Beatles vs. iTunes Music Store

Comments

• Reply 1 of 12

  tommy_thompson Posts: 224member

  June 3, 2003 12:40PM

  If this is true..it would be sad. I hope the Beatles (if this is true) can see that they stand to make money from the project, not lose money. I'd wager to say that the Beatles lable has not done much in the last 5-10 years...what do you think? Even if it has done something, how crazy would they be to turn down money?
• Reply 2 of 12

  macusers Posts: 840member

  June 3, 2003 12:41PM

  but the beatles dont really exist as a band anymore, just their old songs
• Reply 3 of 12

  thegelding Posts: 3,230member

  June 3, 2003 1:00PM

  there is no longer a band called "The Beatles"...so who is sueing?? the record company? michael jackson?
  
  
  
  
  
  i am the 'g'alrus
• Reply 4 of 12

  superkarate monkeydeathcar Posts: 2,407member

  June 3, 2003 1:09PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by MacUsers
  
  but the beatles dont really exist as a band anymore, just their old songs
  

  
  

  
  
  this is technically not true, they dissolved all relationships in the 70's but in the late eighties they decided it behooved them to be a legal entity so reformed as a company, this is the company that anthology (record, book, tv special) sprang from. and yes yoko is a partner.
• Reply 5 of 12

  thegelding Posts: 3,230member

  June 3, 2003 2:53PM

  so if they dissolved and re-formed in the late 80's, would apple computer have a longer claim to the term apple??
  
  
  
  and who is doing the suing??????
  
  
  
  i know ringo probably can use some money coming in, but sir paul is richer than god and yoko obviously signed her deal with the devil many years ago...
  
  
  
  once again lawyers will get rich and no real purpose will be served...apple records can release a beatles album a year and make many millions...apple computers can have a music store and make many millions...nobody will be confused by the two yet lawyers will fight and fight and charge and charge and wheeeeeeeeee nobody wins....not to rant on lawyers, they do many great things and help with many of lifes problems...it is just shit like this that make them look bad....huge lawsuits that serve no purpose, that add nothing to society are obscene
  
  
  
  
  
  g
• Reply 6 of 12

  rok Posts: 3,519member

  June 3, 2003 3:11PM

  correct me if i am wrong, but this is an issue over the actual apple corps record company, NOT the beatles's songs, nor the remaining beatles themselves (or next of kin). plus, michael jackson, if i am not mistaken, wnet on a buying spree of the rights to many beatles' old tunes a while back, but that may be just urban legend.
  
  
  
  either way, this is not the beatles' songs, it is trademark of "apple" being used by two ostensibly music companies. steve used his standard "f*ck 'em" mentality back in the day, and got burned, but didn't think that 20+ years later, he'd be running an online music store, either.
  
  
  
  anyway, it'll be up to the lawyers to duke it out. in my own little universe, when i hear "apple," it means apple computer, NOT the old apple record label. BUT, that doesn't mean that a larger company can claim trademarks or copyrights simple because they market better. i have a little company name reserved for me, but if another company comes along and makes a product by the same name, it still doesn't change the fact that i thought of it first and tried to protect it.
• Reply 7 of 12

  gordy Posts: 1,004member

  June 3, 2003 3:28PM

  This is non-news. Because of the QuickTime ordeal, I'm sure that Apple Legal reviewed this item thoroughly before announcing iTMS.
• Reply 8 of 12

  ebby Posts: 3,110member

  June 3, 2003 3:32PM

  Uh oh. PLEASE don't make me choose sides between The Beatles and Apple.
  
  
  
  *buries head in sand*
• Reply 9 of 12

  macserverx Posts: 217member

  June 3, 2003 3:37PM

  I guess technically the agreement had to do with Apple being completely out of music, which is why they lost the first suit from the addition of QT music and MIDI (I know MIDI was involved anyway). The difference here is that Apple is simply a distributer and has no part in the production of music. And how come this didn't come up when Apple bought a freakin audio software company, let alone the most popular program? The model of inconsistency.
  
  
  
  Could Apple just make the store part of emagic still getting the profits, license the rights to use the Apple name and logo to emagic and then completely leave emagic out of it if they want to get really picky and technical.
• Reply 10 of 12

  superkarate monkeydeathcar Posts: 2,407member

  June 3, 2003 3:37PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by rok
  
  plus, michael jackson, if i am not mistaken, wnet on a buying spree of the rights to many beatles' old tunes a while back, but that may be just urban legend.
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  michael owns 50% of beatles publishing, (northern songs, NEMS or maclen whatever it was called) and he's probably going to have to sell that soon.....
• Reply 11 of 12

  thegelding Posts: 3,230member

  June 3, 2003 4:06PM

  maybe SJ and apple can buy michael jackson's 50% share and then see if apple corp wants to sue...
  
  
  
  g
• Reply 12 of 12

  deafeningsilence Posts: 32member

  June 3, 2003 4:45PM

  Quote:
  

  
  Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
  
  michael owns 50% of beatles publishing, (northern songs, NEMS or maclen whatever it was called) and he's probably going to have to sell that soon.....
  

  
  

  
  
  Michael owns half of Sony/ATV
  
  
  
  The genesis of these Michael Jackson is poor rumours are people who are suing Michael, and who'd like to get a judge a) make Michael reveal his finances and b) attach his assets. Lawyers are manipulative, but let's not presume that they are honest or knowlegeable.
  
  
  
  And on topic... If Apple records can squeeze a few tens of millions out of Apple Computers every... oh... decade or so... I guess, they will...