The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be buying any Beetles music anytime soon, not that I ever did anyways.
I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.
Beatles is spell Beatles because they were making a reference to the Beat music scene, which is what the "Liverpool sound" was being called at the time. Yes for a very, very short time they considered Beetles then liked the idea of beat music being part of their name and changed it to Beatles. Actually Silver Beatles first then just Beatles.
Originally posted by Kickaha Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, * AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
This maybe the very reason why there has been an Apple branded radio tuner add-on. Just thowing that out there.
And here I was thinking that it was the Beatles' record company that made the iPod... doh!
Why doesn't Apple Computer just buy Apple Corps once and for all and end this whole discussion. Surely the valuation of the company is less than a settlement?
Oh, and then Apple Computer would own a record company and be able to sign bands directly via a button in iTunes, and power would return to the people, right on!
That's a very good point.
Somehow I don't think it will happen, though wouldn't it be nice?
You know the funny thing is maybe Jobs used to like the Beatles, I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the original name and logo for Apple Computer Inc. came from because he was a Beatles fan-boy.
Wouldn't that be interesting to know.
Otherwise it's just an strange coincidence with no real meaning at all, which is far less-interesting.. Meh.
Im a Beatles and Mac fan and agree that this dispute is f!@#ing rediculous! There is no way someone can compair the two logos and get confused with them, they are totally different! Apple Corps should give up already.... sweet fancy moses!
This suit has nothing to do with whether Apple Corps and Apple Computer are both distributing music. It also has nothing to do with whether the logos' can be distinguished from each other. That may be the arguing points, but it isn't the reason why there is a suit TODAY.
It has to do with the fact that Apple didn't properly fight the very first suit. Once they gave in to Apple Corps, and handed over that $80,000, the die was cast for the future.
Once an agreement like that is made, both parties have to agree to change it. Like it or not, it becomes a contract. One party is not allowed to break, or change, the terms of a contract. Apple Corps is insisting that that is exactly what happened.
So, while it's pretty obvious that the logo's are different, it doesn't matter.
Even Apple Corps lawyer has said that if Apple Computer stopped using the logo in iTunes, everything would be fine.
But, if the court rules that using the logo goes against the agreement, then the second part of the trial comes into play, and that's the penalty phase. If Apple had to pay $26 million last time, there is no reason to believe that the court wouldn't think that there is value this time.
While none of us here are happy about this thought, that doesn't mean that it won't come true.
The publishing phrase is complex. It has been applied to web sites before. One of the ways the courts here, and abroad, have decided, is whether or not the web site changed, in any way, the information posted.
So, if Google removed offensive posts, or edits out the offensive portions, then it is considered to be a publisher. If it doesn't touch, or even check them, then it is not.
The point that Apple Corp is making is also in that same vein. Apple decides what music to sell on their site. They also decide what compilations to make, etc. That's considered to be "publishing".
From what is going on in the trial, Apple seems not to be saying (so far) that electronic digital publication is not covered by the agreement, which is where I thought they would be taking this, but rather that the digital transmission and payment for the music doesn't constitute publication at all.
I'm not so sure that this is the best route to take. My wife, who is a lawyer with CitiGroup, and who deals with copyright, trademark, and patent issues all the time for the company, also thinks that this isn't the best choice of defense.
While they might win anyway, it seems that few lawyers who deal with these issues, agree that what Apple, and other companies, are doing on line with music, is anything other than publishing.
The revelation that Apple Computer offered Apple Corps $1 million for the rights to the name "Apple", shows that they were concerned about this issue being a problem again. What I don't understand, is why they didn't go into negotiations much earlier ? before iTunes became such a hot property.
Even at that time, Apple had $5 billion in the bank. They could have offered a realistic amount. $1 million is a rather paltry sum, considering the money on both sides.
You know the funny thing is maybe Jobs used to like the Beatles, I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the original name and logo for Apple Computer Inc. came from because he was a Beatles fan-boy.
Wouldn't that be interesting to know.
Otherwise it's just an strange coincidence with no real meaning at all, which is far less-interesting.. Meh.
Jimzip
That's pretty well known. Jobs said that from the beginning, when Apple first started. It's been in the press a lot lately.
How is it that Apple Computers and Apple Corps are at each others throats in court when Michael Jackson is in some middle eastern country getting pampered while he preys on their pre-pubescent boys and still makes money everytime a beatles song is played or sold.
Just doesn't seem right.
Paul and Yoko should just give it up and allow Apple Comp. to sell Beatles songs on iTMS. I'm sure that Jobs would be more than happy to financially stroke their "egos" if they let Apple be the first to offer digital Beatles downloads. Hell overcharge for them and have them all be at 320kbps for anyone cares. I think Apple Corp. would be pleasantly surprised with the amount of people that would be willing to pay for downloads of their catalog.
Selling the Beatles catalog on any other music download site would only seem to cheapen their legacy, unless they sold them directly from Beatles.com in a lossless format.
Paul and Yoko should just give it up and allow Apple Comp. to sell Beatles songs on iTMS. I'm sure that Jobs would be more than happy to financially stroke their "egos" if they let Apple be the first to offer digital Beatles downloads. Hell overcharge for them and have them all be at 320kbps for anyone cares. I think Apple Corp. would be pleasantly surprised with the amount of people that would be willing to pay for downloads of their catalog.
Selling the Beatles catalog on any other music download site would only seem to cheapen their legacy, unless they sold them directly from Beatles.com in a lossless format.
As much as some people would like that, the Beatles and Apple Records no longer hold the rights to most of the Beatles catalog. The Beatles sold their rights in 1963 to Northern, who sold it in 1969 to ATV who sold it in 1985 to Michael Jackson. In 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV merged their publishing business and now jointly own most of the catalog. I think McCartney has the rights to a few of the really old songs now, but stuff people would care about is retained jointly by Michael Jackson and Sony, so that's who the deal would have to be worked out with if I'm not mistaken, since the rights cover publication of the music.
Of course, last year with Jackson's trial, a lot of people thought he might have to sell his share of the catalog to pay his legal bills. He did put it up as collateral for a loan, but has stated again and again that the catalog is not for sale.
Apple Computer got: software, hardware, blah blah blah, *AND* 'data transmission' across networks.
Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, *AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
Problem is, iTMS can be defined as both 'data transmission' *AND* 'intangible music communication', depending on how you want to look at it. That's the crux of the suit, and the point on which it will hinge.
If you are correct on this statement, I find it very interesting. However, if it IS true, wouldn't Apple Computer be infringing on Apple Corps rights through music creation via Garageband? True, the user is in fact the one creating the music (with the exception of the loops), but it DOES fall into the music creation category. Although, it's not as popular as the iTMS, so maybe it's not getting as much attention. Maybe that's what Apple Corps will concentrate on next time.
As much as some people would like that, the Beatles and Apple Records no longer hold the rights to most of the Beatles catalog. The Beatles sold their rights in 1963 to Northern, who sold it in 1969 to ATV who sold it in 1985 to Michael Jackson. In 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV merged their publishing business and now jointly own most of the catalog. I think McCartney has the rights to a few of the really old songs now, but stuff people would care about is retained jointly by Michael Jackson and Sony, so that's who the deal would have to be worked out with if I'm not mistaken, since the rights cover publication of the music.
Of course, last year with Jackson's trial, a lot of people thought he might have to sell his share of the catalog to pay his legal bills. He did put it up as collateral for a loan, but has stated again and again that the catalog is not for sale.
As a matter of fact, Jackson accused those charging him of crimes of working with those who wanted to get their hands on his catalog. but, he has already sold a large chunk of it to pay for his bills, which come out to over a $100 million a year.
If you are correct on this statement, I find it very interesting. However, if it IS true, wouldn't Apple Computer be infringing on Apple Corps rights through music creation via Garageband? True, the user is in fact the one creating the music (with the exception of the loops), but it DOES fall into the music creation category. Although, it's not as popular as the iTMS, so maybe it's not getting as much attention. Maybe that's what Apple Corps will concentrate on next time.
Apple is allowed to sell software for that purpose, but they can't produce music themselves.
Comments
Originally posted by drakethegreat
The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be buying any Beetles music anytime soon, not that I ever did anyways.
I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.
Beatles is spell Beatles because they were making a reference to the Beat music scene, which is what the "Liverpool sound" was being called at the time. Yes for a very, very short time they considered Beetles then liked the idea of beat music being part of their name and changed it to Beatles. Actually Silver Beatles first then just Beatles.
Originally posted by Kickaha Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, * AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
This maybe the very reason why there has been an Apple branded radio tuner add-on. Just thowing that out there.
They totally look the same!!
"How'd ya like them apples"!!
Originally posted by rdas7
And here I was thinking that it was the Beatles' record company that made the iPod... doh!
Why doesn't Apple Computer just buy Apple Corps once and for all and end this whole discussion. Surely the valuation of the company is less than a settlement?
Oh, and then Apple Computer would own a record company and be able to sign bands directly via a button in iTunes, and power would return to the people, right on!
That's a very good point.
Somehow I don't think it will happen, though wouldn't it be nice?
Jimzip
PS: Look at the font. Its pretty close to the old Apple font.
I will litigate.
Wouldn't that be interesting to know.
Otherwise it's just an strange coincidence with no real meaning at all, which is far less-interesting.. Meh.
Jimzip
It has to do with the fact that Apple didn't properly fight the very first suit. Once they gave in to Apple Corps, and handed over that $80,000, the die was cast for the future.
Once an agreement like that is made, both parties have to agree to change it. Like it or not, it becomes a contract. One party is not allowed to break, or change, the terms of a contract. Apple Corps is insisting that that is exactly what happened.
So, while it's pretty obvious that the logo's are different, it doesn't matter.
Even Apple Corps lawyer has said that if Apple Computer stopped using the logo in iTunes, everything would be fine.
But, if the court rules that using the logo goes against the agreement, then the second part of the trial comes into play, and that's the penalty phase. If Apple had to pay $26 million last time, there is no reason to believe that the court wouldn't think that there is value this time.
While none of us here are happy about this thought, that doesn't mean that it won't come true.
The publishing phrase is complex. It has been applied to web sites before. One of the ways the courts here, and abroad, have decided, is whether or not the web site changed, in any way, the information posted.
So, if Google removed offensive posts, or edits out the offensive portions, then it is considered to be a publisher. If it doesn't touch, or even check them, then it is not.
The point that Apple Corp is making is also in that same vein. Apple decides what music to sell on their site. They also decide what compilations to make, etc. That's considered to be "publishing".
From what is going on in the trial, Apple seems not to be saying (so far) that electronic digital publication is not covered by the agreement, which is where I thought they would be taking this, but rather that the digital transmission and payment for the music doesn't constitute publication at all.
I'm not so sure that this is the best route to take. My wife, who is a lawyer with CitiGroup, and who deals with copyright, trademark, and patent issues all the time for the company, also thinks that this isn't the best choice of defense.
While they might win anyway, it seems that few lawyers who deal with these issues, agree that what Apple, and other companies, are doing on line with music, is anything other than publishing.
The revelation that Apple Computer offered Apple Corps $1 million for the rights to the name "Apple", shows that they were concerned about this issue being a problem again. What I don't understand, is why they didn't go into negotiations much earlier ? before iTunes became such a hot property.
Even at that time, Apple had $5 billion in the bank. They could have offered a realistic amount. $1 million is a rather paltry sum, considering the money on both sides.
Originally posted by Jimzip
You know the funny thing is maybe Jobs used to like the Beatles, I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the original name and logo for Apple Computer Inc. came from because he was a Beatles fan-boy.
Wouldn't that be interesting to know.
Otherwise it's just an strange coincidence with no real meaning at all, which is far less-interesting.. Meh.
Jimzip
That's pretty well known. Jobs said that from the beginning, when Apple first started. It's been in the press a lot lately.
That's the ironic part, isn't it?
But money comes first.
Originally posted by hypoluxa
There is no way someone can compair the two logos and get confused with them, they are totally different!
The suit has nothing to do with the logos, but with the names.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm about to take out a trademark on exclamation points and excessive use of smiley faces.
I will litigate.
Just doesn't seem right.
Paul and Yoko should just give it up and allow Apple Comp. to sell Beatles songs on iTMS. I'm sure that Jobs would be more than happy to financially stroke their "egos" if they let Apple be the first to offer digital Beatles downloads. Hell overcharge for them and have them all be at 320kbps for anyone cares. I think Apple Corp. would be pleasantly surprised with the amount of people that would be willing to pay for downloads of their catalog.
Selling the Beatles catalog on any other music download site would only seem to cheapen their legacy, unless they sold them directly from Beatles.com in a lossless format.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Paul and Yoko should just give it up and allow Apple Comp. to sell Beatles songs on iTMS. I'm sure that Jobs would be more than happy to financially stroke their "egos" if they let Apple be the first to offer digital Beatles downloads. Hell overcharge for them and have them all be at 320kbps for anyone cares. I think Apple Corp. would be pleasantly surprised with the amount of people that would be willing to pay for downloads of their catalog.
Selling the Beatles catalog on any other music download site would only seem to cheapen their legacy, unless they sold them directly from Beatles.com in a lossless format.
As much as some people would like that, the Beatles and Apple Records no longer hold the rights to most of the Beatles catalog. The Beatles sold their rights in 1963 to Northern, who sold it in 1969 to ATV who sold it in 1985 to Michael Jackson. In 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV merged their publishing business and now jointly own most of the catalog. I think McCartney has the rights to a few of the really old songs now, but stuff people would care about is retained jointly by Michael Jackson and Sony, so that's who the deal would have to be worked out with if I'm not mistaken, since the rights cover publication of the music.
Of course, last year with Jackson's trial, a lot of people thought he might have to sell his share of the catalog to pay his legal bills. He did put it up as collateral for a loan, but has stated again and again that the catalog is not for sale.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Apple Computer got: software, hardware, blah blah blah, *AND* 'data transmission' across networks.
Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, *AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
Problem is, iTMS can be defined as both 'data transmission' *AND* 'intangible music communication', depending on how you want to look at it. That's the crux of the suit, and the point on which it will hinge.
If you are correct on this statement, I find it very interesting. However, if it IS true, wouldn't Apple Computer be infringing on Apple Corps rights through music creation via Garageband? True, the user is in fact the one creating the music (with the exception of the loops), but it DOES fall into the music creation category. Although, it's not as popular as the iTMS, so maybe it's not getting as much attention. Maybe that's what Apple Corps will concentrate on next time.
Originally posted by Chucker
The suit has nothing to do with the logos, but with the names.
The lawyer for Apple Corp specifically mentioned the logo as an area of contention.
Second paragraph.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/te...=1&oref=slogin
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
As much as some people would like that, the Beatles and Apple Records no longer hold the rights to most of the Beatles catalog. The Beatles sold their rights in 1963 to Northern, who sold it in 1969 to ATV who sold it in 1985 to Michael Jackson. In 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV merged their publishing business and now jointly own most of the catalog. I think McCartney has the rights to a few of the really old songs now, but stuff people would care about is retained jointly by Michael Jackson and Sony, so that's who the deal would have to be worked out with if I'm not mistaken, since the rights cover publication of the music.
Of course, last year with Jackson's trial, a lot of people thought he might have to sell his share of the catalog to pay his legal bills. He did put it up as collateral for a loan, but has stated again and again that the catalog is not for sale.
As a matter of fact, Jackson accused those charging him of crimes of working with those who wanted to get their hands on his catalog. but, he has already sold a large chunk of it to pay for his bills, which come out to over a $100 million a year.
Originally posted by krankerz
If you are correct on this statement, I find it very interesting. However, if it IS true, wouldn't Apple Computer be infringing on Apple Corps rights through music creation via Garageband? True, the user is in fact the one creating the music (with the exception of the loops), but it DOES fall into the music creation category. Although, it's not as popular as the iTMS, so maybe it's not getting as much attention. Maybe that's what Apple Corps will concentrate on next time.
Apple is allowed to sell software for that purpose, but they can't produce music themselves.
heres the difference i know,
i know what apple computers is,
i dont know (or care) what apple corps is.
therefore their business is not hurt. Go home and take your petty squabble with you.
Originally posted by mike12309
uhh i flatly have to agree with the apple lawyer. i definately know the difference between apple comps/itunes and apple corps.
heres the difference i know,
i know what apple computers is,
i dont know (or care) what apple corps is.
therefore their business is not hurt. Go home and take your petty squabble with you.
To be fair, Paul McCartney still has three countries in the world left without houses! So he could do the money.