Slashdot Mirror
Beatles Bite Apple
blamanj writes "Apple Computer, which once got into hot water with the Beatles Apple record label, has been sued once again by the same group. Apple Records says iTunes and the iPod violate the previous agreement." Apple's broke their agreement in the past when speakers were first used with their computers to play music.
I hope the judge is a Mac user who hates the Beatles.
I am the walrus. I am the frivolous lawsuit.
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
Er, wait... that's grapes :-/
This whole situation is bullshit, Nobody on earth is going to confuse Apple Computer Inc. with Apple Corps Ltd. So the trademark point should be moot.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Man, this is a Corp dump that's going to byte big time!
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous, and Apple music knows it, but probably figures they can milk them for a little more cash, so why not?
FYI- IIRC, this was the origin of the "sosumi" sound (one of the first sounds apples made) (so-sue-me)
(You know, he owns the rights to the Beatles songs)
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Even Darl McBride knows this lawsuit sucks. He owns the Unix code in the IPod, after all.
World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment because of an agreement they made with World Wildlife Fund to not use WWF internationally. Internet took off, Wrestling ended up at wwf.com, and Wildlife (wwf.org) sued. Bye bye Federation.
As a huge Beatles fan and new Mac user I have to say that this is an outrage. Right now I am embarrassed to say that the Beatles are my favorite music group. iTunes has been out for how long? The iPod has been in production for how long? And only now are they deciding to bring this to court.
This seems like a desperate move to gain money and alienate fans. They have certainly alienated this fan. I can't see myself spending another penny on anything Beatles related, just because of this suit. I hope that others will do the same.
Now I know why they've been charging an arm and a leg for those G5s. If they didn't gouge the consumer so effectively they'd never be able to afford to keep on breaking the trademark agreement they signed with the Beatles.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
"So Mr. Jobs, how do you like dem apples?"
BANG!
Jobs: Apple sauce, bitch
But when I saw that Apple was using applemusic.com, I'd had it figured that they must have bought out Apple Corps right to the trademark. I'm quite surprised they didn't, and now it does look like they really are at the losing end of a trademark battle that's extremely clear on the merits.
I'm confused by this. The article repeatedly states that The Beatles are sueing apple. It doesnt state that the Beatles former Label, Apple Corp, is suing them.
The Beatles songs and the economic copyrights (all revenue generated by) are owned by Micheal Jackson. Is he involved in this, him being technically the owner of all things 'Beatles' anymore.
Who is sueing who here? Can someone please clarify?
.
Uh, Wait just a minute... How can the Beatles be suing Apple if they are giving away an iPod with each Beatle sold? ;-)
I mean seriously. When the agreement was first made, who knew which direction computers would take. Apple isn't being a record label, they are simply selling devices for playing music and distributing music from the record companies.
Give me a break. I still can't believe that an earlier suit was won against Apple Computer because they included speakers with their PC.
Something's gotta give here. Hopefully some judge will step in and say "This is retarded. Case dismissed."
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
For once its someone suing apple over something as retarded as look and feel. Lets remember Apple suing over iMac lookalikes and pulling MacOSX look alike themes.
I think we can now safely transfer the "Apple Is Dying" meme from Apple Computer to Apple Records.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Look, the Beatles were arguably the greatest band ever. Their music is amazing. But I have never confussed their record company with the guys in Cupertino who make computers.
NOT EVEN ONCE!
This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.
I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
This is obviously just an attempt by Apple Corps to be bought out. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
didn't reveal anyone signed with Apple Music being offered on Apple's Music Store.
Hafta wonder what they would have done if Apple had offered Apple's musicians' music on Apple's Music Store.
(Deal...I couldn't resist)
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
After they've C&D'd everybody and their brother for making Aqua skins, providing a workaround to allow folks to use their DVD writing software, and various other "intellectual property" based "offenses," they're hypocrites to not respect the other Apple's "intellectual property."
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Ha! Did I call this one or what? :)
/me has smug look on face.
Wayyy back in the original Apple iTunes story, I posted a comment stating this very thing would happen. And HOW MANY Mac zealots jumped on me saying it would never happen.
My journal has hot
*head spinning*
the irony is... amazing,
this is what makes me belive in god, he planned this 60 years ago just for the inside joke.
petty.
-knowles
I knew the RIAA was desperate but resurrecting this case is a real stretch.
I didn't even know who Apple Corps. were before they decided to sue Apple Computer. But it's not just me, you can ask anyone! Just walk up to someone on the street and ask them what company they think of when you say the word 'Apple'.
Can't different entities in different hemispheres of business share copyrights? Maybe I'm phrasing that incorrectly.
Agh! Do these twits know why apple was named Apple? Because Woz liked picking apples! Is it totally impossible to have 2 corperations with the same name without one suing? How many Comp* are there or "Computer Source" or generic names like that? This is just as absurd as the guy name Shell who lost his domain name to the corperation in Germany. It's time we admit that people and corperations and other corperations and people can have the same name as long as an average consumer could differenciate them, eg based on symbol or product. Not only that, people>corperations. This has totally gotten out of hand. If people can tell the difference, who cares if they have the same name. Jeez.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
I don't know about anyone else, but, I can see Apple Music's point....I mean, when I look for music, I'm geniunly confused about between which company is the music rights holder for the beatles, and which one has a library of a couple hundred thousand songs for $0.99/piece that also owns one of the three major platforms of personal computers!! I mean, how confusing can it get?!?!?!
Well, it's not like Apple Records is doing much in tech or on the web. Their web site is kind of spartan...
I wonder what they're running that Apache 1.3.26 on...
Share and Enjoy!
~~~
may i suggest ... wait for it ... NeXT?
Man, did any of you read the article? Yes, the law suits in the past were pretty silly... involving a computer's speakers making them "in the music business."
That is not the case today. Apple Computer has been sued and lost twice already to the tune of $50 million. Now they open a website named AppleMusic which sells music. If that doesn't put them in the music business, I don't know what does. Not only that, but AppleMusic could easily be confused with Apple Corp's music business.
This is a stupid mistake by a company that KNOWS they will lose a suit (since it has happened in the past with much more obscure violations). In those other suits, I would've sided with Apple Computer but not in this one.
IANAL, but I play one on
The fact that the Beatles called their record company "Apple Corps" is the stuff of $2000 questions on "Jeopardy!". Only very very stupid people, or lawyers, could claim confusion. Granted, the issue at hand is breach of contract, but still, why be such dicks?
And at the end of the day, who's done you more good:
-realinvalidname
If the previous agreement could have been said to be broken by allowing music to be played through speakers, and this one is said to be broken by allowing music to be played on an iPod it seems:
(a) that someone's been agreeing to idiotic things (restricting how someone can listen to music? Even the RIAA don't go much further), and
(b) the lawyers are still on the gravy train...
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I mean, cut me a break. It's been more than 10 years since any of the fab four made an arguably great album.
I like their stuff, but then again, I'm older, and it's easy to see that in a decade or so that band will be completely forgotten.
This is my sig.
I dont understand this at all.
They won against a company that added a speaker jack to the computer? *slaps head* I mean what kind of crack was the judge really on here.
I'm so flabberghasted(sp) that I cant even come up with a coherent response to this.
Now that Apple computers make music there is confusion between the Apple label and Apple computers.
Things are going to get a lot worse when we start hooking up Macs to food replicators and order lunch by saying:
"Computer, a Big Mac, Fries and a Coke..."
There will also be trademark confusion when trucking companies start using autopilots for their long haul routes. You'll see Macs driving Mack Trucks.
Brand confusion will get ugly I tell ya.
You people (USians) really need to do something to combat this "lawsuits are cool"-attitude that seems to be so prevalent.
Really, there's something wrong with how people think about lawsuits over there. I my world they're a last resort in a dispute. They're not for "getting good PR" or "asserting ones place" or "making money fast!!!"
It's self-destructive in the extreme.
Now, flame on.
They signed that stupid contract in the first place, they will have to live with the consequences.
It is pretty simple really, do NOT hand some one a loaded gun and then say "Fuck you arsehole".
- Apple Computer bites into worm
- Apple hits sour note with lawsuit
- In Soviet Russia, Apple eat YOU!
*With a dry cool wit like that, Slashdot editors could be action heroes" Right now I am embarrassed to say that the Beatles are my favorite music group."
That would be embarassing regardless of any lawsuits.
I mean, its like sayiing "Glen Miller" is my favorite group. Both are equally relevant to today's music scene.
So far all the comments are in support of Apple Computer, I don't know why, must be a Slashdot thing. I can't think of a good reason for Apple Corp not to sue Apple Computer, since the latter had the chance not to call themselves Apple, they had the chance to go to court to earn the right to call themselves Apple and do music business, however they chose to sign that agreement. Then they should abide by it, but nooooo, "so sue me". I have to say, Apple Computer is pretty low on business ethic in this case.
Fox News pointed out that a lawsuit on this was inevitable back in June.
Frankly, I think it's silly. When you say "Apple" and "music" in the same breath, what comes to mind, the IPod or an old Beatles record label? I hadn't even heard of them before this.
The whole thing kinda reminds me of the old GIF patent lawsuits. The "legal insider" from the article was quoted as saying, "When it first happened with the iPod, we said, 'What could they be thinking?'" If it really bugged them, why didn't they say something right at the launch -- why wait until now? Sounds a bit like, "Hmm, let's keep quiet on this for now; maybe we'll get lucky and IPods'll take off. Once they're established and Apple can't just spin the idea off to some other company, then we can sic the lawyers on'em again!
The bold print giveth, and the fine print taketh away
... if the two groups did have an agreement, signed by both parties, it would seem pretty open and shut.
The question I have is: why? Why wouldn't Apple spin off some other company named Golden Delicious Music, or produce the iPod by Granny Smith or something? They pay their lawyers to come up with stuff like this, no?
Seems like Apple Computers knowingly breached a contract. Blatently. Seems like poor managerial decision making.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
1. Sue people 2. Profit
You can not trademark the name Apple! You can not trade mark any word that has a real meaning. Look how many things are called Eclipse. Does anyone that sells Apple pie also have to pay up? What about Applebee's. Apple computer got sued when they where small and said how about this if we promise to not go into the music bussiness will you leave us alone. Apple figured they where in computers not music. They blew it. The settled and made a deal now they are stuck with it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Actually, Darl invented the internet. That's what I heard.
(He's a slashdot reader according to this. So hi -- McDarling-to-be!)
"that's extremely clear on the merits."
IF the merits say that its clear, then the laws are stupid.
I'm no apple fan, but the idea that "Apple Music" has any power outside of the "pressing vinyl records and pumping money into aging pseudo-clebrities purses is mind bogglingly stupid.
At best.
It isn't so much a copyright violation, but a breach of contract suit.
Apple promised not to ship music equipment and lost the first suit. Isn't that sound called "sosumi" or "So Sue Me", which was a dig at Apple Corp?
Again, Apple Computer is getting into the music biz when they promised they would not and put it in writing. They're gonna lose again.
Apple probably figured they're making more money with iTunes and the iPod than they will lose in a suit. Pure business.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Welcome our new Beatle overlords.
Um.. who are the beatles anyways?
How do you like them apples?
Ba-dum-ching!
Hands up who didn't see this coming -- nobody? That's what I thought.
Last time Apple Records sued Apple Computer, the computer company agreed never to go into the music industry.
Now I can see letting iTunes slide while it was just the software for playing music on MacOS/OSX, but building a music distribution service around the software seems like a plain violation of the agreement.
The only surprise to me is that the record company didn't bring suit before now. They plainly pre-date the computer company by a a decade, so Apple computer is painted pretty tightly into a corner now.
Hopefully they'll find some reasonable way to settle this. Conceivably, the iTunes Music Service &/or iPod divisions can be spun off into their own company, and everyone will be able to go back to being friends.
Ob-la-di, ob-la-da...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Once you have a name for X number of years (say, 5) you should be immune from suits such as this. No matter what you do with your business.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
10 million songs * $.33 profit/song = $3.3 million profit. So.... sue for $57million damages.
This is a violation of an agreement/contract, so Apple (Comp) should pay something, or forge a new contract, but hopefully it'll be something reasonable.
After all, Apple (Records) has to have some songs in iTMS that are making money. Like... uh... wait, Apple Records is still around?
Mod parent '+5 sorrowful'
Feed me a stray cat.
You know what would be neat is if the two companies merged on this issue and Apple Computer and Apple Corps worked together to provide songs to the public as this is the sort of thing that John, Paul, George and Ringo envisioned when they started Apple Corps.
I agree with the Beatles...this goes back to the early days of Apple in which Jobs and Woz asked if they could use the Apple name...since it was associated with Apple Corps back then. The Beatles said they could use it as long as they didn't get into the music biz.
Now, it may be frivolous, but iTunes is in the music business. The Beatles may not need the money, but it's the thought that counts.
I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first, and a computer fan second.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
I'm confused.
just change history by putting paul mcartny's before woz's.
Regardless how "stupid" this may or may not be the simple fact of the matter is that Apple Computer agreed to not enter the music busines. They are clearly in violation of that agreement. They certainly had the option to fight in past rather than make that agreement...but they didn't which leads us here.
Apple (the record label) is only asking that Apple do the honorable thing and honor their agreement.
The Beatles, SCO and RIAA vs Apple, IBM and the return of the 12yo Girl (with Mask)
and resolve all those things once and for all.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
In Soviet Russia, The U.S.S.R. is back in you!
[dodges tomatoes]
Aside from popping up every ten years to sue Apple Computers, has Apple Corps actually put out any sort of product? A quick Google for Apple Corps brings up several other sites long before Apple Corps' placeholder website; has Apple Corps made an effort to protect its trademark, aside from prosecuting this single case?
Some of the hits on Google, in order of appearance:
I understand that Apple Corps has a standing agreement with Apple Computer, and Apple Computer is very likely in breach of that contract with iTunes and iPod because, as was true in the infamous speaker case, the contract was worded so loosely that if a Macintosh makes a sound, it's in breach. But, has this company actually done anything with itself, or taken any measures to protect its trademark from much more egregious infringements by organizations with shallower pockets?
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Not to worry - alienation is clearly Yoko's department.
Wrestling signed an agreement saying "We will not use WWF internationally." back in the early 90's. The internet came along, and so it made sense to use WWF.com. Wrestling got mega-popular, and Wildlife sued, pointing to their earlier agreement. It didn't matter what was "right" or "logical." The British judge said they'd violated their agreement with their internet presence, and they lost. Since the initials were such a big part of their identity (online and off), they had to change their whole name.
Solaris.
Oh wow, I even got RIAA into this... if I could only get SCO ... and maybe M$ too...
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
I think it was inevitable that this lawsuit was going to come to a head. If Apple (Computer) had stayed within the realm of computing (which would include sound cards, iPods, speakers, etc) they might have avoided this, but iTMS is a challenge Apple (Records) had to take or forever hold their peace.
The only way I can see that Apple (Computer) could fight this would be to emphasize the role of iTMS as a distributor and not a producer. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Apple (Records) only produce music, and does not distribute it.
Perhaps Apple (Computer) could offer Apple (Records) a special deal on distribution through iTMS and defuse the issue, but somehow I think Apple (Records) is going to the mat with this one.
Have you seen my stapler?
Just curious but has the Apple label put out anything in the past xx years? I haven't seen anything by them since the Beatles broke up. Apparently somebody still has the name but what are they doing now?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Just a reminder, but the law states if you own a trademark, and don't try to defend it, then no more trademark. Since Apple Corps. holds a trademark for that name in the music business, they'd be pretty stupid not to defend it by suing. Even if it ends up with another payoff and agreement, they've defended their trademark in the eyes of the law.
No sig, sorry.
Lies!
Back yourself up, liar!
OK, so I'm a Beatles fan. Big time. Got all the records they've released, and many they haven't. (Wups. Can I say that?)
And yet, I'm an Apple (as in, OS-X) zealot. So, I think I can claim to be at least as neutral as anyone else can claim to be, while feeling strongly aligned with both sides. So, as I understand it, Apple Computers agreed to not distribute music, so as not to be confused with Apple Corps, the Beatles' music distribution company. Seems to me, Apple computers has started distributing music, which is in direct violation of said agreement (if it really exists as I understand). If Apple said they wouldn't do it, and Apple is doing it, then Apple is justified in saying "Now wait just a damn minute here".
I don't really think that Paul and Ringo, and Yoko and, er, er, er, Mrs. Harrison, are saying "Let's get Jobs" here, but a deal is, after all, a deal. They said they wouldn't distribute music, that that was Apple Corps' territory, and now they've changed.
A logical conclusion here would be a peaceful, out of court settlement, saying "OK we changed our mind, how much do you want?". They *should* have taken care of that ahead of time, and I'm a bit surprised that they didn't.
All right, so most people in the computing community probably have no idea what Apple Records are. ANd those people that do look at a lot of record labels when they buy their beatles albums, certainly didn't put the CD down (if they were windows users) and say, "Oh god, apple makes this, it should die as the unholy rot it is."
Clearly there shouldn't be an issue here, but the thing is that the first ruling was stupid. But apple signed an agreement that said they wouldn't intrude on the music business.
That's where apple is stuck, they will settle and they'll continue on as normal. Seriously, no one would confuse the two, primarily because one is a music distributor (through ITunes) and one is a music producer (who has how many bands represented).
If companies weren't companies than this thing would be solved more amicably. As they are however, companies, and one signed an agreement to not do what it is doing. Tough for apple, then again now they probably have a little more money to fight or settle this thing to their end.
For all those people who are incredulous about this, just try entering "Apple Music" into google. Not _one_ result in the first _twenty_ is relevant to Apple Corporation (the music company).
Yeah, it's cool to own a pimp bit of gear like the iPod. And it's cool to hate music companies. And it's cool to hate IP lawsuits.
But if you'd actually start caring about reality for a second and how your views sit within your culture and civilization, perhaps you'll see that you need to stop being so fcuking shallow or that one day you're going to wake up and find out that the World really doesn't work quite the way you think it does.
The reality is that IP laws do exist.
The reality is that Apple (computer) fell foul of those laws.
The reality is that after _agreeing_ to not enter the music business they now have.
If this were Microsoft, you lot would be screaming Bloody Murder. But because it's Apple, and they make that wonderful iPod, you couldn't give two hoots.
Let's reverse the situation. If you googled for "Apple Computers" and all you found were links to a music company, you'd be be pissed off. And Apple (Computers) would be concerned about dilution of their trademark. And you'd agree with that.
I hate the RIAA, Microsoft, frivolous lawsuits and IP law abuse as much as the next Slashdotter. But this does not fit the pattern.
What happens if you play The White Album that you downloaded from the ITMS backwards on your iPod.
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
Apple Records sells ... music ... music
Apple iTunes sells
And as the Apple service has probably the greater brand recognition it's highly probable that if Selma Average tells Joe Average-but-knows-a-bit-about-computer-stuff that she bought music from Apple he'll probably think of iTunes. Sounds like trademark violation to me
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I believe Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey) is still alive. Paul McCartney is alive and released his most recent album not a couple years ago.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
...A talking apple is suing Apple Computers for using the name Macintosh. As its primary defense, Apple Computers pointed out that the apple in question was actually a fiji, and had no such ownership of the trademark. The Apple lawyers had a hard time proving their case, however, as the apple's main defense was to turn into an inanimate object every time a question was asked...
Is this them?. Love it. No really. Real retro feel going there. I can see how they've run the risk of being confused with one of the largest computer companies in the world.
(yeah, yeah, contracts. Whatever)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...as opposed to future history?
The issue was that World Wrestling Federation was using the "WWF" name in a context they'd agreed not to use it in. That's what the agreement was about. World Wildlife Fund had been around for ages before WWE came into being, and it seemed more than reasonable of them to allow WWE to use "WWF" within a limited context. When they started using it in a more expanded context, WWF understandably objected.
Ok, so I'm a nature-geek, but I thought it was pretty cool that they won that case. I figured with all the money WWE had, WWF wouldn't have a chance.
Here's a decent article on the subject: WWF Responds to Name Change
~ Leilah
Isn't little Stevie Jobs the bastard child that Paul McCartney gave up for adoption?
I'm soooo confused....
Why not just make it the "Pixar iPod" and be done with it?
Now I know why they've been charging an arm and a leg for those G5s.
$3,000 for a 64-bit, 2GHz, dual processor unix workstation that runs consumer apps, has a great Java development environment and burns DVDs?
Seems like a good value to me.
If they didn't gouge the consumer so effectively
You do understand the difference between "not dirt cheap" and "gouging," right? Nobody has to buy a G5, but Apple invests more in creating and manufacturing a product than Dell does, so they believe it's worth more. I happen to agree, but you, of course, don't have to.
If everyone just assembled components and sold them as dirt cheap boxes, the industry would be even more stagnant than it already is. Fortunately, we have Apple.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Apple Computers has more money in the bank than the value of Apple Records. In fact, the value of the Apple Computer brand towards selling music at the iTMS is probably more than the value of Apple Records. It would make more sense for Apple C. to do what they did, with the fallback plan of buying Apple Records wholesale if necessary, than to create a new brand for their music stuff.
I've had this sig for three days.
They gave up this business long before it was even born.
What do you want, apple corps to ignore this hugely profitable and innovative business? I'm sure they would agree to licensing terms...Oh but no! well keep all the money.
I can see it taped to Apple's collective ass.
When Apple Records decides to follow the path of sueing Apple Computer then can this mean that we can all expect ANOTHER repackaged Beatles Greatest Hits album?
I don't know a whole lot about trademark law, but Apple may have a chance to beat this one actually. If you went up to a 100 people and ask them to say the first thing that comes to them when asked the word apple, and you told them it couldn't be a food, I bet most would say Apple computer.
Apple Computer has an agreement with Apple Corps. Apple Computer violated it twice and lost in court twice.
Steve Jobs is just being the asshole he is.
The worst part is that if Apple Computer decided to make an offer to Apple Records to change their name, they probably would decline, just so they could always collect when Apple decided to expand. If they did accept an offer, it would probably have to be an outrageously large amount of money.
The Beatles on Apple Records
"The question I have is: why? Why wouldn't Apple spin off some other company named Golden Delicious Music, or produce the iPod by Granny Smith or something?"
;)
I dunno about you, but "Mac" seems like a better fit here
"They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
It's kind of sad that they consider it winning, like lawsuits are some kind of fun game. I also enjoy how they say "a lot of money." Shouldn't a statment from one of their officials be a little more "official"?
Drop the word 'computer' and prefix apple with a 'C' and an 'R' for computer revolutionaries.
Sosumi.'snd ' was in Mac OS 7.0. The Power Macintosh computers didn't come out until well into the 7.2 cycle.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A month ago here. And if anybody read the article, they would understand this is not a trademark suit - it is a breach of contract suit. Trademark/copyright/patent law does not apply.
No, they suck in Soviet Russia also.
Got a link to this comment? Or are we just karma whoring today?
If that doesn't put them in the music business, I don't know what does. Not only that, but AppleMusic could easily be confused with Apple Corp's music business.
What business? Have you seen their site? I don't think they're in danger of losing business because they don't appear to be in business.
Can you find a single CD for sale from Apple Corps on Amazon? It might be there, but I can't find it. In fact, I can't find any signs of life for this company at all. If somebody can, I'd be interested in seeing it.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Or has somebody else never heard of Apple records before the /. story?
Maybe it's cause I am young, whoops.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Why doesn't Apple Computer create a subsidiary that deals strictly with the music side of the business?
They could call it iMusic Inc.
"Apple" stays out of the music business, (satisfying Apple Records) but iMusic lets the corporation stay in.
The Beatles have it backwards. They're mostly a non-issue to the teen and early-20s gang these days. Meanwhile, Apple computer is a household name with these folks - due in large part to the popularity of iTunes and iPod. If the younger crowd makes any associative connection from Apple to the Beatles, then Apple will have done the band a favor. Beatles shouldn't be suing, they should be paying a fee.
I admit, I'm biased: "innovation" has become a code word for "riping off Steve Jobs and his crew."
Enter 2003, Apple is extrememly profitable, and 50 Million barraty money from before is chump change... They can easily weild 100X that much money this time around. I bet Steve Jobs has a personal bit of revenge planned this time 'round... I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of Apple computer right now! Remember, everyone is owned by someone else! Apple was after Universal too. They may just find the owner and buy them off this time once and for all! Then they can "restructure" the company and cancel all the employee pensions, stock options, employee loans, mortgages, cars, children, wives, etc..like a good American company would do!
So that this confusion will be finished once and for all.
The new name should be "Steve Jobs is Great, Computer".
Let Apple buy Apple Corps and sell their songs on iTunes. This is a win-win scenario.
Apple solves the trademark issue, they get access to a very popular library of music and Apple Corps makes even more money since they're part of a proven and working online music retailer.
Plus, Apple's (as in iPod) lawyers are going to drool over the amount of money they're going to make with all the royalties on the Beattles music.
For all the Mac fans saying Apple Computers can't be confused with Apple Music - it doesn't matter.
Years ago, when Apple music was huge, and Apple computers wasn't, Apple Computers signed a deal saying something along the lines of 'we promise not to get involved in music or the music industry, or we forfeit our name and huge wads of cash.'
Well, they got involved in the music industry.
Maybe it just took a while to do the prepwork for the lawsuit. This is less about who's big and famous now, and more about who got there first. Apple computers have backed down several times when Apple Music have reminded them about this agreement.
This may be about a cynical money grab, but maybe its about enforcing your contract rights.
Yay me!
Yea, that's good. Call the guy an idiot then apologize because your wrong. *sigh*
TPF
fallback plan of buying Apple Records wholesale if necessary
I bet they'd have to pay retail...
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
You had a bit of a late 80's surge by George Harrison, but since then, nothing great by any of the fab four. And, Lennon's last album was wrecked by that meddling bimbo of his!
This is my sig.
This is about an agreement made between the two parties, not about the trademark, even if that's what started it.
If Apple Computers agreed to stay out of the music busines.. you get the picture.
Nowadays, nobody will confuse Apple with Apple.. but in the day when Apple Records decided to settle out of court with Apple Computers.. it was a different story.
... to gain free media coverage, then Apple Computer will purchase Apple Corps, closing the door on the past suit settlements, and allowing the iTMS to exclusively market the Beatles' works, after hyping demand.
Both parties benefit. The artists still get their royalties, and Apple gets the revenue that would have gone to the distribution company.
Sales shoot up from the publicity, and for Apple to be able to exclusively distribute the Beatles' tracks would put them in a whole different league from the competition in internet music sales.
Imagine if you started a company, 20 years ago, called it Microsoft, and started selling Music.
Do you think that would go over well with Microsoft, the software manufacturer?
Apple Computer was started when the name "Apple Records" was very fresh in the minds of most music lovers in the world. They asked to use the name, got in trouble back then with Apple Records, and lost. Plain and simple. They therefore had a legal precedent that essentially should have made them negotiate with Apple Records if they ever decided to enter the music business.. and obviously they didn't, all because Apple Records continues to be a very well known and popluar selling record label! (Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!)
The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS. Your mom isn't, and frankly, non-geeks (most of the rest of the world) could get confused, hence, I feel strongly in favour of Apple Records.
You made milk squirt out my nose.. Bastard!
It manages to be clever and funny.
Bravo!
Everything Apple does is tainted. GUI? Stolen from Xerox. iTunes MS? In severe violation of a contract they've had and known about for *years*. Yet both times Apple Computers cries fowl. It's time for them to grow up.
Talk about a blown opportunity for Apple Records!! All they needed to do was negotiate a hugely favorable agreement to sell music via iTMS and voila! they not only make gobs of money that way, they come out looking like the good guys.
:)
They way it is now, everyone looks pretty silly. Apple (computers) for not taking care of this earlier and Apple (records) for waiting this long and looking like money grabbers.
And when iTunes for Windows comes out, maybe ther'll be another lawsuit files to make up for this lost opportunity...
And who are the beatles again? I think my parents listened to them....
What exactly do you mean by "Don't touch this button?"
I thought this was going to be something about those silly VW Beetle commercials with iPods. I guess the new beetles don't look as much like Yellow Submarines as their ancestors.
Are you kidding? What do you want apple to do? Not have a computer with a speaker in it? And where do you think computers are going? Everyone's getting into this whole Digital Hub thing. And you want to ban Apple from it just because they happen to share the same name as the beatles who refuse to make their music available online?
Were they sued for the Newton? Oh wait that predated .mp3's didn't it? Retroactive lawsuit!
But isn't the iPod really a computing/storeage device anyway that happens to play music? Wasn't there a story a while back about some guy using it to steal software from iMacs on display in a store.
I agree though it's nothing more than greed. Same as music companies forcing the cost of CD-R's to go higher since they may be used to store music, when they could hold either music or data.
When was the last time Apple Records did anything but repackage Beatles music? You never hear of anyone being signed to Apple Records, the last Apple Records artist I can remember releasing anything was Badfinger.
Smells to me like the Apple Music Company (or whatever their official name is - a 5 minute Googling didn't find their URL)'s lawyers are pissed-off because web searchers can't find them and default to something that LOOKS like them.
http://www.applecorps.com/
and
http://www.beatles.com/legalnotice/
is all I could find.
A loud "ahem": if you want to be found on the internet, have a website.
Darl McBride has corrupted Ringo with his business model!
Why do I have this strange sensation that Jobs is going to say "Sosumi" ?
So I want to send a letter to a representative, a laywer, a judge, or *someone*. Where can we make are voice heard about this injustice?
> Stop talking trash about Glenn Miller or I'll run a String of
> Pearls through your nose. Now Take the A Train outta
> here or I'll sing you a Moonlight Serenade, and you don't
> want that.
Aliens! They've returned Glen Miller.
Aw, smeg, that's all we need. Glen Miller on board, boring us to death with "Pennsylvania 6-5000."
Take him back, we don't want him!
(this quote brought to you in commemoration of the first two seasons of Red Dwarf being released on DVD!)
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I had *no idea* that The Canopy Group now owned a record label!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
...there's a simple solution. Apple just has to change their name, and VOILA! No more violation.
So I'd like to be the first to suggest a new original name: dig this:.... "Snapple".
Weird, but at least it's original, and their lawsuit days are over.
Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot to mention I'm on nu medication. Here's some more suggestions that are all deathfully funny to medicated me:
FlapJackle
Peter Frample
Los Anpeles
The Fappleous Thunderbirds
When I think about you I Slapple myself
Happle a nice day
If you're happle and you know it slap your hand
The Bapples: Ringo Starple, Paul MacCappley
John Lennonple, George Happleson
Mister Jobs, if you choose any of these, all you owe me is an iPod engraved with "Made in Taiwan" in big letters. Thanks, mister sleepy
"Apple Computer Inc. is being sued by Apple Corps. The parent company for music legends, The Beatles, has begun legal proceedings against Apple Computer..."
Still confused?
Steve, in his office: presses buzzer, BZZZZZZT
Secretary: Yes, Mr. Jobs?
Steve: get me Mark Chapman on line 1...
I believe Apple Computers is looking in the newspaper right now for coupon to buy them on sale. You know with only $4.3 billion in reserves right now Apple is going to have to pinch every penny.
Apple Computer should simply buy out Apple Records to shut these leeches up. No settlements, no wasting time with their incessant, anti-progressive legislation and laws. Just, buy them out.
This is ridiculously too frivilous and an obvious attempt at money, rather than a sincere desire to protect one's business.
If not bought out, Apple Computer could give this bloody company free representation on the iTMS.
Try Apple Records instead of Apple Music and see how many are about Apple.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
There's a reason why the music store is branded as the "iTunes Music Store", and not the "Apple Music Store."
The beatles' company is being a tad overly agressive here.
... which might work in Apple Computers' favor... as iMusic pays royalties to the RIAA (Or is it ASCAP? I can't remember), and Apple Music gets a piece of that. Unless Apple Music has been returning those checks, (which I higly doubt) then legally that may constitute at least a tacit agreement. With the huge popularity of iTunes, Apple Computer may actually have the upper hand here - they can use that distribution channel as leverage against Apple Music as well.
Only time will tell if Apple Music is dumb enuf to shoot themselves in the foot that way.
Mnem
You're not the first slashdotter to ask that question, but think about it. How many Apple is dying trolls do you see every time a new apple story comes out? the iTMS/iPod are as much about profits as they are about getting the Apple name out there and telling people that it's okay to buy Apple products and that they're not going out of business. It's all about making the Apple name cool, and that iTMS/iPod go a very long way toward making that happen.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
"Ask the average person how many Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones songs they can name and they'll probably list about 2 or 3."
Led Zeppelin, maybe, but Rolling Stones? Their songs are *still* part of the popular lexicon. "I can't get no satisfaction" is still common phrase.
THe stones are still cool. Paul McCartney has turned into a weird faux-Vegas act. But boy, that Linda McCartney could sing!
Cease using the Apple name in conjunction with iTMS and iPod, and rather just use the name iTunes. I don't think Apple dba iTunes selling music steps on anyone's toes, unlike just plain Apple selling music evidently does.
you know the Apple sound "sosumi"? say it slowly.... "sooo sueee meee" -that's what Apple thought about Apple Music the first time.... and that's what they think now.
I cannot imagine that they didn't see this coming, and provided for it, either legaly or monitarily. This is no surprise to them. They *might* be able to win practically in court, though legally they're in the wrong. Though more likely they'll just pay Apple Music a few million - hey they sold what, 3 million songs? They'll sell more....
I think you're all probably missing the point. I'm sure that Apple (computers) hires some pretty good legal talent. Furthermore, I would imagine that said talent would not overlook the blatent violation of the contract they signed with Apple (records... nevermind that I agree this is pretty clearly a trademark issue as well). My bet is that Apple ran the numbers and concluded that they could recoup legal fees and settlement costs in the business of selling iTMS tracks, and iPods. They probably even figured that it would be cheaper to get sued and settle than to negotiate getting out of their prior agreement. My prediction... Watch for a fast settlement.
What would it take to reunite the beatles.. a few more bullets..
Some how I think Apple the cute computer company can just outwait the beatles lawsuit.. there is only a couple of them left.. Apple computers could probably buy Apple Music anyway..
Yes, having a country full of people now who listen to boy bands, rap "artists", and other losers who can't write songs and don't play instruments, is really not embarrassing. I am so proud that we can all sit around in our low riderz and boom bass wit our bitchez whilst smokin da bluntz. Dis is what music is all about, aight nigga?
Why don't you buy some old CDs to raise your standards a little, then see why the rest of us won't settle for popular modern "music" tastes? Or are you too badazz for dat shit in yo caddy boomin bass in da wal-mart parking lot?
Fuck you and your shitty "music"
It's got to be a good investment.. The lawsuits will stop, and AppleComputerRecords will have 2 strong revenue streams: People will always buy Beatles music, and Apple seem to have the Apple market pretty much sewn up at the moment... win:win? Look it's late, and I haven't thought this through properly. Just flame me informatively and I can go to bed :-)
nm
I'm more interested in what is the next move of both parties. For example, Apple can always argue that iPod is actually a computer that happens to play music files just like its big brother PowerMac. They settled with Apple Records for this long time ago.
iTunes Music Store was never advertised as Apple iTunes Music Store so maybe their lawyers did the hard work before they even started thinking about this project. Maybe they even founded different company (of course run by Apple people) just for this matter.
I simply don't believe that they were so stupid not to think about this before they started it all.
...After you forced my then-preferred Australian ISP Apple Communications to change its name!
The press release; quote from the chairman: ``because of various trademark lodgements in Australia, up to 20 years ago, the word "apple" can only be used legally by green grocers and a giant US computer manufacturer. The fact that my business is telecommunications and has nothing whatsoever to do with computer manufacturing seems to be irrelevant under the law. If ever there was a case of squashing an ant because it was there, this would have to be it.''
It will be interesting to know which name you will choose now...
Michael Jackson is suing the World Wildlife Federation for the right to some magical apples?
And they sold me a fusking computer. When did the Beatles start making computers?
It was dumb management then who didn't see the digital hub thing coming and decided to waive any rights to enter that market under the Apple brand.
iYoko
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Downloads away!!!!!
(What a fucking lame "lameness" filter; I have to put that crap line just to not have the post rejected.)
1. Steve Jobs
2. Paul McCartney
3. Darl McBride
4. ????
Profit!!
In other news, Apple's counsel are not complete idiots.
In the real news media, we have trained, experienced professionals who have a good, albeit not a perfect, sense for what's really news and what's just noise. At Slashdot, we have no such professionals.
I think there ought to be an enforced 48-hour moratorium on posting timely news items on Slashdot.
It would prevent non-stories like this one from making the front fucking page.
They should just change their name back to NeXT Computer, Inc. :-)
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I don't think Apple is so dumb they didn't know this was going to happen. They probably figured the success of the iPod and iTunes would make them enough money so they could pay off Apple Corps for whatever lawsuit incurred and then some. Seeings how the fines in the past were in the tens of millions I would guestimate Apple Computer stands to make several times that amount and then some in the future.
The problem would be if Apple Corps is not willing to settle for a flat fee. Like if they wanted a royalty % from every Apple music related sale from here until the end of time.
However, Apple's bright side is that they may be able to Get By With A Little Help From [Their] Friends. Who knows? You would think that the recording label would just stop worrying about Yesterday and just Let It Be.
I was surprised when apple music didnt sue them when they first release itunes considering there was some lead time. Apple music certainly has a right to protect their trademark, all the people saying that "you can't confuse the two" have missed the mark.
If i release a mattress tomorrow named Linux, then u better believe it's within linus's right to fight it... but I'll win because i'm in a completly different' industry... now lets say that my mattresses's become very popular, so popular that everyone know's linux's means mattresses and i release a computerized mattress... well then i've jumped on the very hollowed ground that i won my first case on.
Apple promised after taking the Apple Music trademark that they'll never get in the music industry. they know that(sosueme sound) and they did it anyway.
The reaction on slashdot would be totally different if microsoft started selling music and there was a Microsoft Music label in existance before the 80's.
Apple Records was started in 1968 as a tax shelter for the Beatles. The tax laws in Britain at the time took 95% of the profits from sales(hence the line "It's one for you, nineteen for me" from Tax Man). The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let it Be, and Hey Jude are all Apple Records albums.
When the Beatles were legally dissolved in 1974, Apple Corps continued. The judge ordered the profits divided 5% to each member, 80% to the holding company. They continued making money with the 1962 - 1966 and 1967 - 1970 albums until the mid-80's, and then started making money again with the release of the Anthologies and "1" album in 2000.
Ok...all the history aside...notice they sue when they stop making money...hmmm.... Co-incidence or bad timing by Apple Computer? Here's an idea...since Beatles music isn't on the net yet...work out a deal to get the music on iTMS. Oh wait...they wouldn't profit from it.
Paul...why did you talk Michael into buying music rights? You could have had the whole catalog for a decent price. For those of you that don't know...while recording "Say Say Say", Paul McCartney told Michael Jackson to invest by buying rights to music.
"the beatles wrote all their own lyrics and music"
haha... A significant portion of the early beatles catalog is comprised of covers of other artists. The beatles got famous remaking rockabilly songs.
If you think the beatles were so revolutionary through out all of their careers, what do you think about Carl Perkins?
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
It's true that "ringo" means Apple. However, not only can you not directly write "Starr" in Japanese (the closest you can come is "sutaa" or "sutaru"), nothing like it means "sauce," so far as I know. Generally, when a Japanese person wants to say "sauce," they say "soosu", (and that's a long "o", not an "u" sound). They pronounce it pretty much like we do. It's a loan word.
I will admit that it's possible that there's a Japanese word I don't know that means "sauce" and sounds like "Starr," but if so, I don't think it's a common one.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
what about apple.slashdot.org?
You can waste your time talking about it all you want, but the way it ends is: Apple Wins
It's just unfair. They aren't trying to screw anyone over, and Im sure they know that there will be minimal confusion, but there an agreement was broken, and Apple Music is entitled to some money. I know this is a bad example, but say you own a company called Eagle Clothing Brand. Its trademarked, etc. Some big company comes with the name Eagle, they make televisions. You own the trademark, so you sign an agreement with this massive company so you can both use the Eagle name, as long as they dont go into the clothing businuess. 20 years later, Eagle clothing stores start poping up. You are being screwed. No one is confusing your 30 year old clothing brand with these new stores, but you still have an agreement. These new stores are huge, and make major profits. Its just unfair to you. Sorry for the most likely horrible analogy, but hopefully you can see my point. Apple Music is getting screwed now that iTunes is a big hit.
All the Mac zelots told me I was full of crap when I posed the idea of Apple corp suing Apple Computers over the iPod, iTunes, etc.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
They were never nothing more than a bunch of half-rate hack wankers anyway.
Fuck 'em.
So the Beatles created a few new subgenres of rock? So what... How about a band that helped spawn the next phase, post-rock evolution of music- Kraftwerk.
Isn't it absurd that a company that hasn't done anything recently other than file lawsuits has a reasonable chance of prevailing in the courts? No, I'm not talking about SCO, who has little chance of winning. Lots of people remember the Beatles but who gives a damn about their former record label? Oh, yeah, the RIAA, I forgot. Funny how it all comes together sometimes. Or maybe not so funny...
You can't simply decide to change your mind and wear blue now just because it benefits you.
Your word is your bond. Or at least it should be. It doesn't matter how stupid the issue may seem. Assuming you enetered into the initial agreement in good faith, you're stuck with it unless the other party decides to let you out.
Try not to confuse emotion with common sense.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
IANAL but owning my own business and consulting for several others I think things are pretty cut and dry from a business stand point.
This is not about Apple Records crying foul over trademark or copyright infringements but is moreover most likely related to the laws governing incorporation of a business. If Apple Records was already registed in California as Apple Inc. or something similar Apple Computer would had to have gotten permission from Apple Records to be incorporated under a similar name.
Most companies will let this happen but only if the company wanting to incorporate under a similar name agrees not to enter its market. This appears to be exactly what Apple Music asked of Apple Computer and Apple Computer obliged. So we really should not be making Apple Music into another big bad ligitation-happy corporation because they are simply enforcing the agreement Apple Computer willingly signed.
Now whether we feel the merits of the lawsuits are justified is not important in contract law. The only thing that is important is whether the contract is legally binding and enforcable. It seems as if it is and Apple Computer has willingly cornered itself in its business strategy.
After all who would of thought of music on personal computers back in the early 80's.
Therefore instead of getting upset with Apple Records we should all see that Apple Computers latest lawsuit is one that they knew would be coming and have probably set aside some money to pay Apple Music off. Just don't be surprised if Apple Records wants some sort of royalties from iPods or something of the like.
Finally I repeat even though we may not like it Apple Music is merely enforcing its contract that was mutually agreed to by Apple Computer.
The thing is, when Apple Corps first sued Apple Computer over the Apple trademark, Apple Corps was by far the better known and Apple Computer was this wierd little company producing expensive little 8-bit computers that most people couldn't figure a use for,
As part of the settlement of that lawsuit, Apple Computer agreed not to sell music. It's that settlement agreement -- a contract -- that Apple Corps is charging Apple Computer with violating.
Sure, today Apple Corps probably wouldn't stand much chance in a trademark suit against Apple Computer, even if they did have the trademark first. But that's not what this lawsuit is about.
-- Alastair
Haha, I just feel like saying "yyeessss"
hi everyone. hi mom.
1. EMI owns Apple Corp. LTD.
2. EMI is getting ready to open an online music store.
3. Apple Computer sells music online.
4. EMI puts a little pressure on their competition.
I recall one of the first Mac beep sounds was entitled "Sosumi" (So-Sue-Me) because technically they were violating that agreement
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
I'm living in Tokyo as I right this, and struggling with learning Japanese. So I went back to my books and looked it up, and Soosu is the direct transaltion for sausce (in other words it's a borrowed word writen in katakana with no Japanese origin). And yes, Ringo is Japanese for Apple.
Just my 2 cents worth.
--Serp
Check out this documentary on the Funk Brothers... they wrote more #1 hits than the Beatles, the Stones, Elvis, and the Beach Boys combined. Don't give the white boys all the credit just cause they claim it.
The Fox News article quotes a "Beatles legal insider" citing the 'AppleMusic.com' advertisements as being particularly brazen violations of the contract. Makes sense. As an earlier poster pointed out, that was dumb (unless AAPL predicted the lawsuit and just don't care).
But for the past few weeks/months the applemusic.com and apple.com/music URLs both take you to apple.com/itunes. The dedicated 'music' section, which advertised the ipod, itunes, and the iTMS, is now gone. I wonder if this move had anything to do with the impending lawsuit?
(Though the ALT tag for the 'iTunes' tab is still 'Music.')
"He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
After Carl Sagan made a stink about his codename being on the 7100, Apple made up a new codename: BHA, for Butthead Astronomer. For some reason, Mr. Sagan, Lawyers & Co. were still a bit miffed.
The final codename for the machine? LAW - Lawyers Are Wimps.
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
First, Apple's iTunes Music Store name is on the face different and does not conflict with Apple Corps. Second, ITMS is a online retailer and in a different market than Apple Corps. Third, Apple and Apple Corps settled and the contract says that Apple cannot use that name as a music label, and they are not. Fourth, Apple computers have been used to create, record, distribute and play music since 1984 without at all interfering with Apple Corps business. Fifth, Apple Corps has not been harmed by ITNS in any way. Sixth, Apple Corps is using trying to illegally interfere in Apple Computers business. Seventh, Apple Corps is opportunistically trying to hold Apple hostage and coerce monies from Apple for the sole purpose of Apple Corps unlawful gain.
Reissues are bullshit! What else has Apple Corp. done besides milk the ridiculously long copyrights on their should-be-public-domain performances? I don't see anything in that list that indicates that "Apple Corp" has done a single creative thing since 1986. If the rights had gone to the public, there would be 50 remixes/remasters/recompilations a year, and for a lot less money. I don't know where you get the idea that reissuing (remixed/remastered) Beatles performances (as good as some of it is), year after year after year adds anything to the total creative output and is anyway more defensible than shitting in the toilet day after day after day. At least the shit is different every day and doesn't need to remix/remaster to look/smell different.
TWO DOWN AND TWO TO GO
"Apple Bites Apple"
Should Apple redesign their logo with two bites off?
All this probably could have been avoided if Jobs had gone over to Maccas house and smoked the peace pipe (ahem) with him. The resulting Instant Karma would have ensured a profitable and harmonious partnership between the remaining Beatoids and the Shoeless Wonder. Alas, it was not to be, and so a few more lawyers get to add to their retirement fund, Macca and Ringo get some spare change to add to their respective piles and nothing much really changes.
This is so retarded, yet based on the fact that Apple Corp has one all (2) it's previous lawsuits against Apple Computer, it seems obvious that no matter how ridiculous this sounds poor Apple Computer is gonna get screwed and have to pay lots of money. Way to go Apple Corp, why don;t you start sueing P2P users for downloading music as well...
Ave Molech Setting
Start a spinoff of Apple and name the company 'i'. That way the iMac, iTunes, iSpeakers, iBrator, etc are exempt from this legally binding agreement.
The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS.
You can't be serious.
Apple is well known brand and has ads about the music store in mainstream media almost daily. When was the last time Apple Records advertised at all, or even published something?
Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!
Ummm, are you sure about that? I think Michael Jackson owns the rights, and the "Beatles 1" album publisher is listed as Capitol. You might be right here, but I can't find anything that references Apple Records for that CD. Tell me if you can find a web site for Apple Records or Apple Corps Ltd.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
At least in this case nobody can say we're comparing apple to oranges....
Q.
Either that or my post is flamebait...
WWF is a soap opera on steroids, its FEPO. Scripted, choreographed and fake.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Today we have Windoze!
Blar.
Well, given how much it costs to buy a copy of the white album, Apple Records probably have a big pile of cash :)
OTOH, maybe Paul McCartney should have a seat on the board of Apple? I'm sure he'd get along fine with Steve and Al.
Apple Logos Dispute Settled
LONDON (AP)
Saturday, October 12, 1991
A multimillion dollar trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc. and the Beatles' Apple Corps holding company over their similar corporate logos has ended with an out-of-court settlement.
Apple Corps, formed by the Beatles in 1963 to manage their music rights, accused Apple Computer of violating a 1981 agreement by using its apple logo on music-synthesizing equipment.
Apple Computer's logo features a horizontally striped apple with a bite out of it and a leaf on top, while the Apple Corp logo is an apple with a stalk on top.
The two-year-old dispute centered on Apple Computer's musical instrument digital interface or Midi. Apple Corps contended the personal computer maker had agreed to use the apple logo only on computer equipment in order to avoid interfering with the British company's music business.
Gordon Pollock, a lawyer for Apple Corps, said in the High Court on Friday that the companies had reached an amicable settlement.
Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the court last Oct. 29. "It has been a long, hard road," Pollock said. He said the terms of the settlement were confidential.
The San Francisco Chronicle cited one report that it said called for Apple Computer to pay $29 million. The newspaper did not reveal the source of the report.
Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., disclosed in July that it had put about $38 million in reserve to settle the litigation.
Apple Corps is owned by the three surviving members of the Beatles Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and by the estate of John Lennon, who was shot to death in New York in December 1980.
London news reports said the case cost the two companies an estimated 7 million pounds ($11.9 million) in lawyers' fees and other costs.
Apple Corps was asking for a worldwide ban on the use of the Apple Computer logo on music-synthesizing equipment designed by Apple Computer.
Lawyers for Apple Computer argued that the agreement was unenforceable and that Apple Corps' claim violated the 1957 Treaty of Rome that set up the European Common Market.
--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I hope Paul McCartney does not use Mackintosh in his recording studio ;)
In other news, Rutle Corps stated today that they are still waiting for someone to make a Rutle computer so they can sue. In a personal statement, Barry Wom said "What are you doing in my hairdressing salon?".
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
I'd like to see someone else (credible) tell this story, if it is even true. I searched through over 500 comments and no one else has even questioned the validity of the story. And the only links on Google News lead back to the same story.
Sorry, but I don't trust things that are only reported by one person, quoting a "source," especially if the person works for Fox News.
"Mr Jobs sir, a Mr. Michael Jackson of Apple Records is on the line."
"Oh, shit! I forgot all about them!"
I'm reminded of a certain Sluggy Freelance.
This sure makes me feel a whole lot better about commercialized entertainment. Yeah, where would we be if we didn't have the influence of money in music? Where, indeed...
Of course, on the face of it, it sounds to me like Apple Computer made a very poor, short-sighted, and possibly hasty decision when trouble first arose. Without knowing what Apple Records has in terms of trademark but with a reasonable (but non-lawyer) understanding of trademark law, I suspect Apple Computer might have been able to avoid any agreement at all regarding the trademark, rather than opening the door to breach-of-contract settlements. I have a hard time believing that any trademark class could include both what Apple Computer was doing at the time and what Apple Records was doing at the time, so trademark infringement should have been a non-issue at that time, rather than a leverage point against Apple Computer. Too late now, of course.
No Laughing Allowed!
It's a sad day when MacCentral/Yahoo is reporting a rumor from Fox News as an actual news story.
It seems every rumor regarding this is traceable to Fox News and Roger Friedman. Is there any other articles other that come from a source other than the two by this guy? (Yes, even the MacCentral article references this.)
I'm suspicious because the article reports that the term Steve Jobs admitting "Apple Computer" came from Apple Records, as well as provides no background as to the relationship between the two companies (or if even Apple Records still exists after they were absorbed by Capitol).
Perhaps I'm not up on my history, but I seem to remember that Apple was supposed to be the "third" Apple (after the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and Isaac Newton's story). In fact, the original logo was looked like a woodcut of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. It seems the author has done no research.
Though Apple Records was formed as a holding company for the Beatles, I thought the trademark passed to EMI/Capitol. Why does the article claim that the Beatles are suing Apple? More sensationalist FOX B.S.? sloppy reporting? or am I in error?
I have never heard a real company giving a comment about a lawsuit that hasn't even been served--Apple is not SCO.
On another note, can anyone find the lawsuits between Apple Records and Apple Computing (I assume they're in England and not in Lexis/Nexis). I ask this because while I know that early lawsuits between Apple and Apple Records occurred, I don't have any evidence that Apple Records ever took Apple Computing up on the offer, "sosumi".
It's : naaaaaaa naa naa na na na naaaaa, na na na naaaa, get sued.
..money can't buy me love..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Bizarre
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Imagine if Sir George Martin produced a computer. It would probably have 4K and be able to run Office!
Damn it, there is one final solution to all this suing, kill all the layers.... he he he. ;-)
third of nine
Well, um, yes.
Apple Computer agreed not to get into the music business as part of a previous agreements between both companies.
When I first knew about iTunes I thought: "Apple's lawyers suck..."
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... as you are currently graded (hopefully for short time).
Apple computer signed a contract that bared them from the music business as part of a previous settlement with the recording company. That is what this is all about and your ignorance should not be encouraged by positive mod points.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A different kind of terrorism. First SCO, now Apple Corp LTD. Sheez.
So what you are saying is that if it suits somebody it is OK to break a legaly binding contract if that benefits the bottom line.
Who are you? SCO's CEO?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... but is one that is working. And very much in the lines that many /.ers support: offer extra features (remastering, new covers, new formats) of recordings.
Lack of innovation is not a crime and not even immoral.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I hope you are ashamed about yourself after rereading this thread.....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Apple should change its name to Pinecone Computer, Inc
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
They write their own tunes and are on every single girl-magazine cover it seems. Mmmm.
The ironic thing is that at one point John Lennon was featured in Apple's Think Different campaign.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
You mean like the Japanese company that invented shift-JIS? I used to get them confused with the company that in the 1990s was the #2 software company in Redmond, WA (after Nintendo).
Though i think it's total nonsense. Apple computers is more famous now than the Beatles' Apple.
Actually, the clause is the agreement went something like "can't make music" and I don't believe the iPod or the ITMS do this. In reality the Mac is more of a breach of this clause than either the iPod or the ITMS - at least you can MAKE music on a Mac. From another angle Apple (Computer) can of course argue that they are not infringing on Apple Corp.'s market because they are not selling any competing products and if Apple Corp. wanted to introduce these products themselves they should have done so by now. Companies that sit on trademarks then sue other's that make something of them really piss me off.
Why doesn't Apple just buy them out? They used to be quite large, I agree, but this could be an interesting way of getting into the music market and also dealing with the copyright issues....
;0
Obviously, now EMI (I think) owns it, this is a quite large buy out
Just a thought
One could asume that would reviel some article about that "law suit".
:-) I don't think that you are right by claiming the codenames of apple power macs are after a scientific fraud and thus the code name Carl Sagan must be an insult.
... Newton, Dylan, NeXT, BeOS etc. proove that very well. They take geeky names for their "products still in work" and make geeky jokes (like the famous: "Help! Help! We are held prisoners in a software lab" in the MAC SE ROM .... which was later shameless plagiated into the Windows 95 binary code)
Unfortunatly there is not reference
IMHO: Cold Fusion is just an exciting SciFi term, just like Warp Core, Black Sun and Dark Light.
The people over at apple are geeks
However, if you enter the search for Carl Sagan and Apple Computers into google you find a lot of links wich in turn suggest a close -friendly- relationship between them.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A computer isn't a breach anyway. Apple isn't making any music (other than perhaps incidental music for ads, which is prolly all farmed out anyway). The wording is important here. You can make music to your hearts content. You have no agreement with Apple records. Apple Computer has no agreement with Apple Records that it cannot be a retailer.
People will always have honest disagreements about what is right and what is wrong. That's why we invented things like legally binding contracts. Apple Corps and Apple Computer willingly gave up sdme of freedom to act independently when they sign that contract.
What you and I think is moot, as you say it ought to be. What the contract says is still very much in force.
My guess is Apple Corps has lawyers with better memories than Steve Jobs.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Look for the prices on iTMS to rise to $1.01 in order to recupe legal expenses. Also, don't bother searching for Beatles music on iTMS in future and for Appple to give a "DRAB" codename for some obscure Cocoa framework, and for word to go around that it actually means, "Dead Rockers Are Bastards".
Some folks have correclty said that the suit appears to be a breach of contract suit related to Apple Computer, Inc. agreeing to not do "something" in the music business. Without knowing exactly what that "something" is, we can't say how this suit will go, and even if we did have a copy of the contract we couldn't be sure because of how the legal system works.
Here are some speculations:
That's quite vague and open to the courts to distinguish what "participate in the music industry" means
In that case, Apple Computer isn't producing music, it is merely reselling it, so they should be fine, again subject to the oddness that is Law
Well, then it's clear cut, and then you have to ask if beeps and other system sounds are "music", and if selling an OS which happens to have "music" in it is selling music or not... ugh!
If one thing is clear to me, irrespective of the ruling in this litigation, it is that people are way too worried about who they might be able to sue rather than what it really takes to continue to have a viable business.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
The parent organization (Apple Computer) is not at all prominently named, and one is only aware of the Apple Computer association by virtue of the fact that the iTunes Music site lives within the Apple Computer domain.
In fact, the iTunes Music Store tab gets equal billing with a tab for Audible.com, which is an entirely different company completely unaffiliated with Apple Computer (even though that particular web page was clearly made by the same people who made the rest of the Apple pages).
It would be a simple thing to spin off iTunes into a separate subsidiary (much like Claris was for a while), but I'm not sure that would buy them anything in the context of this suit.
Maybe the easiest solution is for Apple Computer to rename themselves as Macintosh Computing, or iLife Inc, or just plain Mac. I suspect a simple change of name would be insufficient to get out of the prior agreements, they would have to do something like create a new company (let's call it Mac Incorporated) which would then buy out the assets of Apple Computer, which would promptly exit both the computer and music businesses, and specialize in selling color schemes. This would seem to satisfy the terms of the prior agreements with Apple Corps.
Any lawyers out there to poke holes in this (pretty ridiculous) scheme?
Home Page for Apple Corps Ltd
This is a placeholder page only for Apple Corps Ltd. This site is not live at this time.
Web and domain administrative e-mail only to postmaster@applecorpsltd.com.
Please note that this is not a general AppleCorps mailbox.
Being in the music business means producing music for distribution. Apple Computer is acting as more of a music store; a distributor of the music produced by the music industry. I personally don't consider some place like Sam Goody or the local record store in the music industry. Do you? And as far as an iPod or speakers or the Ensoniq chip...well those are just hardware for playing music. Onkyo makes hardware for playing music, but would anyone consider them in the music business? They are not. They make audio hardware for recreating the signals that those greedy bastards in the music business/industry put on the overpriced little plastic discs, and little magnetic strips, and big vinyl discs. That is all. This is another obvious attempt of a forgotten company trying to, if nothing else, draw attention to itself and its products.
my only question is... Is this a fall out from Paul or Yoco. why can't they realize their music sucks. it seems the only way they can make money is off John's music.
It had to be said.
Apple is probably the most vigorous defenders of it's own trademarks and branding. Has everyone forgotten all of the hubbub about the Cube and I-Macs. I mean really, as far as Apple was concerned they are the only people allowed to use translucent plastic and user the letter I.
But when it comes to honoring their own agreements (like with Apple Records) or with the recent news about Rendezvous it's see ya in court. They are the biggest hippocrites around and they need to see some serious punitive charges. So Sue me indeed......
Apple has received a GRAMMY award in 2002 (press release).
Apple Comp. is in the music industry -> force them to stop manufacturing computers, because those computers are used in the music industry.
Come on! Grow up, have a beer and relax. Or better do some work. Beleive or not, there are individuals and companies out there, who try to do that.
Though the world news organizations have had over 12 hours to cover this story, only Fox News has had an original article (note that Yahoo! News, Mac Central, etc all reference the Fox News article).
My question is, is this some "Fox exclusive" or erronious reporting from Fox? If anyone finds an article from an original source other than Fox, let the rest of us know.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Turns out that cute girl's A|X t-shirt didn't mean AIX. Who would've thought?!
That catches me every time I see one of those shirts too...
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
We've already seen a judge question the trademark for the word "Windows". Now it's time for Apple to stick up for another common word. As the number of corporations and lawyers increase, along with globalisation (which disallows duplicates in different countries) we're bound to see more of this.
Depending on how Apple (computers) handles it, this lawsuit could end the standoff once and for all, and at the same time, the publicity that they receive will only help to raise awareness of the iTunes Music Store.
Yes, Apple will almost undoubtedly lose this lawsuit, but if a multi-million dollar payout means they never have to deal with this again, it'll be worth it for them. Since they've got over $3,000,000,000 in the bank, even a couple hundred million won't break the bank.
Close. What happened was that Apple engineers were excited by the potential power offered by the new power pc chips. They created a math library, that had function calls called Sagan, as a way to offer homage. Sagan, who was very image conscience, did not like his name being used without his permission, sued. That is what sparked the vitriol explained in the above post.
Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
No, that contract was superceded by a newer one. Show me where in the new contract Apple violated their agreement, with iTMS or any other music-related endeavor.
not after the treat of Brest-Livotsk, they don't!
They may have had 50 million downloads, or however many it is today.. But there profits from it will quickly be wiped out by this lawsuit.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
iTunes Music Store has nothing by them. . .
Will I get Instant Karma?
Didn't think so.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
sure they knew. the second system beep developed for the mac (after "sysbeep") was called "sosumi" - which is pronounced "so sue me". it was in direct reference to apple records and the whole "can't make music" clause.
But before it was named sosumi, it was named xylophone.
I thought Apple was taking a risk when they changed from the rainbow logo to the multiple solid color logos. The green apple on the green iMac was the first slap in the face to EMI/Apple Records. Though Apple doesn't use that same green apple for their iTunes store, they do color it green: green notes on the iTunes application, green folders for the service in iTunes, and a green menubar at the page to which AppleMusic.com redirects ("Apple Music? Oh, you must mean Apple Computer's iTunes page!" Talk about trademark confusion; such a redirect practically fosters it!)
Not that Apple Records has any prior right to the color green (or to edible green apples).
In any case, Jobs has a strange approach to calling Apple Records to the bargaining table.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Since every 3rd post is someone complaining that Fox is the only source for this story.
Clear, Dark Skies
OK, now here we have two groups trying to sue each other essentially over a adopted name of a FRUIT!!? What next? Someone is going to sue over the name "watermelon"???
What happened to reason? This is why the court system is in a helluva mess. There is zero product/market confusion between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. It's like the silliness of Harley-Davidson trying to copyright the "potato-potato-potato" sound of their motorcycle exhaust system.
These frivolous lawsuits make me sick. Just like some fatso trying to sue McDonalds for making him fat. Geez - get a life.
Call me a clueless luddite, but what else would A|X mean than armani exchange?
read my blog
How strong can Apple Corps trademark be, if they haven't actually used it in 30 years?
Seriously, other than the Beatles and Badfinger, are there any bands under the Apple Corps label?
Clear, Dark Skies
And to properly fix the post, you should tell him to go take the Chatanooga Choo-Choo. (-;
Yes, I've been drinking too many Moonlight Cocktails....
Not when you're making a joke about sueing someone - get it right (ass).
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Ringo is an apple.
Ingo is a secret/code language, like the transposition slang of the Japanese criminal underworld which you can read more about in this wonderful, yet instantly dated book.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Not long ago, Apple came close to buying Universal Music from Vivendi Universal. Perhaps its time Apple makes a serious attempt at acquiring EMI wholly. The big music companies will inevitably consolidate again, quite possibly Warner Music and BMG if enough European Commissioners can be paid off this time 'round. With Warner/BMG together, that cuts out EMI's two choice merger partners. This whole lawsuit is an attempt by Apple Records/EMI to get a stake in future proceeds Apple makes off iTunes because they've been the only company with enough moxi (not to be confused with the PVR platform) to create a sensible commercial download distribution model. Although there could be a complication in the future. If Apple acquires EMI/majority stake in AppleCorps., Apple will still have to deal with Sony over their eventual ownership of the Beatles publishing rights. Sony probably doesn't have a strong desire to aid Apple in any endeavor as of this point...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
...in the case of hardware.
"The most egregious" problem is that they're selling prerecorded music now -- in direct competition, one might argue, with the Beatles' record label (assuming that label still sells records).
You only give me your legal papers..
And in the middle of negociations, Jobs fakes down..
Just an apple computer..
a real sound bite limitation..
And in the middle of Wooz contemplations
A takedown..
RIAA future...
See no rent...
All the money's gone, a music drone...
Then Jobs has got the sack...
Monday morning, turning black...
Lawyers start to moan...
A lawsuit Apple clone...
And oh that tragic feeling...
Nowhere to download.. oh oh oh
Funny, I was thinking "what else would AIX mean than IBM's flavor of unix." (Although I think I've seen some of these T-shirts and wondered what the heck it stood for. Thanks for letting me know.)
i love how the font on the beatles webpage is chicago
Don't forget to catch a private moment with your pet dolphin on the next camping trip and that's for all in tents and porpoises.
IF Apple Computers breached a contract with Apple Corps. it is still not true that they will have to pay that much to Apple Corps. Apple Corps. has to show that there was a substancial a) expectation, b) reliance, and/or c) restitution damage. Honestly I don't see what particular harm Apple Corps can allege to have suffered from either the ipod or from itunes. this case will most likely settle but if it went to trial I actually think Apple computers will come on top (even if they lose) because damages are negligible.
There is no "Apple Music". There's Apple Corporation and Apple Computer.
Apple paid Xerox in stock worth millions to visit PARC. The engineers at PARC weren't happy about it but it was a Xerox management decision. Back in 1980, Apple engineer and former PARC engineer Jeff Raskin and a few co-workers started tinkering with plans for a new computer. Jobs objected to the Macintosh project as a waste of valuable time and banned it from further development. Raskin arranged for Jobs to visit Xerox PARC and meet with researchers who have developed a new type of computer with a graphical user interface, controlled by a pointing device called a mouse.
But then, you probably knew all of this since a simple Google search at any time would bring up this more accurate account of history.
Or in your bizarro world, stolen means bought?
The iPod and iTMS need the Apple name to be attached if they want to convince PC users to make the switch. They are gateway drugs, trying to get you hooked on the Apple brand and coming back for more, stronger stuff.
If they simply make a subsidiary with a new name they will destroy one of the biggest marketing ploys they have going for them.
How many average consumers impressed with these music products will look into switching to Apple computers if they don't even know they are made by the same company?
Apple Computer has no agreement with Apple Records that it cannot be a retailer.
What are you smoking? Did you completely ignore the parent post? If not, then maybe you should enroll in a remedial reading comprehension course at your local special ed school. The parent post said that they DID have an agreement with Apple Corps.
Yes I did. Did you? let me quote for you :Actually, the clause is the agreement went something like "can't make music"
I don't know who else has noticed this, but nowhere in any advertisement is it referred to as the Apple Music Store. It's always, always, the iTunes Music Store. Why? So that Apple won't get sued. I'm willing to bet that ITMS is actually a subsidiary company, and that Apple's done a good job covering themselves on this one.
Ringo sosumi == Apple Sauce in Japanese
and it all suddenly comes back on topic
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Here's my conspiracy theory...
Apple Computer wants to be sued by Apple corp to that they can get out of the restriction against being in the music biz. Maybe they want to buy a label, maybe they want to start their own, maybe they want to burn music CDs on demand in the Apple store.....
In LA, on the westside, where tons of music industry people and entertainment lawyers hang out there's a huge billboard with just a guitar, the words "Apple Music", and the Apple computer logo.... this billboard is a very minimalist way to say: "C'mon sue me, I dare you, pthbbtt!!!"
This billboard and ads like it must have been designed to provoke this lawsuit. I mean c'mon, Apple's lawyers can't be so dumb as to let this one slip by.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Apple and Apple will have a ball and then settle.
;-)
Apple computers will have its foot in music business forever, solidly and having paid for it to that other fruit will finally put this thing to rest. Yes, Apple computers have midi, speakers, and now there's Apple music. The next addition won't give either Apples a headache.
Both companies will be satisfied, their lawyers certainly won't complain and in the end The Beatles will sell their work on iTMS.
Incidentally, both Apples will enjoy some good, solid press and exposure, which won't hurt any of them in the least.
Given the price of good advertising nowadays, I think this is a good strategy.
Not a free lunch, but no indigestion.
(and if Jobs lived in England, he'd be knighted, probably foulmouthing the Queen in the process
I think, therefore I am...I think.
INAL but are they not supposed to prove damages? What has Apple Corps make/distributed lately.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The beetles "Apple" tm is OLDER than the two Steve's "Apple" tm. What is happening is that the newer tm is more well known and is diluting the older one when crossing over into the music buisness. I.e. if people see "Apple Music" on a beetles product they are probably these days going to think that it was released by Apple computer! That's where the confusion and the dilution of the original Apple[tm] is coming from and the basis for the case.
If the confusion went the direction you seem to think people were talking about, Apple would be suing the Beetles! (Well they wouldn't sue because they'd lose because they came second)
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
They are still in buisness.
They are still making money. (Tons of it)
They are very much still using the trademark.
They could be selling CD's with 72 minutes of fart sounds on them. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY ARE SELLING!
The POINT was that they are VERY much alive and well and USING the trademark. So they are very much entitled to protect it. I have no idea what your point was (Other than "I want everything free waaaaaah!") or how it related to wheather or not they deserved to still be pursuing protection of their own trademark...
I'd bet iTunes is not in violation of the agreement. The agreement was written long before the Internet became known outside academia, and the agreement was probably written using terms such as: LP, CD, Physical Media and the like, as in Apple said: "We will never distribute music on LP, 8-Track or Cassette, or any other media."
The "other media" will be contended, but Apple computer will point out the other media in question is physical media, and therefore the agreement only covers physical media. Apple records will of course say, no way. It's going to be who is more charismatic, and my money is on Apple computer.
Yanno, Graymalkin, you've got a pretty long history on Slashdot of missing the fucking point.
Let's break it down step by step for you:
1. Apple Computers Inc. has significant intellectual property interests (including both trademarks as well as software protected by copyright).
2. Apple Corps Ltd. has significant intellectual property interests (including both trademarks as well as music protected by copyright).
3. When someone infringes on the intellectual property interests of Apple Computers Inc., Apple is quick to defend its interests; vigorously litigating against the offending parties.
4. Particular circumstances surrounding Apple Computer Inc.'s various altercations in defending its intellectual property interests are not relevant: the point is that Apple Computer Inc. does defend its interests, valid or not, and it does claim to do so on moral grounds as well as legal ones.
5. Apple Computer Inc. has not only violated the intellectual property interests of Apple Corps Ltd. but it continues to violate a legal, binding contract it entered into with Apples Corps Ltd.
6. Apple Computer Inc. does this knowing full well that its actions constitute both a) infringement on Apple Corps Ltd.'s trademarks and b) a previous agreement between the two Apples that was, supposedly, entered into in good faith.
7. Ergo, the actions of Apple Computer Inc. constitute hypocrisy.
It has nothing at all to do with whether Apple's defense of its intellectual property is right, justified, moral or legally valid.
The argument that Apple is hypocritical rests only on the assertion that Apple beleives one set of rules are good for Apple yet another set of rules are good for everyone else.
So, no, the parent poster was not trying to say that Apple has no right to proect the work they've put money into developing. Your reply is what we call a non sequitur and, even, a straw man.
lawyers aren't that stupid
You have no clue as to how a record label operates. So, I will work it out for you.
1.) Label pays music group for exclusive rights to record, produce, manufacture, and distribute the group's music, for a set number of records (usually they sign someone else to do the distro).
2.) The band is paid by the label to come up with songs, then the LABEL PAYS for the recording.
3.) They then pay for the produvtion, manufacturing, design and whatever else of the record. Sometimes they screw the band royally and make the group pay for expensive videos etc.
Do you get the point yet? Where is Apple Computer Corp. in any of this? In fact, your "iTMS exclusive" - example only highlights the diffferences between the two Apples.
Note that Apple must get rights FROM A RECORD LABEL to work this out. IF THEY WERE A LABEL - they would be working things out with the artists, producers, etc. Getting a label to agree to exclusive tracks is something a record store might do though, right?
The current state of our court system might not look at common sense (different rulings on same issues - on same day, making a man take down his american flag) but to the rest of us, this IS a frivolous lawsuit.
Listen Buttafucco, I didn't bring up the orderliness question here. Some parent poster was discussing how amazing it was the drummer in some rock band could keep time. hHis is evidence of the cultural dichotomy I am discussing. No one involved with classical music would ever make such a compliment because it is a necessity to keep time otherwise the ensemble falls apart.
It is VERY easy to keep a group together when it is small, especially when there is only one lead to which the others follow. It is also easy when the group keeps some sort of jazz system of alternating solos. A small group following a soloist means nothing.
As far as rock music not being all impulsive, how about this. One of the great uses of classical music has been for military marches, the supreme example of orderliness. You name any piece of music you wish which you identify as rock music which you believe can accompany a military march, and I will listen to it.
In fact, military marches are a great example of what I am talking about. It is easy to get three or four people to march in step. But try ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand. The story changes. Music is no different.
It's fine if you don't enjoy rock music, but don't extend that personal preference to dogmatic principles.
Also, spare me the relativist bullshit about dogmatic principles. Every human action means something. Rock music a cultural manifestation of relativism, pervasive in the post war world. It is actually anti-culture. Only when a group agrees on goals and aspirations can it succeed. Our fucked up world is evidence enough that when every prick has his own "personal preferences" nothing gets done. Your own statement, suggesting that relativism should be applied to classical music, is a prime example of how you cannot see outside of the post-modern world in which you live.
The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements. Today, we are a wretched amalgamation of cosmopolitan fashion slaves. There is no greatness in our music, because our people are not inclined to great things. Instead, they condemn principles. They condemn ideals. They write off deviant behavior as just another valid personal preference.
Look around you and see your culture of uniform housing, fast food restaurants, wal-mart, MTV. This is what happens when people do not believe in standards for a society. You end up with the lowest common deonominator, which is crap. Our world is dying slowly, decaying every day. Music is just a part of it.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
You're expanding the argument way beyond what it was. I did not make the comment about the talent of the drummer. I did not resort to name calling. I simply pointed out that condemning all music with the label "rock" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course there is much wrong with the world. I'm just as concerned about moral relativism as you are. I've studied postmodernism and it is a very disturbing trend. In fact, it is just a recent version of the Devil's original lie that we can be like God, choosing what is right and wrong for ourselves. This world is decaying and it will not last.
Are you saying that there is nothing of value in the modern world? Are you just yearning for the "good old days?"
If you are so intent on bashing "rock" music, you need to define it carefully. You seem to think it has something to do with being a small ensemble. Is a march just as bad if it's played by a small band? Your complaints about lack of order are completely ludicrous, since much rock music is extremely ordered. It is driven by a straight beat, like a march (and is typically 4:4 time too).
I don't think I can even respond to this statement: "The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements." Every part of it is completely bogus on every level. At least give some dates if you want to show some support for such specious claims.
So what it comes down to is this: how do you define what is "good" or "worthy" music and what is "bad" or "of no value." Is a particular style of music bad because it has been used for negative purposes at some point? Hitler loved marches and Wagner. Military marches were popular music in Nazi Germany and were used to inspire the populace to even greater heights of misguided nationalism.
Some people have pointed out that Apple is advertising the music service as the iTunes Store, which is probably a deliberate attempt to avoid using "Apple" in the name. However, in Apple's TV spots and advertising they consistently point towards "Applemusic.com" which in turn links directly to the iTunes product page. Could using AppleMusic.com as a referral impact this case in Apple Corporation's favor? I hope not. I like the Beatles, but this goes straight back into those words that companies feel they "own." Anyone else remember Microsoft vs. Windows. This case is different since Apple did sign an agreement, but I think the fact that it was an issue before highlights how overzealous some companies can be about protecting themselves and their "corporate image."
Something intelligent here.
Since Steve is a huge fan of The Beattles, highly reveres John Lennon does this "business reality" not smack at the very notion of "THINK DIFFERENT?"
I suppose if I were Steve I would think second upon ever hoisting a 20 ft. photo of Lennon or any Beatle's Member period.
It's amazing because Apple has done mutual promotion by including Lennon and the Beatle Music symbology from the beginnings of Apple Computer Inc. Now how is this repaid to them?
It is repaid, in spades, by slapping a gutless lawsuit that seems to be more of a Public Relations stunt, on Apple Corps behalf, so that people will once more buy another rehashed copy of timeless music that has NOT CHANGED in over 30 years.
eol.
I would say this is the circumstantial RENDEZVOUS of unfortuitous events.
Besides, even the Beatles don't own the apple.
The apple is owned by GOD.
Hah! You've forgotten about the killer apps that drove home computer sales. There were any number of recipe databases, for example. And there were other things, too. Did I mention recipe databases?
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
Windows (200xBFD)
Anti-virus Ultimate (200x.0012334)
M$ Orifice
MSN Subscription
New AC for computer room
Linux box for firewall
Therapy for being a pencilneck geek
----
Total : Whole bunches o' cash
PCs suck, period.
From an internet perspective I am not too sure what the story is with 'Apple Corps'. www.applemusic.com belongs to Apple Computers. Now visiting www.applecorp.com gives me a page that is of someone's Beatles record collection. www.applerecords.com, leads to www.applecorpsltd.com/ and an empty page. And www.applecorps.com does not exist. It seems while Apple Computers was probably in the wrong for using applemusic.com, Apple Corps is present only in a way that makes people wonder whether it actually still exists.
Maybe as one poster suggested, it is just EMI trying to make money out of what seems to be a dead label?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Seems like Apple Computers knowingly breached a contract. Blatently. Seems like poor managerial decision making.
Two words:
Steven and Jobs.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.