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.
Michael Jackson bought the rights to the library of songs. This has nothing to do with those or him.
Apple Corps - after the music library was transferred to other companies - owns the Apple trademark in US, UK, Switzerland for music production and manages all subsequent performances of the partners- Paul, RIngo, George and Yoko - from that point on. Those four (actually through their reps including Yoko) hold 25% of the corporation.
Apple Corps has subsidiaries including Apple Records CA, Apple Records NY, Apple Music Publishing, Apple Films, Python Music, Maclen Music, & Subafilms.
They went thru this when the put the Ensoniq chip in the IIGS.
They have something of a point on the trademark confusion if AAPL continues to use "AppleMusic", but the consensus is (though they do not disclose actual earnings) is that Apple Corps loses money most years, so this could be a fishing expedition for some no-work income. Memo to Darl McBride...
I bet this could be ironed out over a long lunch by reasonable people.
And/or (duh) they could release their records since the end of the Beatles library to ITMS and make some money from it as well as sales.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Not true. He went 50/50 with Sony music in purchasing them. He has since used his share as collateral with some loans he has taken out from Sony. Sony are licking their chops because there's no way MJ is going to pay off what he owes. Eventually (whenever they decide to call in the loan) Sony will own 'em all. But, as of right now MJ still has a 50% stake in them.
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.
It's not a trademark battle. Apple Computer signed a binding agreement that promised that they'd stay out of the music business.
Shortsighted, but still a legal contract.
Interesting
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
The origin of sosumi (at least the name) came about from a complaint by Microsoft that the sound sounded too much like a sound they used in Windows.
Apple renamed the sound (but left the sound the same) to sosumi in response.
This occured long before the Carl Sagan scandal. What a putz! I'd be honored to have someone CODENAME a project after me (not a marketable name, a CODENAME).
What if your name was used as the code name for one of three big computer models being worked on. The other two are named after well-known hoaxes and examples of bad science. You are a famous scientist.
:P
This is what happened. Carl Sagan was the 7100, the mid-range in the first three models that used the then-new PowerPC. The 6100 and 8100 were called Cold Fusion and PDM, which stood for Piltdown Man (a faked "missing link" fossil, if you don't know). It's entirely possible you'd still be honored (I think if it were me I'd just laugh), but I can understand why Sagan was upset.
If you know all this already, sorry, consider it as extra information for the others.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
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.
2 1337 4 u!
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
Granted that this case is about contract law, what you have said actually demonstrates that Apple Corps are not being frivolous. If an average 20 year old is unaware that Apple Corp exists, they may well assume that various CDs they find in their local CD shop are distributed by Apple Computer. If customers then phone Apple Computer about new CD releases, etc this is not good for Apple Corp.
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
Whacko had the rights to most of the lyrics a while back, but sold them to Sony.
The way music licensing works is generally as follows
The tune / lyrics belong to whoever wrote them, and these are licensed to a specific publisher. Note that this may not be the label, it can be a seperate company, or in some cases, a part of a company (for example EMI have EMI publishing which licenses tunes and lyrics)
The record label in turn owns the rights to a particular recording of that music, be it a studio track, or a live track.
So whilst Sony own the rights to the beatles lyrics, EMI (through Apple Music) own the rights to recordings of those things.
And that's the simple version, it gets very very messy very quickly when band swap labels, perform live or the song writer moves between publishers.