routinely streams music for free, before the disc–or iTunes download–goes on sale, in order to whet appetites–or at least promote concert tours. No big deal.

But I still like the way that Wilco, the best band of all time in the whole wide world (disclosure: I am a big Wilco fan) handles this: Rather than linking up its free stream in a promotional tie-up, the band waits for the album to leak onto the Web, then streams it on their own site. And they ask fans who have helped themselves to an illegal download to donate to charity.

Slight bummer for Warner Music Group (WMG), which would like to sell as many discs as possible, but good vibes for everyone else. And, in truth, a nice promotion for the band as it heads out on tour this summer.

Here’s how the band describes it, via an email sent out last night:

Well, we made it nearly a month with copies of Wilco (the album) floating around out there before it leaked. Pretty impressive restraint in this day and age. But the inevitable happened last night. Since we know you’re curious and probably have better things to do than scour the internet for a download (though we do understand the attraction of the illicit), we’ve posted a stream of the full album at http://wilcoworld.net/records/thealbum/. Feel free to refer to it as “wilco (the stream)” if you must.

We also have our usual guilt abatement plan for downloaders. If you have downloaded the record, we suggest you make a donation to one of the band’s favorite charities, the Inspiration Corporation–an organization we’ve supported in the past & who are doing great work in the city of Chicago. Information and donation button here: http://inspirationcorp.org/.

If you don’t want to click through, here’s a version of the album’s first song, recorded last fall. Not as good as the album cut, in my humble opinion.

And then these two sentences: “Discussions regarding the digital distribution of the catalogue will continue. There is no further information available at this time.”

So, to sum up: The Beatles are still not available on Apple’s iTunes (AAPL) or any other legal online venue.

If you want to read about the CDs, which will be released in September and will feature “new packaging,” go right ahead. But if you’re pressed for time, here’s what said packaging will look like. Start saving now:

Earlier this year, the Harvard Business Review tried to refute Anderson in a well-argued piece. Now comes a set of British researchers trying to do the same thing. From the U.K. Times:

The idea that niche markets were the key to the future for internet sellers was described as one of the most important economic models of the 21st century when it was spelt out by Chris Anderson in his book, ‘The Long Tail,’ in 2006. He used data from an American online music retailer to predict that the internet economy would shift from a relatively small number of ‘hits’–mainstream products–at the head of the demand curve toward a ‘huge number of niches in the tail’.

A new study by Will Page, chief economist of the MCPS-PRS Alliance, the not-for-profit royalty collection society, suggests that the niche market is not an untapped goldmine and that online sales success still relies on big hits. They found that, for the online singles market, 80 per cent of all revenue came from around 52,000 tracks. For albums, the figures were even more stark. Of the 1.23 million available, only 173,000 were ever bought, meaning 85 per cent did not sell a single copy all year.”

Anderson, who has been a good sport about jousting with his critics on his blog, tells the Times that he needs to see more data before weighing in on this newest salvo. But I don’t have that compunction. My two cents–or at least, my two sort-of related points:

• The Long Tail is a useful way to think about back catalogs. The Web means you can extend the reach of a product once it has had an initial run, and it allows aggregators like Amazon (AMZN) to make money by assembling lots of niche products at one storefront. It’s less useful for people who are creating albums, books, movies, etc., and need to get compensated for their work in the present tense.
• One area where the Long Tail holds up just fine: Web publishing. The awesome power of Google (GOOG) means that stuff you publish once on the Internet will continue to find new audiences in the future, more or less without any additional effort on your part. Any Web publisher invariably finds that a large chunk of its audience tends to come to its site to consume stuff they produced weeks, months or years ago. Of course, consumers don’t want to pay anything in order to consume that stuff, which means it’s only useful if you can sell Web advertising against it. But that’s a different post.

The blogger who leaked most of ”Chinese Democracy,” the sort-of long-awaited album from Gun N’ Roses, has pleaded guilty to copyright infringement and will cooperate with the Feds in order to stay out of jail.

But he isn’t the only one who’s in hot water over the album. Someone at Best Buy (BBY) has to explain why they thought it was a good idea to buy 1.3 million nonreturnable copies of the album, most of which look destined to become drink coasters.

Before anyone gets tempted to put two and two together here and blame the Internet for poor music sales, be warned: The music that is most popular among file sharers is the music that is most popular among buyers. In retrospect, it was easy to tell that this album would stiff, based on the reactions of MySpace browsers who came to check out a legal stream of the album–they listened to one track and bailed out.

The Wall Street Journal floats another theory: That Axl Rose, who is the only person left from the original band and whose cloistered neuroticism/paranoia became legendary during the gazillion years it took for the album to come out, didn’t work hard enough to sell the album. He shunned interviews, didn’t make a video for the album, etc.

But just because Axl Rose is turning down a chance to chat with the likes of the New York Times doesn’t mean you can’t find him online. He’s been dropping by fan sites to leave message on bulletin boards, and this weekend did a lengthy Q&A with his followers, who seem to have lots of patience. If you’ve got a similar amount of time, the entire transcript is here via Idolator.

This move should temporarily boost traffic at iMeem, which finds itself competing for the ability to premier new releases with rival music services like iLike, MySpace, Rhapsody, et al. Last week, for instance, MySpace got bragging rights over “Chinese Democracy,” the sort-of-long-awaited album from Guns N’ Roses.

But it’s unclear whether these premieres actually help Britney or her label, Sony’s (SNE) Jive: Few of the visitors to MySpace’s GNR page stuck around to listen to the whole album, and hordes of GNR fans don’t seem to have flooded Best Buy (BBY) stores, which have an exclusive on the disc.

But who cares? That’s tomorrow’s problem. For now: Free Britney Spears!