Apple (aka Beatles) vs Apple, again

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Well, it seems that the Beatles have not had enough fame and fortune and aren't too happy when other people try to do the same: they are once again suing Apple Computer.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...105800,00.html



It is pretty pathetic if you ask me. Personally, I don't own any Beatles albums, and have no plans to buy any. I also personally do not relate the Beatles to the Apple Corps brand name.



Also, now with all the big names supporting iTMS, I wonder how all of this will pan out. If Apple Corps wins, will all of the musicians on iTMS have to pay a share of their earnings in the settlement?



edit: can a Mod change the title to read Beatles? Accidentally hit return...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Funny thing. "Betale" means "To pay" in danish. It might end up like that.



    I blame Yoko Ono...
  • Reply 2 of 10
    Wait, wait? So are they suing over the name, "Apple" or the picture of an Apple, because in either case, they're not the same. Cupertino's Apple is officially regitered as Apple Computer, Inc. and the London Apple is Apple Corps, Ltd. As far as logos go, who the hell could confuse them???



    Apple Corps, Ltd.



    Apple Computer, Inc.



    Also notice that Googling "Apple Logo" returns no mention of a company in London called "Apple" or their logo.



    The article also states that the iPod used in court will likely not play a Beatles song because that would be illegal. WTF? No it wouldn't. Apple sells Beatles cover songs on iTMS. You might also for whatever reason, have Beatles CDs laying around your house being used for something other than coasters and decide that you want to rip them to your computer and play them on your iPod? Are the Brits now saying we can't put our own music on our computers?



    Come on ... this is ridiculous.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    When Apple was young they made a deal outside court, that restricted Apple from the area of music. No matter if it seems fair or anything thats what this is about, if Apple broke that deal.



    I can sell my soul to the devil for a lollypop. You may say its unfair, but if I break the deal the courts is ideally suppose to look into the contract and sentence me according to that, not if the contract was fair in the first place.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    When Apple was young they made a deal outside court, that restricted Apple from the area of music. No matter if it seems fair or anything thats what this is about, if Apple broke that deal.



    I can sell my soul to the devil for a lollypop. You may say its unfair, but if I break the deal the courts is ideally suppose to look into the contract and sentence me according to that, not if the contract was fair in the first place.




    Oh, the contract is unfair, and obviously not something they'd ever sign into today. But as you said, Apple was young and probably didn't have the money back then to launch a full-scale legal assault. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't be held to their legal responsibilities now either - they certainly have the money to pay Yoko and gang out of court again and let it die, which is what I suspect will happen. They signed the contract, they should live with it ... unless the widows, Paul and Ringo start seeking damages that border on the insane (i.e., Nano screen case and the people wanting part of the profits for a "defective" product...).



    In the end, Apple will pay some money, Yoko crawls back into her hole, and they still don't sell Beatles songs on iTMS; however, Apple NEEDS TO let the public know why they can't buy Beatles songs on iTMS. I run across a number of people that aren't happy about that and blame Apple for not trying to release the songs.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    My Yoko comment was a joke.



    Apple might have been a young company but they had the money back when they made the deal. They were not suckered into the deal, they could not have known about the digital music revolution.



    Apple made their own bed and now they lie in it. I don´t like Beatles music but they have the case.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Apple Corps will most likely lose the case:



    Quote:

    The companies clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. 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.



    AAC files are not physical media by any stretch of the imagination.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    I posted this already!



    Anyway, "ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano keys"



    GET OVER IT!
  • Reply 8 of 10
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    There is freedom to contract. And freedom from contract.



    Apple can be in breach of the original contract.

    They just have to pay.



    Question is... How much?



    Apple should just buy Apple.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    AppleInsider released a report on this a bit after I created this thread... there is now a new thread regarding this topic HERE.



    Go enjoy that thread (some of you already have).
  • Reply 10 of 10
    jwink3101jwink3101 Posts: 739member
    Just imaging if somehow they totally work it out and the beatles go iTMS. The Apple's can then release a Beatles iPod (a la The U2 iPod).



    That would be awsome
Sign In or Register to comment.