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.

Comments

Hate to be so out-of-touch with this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Confusion..

[epiphani]

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?

Apple Computer needs to settle.

[vegetablespork]

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."

Apple Records WWW presence

[wembley]

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...

Re:Apple Is Dying

[7759-60784-1-E]

Safer transfer than you'd think. Apple Records already died, several decades ago.

Re:How does that make any sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What has Apple Corps Done, Lately?

[swdunlop]

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:

• A web-based game named "Apple Corps"
• A Macintosh users' group in Dallas.
• A gay and lesbian marching band in NYC.
• A Macintosh users' group in Maryland.
• A teacher's activism group in Atlanta
• The organization actually prosecuting this case

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?

Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer

[Cplus]

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.

Re:O_o

[Phybersyk0]

Check this out... "Ringo" is Japanese for "APPLE".

Slightly OT, but.....

[Y-Crate]

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.

Re:sosumi

[Blondie-Wan]

Right. As I understand it, the first three machines in the very first generation of Power Mac (the first Macs based on PowerPC chips instead of Motorola's 68xxx chips) were the Power Mac 6100, 7100, and 8100; the middle one was codenamed "Carl Sagan," with the other two being the "Cold Fusion" and "Piltdown Man" - so the three were named after a scientific fraud, another scientific fraud, and... Carl Sagan. A rather nasty insult was implied (no, I have no idea what Apple engineers or whoever else chose codenames had against Sagan, but there it was). It was publicly revealed, and Sagan was not amused, so he sued over the unauthorized use of his name. Apple('s people) changed the code name to "BHA," which appeared to settle everything ("oh, just some random initials"), until Sagan found out they apparently stood for "butt-head astronomer," and I believe he sued again, with the case eventually getting thrown out. The code name eventually got changed, though, to "LAW" (for "lawyers are wimps").

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.

The real History of Apple Corps. Ltd

[dafz1]

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.

Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple

[mjpaci]

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."

Re:O_o

[kalidasa]

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.