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.
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?
.
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.
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!
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
Safer transfer than you'd think. Apple Records already died, several decades ago.
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...
True now. But not true in 1976 when Jobs intentionally stole Apple Corp's trademark.
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
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.
Well, what record labels do is distribute music. So if Apple Computers is getting into the music distribution business they need to find another name as Apple Music has to be considered one of the most established of record labels.
Branding, while not important to me, is understandably important to a corporate or business entity as that is how they are identified. I couldn't start an ebook distribution company called Scholastic Ebooks, certainly Scholastic the publishing company would have something to say.
I think we just have a (1)negative first reaction to lawsuits and (2) Apple computers is much more in our minds than Apple Music. That shouldn't negate Apple Music's rights to keep their branding untarnished.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Your right, how dare Apple Records expect Apple Computers to comply with the legal documents they signed promising to not sell music.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Check this out... "Ringo" is Japanese for "APPLE".
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
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.
I like both Sagan and Apple, but I think the whole episode reflects a bit poorly on both, though it's kind of funny, too - kind of like the current Apple vs. Apple, actually.
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.
I agree with you. I'm 23 and the first time I heard of Apple Corps was when I read about the legal struggles between them and Apple Computer.
Martin
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.
Which is why, for example, you can pickup an Elvis' Greatest Hits and it won't have "You ain't nothing but a hound dog!" or a Sinatra Greatest Hits that doesn't have "My Way."
I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed.
So you're saying no one under 20 has a copy of Let It Be, has ever looked at the front of the CD, and seen the little (whole) apple logo with "apple records" on it just underneath the (c) 1970 EMI Records Ltd. statement? Or of the Beatles' Anthology disks, all of which have apples on the disks themselves?
Sorry, this is not a frivolous lawsuit. Apple Corps has an agreement with Apple Computer in which they agreed to stay out of the music business. Apple Computer is now releasing "iTMS exclusive" tracks given to them by their recording company partners, in which they are effectively behaving in a way indistinguishable from a record label, which is what Apple Records is. Sure, nearly everybody is able to make the distinction, but Apple's foray into the recording industry is obscuring the original Apple Records' brand - people think Apple and recordings, and they think iTMS. That's one of the points to trademarks.
Anyway, Apple Computer will just buy Apple records off with another huge settlement; McCartney has said that Apple Records made more money from lawsuits against Apple Computer than on any of their recording releases (and that's saying something, given the couple of Beatles' albums).
IANAL.
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.
Owning the copyright to The Beatles' music is not the same as owning the Beatles' record company. Michael Jackson purchased the rights to the songs from Apple Records. Now, unles he's also bought the company since then, Michael Jackson doesn't own Apple Records, or its holding company (Apple Corps), and so he isn't suing Apple Computers.
If you buy a wrench from Home Depot, do you own Home Depot?
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.
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.