or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: Apple sued by Ramones drummer, MainStage 1.0.1, more...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: Apple sued by Ramones drummer, MainStage 1.0.1, more...

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Apple is among several music download service operators that have been hit with a new lawsuit from the former drummer of the 1980s punk band, The Ramones. Meanwhile, Apple has released a small update to MainStage. And there are also rumors of a current quarter Mac sales surge.

Former Ramones drummer Richard Reinhardt is suing Apple, Wal-Mart, Real Networks and others for copyright infringement, claiming the companies lacked permission to sell downloads of six songs he authored.

In the suit, filed in a Manhattan court on Friday, Reinhardt alleges his music publisher never had the right to authorize distribution or duplication of six songs -- Smash You, Somebody Put Something in My Drink, Human Kind, I'm Not Jesus, I Know Better Now, and (You) Can't Say Anything Nice -- that he wrote on his own between 1983 and 1987.

The suit is similar to one filed against Apple and others by Dawg Music back in May, where the owner of the small bluegrass label accused the service operators of selling his work without consent, and sometimes without compensation.

In his suit, Reinhardt is seeking at least $900,000 in damages, profits the defendants made from the songs and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the songs in any manner whatsoever, according to Reuters.

MainStage 1.0.1

On Thursday evening, Apple release MainStage 1.0.1 [19.7MB], which improves stability and adds options for saving parameter values when switching patches. The software update, which is detailed further in this PDF, is recommended for all users of MainStage 1.0.

Designed for live performance, MainStage is a part of the Apple's new Logic Studio software bundle that lets keyboardists, guitarists, and other musicians perform with software instruments and effects through a full-screen interface designed specifically for the stage.

Mac sales surge?

Despite its shaky track-record, The Street.com pressed forth with more Apple predictions on Friday. Their latest report claims that Apple is on track to sell "2.35 million iMacs and MacBooks this quarter."

"A sales number that high would beat analysts' estimates by nearly 400,000 units," the report states. "Pegging the average Mac sales price at a conservative $1,500, a beat of that magnitude stands to boost Apple's top line by about $600 million."

Apple has yet to break the 2 million mark for quarterly Mac sales, but has been inching ever closer with each successive quarter. During the July quarter, it sold 1.76 million systems.

The Street.com also claims that Apple next quarter will hold "a big announcement regarding a so-called subnotebook Mac." Citing "people inside the company," the say the notebook will be "ultra-thin" and "will have a 10 inch-to-12 inch screen, sleek rounded edges and weigh less than 2 pounds."
post #2 of 24
As for 10" to 12" screens... if The Steet's contacts "inside the company" actually knew the details of the products they were leaking, they would actually know one of the core specs. I'd trust this leak about as far as I can pee. (leak = pee... funny...)
20" Intel iMac - Airport eXtream N - 16gb Black iPhone - Apple TV
Reply
20" Intel iMac - Airport eXtream N - 16gb Black iPhone - Apple TV
Reply
post #3 of 24
Now watch as Shaw Wu changes his story to reflect a laptop UNDER 13".

All this time he's been saying 13, and I've been saying, "If Apple's going to play the sub-notebook game, they're going to play it right and create an amazingly light and compact tool... not a crippled MB." And have you listened to me? NooOoOooooOOoooo. You're all too busy listening to Shaw Wu, who (BY THE WAY) gets all his news from AI anyway.

Fools.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Former Ramones drummer Richard Reinhardt is suing Apple, Wal-Mart, Real Networks and others for copyright infringement, claiming the companies lacked permission to sell downloads of six songs he authored.

He sounds a little self-effacing... sarcism aside, I think Apple and the others should pool their entire sales together of his songs that people downloaded, give this guy his .99¢ he's due and remove his entire solo song catalog of half a CD's worth and give him an iPod Nano (last year's version) with their apologies!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #5 of 24
This article (with video) has some comments from The Street that should be taken into account before paying any attention to their "information." They lie about Apple (and other stocks) for profit, and admit it openly:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...22A105D18.html

Seeding false reports of bad Apple news is easy, as Cramer explained, “If I were short Apple, I would be working very hard today to get that. And the way you would do that is pick up the phone and call six trading desks. And say, listen, I just got off the phone with my contact at Verizon, and he has already said 'listen, we’re a Lucky G [LG] house, we're a Samsung house, we’re a Motorola house. There is no room for Apple. They want too much. We are not going to let them in. We are not going to let them do what they did to music.' And that’s a very effective way to keep a stock down.”

“What's important when you're in that hedge fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful. Because the truth is so against your view that it's important to create a new truth, to develop a fiction. The fiction is developed by almost anybody who is down by 2% or up 6%. You can't take any chances, you can't have the market up any more than it is if you're up 6.”


Sometimes they invent good news, sometimes bad, but they can NOT be relied on to report what they feel to be the truth. They are just as likely to be reporting this because they heard confirmation that Apple never planned such a laptop, and want to profit later with bad news of the project's late cancellation

I'd love an Apple subnotebook, but The Street is not a source that I give credence to. They may guess right, or report something true if it suits them, but you just can't tell. 9to5Mac is a more reassuring source on this matter.
post #6 of 24
Gabba Gabba Hey!
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

This article (with video) has some comments from The Street that should be taken into account before paying any attention to their "information." They lie about Apple (and other stocks) for profit, and admit it openly:

Yup, that's the first thing that came to my mind. Sounds like more Street shenanigans, driving up the price with exaggerated sales numbers and rumors then shorting on the real numbers and picking it back up when the everyone sits down and actually realizes what good shape Apple's in. Unfortunately, the hype levels and volume the stock sees combined with the predictable time frame of product refreshes and announcements makes AAPL perfect for this sort of manipulation. But this is probably old news for most people here.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Former Ramones drummer Richard Reinhardt is suing Apple, Wal-Mart, Real Networks and others for copyright infringement, claiming the companies lacked permission to sell downloads of six songs he authored.

In the suit, filed in a Manhattan court on Friday, Reinhardt alleges his music publisher never had the right to authorize distribution or duplication of six songs -- Smash You, Somebody Put Something in My Drink, Human Kind, I'm Not Jesus, I Know Better Now, and (You) Can't Say Anything Nice -- that he wrote on his own between 1983 and 1987.

The suit is similar to one filed against Apple and others by Dawg Music back in May, where the owner of the small bluegrass label accused the service operators of selling his work without consent, and sometimes without compensation.

In his suit, Reinhardt is seeking at least $900,000 in damages, profits the defendants made from the songs and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the songs in any manner whatsoever, according to Reuters.

Shouldn't he be suing his music publisher?
post #9 of 24
The Street have as much integrity as Murdoch. Profit comes before truth.

Apple may or may not sell that many Macs. What is absolutely certain is that the Street has no information about Apple sales so far this quarter. If they had any analysis whatsoever, they would quote it.

They are simply using their position to inflate stock prices before Apple announce the end of year figures.

If there is no law against what they are doing, there should be. Why should anyone who is in a position to manipulate stocks be allowed to benefit from them?
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

He sounds a little self-effacing... sarcism aside, I think Apple and the others should pool their entire sales together of his songs that people downloaded, give this guy his .99¢ he's due and remove his entire solo song catalog of half a CD's worth and give him an iPod Nano (last year's version) with their apologies!

Screw the drummer! His lawsuit should be focused on his publishing company, not Apple, not Real.... idiot.

Try to sucker punch Apple in a lawsuit? I don't think so, ex-Ramone!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 24
Doesn't The Street know that a grand don't come for free? Talk about original pirate material!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by potterhead4 View Post

Yup, that's the first thing that came to my mind. Sounds like more Street shenanigans, driving up the price with exaggerated sales numbers and rumors then shorting on the real numbers and picking it back up when the everyone sits down and actually realizes what good shape Apple's in. Unfortunately, the hype levels and volume the stock sees combined with the predictable time frame of product refreshes and announcements makes AAPL perfect for this sort of manipulation. But this is probably old news for most people here.

You would think that the investment community would be wise to particular individuals, or companies, that do this with regularity.

I think the comments here are exaggerated.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

Shouldn't he be suing his music publisher?

That's a little complicated.

Actually, he can sue them, AND the resellers.

The way it works is that you, the last entity to be in the line, are responsible to ensure that EVERY copyright holder has signed off.

When I used to shoot Tv ads, we had to be very careful when trying to obtain music for the ad.

When Tv shows appear on DVD, often, some, or all, of the music on the show, and there can be a lot of it, isn't the original material. Instead, it can be re-recorded by others. Sometimes the entire song must be substituted for.

That's because for some older shows, all of the copyright holders can't be found. If they can't be found, it is to be assumed that they still exist, and without their signature, all the rights have not been obtained.

This is a serious, and increasing, problem.

So, if he says that his permission was not obtained, he has the right to sue the seller of his music, as well as the publishing company. If he can show that he still has rights, and he was not persuaded to sign off, then he wins the case.

If Apple, and the other services, did not insist on seeing the actual sign-off, then they are at fault.

The problem here is, how can a company see all of the sign-offs for over 6 million songs? It's impossible, so they rely on the trust of those they do business with who say the do have all rights.

Very difficult.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's a little complicated.

Actually, he can sue them, AND the resellers.

The way it works is that you, the last entity to be in the line, are responsible to ensure that EVERY copyright holder has signed off.

So, if Target sold a TV on DVD set that had a song that wasn't signed off, then would Target be liable?
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

So, if Target sold a TV on DVD set that had a song that wasn't signed off, then would Target be liable?

This is why I said that it was complicated. No, Target would not be sued for that.

When a store sells a finished DVD, or CD, they are selling a finished product. When a music site sells a digital song as a single unit (or even an album) from a server, it can be very different.

If Apple, and the other online services, are negotiating prices and royalty percentages, as is sometimes done, then they can be sued.

This isn't simple.

If a company licenses the rights to sell something, then they are responsible to make sure the rights are properly obtained. When a record store sells records, they aren't obtaining rights, just selling products.

It has to be looked at case by case.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You would think that the investment community would be wise to particular individuals, or companies, that do this with regularity.

I think the comments here are exaggerated.

Read the article I linked to--ignore the editorial portions and read just the actual quotes if you wish. Then watch the video to prove the quotes are real. They are. I quoted above just one of various passages. Another specifically admits that these activities are illegal. Strange but true. And that clip is just one piece of a larger history that is equally shady.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...22A105D18.html

I believe the investment community IS wise to this. The Street is hardly the only company performing these activities. But the status quo seems to be to let people get away with it.

Now, INDIVIDUAL investors--the people being manipulated by the fictional reports--are not wise to this. You WOULD think they would be. But information is not coming to them freely. Not even from trusted financial advice sources like The Street....
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is among several music download service operators that have been hit with a new lawsuit from the former drummer of the 1980s punk band, The Ramones. Meanwhile, Apple has released a small update to MainStage. And there are also rumors of a current quarter Mac sales surge.

Former Ramones drummer Richard Reinhardt is suing Apple, Wal-Mart, Real Networks and others for copyright infringement, claiming the companies lacked permission to sell downloads of six songs he authored.ion systems.

richie barely counts as a ramone. he was a short-term replacement that filled in while marky was out dealing with his substance abuse. he himself considers his tenure with the ramones to be that of a temp. he's also proven in the past that he has a bit of a stick up his a**, and with a figure like $900,000, it's just evident that he's washed up and trying to nab some quick cash.
post #18 of 24
I think the saying.... "don't bite the hand that feeds you" fit's best here. Oh I'm sorry, you're making me to much money, stop buying my songs damn it!
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This is why I said that it was complicated. No, Target would not be sued for that.

When a store sells a finished DVD, or CD, they are selling a finished product. When a music site sells a digital song as a single unit (or even an album) from a server, it can be very different.

If Apple, and the other online services, are negotiating prices and royalty percentages, as is sometimes done, then they can be sued.

This isn't simple.

If a company licenses the rights to sell something, then they are responsible to make sure the rights are properly obtained. When a record store sells records, they aren't obtaining rights, just selling products.

It has to be looked at case by case.

Interesting. But how is a download different from a physical product? Aren't they both finished products from the studios? Or is generating a download being likened to creating a new copy? and has this been legally determined? Or could the issue be with the language in the contract between Apple and the Studios? Apple pays royalties whereas Target pays wholesale?

Earlier you mentioned orphan product where the right owners can not either be identified or located. We need to go back to a copyright registration system where copyright owners register what they want copyrighted and provide current contact information.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Doesn't The Street know that a grand don't come for free? Talk about original pirate material!

Har har har. Evidently, The Street doesn't know what The Streets knows.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Read the article I linked to--ignore the editorial portions and read just the actual quotes if you wish. Then watch the video to prove the quotes are real. They are. I quoted above just one of various passages. Another specifically admits that these activities are illegal. Strange but true. And that clip is just one piece of a larger history that is equally shady.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...22A105D18.html

I believe the investment community IS wise to this. The Street is hardly the only company performing these activities. But the status quo seems to be to let people get away with it.

Now, INDIVIDUAL investors--the people being manipulated by the fictional reports--are not wise to this. You WOULD think they would be. But information is not coming to them freely. Not even from trusted financial advice sources like The Street....

I believe the quotes are real. but I think what he's saying is exaggerated. Sometimes these guys like to have people think they can do more than they can.

Besides, what one might say in private, one wouldn't say in public.

What I mean is that even if they did make phone calls trying to influence the market, they wouldn't attempt to do that publicly, where they would be derided if they were wrong.

These statements are much too specific, and much too public to be attempts to influence the market.

Don't forget that mistakes can be made. That doesn't mean that they are intentional.

I've also heard that Apple's computer sales are roaring this quarter, so they could be close.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Interesting. But how is a download different from a physical product? Aren't they both finished products from the studios? Or is generating a download being likened to creating a new copy? and has this been legally determined? Or could the issue be with the language in the contract between Apple and the Studios? Apple pays royalties whereas Target pays wholesale?

I don't have the contracts, as they are private, so I can't speek to them.

But, online sales have added to the complexity of modern times.

You are right that each sale is considered to be a new copy. Because of that, the law still hasn't completely addressed whether the online download services are part of the publishing end or not. That's only part of it. I'm not sure how the subscription services come in here, but there is something interesting about that as well. Last I heard, as of the beginning of this year, they still hadn't come to agreement with the music companies about fees.

Quote:
Earlier you mentioned orphan product where the right owners can not either be identified or located. We need to go back to a copyright registration system where copyright owners register what they want copyrighted and provide current contact information.

This is a very big problem. But, no one seems to be interested in solving it so far. Since copyright accrues to the surviving family, this gets very hairy.
post #23 of 24
(sigh) I wish I could get a lawyer and sue folks for a million bucks for trying to make money they'll share with me for my work rejects nobody wanted for the last 25 years.

This is ignorant, and I like The Ramones. A judge needs to tell Apple they'll consider this case when they've sold 900,000 copies of his songs and failed to pay any royalties to the guy.

What is it about has-been artists nobody's heard from for decades who suddenly attack companies that just might be giving them some revenue and a chance for a new gig or two? I thought the idea was for people to buy and hear your music. Maybe he's changed his philosophy, the songs no longer reflect his attitudes or thoughts on life, and he's embarrassed to have his name on the tunes.

Or maybe he's just a broke-ass drummer who wants out of his Ramada Inn gig with Murph and the MelloTones.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

(sigh) I wish I could get a lawyer and sue folks for a million bucks for trying to make money they'll share with me for my work rejects nobody wanted for the last 25 years.

This is ignorant, and I like The Ramones. A judge needs to tell Apple they'll consider this case when they've sold 900,000 copies of his songs and failed to pay any royalties to the guy.

What is it about has-been artists nobody's heard from for decades who suddenly attack companies that just might be giving them some revenue and a chance for a new gig or two? I thought the idea was for people to buy and hear your music. Maybe he's changed his philosophy, the songs no longer reflect his attitudes or thoughts on life, and he's embarrassed to have his name on the tunes.

Or maybe he's just a broke-ass drummer who wants out of his Ramada Inn gig with Murph and the MelloTones.

It'll take sales of 9 million of those songs for him to get what he wants.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: Apple sued by Ramones drummer, MainStage 1.0.1, more...