Slashdot Mirror
The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes
novus ordo writes "Apple is being sued in London by Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs. This is a third battle over the name 'Apple' in Britain. Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
http://brianisthedog.ytmnd.com/
-----
"I cant teach..... Im a Professor!"
and Wallmart are in the the plastic and carbon based goods disemmination business
the facts are
Apple corp = sell music
Apple Computers = sell music
now the Beatles have had their Apple Brand totally damaged by Apple computers i would hate to think how much jobs (and by proxy the shareholders) is gonna lose
still go short on AAPL, everybody in our traders floor are
The Pope sueing anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?
Bill Borg sueing anyone who has the ordacity to install "Outside Viewing Portals" in their home?
I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.
I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC countries.
;-)
Please visit my site - http://wipo.org.uk/
Site is nothing to do with corrupt people at UN WIPO.org
Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Apple seem to be relying on the "It doesn't come on physical media, so it doesn't apply" argument. I wonder if the fact that Apple produced the special U2 iPod (A physical product containing "music") will be held against them.
Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers. The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers, and the stupidity of current trademark legislation.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
I must admit, When I hear "All you Need is Love" on the Radio, I
immediately think: "Wow that was a good record by Steve Jobs! Why
he ditched music and went on to start a computer company is completely
beyond me!" Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
Jobs at all... it was Woz! Sheesh I'm an idiot!
return 0; }
err its their fault
AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music )
and now they are acting like a record label
so the courts will hear all the evidance and decide
regards
John Jones
p.s. this is a story ?
From the article -- "The court will be treated to a demonstation of an iPod, but it is unlikely to play a Beatles song, as they have not been licensed for download and it would therefore be illegal." How is that true? I checked the iTMS and there are 16 Beatles songs available, including the appropriate-for-this-lawsuit track "Baby You're a Rich Man." Are they just off base or is there something I'm missing here?
I know it sounds ridiculous. But this suit will probably hold up. Even though they settled before.
The fact of the matter is that Apple Ltd. became Apple Corps which had many components. One of which was Apple Electronics. Then Apple (Macs) were made and it's clear that this could be an infringement on the products that Apple Electronics makes (if any).
Now that Apple's Ipod is so involved in music, I'm certain the other divisions of Apple Corps would like to have a go at the computer maker since their pockets are so deep. Please don't think this is The Beatles at work, it's just people working for a company based off a band that's now broken up. Hell, Michael Jackson has The Beatles' catalog, the only thing Apple Corps has is its name.
Another legal battle plays out. A lot of money re-allocated. How does this affect me? It doesn't.
My work here is dung.
The article says
Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer's hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod digital music players.
How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds. Apple Computer keeps shaving as much off that settlement as they possibly can, and they're going to have to pay sooner or later. The best thing would be a settlement for a few hundred million pounds, a disclaimer ("iTunes and Apple Computer are not affiliated with Apple Corps Records") and an agreement to release the Beatles' catalogue on iTunes giving McCartney, Starkey, and the Lennon and Harrison estates an extra-large slice of the ... well, you know.
It's not music, it's just data? Wonder how that affects RIAA and the DRM debate.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
Just so you know, The Beatles were a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's, Apple was the name of their record label at the time.
'Records' were large black circular discs with grooves in them made from Vinyl, a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).
Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time.
There were no video games back then, which is why music was so popular.
... maybe I am the ignorant here, but I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.
Also, how in gods name does this happen in today? It's like when "LindowsOS" was smacked for being to similar to "Microsoft Windows Operating System". Should Ham producers start sueing Hormell for their SPAM product? I mean, it's a lot closer between "Ham" and "Spam" (EVen based on the same animal!) than between "Apple Computers" and "Apple Corps".
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
and in the middle of negotiations
you break down
I never give you my number
I only give you my situation
and in the middle of investigation
I break down
Baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man too.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.
Well, don't know about Paul and Ringo, but Steve is in it for the success. Now here success is measured in units sold which equates to dollars, but as you've mentioned, he is far beyond simple groveling for a few million more. Funny how it's people like YOU who can't see past the money. And it's also interesting to note that people like Steve are billionaires because they can.
Mod parent up +5 Funny! The ability of Linux Hippies to self delude never ceases to amaze.
What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?
I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?
Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?
As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?
Seeing as he's in financial trouble lately from what you hear with all the news reports maybe it would make commercial sense for Apple Corporation to buy the back catalogue from him, which I think would really wind up the existing Beatles.
Surely as a band they would want to make sure that their music is available to the largest possible userbase. The world has changed since 1960 and this would appear to be the way forward?
Last time I checked Sir Paul McCartney and the rest of Apple Music were not short of cash. Either they are doing this from some misguided principle or they're going crazy.
An an exercise think of the last album released on the Apple records label.
I'm waiting..............
Just what I thought. Apple records are no longer in the music business.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
Sure they can, because the result of the last suit was a settlement between Apple Computers and Apple Records promising that Apple Computers would never get into the music distribution industry. But guess what Apple Computers decided to do? They got into the music distribution industry. That means that they broke their settlement and that Apple Records may bring suit again not only to show infringement on the name but also to show mischievous conduct doing so, as evident by the breach of settlement. The fact that there was a settlement is evidence that the last suit didn't bode well for Apple Computers, otherwise they would have just fought it in court. This time around it's even worse because Apple Computers decided to tread directly into Apple Records market despite their agreement. Apple Computers should have launched a spin-off company for iTunes/iPod and named it something different, but Apple Computers frankly ain't that bright.
The whole record industry moved into computers though.....
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
it's the itunes music service which deliver music to ipods
not the apple music service delivering to the apple pod.
in general references are made to mac's not even apple mac's
This law suit is bogus. hopefully apple corp will lose this one.
There is no confusion except possibly in the minds of aging exbeatles
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
The whole record industry moved into computers though.
So? They never promised not to. On the other hand, Apple, a computer company, did promise never to move into the music industry.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
"Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.
How would you like it if this happened to you? its not how long ago the beatles secured apple and weather its really that important a brand anymore what matters is they own it thats the bottom line.
I Predict A Riot
So I guess this would be another reason for Apple to spin off iTunes into their own company.
I would think Apple records would have a harder time suing iTunes Corporation
RTFA. The (abbreviated) terms of the current agreement are there:
Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on "creative works whose principal content is music" while Apple Computer was allowed "goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".
Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.
--- end cite
The article doesn't quote the prohibition against distribution on physical media, and the writer's opinion seems to be in conflict with the earlier statement. The phrase: "goods and services ... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content" seems to describe iTunes and the iPod.
They could get super-fly rich. First, sue Jobs and Apple. Then the people who invented the game Jacks. Or maybe that singer from the '70s, Terry Jacks. Uh oh, he's a Canadian so maybe that won't fly in court. OK, how about anyone famous with the name Jack. That's close enough for the purposes of suing. Jack Daniels, Jack Nicholson, Jack Palance (oops, he's dead), Jack Lemmon (is he dead?), and so on. You get the picture. I wish I had something to sue for so I could get rich too :(
Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want
Well now give me money
Ow, money
Wow, yeah, I wanna be free
Oh I want money
That's what I want
That's what I want, well
Now give me money
ow, money
Wow, yeah, you need money
now, give me money
That's what I want, yeah
that's what I want, yeah
.. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)
Uhh... the agreement specified physical media - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
So much for moral leadership. Sadly, this lack of integrity has become the norm among the growing ranks of the overly affluent. Both groups should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. This is just such a total waste of time and money. For the record, I wouldn't give either of these parties a dime.
The article reads: "This week the Apple Corps goes to the High Court seeking multimillion-pound damages..."
and it's dated March 27, so yeah.
Go ahead, search for the word "Apple" on this page:
The fact is, the trademark they seem to be using for anything music related is a stylized fruit, along with the trademarks "iPod" and "iTunes". When have you ever heard a phrase like "the Apple iTunes store". It's just the iTunes store, it's just the iPod, and the posters just use a stylized fruit (sorry, there's no html entity I can insert for it.), which is Apple's trademark.
They can't help having a certain company name, which they don't use in their music business! Not because it wouldn't add value, but because (in music) it's not their trademark to use. They don't infringe.
by Apple Corps this time.
Apple computer doesn't sell Beatles songs to anybody. With the exception of one collaboration album, the Beatles are not distributed via iTMS.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Music_Store
There are no tracks from The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Metallica or Radiohead in the iTunes online catalogue (with the exception of an album collaboration between Tony Sheridan and the Beatles, and two Radiohead songs).
No they promised not to distribute physical media. Nothing about players for such media, or nonphysical media.
Maybe they go to court this week, but this has been ongoing for quite a long time. People need to learn how to write a fucking descriptive summary. The Slashdot community has a surprising number of otherwise brilliant people who write on a third-grade level.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
Exactly! Apple don't distribute any physical music, not sheet music, not discs, not vinyl, not tapes.
Because of the massive publicity of these law suits over the years, no-one can possible claim that they don't know that Apple computers and Apple records are two different companies.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
maybe Apple Records could also sue:
Apple Jacks cereal
Apple Turnover pastries
Apple Pies (Hostess)
Apple(bee's)
Apple: mentioned in the Bible as being eaten by Eve and henceforth screwing up the whole program.
This honestly makes me want to take all my Beatles Vynil Records and have a record burning. Including my rare copy of the White Album on Gray Vynil. Screw Apple Records, the Beatles, and who ever is behind this.
I find it hard to care about some very very rich people suing some equally rich people.
IANAL but the case wont have too much impact on future law. Apple Computer said that they will never be in the music biz so were alowed to use the name. Now they are they've renaged on the deal so they will have to pay. It's the cost of doing business in that segment. The only question is how much.
Neither of the parties will have any less bread on their table as a result.
Apple don't distribute any physical music, not sheet music, not discs, not vinyl, not tapes.
Apple's iTunes music store sells music. We all know that when you buy music, you're buying intellectual property (a "license" to listen to a creative work), not just a physical disc of aluminum and plastic. Isn't that why so many people here on Slashdot complain that when they buy a CD/DVD, and their kid wrecks it, they should be entitled to another copy, free of charge? Now, you're saying that record labels sell physical media, not the creative work itself? Which is it?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
There seems to be a lot of people who think that Apple Corps is no longer an active corporation. This is not true - they continue to release CDs (mostly remasters and compilations, including the very popular "1" and "Let It Be Naked"), and DVDs ("Beatles Anthology," "The Concerts for Bangladesh," "Imagine"), and are currently working on a Beatles-themed Cirque Du Soleil show for the Mirage in Las Vegas.
You're missing the point. Apple computer licensed the name from Apple Corps under the condition that they stay out of the music business. And they didn't.
I sue you and you sue me and so sue we and we are all together.
See Apple sing for a piece of Jobs' bling, see how they fly.
I'm crying.
Sitting with lawyers, waiting for the judge to come.
Corporation success, stupid bloody iPod.
Jobs, you been a naughty boy, you made ~your~ Apple rich.
We want the profits, you have the profits.
We are the bastards!
GOO GOO GA JOOB
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
I've a few contacts within the record industry, one of whom has dealings with the German division of EMI. It appears that the two Apples were close to a deal last year, and the Beatles catalogue almost appeared in the iTunes Music Store. But somehow things have gone wrong.
Apple Corps were also due to remaster the Beatles' back catalogue, issuing it on both CD and DVD-A. Due to disappointing sales in the UK of the later format, this was shelved, but the CD remaster will still go ahead. The current legal dispute may curtail this, though.
Finally, Neil Aspinall of Apple Corps has been working with the Beatles even longer than Ringo Starr. He started out as their driver/roadie back in 1960, over two years before Ringo joined.
The iPod, although not invented at the time, is clearly covered as "a device delivering such content." It is the iTunes distribution model that is in dispute, substituting tapes and records
send + more == money?
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/07/ 207215
Maybe it's news because a lot of people forgot about it, but this is the continuation of a lawsuit that's been delayed for a long time.....
http://www.applehomes.net/ There's a shop round the corner from me....
Forgive me for asking ... but isn't this old news???
I don't quite understand why you are so irate about this. Apple records has a perfectly legitimate lawsuit. "Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs, still owns the licensing rights to Beatles products. It is claiming that the introduction of iTunes broke a $26 million settlement under which Apple Computer agreed to steer clear of the music business, for which the Beatles company retains the famous trademark. It is the latest clash in one of Britains longest-running corporate legal battles. " Apple computers agreed to not get into the music business as part of the settlement with Apple records over the company name. Thus avoiding any confusion between the two. Now Apple computers has iTunes which is part of the music business. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. I'm willing to bet thought there is another settlement that Apple computers will be paying out.
I don't think that's the way it went...
Apple did not license the name. The two Steve's started a computer company and decided to call it Apple Computer Inc. They probably didn't even know Apple Corps. Ltd. existed. Apple Corps started a lawsuit against Apple Computer, and unfortunately, Apple Computer gave in a little too easily.
It is quite common to have companies with the same name in different business segments. Judges normally allow both companies to co-exist with the same name. In this case, one of the companies produces multimedia content, and the other is a computer company.
As such, Apple Corps. Ltd, shouldn't have a gripe with Apple Computer. Only recently have Apple Computer gone into the multi-media delivery business. If Apple Corps is sueing because of that, then they should also sue Amazon, and the postal service, DHL etc.
i see. my mistake. that was very straight off the hip and not very researched. i just assumed ...
going by everyone's logic- I'm gonna start up a company - Coca Cola Packaging... that ships things... and eventually i'll ship soda for drinks like pepsi, and become rich! So eventually my company (now just Coca Cola, because its easier to say) is being sued. Why am I being sued?
then Apple Computing should just pay them for every Beatles song that was released on Apples label that's been downloaded form Apple Computing.
My state of discontent with this derives from the fact that people just love to nitpick at Apple Computing for what ever reason they see fit, regradless of it's validity of lack of. A company that is truly trying to advance modern technolgy in a friendly, cohesive, manner should not be so widely scrutinized for trying to make such advancements. If a stipulation of a prior settlement has been broken, then rectify it.
We're dealing every day with a mindset of a society that's hell-bent-for-leather on throwing knives at what ever traget is within distance. Apple, a growing company is within reach. These petty blows may not be ultimately detrimental, but the nickle and dime BS is certainly designed to do more than annoy and makes success difficult to be achieved.
"I'm going to sue you in ENGLAND!" -South Park
Apple can just rename themselves to Pear then? :-p
People Enraged About Rivals?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Is this battle why the Beatles' catalog isn't for sale in iTunes?
Though I guess they aren't available in many other music services, either...
I guess that's why Russia has obligatory licensing.
Imagine there's no lawyers...
John is rolling over in his grave.
Sigh.
A) Everyone knew about Apple Corps. The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus," right? Seriously, Apple Corps was more than a little famous in 1978. Every later Beatles album had Apple Records printed in the center of the label, with a green apple logo. There were about seventy gazillion of these records around. Naming a company "Apple" at that time would rather obviously preclude involving the company in music.
B) They're now very much in the same business. Apple Corps distributes music. Apple Computers now distributes music, so there is market overlap. That's a serious undermining of Apple Corps' trademark, and the impact is far from negligible. You, for example, don't seem to know about Apple Corps. There's no way anybody talking about Apple Music is going to think of the Beatles' company anymore. Apple computer has stolen the name.
C) What's this nonsense about the post office? If the post office renamed itself Apple Mail, you can bet Apple Computer would be all over them with suits. The post office, Amazon and DHL are not named Apple, so they have nothing to do with this.
Apple fine being a fruity computer company, but now that they sell music... that's the issue.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Apple Computers signed a settlement agreement a few decades back promising they would never use the name Apple in the music industry.
Now, in hindsight, that looks like a really stupid agreement for Apple Computers to make. But at the time, it was probably a) costly litigation vs. b) reassuring the Beatles (who are way more popular than you, probably more sympathetic to a jury, if there is one) that you're not going to start selling records, something you have absolutely no intention of doing anyway.
So yeah, the TM claim seems ridiculous. But that's not really what this is about. The K claim seems pretty cut and dry for Apple Corps.
Until it's all settled, just have to stick with allofmp3.com.
List of goods and/or services
Class 09: Sound recording and sound reproducing apparatus and instruments; radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments; video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments; and parts included in Class 9 for all the aforesaid goods.CANCELLED IN RESPECT OF:All goods except sound recording, sound reproducing, radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments and parts for all the aforesaid goods, none being computers or goods of the same description as computers, but not cancelled in respect of video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments. I.e. Apple Records' trademark only covers physical recordings.
I thought it might be wasted.
Lindows iTunes Music Store
Mandrake iTunes Music Store
Mike Roe Soft iTunes Music Store
Not can it only be played to the court, but a recording of the court proceedings, with the song in the background, can be re-broadcast:
4 8_en_1.htm
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198800
Parliamentary and judicial proceedings.
45.--(1) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of reporting such proceedings; but this shall not be construed as authorising the copying of a work which is itself a published report of the proceedings.
Don't they have laws about repeated nuisance suits in England?
...of course, I'll be saying this until MSFT starts suing people for calling those holes in your houses/buildings w/glass/etc. windows... }:)
I wonder what the matter with the other Apple is? Sales of Beatles albums down again requiring a fresh cash infusion from some other company with money?
I really wonder how much money it would take just to buy that Apple company, especially if you add up all of the money they've managed to wring out of Apple over something so assinine, let alone the legal costs associated with each and every lawsuit...
One of their best ones (Wish You Were Here) was a Warner Brothers release.
Besides, the Apple logo has been used on a number of soemwhat recent CD releases from (I think) Capitol Records.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Although I can understand where Apple is coming from, I've got to side with Apple on this one.
It's spelled Apple, but pronounce it Throat Warbler Mangrove.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
and now they are acting like a record label
Actually, they are acting more like a Record Store, not a Record Company
iTunes Music Store is like Tower Records or Best Buy.
They are NOT currently fulfilling the role of a record label (which I believe is to leech money from the artists and provide no value to the end customer).
If the Beatles' lawyers/estate managers/etc. are thinking about money, and not on some damn fool idealistic crusade, then Apple Computer can get out of this mess pretty easily:
Apple Computer: Okay, here's your options: One, drop your lawsuit, and not only will we agree to sell your music on our highly successful online music store, but we'll also market the hell out of it to yet another generation of music lovers who might never have been introduced to your music before.
Apple Corps: Bloody 'ell. What's the other option?
Apple Computer: Two.... keep this lawsuit going, and you'll never sell an album through us... ever.
Apple Corps: Right....... Well, in that case, we'll choose the first one.
Apple Computer: We thought you'd see it our way. Cheerio.
I'm not a lawyer, but I sure think that Apple Corps has a great case. There is both precedent where Apple Computer lost and paid damages and there is retention of trademark which is, as stated above, still in active usage.
Apple Computer has over $8 billion cash, with a B, in the bank.. Isn't time to just buy Apple Corps? How much can a company that doesn't create anything new/original really be worth..
This is the key part of the earlier lawsuit.
Apple Corps. was suing Apple Computer, not because of the name in general, but because Apple Corps. owned the name in regards to sound recording. When Apple Computer added microphones and the ability to record from microphones in the OS, that's when Apple Corps attacked. The agreement was that Apple Computer would be able to do this(with the $26 million settlement), as long as Apple Computer never developed the technology into being able to record and distribute music(does GarageBand figure into this?).
Is it at all possible for anyone that's interested in either Apple Computer or Apple Records (or both) to get them confused, ever ? I don't think someone looking for Beatles records would visit Apple.com and buy a Powerbook by mistake.
Hey here's an idea: Why doesn't Ringo and his lads go to sue Fiona Apple because she's actually IN the music recording business! Oh how I'd love to hear her lyrically rip them to shreds on her next album.
"Don't you plead me your case, don't bother to explain.
Don't even show me your face, 'cuz it's a crying shame.
Just go back to the rock from under which you came.
Take the sorrow you gave and all the stakes you claim -
And don't forget the blame."
Man, she saw it coming YEARS ago!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Apple should just go ahead and buy Apple Records. It doesn't really matter how much it would cost, because they're just going to continue getting sued, endlessly, over and over, until they do so. Buying Apple Records would probably be the only surefire way to end this for good, plus whatever they spent would probably be eventually earned back in future revenues on Beatles albums, plus maybe they'd get to stick the Beatles on the iTMS.
There is no particular good reason for Apple Records to continue to exist at this point anyway. It only ever existed in the first place as a tax dodge, and none of the Beatles (especially not the dead ones) are really getting anything out of it anymore. It seems the only continuing purpose for the existence of the company is to repeatedly sue Apple Computer.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You can't come up with a better example of a record store than Best Buy? Best Buy?
First of all, Best Buy sells records and refrigerators. Second, they often advertise things incorrectly in their circular, then have their customers arrested if they try to buy the product.
They have a tiny record section. It's like calling a truck stop a "record store" because they sell 8 tracks of "Convoy".
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Steve Jobs managed to have NeXT ``bought out'' by Apple which put him in the driver's seat. When Disney was messing around with Pixar, Steve Jobs could manage Disney's buy out of Pixar which made his group the most powerful part of Disney---essentially they get what they want now. The Apple Corps has been a thorn in the side of the Apple computer company for many years now. Why has he and the other Apple CEOs let this go on for so long when it seems apparent he can make similar business arrangements that would settle this whole thing profitably for everyone once and for all? Yes, the ex-Beatles or their widows understandably want control of the fruits of their hard work, but if they don't want the Apple computer company to have control of the fruits of their own hard work, especially when this is the livelihood of one heck of a lot more people than those who work for the Apple Corps, it's time for Jobs to get matters in hand. Enough is enough.
Fuck your stupid sig. Either learn to spell or stop posting, retard. It's fucking annoying for those of us that aren't retarded.
He did what? I'm confused considering he said he would never buy it back.
How about you cite some references there?
When was the last Badfinger album?
Both members of Badfinger committed suicide. This is probably the reason that you haven't seen a new Badfinger album.
How exactly are they acting like a record label? What artists have they signed?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
"Let it Be .. Naked" 2003 un-Phil Spector'ed version of "Let it Be"
...that when the iTunes Music Store first launched, the advertisements and billboards all said http://applemusic.com/, which pointed to http://www.apple.com/itunes. The former URL was quickly replaced with http://itunes.com. I think it's readily apparent that the former URL would comprise "knowing and willing" trademark infringement, and violation of the last court agreement.
Is it only me, or does anyone else find it "interesting" that Apple Corps waits until the iPod is a global phenom, then "discovers" that "By Jove, those bloody Yanks have gone and set up a music company!"
"Brilliant!" as my favorite beer shillers say.
Sophistry, indeed. Perhaps Apple Computers should purchase Apple Corps and set them out on their collective ear-worm arses.
If you want to read more about Apple Corps and just
what the heck they really were all about it's here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
Really a tax dodge for the Beatles at the time.
None of the other divisions really panned out.
In fact:
"When the Beatles' partnership was dissolved in 1975, dissolution of Apple Corps was also considered, but it was decided to keep it going, while effectively retiring all its divisions. The company exists today, mostly performing as the licensing agent for Beatles-related products, and supervising reissues of Apple Records, plus new issues of Beatles recordings and related media. The company is apparently now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company) and its company secretary is listed as Standby Films Ltd., believed to be a vehicle of managing director Neil Aspinall. The company is currently headquartered at 27 Ovington Square, in London's prestigious Knightsbridge district."
I was severely confused. I had thought for some reason that Apple Computer was the Beatles label. No fucking wonder I couldn't find the Beatles albums at Worst Buy!
(Pardon me, but there IS no trademark confusion, dilution, etc.)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Apple's iTunes music store sells music. We all know that when you buy music, you're buying intellectual property (a "license" to listen to a creative work), not just a physical disc of aluminum and plastic. Isn't that why so many people here on Slashdot complain that when they buy a CD/DVD, and their kid wrecks it, they should be entitled to another copy, free of charge? Now, you're saying that record labels sell physical media, not the creative work itself? Which is it?
The notion that you're buying "intellectual property" comes more from the media distributors than the geeks here on Slashdot. The geeks here simply respond "well if that's the case then I want a replacement on my damaged disc", to point out the hypocrisy of the record labels (asking them, as you said, "Which is it?"). I imagine most people here would rather buy the physical media and use the data on it however they please, rather than buy a license to use some "intellectual property".
From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to say that Apple doesn't sell records/CDs/etc. They have a data distribution service (and associated program) for audio and video files. That said, not knowing the language of their original agreement, if it was something to the effect of "we will stay out of the music business", then iTunes definitely is the music business... but again, as other have pointed out, they don't use the Apple brand name anywhere in the iTunes store (the music-selling business), only on the iTunes program (computer software).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Actually, the Best Buy stores I've been in have had very large record sections. Easily 1/4 of the store, more if you include video (to compare it with the likes of Tower Records).
But I'm glad you managed to move away from my POINT which is that Apple Computer is NOT acting like a Record label.
Three cheers for repackaging the same old songs in a slightly different order, time and time again, and charging ever more and more! No new work + income = genius! (seriously though, who the hell buys these things, once you've got the Beatles catalogue.. there's no reason to buy anthology after anthology.)
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
The price that Apple Computers will continue to pay until the end of time is that they will have to keep forking money over to Apple Records because they used a name too close to that of the Beatles' organization.
"Until the end of time" my behind. Apple Computer could probably just spin off its iPod and iTMS business into a wholly owned subsidiary "iTunes Inc." and leave the bit-apple logo off future iPod players. The "iPod" and "iTunes" brands are strong enough that Apple Computer could probably get away with this.
Parent wasn't off-topic, it was a reference to Badfinger's song Come And Get It (originally written by Paul McCartney).
Should the original "owners" associated with the name Apple sit on it indefinitely? Are they fairly entitled to stand in the way of younger generation businesses? Can a trademark be valid if nothing is really traded on it? Doesn't infringement require there be provable detrimental effects?
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
Ownership of trademark is the point. The courts will decide. Hopefully, when the dust settles, The Beatles catalogue will finally be available on iTunes, nobody will be forced to buy those songs either, and we will all live happily ever after.
No beatles-beatles link?
What had Apple Corps' done in the last 20 years to earn any recognition whatsoever? Apple Computer is being taken advantage of due to a triviality. And if it were "Microsoft Corporation" vs some "Microsoft Music" company, I'd feel the same way.
I mean, look at their place holder web page! If they were a company of any merit whatsoever, there'd be something to see there.
Everybody knows that Apple Computer is synonymous with iTunes. No one thinks that they sign any bands. No one gives a shit about Apple Corps, and only hears about them when they sue. They didn't win a name change in the first battle, so should have waived any rights to battle over future name-related damages.
-ZOD-
This is so very simple. Apple Computer made an agreement, then broke it, then made another agreement and now Apple records is saying that broke that.
Your never hearing of Apple records means nothing so don't bother to share that snippet. If you really think it should matter, write a letter to the court and let them know. I'm sure they'll care as much as I do.
(Yes she was diversified, did'nt keep it in Kodak stock).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Nitpicking aside, it seems to me that the intent of the earlier settlement was to prevent Apple Computer from setting up a music distribution business. It's the spirit rather than the letter of a contract/law that should be honored IMHO.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Because there's a little thing called trademark law, which allows people to build brands within particular industry segments and (more to the point) allows consumers to know that if they bought Brand X photocopiers last week and had a good experience, Brand X photocopiers this week probably come from the same company and may result in the same experience. As I tell my law students, "trademark law is about identifying the source of goods or services in commerce." You can also see the information on the USPTO Web site.
Trademark law is about consumer confusion, and in fact, trademark cases often hinge on surveys of actual consumers.
One little hook about trademark law--the industry segments thing is crucial. A few years ago, a restaurant in New York City opened, calling itself Godzilla Sushi. Unfortunately, Toho, the Japanese company that made the Godzilla movies and owns the trademark, had a registration (now expired) for the mark in the same international category of goods that included restaurants. Today, Godzilla Sushi is Monster Sushi.
The last settlement gave Apple Computer the right to be in the music business. What they could not do was distribute musical content on a physical medium (Hence you had to download "The Complete U2" rather than have it be pre-loaded). The case in London is to decide if electronic distribution over the Internet is "physical". Of course, everyone hopes Jobs simplies settles and gets The Beatles exclusively on iTunes, but I think Apple Computer has a pretty good case here. And hey, the judge owns an iPod.
I would suggest that Apple Computer has not gone into the music business at all with their iTunes usic Store. It is clear that Apple Computer has went into the business of e-Commerce, leveraging the relationships they have forged with Music labels to provide an electronic content delivery system that could be used for anything including books, video, music, software, etc. Were Apple computer to create an Apple Computer Music Label and then promote itself As Apple Music, there would be an issue, but since Apple is clearly in the business of content delivery and not music, this suit is frivolous and should be dismissed.
...and when that stops making you money you can always make a killing in litigation. *pffft* If you want to build an empire that no one can infringe upon don't choose a common-as-muck name like "Apple". Try something like, oh, "Skype" for example.
allofmp3 is a Russian company taking advantage of Russian copyright law to avoid paying royalties to non-Russian artists. It makes the US labels seem benevolent by comparison.
I totally agree with you. The only fly in the ointment is that there's this agreement in place from a few years ago. I guess Apple Computer views it as just a cost of doing business.
I reckon it's high time Apple Computer moves to settle once and for all and get rid of this lawsuit which just seems to keep coming back.
On the other hand, there's that old adage about no publicity being bad publicity (OTOH surely publicity that costs you millions is bad publicity, right?)
29 mpg. YMMV.
...Even the article is retarded: "playing a Beatles song on an iPod would be illegal". Would people who cover the Apple music player and services issues PLEASE learn what the f*ck they are talking about!? You can put a Beatle song legally on the iPod just fine.
Sheesh. We need some legal advocates who will fight for some intelligence on these issues. 9 of 10 complaints about Apple, iPods, and iTMS are based on false or misunderstood premises.
The Beatles new box set "The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2."
::rolls eyes::
I'm sure that the Apple Corps trademark is really going to be driving those sales.
I can sue you all because I have founded in 1337 a company nammed Aback Abacus Abandon Abandoned Abase Abashed Abate ... Zodiac Zombie Zone Zonked Zoo Zoological Zoologist Zoology Zoom Zucchini Zulu, Inc., so bow to your new all-words-in-the-dictionnary owning overlord!
You just got troll'd!
Yeah, everybody knew about Apple Corps. Accountants in particular. 'Apple Corps? Oh, yeah, those crazy Beatles. The only four guys in the world who could go broke running a tax dodge.' (howl with laughter, clutch sides, wipe eyes with handkerchief)
Seriously, I very much doubt if the Apple trademark ever sold a Beatle record. (It may have done something for Mary Hopkins and Badfinger. Jackie Lomax, on the other hand, probably wants those years of his life back.) There is only one trademark with any real value in selling the Beatles' music, and that is THE BEATLES (R). Apple-labelled records without that name on the cover had a proven history of being flopperoos.
It is possible, I suppose, that Apple Computer will one day bring a lawsuit as frivolous as those repeatedly brought against them by Apple Corps. For instance, they could sue somebody for stealing the Newton trademark. Until then, I can state with confidence that of the two, the Beatles' Apple holds the most worms.
Anyone familiar with the story that the first "musical" alert sound Apple computers made they chose to call sosumi (so sue me) because they knew this would be a breach of their agreement with Apple records?
... "Apple Computers" as a proper noun I'm going to shoot them. It is Apple Computer.
They make Macs, not MACs
Like anyone can even know that
Apples Corps used to sell Music, SCO used to sell Software, aside from that, what's the difference?
Wrong, the "needle" or better still, the stylus, was made of sapphire or (the better ones) were diamonds. BTW, new vinyl always performs better than this low sampled CD rubbish anyway.
You never catch me alive
Logic, the industry-leading application for music creation and audio production dramatically broadens the capabilities of computer-based studio environments with Logic Pro 7. The first choice of many prominent musicians and producers, Logic Pro 7 provides the most comprehensive collection of music creation tools. This product Garageband and Logic Express seem to put Apple Computer squarely in the music production game.
That Apple trademark is in such active usage that the new release is called The Capitol Albums.
You didn't check carefully enough, then. Format shifting is not explicitly allowed, and is therefore unlawful.
It's called "time shifting", and it most definetly is legal.
"haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years?" is inaccurate. There have been MANY, and in fact, the next one will be released on 11 April 2006, The Beatles new box set "The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2."
You missed the part where he said new release. Which is quite sad, as you quoted that in your post.
Not quite. It's the first CD issue of the US mixes which were often different to those issued in the UK and on the current CDs. Plus the Help! soundtrack features the score from the film which hasn't appeared on CD - the UK album just featured 14 Beatles songs.
the license agreement clearly said keep off the apple.. we didn't and the whole planet got sued for eternity.
next up John Lennon and cohorts take a bite, and again, it all ends in tears when divisions over the running of Apple Corps are a major factor in the Beatle's split.
it's seems more than a little unfortunate that Jobs and the Beatles - two of the great revolutionary, 'think different', creative icons of the last century should be locked in a trademark battle. Over a word neither of them invented.
who said money doesn't grow on trees?
Actually, I think that Apple Computer should countersue Apple Music for infringing on their digital distribution branding. When that agreement was signed, there was nothing but analog distribution avenues. There was tape and vinyl thats it. And since that was the music business at the time, that was what the agreement covered.
Since than, Apple has been a pioneer in creating digital content distribution. And now Apple Music comes along and starts making CDs
There are mutiple ways of looking at things. This is a nuisance lawsuit and there has NEVER been any chance of confusing Apple Computers with Apple Records. The fact that they haven't produced any original product in a LONG, LONG time tells me even more that this is just a nuisance.
When Apple starts a music label and distributing CDs with apple labels, then they will be in breach.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
My association with Apple is fruit. And by similar standards, I think that the Washington Apple Grower's association should be suing both Apple Computers and Apple Music.
In order to prove trademark infrigement, you need to prove that someone is highjacking the popularity of your brand to promote their own. It's pretty clear that this has never been the case with Apple Computer any more than Apple music was trying to to harness the popularity of Apple's to sell music. It was just a name they picked out of the air and went with.
Apple would do well to put this issue to rest once and for all by:
a) Buying Apple Comp
b) Fighting it tooth and nail to the Supreme Court
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Michael is having cash problems. I would not be surprised if he sells the Beatles catalog to get the Neverland molestation farm up and running again.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The agreement seems to cover recordings in the form of discs, tapes and filaments. I don't think that electrons moving over a wire and then transported into computer memory qualifies.
I'll bet that Apple Records will make a claim that since the music is ultimately stores on disc, than it covers. But the music is not DISTRIBUTED on disc, tape or filament. It's distributed over low resistance wires (a filament is a high resistance wire).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The word "Coca-Cola" was not in the lexicon before Coca-Cola was created. It is a combination of words that is quite unique and has a lot of value that is distinct to a particular product.
s earchmode=none
The word "Apple" is not distinct. An apple is a piece of fruit. According to Etymology.com it has been a word since 1300. 770 years of common use pretty much makes the word "apple" up for grabs.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=apple&
apple Look up apple at Dictionary.com
O.E. æppel "apple," from P.Gmc. *ap(a)laz (cf. O.Fris., Du. appel, O.N. eple, O.H.G. apful, Ger. Apfel), from PIE *ab(e)l "apple" (cf. Gaul. avallo, O.Ir. ubull, Lith. obuolys, O.C.S. jabloko), but the exact relation and original sense of these is uncertain. Gk. melon and L. malum are probably from a pre-I.E. Mediterranean language. A generic term for all fruit, other than berries but including nuts, as late as 17c., hence its use for the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis. Cucumbers, in one O.E. work, are eoræppla, lit. "earth-apples" (cf. Fr. pomme de terre "potato," lit. "earth-apple;" see also melon). Fr. pomme is from L. pomum "fruit."
"A roted eppel amang e holen, make rotie e yzounde." ["Ayenbite of Inwit," 1340]
Apple of Discord (c.1400) was thrown into the wedding of Thetis and Peleus by Eris (goddess of chaos and discord), who had not been invited, and inscribed kallisti "To the Prettiest One." Paris, elected to choose which goddess should have it, gave it to Aphrodite, offending Hera and Athene, with consequences of the Trojan War, etc. Apple of one's eye (O.E.), symbol of what is most cherished, was the pupil, supposed to be a globular solid body. Apple-polisher "one who curries favor" first attested 1928 in student slang.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Apple is a 300 pound gorilla with many zealot tribesmen running at its feet. When it crushes all that stands between it and it's bananas, the tribesmen cheer.
"Never say Never."
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
They didn't win a name change in the first battle, so should have waived any rights to battle over future name-related damages.
... unfortunately Apple Computer screwed them. This is why businesses generally don't play nice, nice guys get walked all over.
Apple Corp did win, Apple Computer caved and paid them for use of the name and *promised* to stay out of the music business. Those *two* terms were sufficient to Apple Corp and they dropped the suit. Apple Corp was being nice, not playing hardball, doing the live and let live thing,
My state of discontent with this derives from the fact that people just love to nitpick at Apple Computing for what ever reason they see fit, regradless of it's validity of lack of.
Apple Records, not Apple Computer, was the nice one here. They gave Apple Computer a break, they agreed to drop their lawsuit if Apple Computer stayed away from the music business. They tried to be nice, reasonable, and got screwed. This is one topic where Apple Computer rightfully draws criticism.
A company that is truly trying to advance modern technolgy in a friendly, cohesive, manner should not be so widely scrutinized for trying to make such advancements.
Apple is not friendly. They have screwed over many companies when in their corporate best interest. Steve also has a bit of a temper and isn't afraid to exercise his power and influence. The difference between Microsoft and Apple has more to do with the opportunity to abuse others not the willingness to abuse others. You are confusing a carefully and expertly crafted corporate image with reality. Their computers are great, but don't be naive and think they are saints or something.
records? what the fug is a record?
A "record" is the viny disc that Steve Jobs and many others used to listen to music on. Think CD, but bigger, analog, breakable, however the packaging/jacket was larger so you could have cooler artwork.
"Gramophone records were the primary technology used for personal music reproduction for most of the 20th century. They replaced the phonograph cylinder in the 1910s, and although they were supplanted in popularity in the 1990s by digital media, they continue to be manufactured and sold as of 2006. Considering that many audio formats such as the 8-track had a heyday lasting only a few years, the longevity of the record is remarkable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record
Or artwork that sucked alot worse.. which tended to be the norm.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
They make more money suing Apple than making records. They need to go fark themselves.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
Let's see how much music you make when half of you are dead! Jeez!
then Apple Computing should just pay them for every Beatles song that was released on Apples label that's been downloaded form Apple Computing.
... the Beatle's cataloge is not availible via ITMS (or any other legal digital download) source.
Except
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
Just because you found some website that says they're legal and pay artists royalties does not make it true. Bet you there are more web sites saying they're illegal than that say they're legal.
Right, one website doesn't make it true. But I've actually seen the websites that say it's legal and that they pay royalties... it's hard to compare *real* evidence with the evidence you just sort of imagined.
Good Apples Gone Bad Apples beating each other up for no good reason.
Daily News http://newsblaze.com