It's official: Apple and The Beatles kiss and make up

[AppleInsider]

Apple and The Beatles' parent company Apple Corps said Monday they have entered into a new agreement concerning the use of the name "Apple" and apple logos, ending a testy trademark dispute dating back nearly three decades.

Under the new agreement, which replaces a pact from 1991, Apple will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple continuing to use its name and logos on iTunes.

"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks," said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs. "It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."

The terms of settlement were not disclosed.

Last May, a London High Court judge sided with Apple in the most recent of cases brought on by Apple Corps, which charged that the iPod maker's user of an apple logo alongside its iTunes and digital music player products was in breach of the firms' 1991 contract. Apple Corps was ordered to pay Apple's legal bill, estimated at £2m.

Monday's announcement effectively ends the long-standing dispute between the two companies, which dates back to the early 1980's. It may also lend credence to ongoing reports that firms plan to further bury the hatchet by kicking-off an exclusive arrangement by which The Beatles' music catalog is made available through Apple's iTunes download service.

"It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on," said Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps. "The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of peaceful co-operation with them."

Apple's Jobs has been courting the British rock group -- arguably the most prestigious name to thus far escape the digital music download scene -- to join his iTunes revolution for some time. Speculation on the matter reached all-time highs last month, as news reports suggested the two parties were close to an arrangement that would give iTunes first shot at online distribution of Beatles songs, including a three-month exclusive that would begin with the release of the Beatles' Cirque du Soleil project, Love, on Valentine's day.

Though such a deal remains unconfirmed, many Apple and Beatles followers gained inspiration from the flagrant display of Beatles propaganda during Jobs' recent keynote address in San Francisco. An iTunes pact, they believe, may be just days away.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Bergermeister]

You beat me to it!!!


Finally the war is over and the Beatles are coming to iTMS! 8)

[TednDi]

Revolution!




And in other news. Steve Jobs uses Time Machine to go back in time India to drop acid with the Beatles and convince them that in the future they will not want to use the name Apple. He then implants a Microsoft brain virus into them causing them to write Revlolution #9

Namaste!!

[128pluspb100siduo230]

"Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps"

Apple can now push the "Apple" in iTunes which which can't hurt the business. I can't wait to see how Apple and Apple Corps move to take advantage of this new chummyness.

Oh and what happend to the Apple Superbowl ad?

[Obelix]

Originally Posted by 128pluspb100siduo230

Oh and what happend to the Apple Superbowl ad?

It was a fake story to ferret out a leaker within the organization.

[csi95]

Great. Now that is behind is.

Where are the Beatles songs on iTunes???

[Strawberry]

Special Edition iPods to follow?

[tundraboy]

How does Apple Corps go from the originator of the Apple trademark to ceding all rights to the trademark to Apple, Inc. then licensing it back for certain narrow uses?

Either the US should hire Jobs to negotiate all its treaties or Apple Inc. parted with a lot of $$$$$s.

I wonder what Cisco is thinking.

[Not Unlike Myself]

Originally Posted by tundraboy

I wonder what Cisco is thinking.

We are thinking Apple records has no where near the $ behind them we do.

[Porchland]

Announcement on Monday. Beatles in iTS on Tuesday?

[johnq]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

Special Edition iPods to follow?

iPhones

[djpadz]

I guess the iPhone lawsuit will take us through the next 20-odd years...

--Dj

[Akac]

Originally Posted by tundraboy

How does Apple Corps go from the originator of the Apple trademark to ceding all rights to the trademark to Apple, Inc. then licensing it back for certain narrow uses?

Either the US should hire Jobs to negotiate all its treaties or Apple Inc. parted with a lot of $$$$$s.

I wonder what Cisco is thinking.

Cisco: Oh ****.

[UrbanVoyeur]

*yawn*

[Trendannoyer]

as i recall part of the agreement Apple comp had with Apple CORP was that they couldnt sell iPods PRE-LOADED with music, as that would violate the agreement as Apple Comp. would then be selling music .....

so now this new situation looks to me like we could get pre-loaded music on iPods... could have a lot of potential, couldnt it

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Trendannoyer

as i recall part of the agreement Apple comp had with Apple CORP was that they couldnt sell iPods PRE-LOADED with music, as that would violate the agreement as Apple Comp. would then be selling music .....

so now this new situation looks to me like we could get pre-loaded music on iPods... could have a lot of potential, couldnt it

Hmm, one of the problems with doing that in the past was that your music wouldn't sync back to your Mac if it was on your iPod, because syncing was only one way. But one of the new features is that iTunes store music on your iPod will now sync to your Mac... So how many gigabytes would the Beatles complete discography take up?

[nascarnate326]

Im wondering how long it will take to sell a million beatles songs.
1 week?
1 month?

Im beting on a week.

[Shookster]

so now this new situation looks to me like we could get pre-loaded music on iPods... could have a lot of potential, couldnt it

It would have been nice if you could buy a pink iPod shuffle for Valentine's Day, select the music you want to be pre-loaded on it (love songs, presumably) and have it sent to your lucky recipient. The problem though would be making it so that it is not linked to your account.

[mazzy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hmm, one of the problems with doing that in the past was that your music wouldn't sync back to your Mac if it was on your iPod, because syncing was only one way. But one of the new features is that iTunes store music on your iPod will now sync to your Mac... So how many gigabytes would the Beatles complete discography take up?

the Beatles released a total fourteen real albums in almost 8 years-stunning-(not including repackaged product) so much less than Dylan (whose entire catalogue package - with bonus tracks) is for sales on iTunes.

[wirc]

Still no Led Zeppelin. Will Stevie have to have a séance with Jimmy page to get that to happen?

[johnq]

Originally Posted by mazzy

the Beatles released a total fourteen real albums in almost 8 years-stunning-(not including repackaged product) so much less than Dylan (whose entire catalogue package - with bonus tracks) is for sales on iTunes.

And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.

I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already (or a lesser amount of songs that they like) to the point where not even a remastered version will compel them to buy it.

Too little too late.

[Strawberry]

I wonder how many Beatles tracks will appear in the UK chart once/if they become available on iTunes?

[jonndailey]

Does this mean that musicians can now sign up under the Apple inc. music label? Instead of getting .08 cents a song they could possibly get .60 cents? It'll be cool to see where Apple takes this since they've reached an agreement.

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by johnq

And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.

I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already (or a lesser amount of songs that they like) to the point where not even a remastered version will compel them to buy it.

Too little too late.

Eh, I think you're underestimating the draw of the Beatles. If there's some period of the Beatles exclusively on iTunes, it will sell, and it will sell huge.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by johnq

And every minute of every day people are ripping used-CDs, friend's CDs or straight-up pirating from filesharing. The Beatles could have been making money off their old (pre-remaster) stuff for years now.

...

Too little too late.

The rumors suggest that the remasters will be considerably better than anything that's currently available.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by wirc

Still no Led Zeppelin. Will Stevie have to have a séance with Jimmy page to get that to happen?

..... or Frank Zappa, with whom Stevie will really need a séance to be able to communicate.

[Ireland]

Valintines day still didn't happen. And let's not forget Steve had Beatles Album artwork on the iPhone where he made the statement; "look at this gorgeous album artwork."

[Porchland]

Originally Posted by jonndailey

Does this mean that musicians can now sign up under the Apple inc. music label? Instead of getting .08 cents a song they could possibly get .60 cents? It'll be cool to see where Apple takes this since they've reached an agreement.

Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.

To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.

If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.

[MacCrazy]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

I wonder how many Beatles tracks will appear in the UK chart once/if they become available on iTunes?

EMI predicted The Beatles would fill out the Top 10 UK Chart the week iTunes has their catalogue. We shall see what happens. Perhaps it will be as insignificant as some are touting, but I doubt that.

The question is which single will be number one. I feel it should be A Day in the Life.

[Feynman]

So in other words, this means that Apple could release the entire Apple Corps catalog and choose not to license it to other online music download stores right? Unless of course this was one of the conditions that Apple Inc would license the songs back to Apple Corps?

I wonder how long till Apple Inc own Apple Corpse entirely Sounds like this was Steve’s personal dream for a long time now! Then again, does Apple Corps own the Beatles catalog? I can't keep track who bought it or if Apple Corps bought it back

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Feynman

So in other words, this means that Apple could release the entire Apple Corps catalog and choose not to license it to other online music download stores right? Unless of course this was one of the conditions that Apple Inc would license the songs back to Apple Corps?

The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by johnq

I don't know a single person who (of those that even like the Beatles) doesn't already have the entire Beatles catalog ripped already...

Too little too late.

You and your thieving friends...

Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.

Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

You and your thieving friends...

Though I own all the Beatles stuff on Vinyl, I have not ripped the catalogue. I could easily justify to myself that I deserve it as I have already paid for each song. But I still have a problem actually going through with file shairing. I guess I let the Man get me down.

Anyway, probably buy a ton when they come out. Even that new French sun circus stuff...

Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.

[jarmitage]

Originally Posted by Porchland

Interesting thought. I would be interested to see what kind of arrangements Apple has with artists and labels for a lot of the in-house or exclusive content iTS puts out, i.e., special live performances, iTunes Originals, etc.

To the extent that the feud with Apple Corp. stifled Apple from becoming a full-fledged musical content producer, that would appear no longer to be an issue.

If Apple built its own label I could see that worsening relations with the other labels, but Apple has so much market strength that the other labels may be powerless to complain about Apple competing against them.

If Apple negotiated a deal with Merlin, the new union/license agent for independant labels, they'd be able to instantly corner 30% of the market, with little or no overhead, because the infrastructure is already established. I doubt the majors would care much. It would finally afford indys a seat at the big boys table; Apple would have that much more music to sell, and fledgling musicians with talent but no money would have a better chance to make some. Sounds like a no brainer to me.

[Trendannoyer]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hmm, one of the problems with doing that in the past was that your music wouldn't sync back to your Mac if it was on your iPod, because syncing was only one way. But one of the new features is that iTunes store music on your iPod will now sync to your Mac... So how many gigabytes would the Beatles complete discography take up?

about 700 MB going by the 12 albums from "please Please Me" to "Let it Be" at 128kbps

so you COULD have YELLOW shuffles!

[Feynman]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The agreement as given involves only the use of the Apple brand name. I don't understand where you get the idea that Apple now owns all of the Beatles songs.

I guess that's where I was confused.

So in either case, Apple Corps should just change their name? If that's the case I vote for Banana Corps....oh wait....that was already taken by the Rutles 8) Just kidding.

[Feynman]

The way I see the catalog on iTunes Store is this; it's not so much for the older generation, or the generation that already has every album on CD or vinyl but the new generation that prefers to download their songs rather than purchase the physical albums.

A lot of my friends these days only have 'ripped' CDs or they are downloading their songs.

I for one prefer the physical CD, and if available a vinyl copy as well. Nothing beats going down to Berkeley to find vinyl albums for a couple bucks a piece.

[JamesG]

AppleInsider, I am really interested to know what the details of the settlement were. Since Apple Inc now has about a bazillion bucks in the bank, I bet it involved the exchange of many, many greenbacks.

I agree with the earlier comment about physcial ownership. If I want a copy of Sgt. Peppers, I would rather have a physical CD so that I feel that I own it and can give it to a family member or import it into computer using whatever quality or format I want. I have used iTunes for the most part to buy individual songs that I like rather than complete albums. I have only bought complete albums when it was very difficult or not cost effective to obtain the original CD.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by addabox

Ripping a CD to your hard drive for use on iPods and such doesn't constitute stealing and doesn't mean you are necessarily sharing the files.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

All my Beatles music is on 30 year old records. I have no CDs to rip from. I have not downloaded the songs illicitly despite having the technical knowhow and even a defeldable moral position (I already bought them, artists got paid...) to give me moral cover.
Bottom line: High interest in downloading Beatles music contrary to the previous poster's claim that anyone who wanted Beatles music would have already aquired it via file-sharing.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by JamesG

AppleInsider, I am really interested to know what the details of the settlement were. Since Apple Inc now has about a bazillion bucks in the bank, I bet it involved the exchange of many, many greenbacks.

I have to admit, I didn't even consider all these possibilities of Apple (nee computer) expanding into the music buisness once this was settled. It might be worth it if they had to pay some serious $$ if they have real plans to expand their presence in the music arena (beyond online distrobution domination)...