Nope, it strictly comes down to whether selling music online constitutes 'data transmission' or 'intangible communication of music'.
That, and if it does constitute intangible communication of music, whether Apple is allowed, by the earlier agreement not to involve themselves in publishing music on physical media, to sell intangible digital copies of music, while using their logo.
I hate to say it because I love Macs, my iPod and Apple Computer, but to me the wording of the contract (assuming what was posted here is accurate) is definitely not in Apple Computer's favor. Intangible music communications is a phrase that could be applied very clearly to music downloads whereas you have to make a pretty thorough argument to claim the music is just data being transmitted (i.e., most people don't get the idea that the music files are just data from the point of view of the computer.) That's not good, IMO. I think we're going to see Apple Computer take a punch to the jaw with this one.
I hate to say it because I love Macs, my iPod and Apple Computer, but to me the wording of the contract (assuming what was posted here is accurate) is definitely not in Apple Computer's favor. Intangible music communications is a phrase that could be applied very clearly to music downloads whereas you have to make a pretty thorough argument to claim the music is just data being transmitted (i.e., most people don't get the idea that the music files are just data from the point of view of the computer.) That's not good, IMO. I think we're going to see Apple Computer take a punch to the jaw with this one.
Except that there is precedent for this. I don't know about Britain, but here in the US, VOIP, which is clearly telecomunications, has been ruled as being data communication.
So, it depends on how they look at it there. The internet has been given a free ride in many areas. I don't know how long that will continue, but, for now, Apple Computer might get its way. And, of course, even if they lose on that one, they could still win over the "physical media" dispute.
Interesting Link, preliminarily it seems to me that Apple Computer only agreed not to distribute music belonging to Apple Corps (such as the beatles). I haven't read it completely though
I did notice that the agreement does prove that there is a recognizable and clear distinction between the 2 company names as well as the logo's. So why did Apple Computer sign this in the first place?
That, and if it does constitute intangible communication of music, whether Apple is allowed, by the earlier agreement not to involve themselves in publishing music on physical media, to sell intangible digital copies of music, while using their logo.
Nope, that's a misconception - the 1991 contract gives Apple Corps the realm of intangible communication of musical works. There was no limitation to just physical media.
Interesting Link, preliminarily it seems to me that Apple Computer only agreed not to distribute music belonging to Apple Corps (such as the beatles). I haven't read it completely though
But, on the second page, underlined by hand, is this:
(reserved for Apple Corps field of use)
"(ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible;"
This could be a real punch in the stomach, except it seems to deal only with what is, or what will be, in the Apple Corps catalog.
Subsection 4.3 seems to turn it around again. Appearently, as long as Apple Computer doesn't allow others to use Apple's marks on physical media, they are allowed to broadcast this material, and include it on harddrives, etc.
4.6 seems to give Apple computer other non-exclusive rights to music.
I'm not going to go through the rest here.
But, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS!!! It's thirteen pages. That's not much.
Nope, that's a misconception - the 1991 contract gives Apple Corps the realm of intangible communication of musical works. There was no limitation to just physical media.
I mused on that before I read the same contract that you apparently read just before I posted on it above.
But, the first part of that post is still valid, and is what Apple is arguing.
I think the people of New York City (the "Big Apple") should sue Apple Corps because I might get confused with all the touristy stuff....is this a record label or a city I want to go to?
I think the people of New York City (the "Big Apple") should sue Apple Corps because I might get confused with all the touristy stuff....is this a record label or a city I want to go to?
New York is the Big Apple Corps. Our mascot is the street rat.
I think the people of New York City (the "Big Apple") should sue Apple Corps because I might get confused with all the touristy stuff....is this a record label or a city I want to go to?
Sigh.
ITS NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT goddammit. Read the thread next time.
Variously through the thread I've seen reference to the suit having to do, in part at least, to Apple using its logo in conjunction with the iTMS.
I'm staring very hard at the iTMS home page and not seeing any Apples.
Where do they be?
I found 2 of them on the first page (Desperate Housewives and Fiona Apple), do these count? I looked all over for the apple logo and couldn't find one either. I wonder if they are refering to the apple Logo that appears at the top of itunes and in the visualizer?
I don't see how a photograph of a green apple can be registered as a trademark. It's...a photo of an Apple. A photo of an apple is very different from a designed logo that looks like an apple with a "bite" cut out.
I don't see how a photograph of a green apple can be registered as a trademark. It's...a photo of an Apple. A photo of an apple is very different from a designed logo that looks like an apple with a "bite" cut out.
Not really. You can use almost anything as your logo. It must be generic, though.
Besides, it really doesn't matter. It is what it is, after all.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
...and yet thats exactly not what this case is about.
Correct.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Nope, it strictly comes down to whether selling music online constitutes 'data transmission' or 'intangible communication of music'.
That, and if it does constitute intangible communication of music, whether Apple is allowed, by the earlier agreement not to involve themselves in publishing music on physical media, to sell intangible digital copies of music, while using their logo.
Originally posted by inkswamp
I hate to say it because I love Macs, my iPod and Apple Computer, but to me the wording of the contract (assuming what was posted here is accurate) is definitely not in Apple Computer's favor. Intangible music communications is a phrase that could be applied very clearly to music downloads whereas you have to make a pretty thorough argument to claim the music is just data being transmitted (i.e., most people don't get the idea that the music files are just data from the point of view of the computer.) That's not good, IMO. I think we're going to see Apple Computer take a punch to the jaw with this one.
Except that there is precedent for this. I don't know about Britain, but here in the US, VOIP, which is clearly telecomunications, has been ruled as being data communication.
So, it depends on how they look at it there. The internet has been given a free ride in many areas. I don't know how long that will continue, but, for now, Apple Computer might get its way. And, of course, even if they lose on that one, they could still win over the "physical media" dispute.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/a...0991tmagr.html
I did notice that the agreement does prove that there is a recognizable and clear distinction between the 2 company names as well as the logo's. So why did Apple Computer sign this in the first place?
Originally posted by melgross
That, and if it does constitute intangible communication of music, whether Apple is allowed, by the earlier agreement not to involve themselves in publishing music on physical media, to sell intangible digital copies of music, while using their logo.
Nope, that's a misconception - the 1991 contract gives Apple Corps the realm of intangible communication of musical works. There was no limitation to just physical media.
Originally posted by jenkij
Interesting Link, preliminarily it seems to me that Apple Computer only agreed not to distribute music belonging to Apple Corps (such as the beatles). I haven't read it completely though
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/a...0991tmagr.html
It IS interesting.
But, on the second page, underlined by hand, is this:
(reserved for Apple Corps field of use)
"(ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible;"
This could be a real punch in the stomach, except it seems to deal only with what is, or what will be, in the Apple Corps catalog.
Subsection 4.3 seems to turn it around again. Appearently, as long as Apple Computer doesn't allow others to use Apple's marks on physical media, they are allowed to broadcast this material, and include it on harddrives, etc.
4.6 seems to give Apple computer other non-exclusive rights to music.
I'm not going to go through the rest here.
But, YOU HAVE TO READ THIS!!! It's thirteen pages. That's not much.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Nope, that's a misconception - the 1991 contract gives Apple Corps the realm of intangible communication of musical works. There was no limitation to just physical media.
I mused on that before I read the same contract that you apparently read just before I posted on it above.
But, the first part of that post is still valid, and is what Apple is arguing.
Originally posted by Feynman
I think the people of New York City (the "Big Apple") should sue Apple Corps because I might get confused with all the touristy stuff....is this a record label or a city I want to go to?
New York is the Big Apple Corps. Our mascot is the street rat.
Originally posted by Feynman
I think the people of New York City (the "Big Apple") should sue Apple Corps because I might get confused with all the touristy stuff....is this a record label or a city I want to go to?
Sigh.
ITS NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT goddammit. Read the thread next time.
Originally posted by Anders
Sigh.
ITS NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT goddammit. Read the thread next time.
Heh, you're as bad as me!
I can't stand it when people keep repeating the same errors. And then I tell them to read the thread, and they get angry.
Well, that's why you're the Mod.
Variously through the thread I've seen reference to the suit having to do, in part at least, to Apple using its logo in conjunction with the iTMS.
I'm staring very hard at the iTMS home page and not seeing any Apples.
Where do they be?
Originally posted by addabox
Ahem....
Variously through the thread I've seen reference to the suit having to do, in part at least, to Apple using its logo in conjunction with the iTMS.
I'm staring very hard at the iTMS home page and not seeing any Apples.
Where do they be?
I found 2 of them on the first page (Desperate Housewives and Fiona Apple), do these count? I looked all over for the apple logo and couldn't find one either. I wonder if they are refering to the apple Logo that appears at the top of itunes and in the visualizer?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I don't see how a photograph of a green apple can be registered as a trademark. It's...a photo of an Apple. A photo of an apple is very different from a designed logo that looks like an apple with a "bite" cut out.
Not really. You can use almost anything as your logo. It must be generic, though.
Besides, it really doesn't matter. It is what it is, after all.
Originally posted by Jimzip
I find it sad.
Have Apple Corps. signed any artists lately?
Have they actually had anything to do with the music industry in the last 20 years at all?
As far as I can tell they haven't done a damn thing since 1978.