The U2 iPod did *not* contain their songs. It came with a $50-off coupon towards purchasing "The Complete U2" at the iTunes Music Store.
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions. You are correct on this.
I own the U2 iPod. No songs were preloaded, nor was I under the impression that they were included when I ordered it. The product descriptions were pretty specific that it was a $50 off coupon for the "Digital Box Set", but descriptions in the press and even Mac-fan web sites generally got this detail wrong. That coupon was redeemed and downloaded through iTMS. I have no idea what a digital box is.
Yeah, but when it's YOUR money (in the generic sense, I don't mean you), it's different.
When it's someone else's money, it's easy.
What money? Let's get down to the reality here: who in their right mind would confuse Apple Records with the iTunes music store?
Or I guess the other argument is: does the iTunes music store benefit from the reputation Apple Records has built? Not in my mind. Other than die-hard Beatles fans, who even knows about Apple Records nowadays?
So what money is there to be lost/made? Perhaps through the rose colored, tunnel vision glasses of the law you can see some sort of money loss/gain scenario here, but any rational human being certainly can't.
AT this point I suspect Apple would better serve their investors to just purchase Apple Corps outright. Between court costs and a the likely settlement, it probably wouldn't be that much of a premium. As an added bonus Apple would then presumably have exclusive domain over selling the Beatles catalog online.
What does this have to do with the British? The former Beatles, and their representatives, are the ones suing. Besides, it might not be frivolous.
Even the judge pointed out that he is a music lover, and uses an iPod.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty damn obvious that the precedent set in a previous case covers this one. In other words, this case is one involving minutia in an attempt to siphon some cash or to make a headline.
What money? Let's get down to the reality here: who in their right mind would confuse Apple Records with the iTunes music store?
Or I guess the other argument is: does the iTunes music store benefit from the reputation Apple Records has built? Not in my mind. Other than die-hard Beatles fans, who even knows about Apple Records nowadays?
So what money is there to be lost/made? Perhaps through the rose colored, tunnel vision glasses of the law you can see some sort of money loss/gain scenario here, but any rational human being certainly can't.
I was replying to another post.
It has nothing to do with confusing the two anymore, though it might have been in the '70's. It's the fact that an agreement was made, and might have been broken.
The money has to do with the fact that those who control Apple Records don't want to let this go. Paul, Ringo, Harrison's wife, Ono, and Aspinall see a chance of making some good money out of this.
Anyone here would likely do the same if they were in their position.
I know it has no bearing on the case, but what has Apple(misic) done in the last 20 years? cash checks? sell the same cuts on a differant media (ala 8track/vinal->cassette->CD->DVD-A)?
Does apple have new artists? studios? you know, an acctual business model? or is it just a corprate frontend to distribute royalties to the Beatles?
The beatles music speaks for its self, they dont need a lable with a major name, if apple corps changed their name to banana-fo-fana-dingdong, no one would notice, the music would still be the same, Apple records isnt a brand, the Beatles are the brand.
Yes, phony beatlemania has most certainly bitten the dust.
I understand the perspective of "breach of agreement", but there is no copyright conflict here in my opinion, just a cash grab. While it may make business sense, it certainly doesn't make common sense.
Looks like the Beatles want another slice of Apples pie. Remember those previous cases? Apple Computer was sued when it began to integrate technology to let Mac users attach external speakers to their computer. Apple Corps won that case, and received $50 million in reparation from Apple Computer. Legend has it that the Apple sound "Sosumi" was a sort of two fingered salute to the deal when Apple improved the sound capabilities of the Mac.
Apple Corps are just seeing more $$$ signs before their greedy eyes with this new case. Apple Computer are riding high at the moment and ripe for the picking (sorry for all the Apple puns). Everyone with half a brain can differentiate between the two companies. Apple Computer are not in the music business (hell, it's debatable wether Apple Corps are in the music business)!
If Apple had decided upon a name for itself that wasn't already being used then none of this would ever have happened. That's not The Beatles fault. The two companies came to an agreement in 1991, ten years later came the iPod, if Apple Corps feel that the terms of the agreement are being broken-are they not allowed to go back to court?
If Apple had decided upon a name for itself that wasn't already being used then none of this would ever have happened. That's not The Beatles fault. The two companies came to an agreement in 1991, ten years later came the iPod, if Apple Corps feel that the terms of the agreement are being broken-are they not allowed to go back to court?
Absolutely. But just because the actions of Apple Corps can be justified within the current copyright/trademark law system doesn't make it right. For all the singing/preaching the various Beatles members have done/currently do about making the world a better place, it turns out they're just another self-interested business entity after all.
And no, I don't own any Apple stock. I just happen to feel strongly that the Beatles don't deserve to keep getting money from Apple when there's no real conflict.
"The way the entire Beatle catalogue continues to retail at full price despite its age and the fact that Help! or With The Beatles or Sergeant Pepper could fit twice onto a single CD, represents the less savoury side of the Beatle inheritance.
I once moaned about this to EMI's then A& R chief, Nick Gatfield. 'Nothing to do with us,' he shrugged. 'Blame Apple.' EMI are merely licensed by Apple Corps to manufacture and distribute Beatle products. Since the bitter round of lawsuits between the assorted Beatles and their business manager Allen Klein which accompanied the break-up of the group, there has been no sign of the Utopian 'what's ours is yours' philosophy which lay behind the forming of the original, chaotic Apple. Today it is a secretive and unsentimental business organisation, marketing its priceless assets for all they're worth."
Comments
(Yes. This one took some time to compose
Originally posted by Anders
Sosumi battles the pinko rollators
(Yes. This one took some time to compose
Sigh!
Originally posted by Anders
Hey. A lot of work went into that one
I could tell!
Originally posted by radiospace
The U2 iPod did *not* contain their songs. It came with a $50-off coupon towards purchasing "The Complete U2" at the iTunes Music Store.
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions. You are correct on this.
I own the U2 iPod. No songs were preloaded, nor was I under the impression that they were included when I ordered it. The product descriptions were pretty specific that it was a $50 off coupon for the "Digital Box Set", but descriptions in the press and even Mac-fan web sites generally got this detail wrong. That coupon was redeemed and downloaded through iTMS. I have no idea what a digital box is.
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, but when it's YOUR money (in the generic sense, I don't mean you), it's different.
When it's someone else's money, it's easy.
What money? Let's get down to the reality here: who in their right mind would confuse Apple Records with the iTunes music store?
Or I guess the other argument is: does the iTunes music store benefit from the reputation Apple Records has built? Not in my mind. Other than die-hard Beatles fans, who even knows about Apple Records nowadays?
So what money is there to be lost/made? Perhaps through the rose colored, tunnel vision glasses of the law you can see some sort of money loss/gain scenario here, but any rational human being certainly can't.
Originally posted by melgross
What does this have to do with the British? The former Beatles, and their representatives, are the ones suing. Besides, it might not be frivolous.
Even the judge pointed out that he is a music lover, and uses an iPod.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty damn obvious that the precedent set in a previous case covers this one. In other words, this case is one involving minutia in an attempt to siphon some cash or to make a headline.
Originally posted by auxio
What money? Let's get down to the reality here: who in their right mind would confuse Apple Records with the iTunes music store?
Or I guess the other argument is: does the iTunes music store benefit from the reputation Apple Records has built? Not in my mind. Other than die-hard Beatles fans, who even knows about Apple Records nowadays?
So what money is there to be lost/made? Perhaps through the rose colored, tunnel vision glasses of the law you can see some sort of money loss/gain scenario here, but any rational human being certainly can't.
I was replying to another post.
It has nothing to do with confusing the two anymore, though it might have been in the '70's. It's the fact that an agreement was made, and might have been broken.
The money has to do with the fact that those who control Apple Records don't want to let this go. Paul, Ringo, Harrison's wife, Ono, and Aspinall see a chance of making some good money out of this.
Anyone here would likely do the same if they were in their position.
Originally posted by Anders
Sosumi battles the pinko rollators
That sounds familiar... oh yes, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That sounds familiar... oh yes, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Finally someone got it
I mean, what happened, all of a sudden the licensing of Beatles music just isnt enough?
Hey Apple Corps... FUCK YOU
Does apple have new artists? studios? you know, an acctual business model? or is it just a corprate frontend to distribute royalties to the Beatles?
The beatles music speaks for its self, they dont need a lable with a major name, if apple corps changed their name to banana-fo-fana-dingdong, no one would notice, the music would still be the same, Apple records isnt a brand, the Beatles are the brand.
I understand the perspective of "breach of agreement", but there is no copyright conflict here in my opinion, just a cash grab. While it may make business sense, it certainly doesn't make common sense.
Apple Corps are just seeing more $$$ signs before their greedy eyes with this new case. Apple Computer are riding high at the moment and ripe for the picking (sorry for all the Apple puns). Everyone with half a brain can differentiate between the two companies. Apple Computer are not in the music business (hell, it's debatable wether Apple Corps are in the music business)!
Originally posted by Alex London
If Apple had decided upon a name for itself that wasn't already being used then none of this would ever have happened. That's not The Beatles fault. The two companies came to an agreement in 1991, ten years later came the iPod, if Apple Corps feel that the terms of the agreement are being broken-are they not allowed to go back to court?
Absolutely. But just because the actions of Apple Corps can be justified within the current copyright/trademark law system doesn't make it right. For all the singing/preaching the various Beatles members have done/currently do about making the world a better place, it turns out they're just another self-interested business entity after all.
And no, I don't own any Apple stock. I just happen to feel strongly that the Beatles don't deserve to keep getting money from Apple when there's no real conflict.
When this goes to court I hope that some headway is made. If all that happens is that the date is pushed back another 6 months I'm gonna scream!
Originally posted by Xool
Anyone know offhand what other artists are on the Apple Corps label? All I think of is The Beatles.
Wikipedia List
I suppose Hot Chocolate is notable.
I found a great quote from this source...
"The way the entire Beatle catalogue continues to retail at full price despite its age and the fact that Help! or With The Beatles or Sergeant Pepper could fit twice onto a single CD, represents the less savoury side of the Beatle inheritance.
I once moaned about this to EMI's then A& R chief, Nick Gatfield. 'Nothing to do with us,' he shrugged. 'Blame Apple.' EMI are merely licensed by Apple Corps to manufacture and distribute Beatle products. Since the bitter round of lawsuits between the assorted Beatles and their business manager Allen Klein which accompanied the break-up of the group, there has been no sign of the Utopian 'what's ours is yours' philosophy which lay behind the forming of the original, chaotic Apple. Today it is a secretive and unsentimental business organisation, marketing its priceless assets for all they're worth."
Nice insight