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."
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.
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?
It should also be mentioned at this point that Beatles->Apple are obliged to take action against Jobs->Apple over the trademark infrigement, otherwise the trademark will be automatically nullified.
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.
The great thing is, after this lawsuit is over, whatever the outcome, you and I will be able to say "I told you so." ;-)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
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?
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.
That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
"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.
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
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 :(
.. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)
It's deliberate that the word "Apple" is not associated with any music selling.
The case is being brought on the merit that Apple Computer is ultimately selling music. Should settlement occur, it won't be a giant blow-out curtosy of the steps Apple have already taken. (This is why no one is particularly worried.)
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.
Uhh... the agreement specified physical media - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
Uhh... the agreement specified that Apple "could not use the title "Apple" for any works "whose principal content is music and, or performances." - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
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.
So I suppose to download music I would go to www.itunes.com, righ? Hmmmm, why look at that, it redirects to www.apple.com. Why, look at the titlebar! "Apple - iPod + iTunes!" No Apple branding there, no siree!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
... except that the continued sales of Beatles records, especially the reissues of former rarities, proves that there's still more to life than iTMS (which I, for one, have never used...)
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.