Apple (The Beatles) vs. Apple (Computers & Itune): Who is right here?

[LynneSin]

Poll question: Apple (The Beatles) vs. Apple (Computers & Itune): Who is right here?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105800,00.html

Beatles take rival Apple to court over core business
By Liz Chong


IT IS the ultimate battle of the generations over an image of a half-eaten piece of fruit.

In one corner Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, the ultimate stars of vinyl who defined music in the 1960s. In the other, the creators of a small white box that has revolutionised the way we buy and listen to music.

This week the Apple Corps goes to the High Court seeking multimillion-pound damages against Apple Computer, the creators of the iPod, over their hugely successful iTunes Music Store.

Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs, still owns the licensing rights to Beatles’ products. It is claiming that the introduction of iTunes broke a $26 million settlement under which Apple Computer agreed to steer clear of the music business, for which the Beatles’ company retains the famous trademark. It is the latest clash in one of Britain’s longest-running corporate legal battles.

Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer’s hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod digital music players.

<<<snip>>>

Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer, founded his company in 1976 with a logo of a rainbow-coloured apple with a bite taken out of it. Apple Corps sued him five years later, accepting an $80,000 settlement and a promise that the computer company would stay out of the music business


<<<snip>>>


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.

Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission.

+++++++++++++++++++++

So who is right here? The Beatles or Apple's Itune?

[DS1]

1. Fuck off Beatles, you've got enough cash to last you and 20 others

for the rest of your lives - despite selling your music to Michael fucking Jackson

[LynneSin]

2. They didn't willing sell their music to Michael Jackson

Some sort of loophole the music became available and Michael Jackson outbid them. I keep hoping that with all the finaincial troubles that Jackson has that he'll sell off the library

[targetpractice]

25. Jackson bought publishing rights to sheet music...

... which (I think) includes the rights to re-recording songs. However, he did buy the rights to the library of recordings. (Again, I think. Too lazy to Google right now.)

[billyskank]

3. So you think that Apple Computers need not abide

by the terms of their settlement? Assuming that we are understanding the details of the case aright (an important question, the media often report civil disputes wrongly) it would seem that Apple Computers have totally reneged on their deal.

[LynneSin]

4. But they have a point - they're only transmitting data

not like they're producing brand new music

[billyskank]

5. I think that is sophistry on Apple Computer's part

everything is data. The point is that the data represents music. They may not be producing music but they are certainly in the business of distributing it. Maybe it is sufficiently close to violate the terms of their previous settlement.

IANAL, natch.

[ET Awful]

7. I agree.

I would think that a company that is primarily a computer manufacturer would understand that there is no difference between a file distributed electronically, and one on CD other than the compression algorithm used. It amounts to the same thing IMO.

How can you argue that electronic files are not the same as those sold on a CD, yet also argue that they ARE the same in the case of file sharing services?

Either they are the same in all cases, or they are not the same. Take your pick.

[meegbear]

12. And Steve doesn't? Fuck off Jobs!

[blondeatlast]

6. I know it's gonna be unpopular, but I have to go with Apple Computers

here from the information given. I'm not sure it matters anyway: I'm betting this will get settled out of court.

It's a different world. I grew up on vinyl albums and 8 tracks.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta HIDE! :hide:

[LynneSin]

8. Save me space behind your brick wall - I agree with you

It's data transmission. No new music is being produced. Paul & Ringo need to get over themselves

[FormerDittoHead]

10. On reread: this IS stretching it...

OK, the Beatles' case is that they signed an agreement banning PHYSICAL distribution.

They say that an iPod is physical, and by providing iPods+music that's physical distribution.

They'd have a case if iPods are bundled with music - then that would be physical sales of music, but it's stretching it...

[Deja Q]

13. Who needs computers anymore?

The industry is heading toward thin clients (glorified tumb tubes using linux, Linus would never have guessed) and "software subscriptions" (aka money for nothing; we've had 4 years of microsoft not putting out any new products despite their so-called 'software assurance' program...)

[supernova]

9. I gotta go with Apple computers

on this one. I think the Beatles are wrong-headed here.

Here's why:

They aren't doing business as Apple Songs, they are dba in this arena as "iTunes," ok Apple iTunes. Still, if the Beatles were upset about "Apple" Computers using the name "Apple," they should have gone after that a long time ago, not when they start being successful with a music service. It reeks IMO and the people who are advising the surviving Beatles here are doing them no favors.

[Deja Q]

11. Neither. Both are corporations, more concerned about an image than content

Especially disappointing are the actions of the Beatles; they're hardly promoting love by doing this.

:crazy:

BTW: Last I called, all the Neatles and all the guys runnin' Apple (Jobs, Woz, et al) are the same age and generation group... :dunce: There's no generation battle here. Though, 20 years from now, I'd expect them to fight over the last remaining bottle of Geritol...

[tjwmason]

14. For the first time in my life - I'm going to side with the Beatles.

Assuming that the details are reported accurately here.

The first point is that the trademark was taken by the Beatles before Steve Jobs got going. Their permission for him to continue under their trademark was based on the condition that it stays out of the music business.

The most reasonable thing, obviously, would be an out-of-court settlement allowing for the continued presence of Apple in the music business.

[DS1]

15. What happens when Gwyneth Paltrow's kid lands a record contract?

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

16. They'll sue her only if she becomes sucessful

I mean, Itunes have been around now for several years and Paul/Ringo are just getting around to suing them now?

[realisticphish]

17. the last paragraph there

is the important part to me. The later agreement was that apple would not deal in physical media. mp3's are not physical media. Pretty cut and dried, imho, but we'll see how the judge views it.

[Robb]

18. I would think damages would have to play into it

I'd like to see someone show damages the Beatles have incurred as a result of Apple's business practice. :shrug:

On edit: best Slashdot comment: "At last, a lawsuit that actually compares apples to apples."

Runner-up: "No matter how this turns out, we all get to say I told you so. I hope Apple wins." :rofl:

[Deja Q]

27. Quite. I had no idea that there was an apple involved w/the Beatles until

1999.

I knew of Apple computer since 1981.

I didn't think both were related ever.

Not until this joke of a lawsuit came about.

[Coventina]

19. I guess I don't even understand what there is to argue about.

:shrug:

Is it some sort of copyright fight over the word "Apple"?

If that is the case, I say phooey on the Beatles. They don't get to prevent anyone from using the name of something invented by Mother Nature. If anything, she should be suing THEM!

[FormerDittoHead]

20. What would Jobs do if I started to use an apple for my computer company?

Did you know that the color pink is a trademark of Owens Corning?(!)

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/devices.html
"A trademark is a device which can take almost any form, as long as it is capable of identifying and distinguishing specific goods or services."

[Ivan Sputnik]

21. If Apple Computer is now in "the music business"

however defined, I vote for the Beatles. If they lose, I think Paul and Ringo should start selling branded PCs with THEIR Apple logo on them -- and pre-loaded with Beatles tunes.

[dpbrown]

22. Not a band since the 70s and Michael Jackson owns their songs

Two of them are dead.

Something at Apple Corps smells rotten.

Give it up.

[Book Lover]

23. All depends on what "is" is

Seems to me this hinges on the agreed-upon definition of "music business." If as defined that term only includes the distribution of music on physical media, then Apple Computers is safe, as they are only selling music made by persons not under contract by them and distributing that music via e-means.

OTOH, IMO Apple Corp should simply never have agreed to grant the agreement in the first place. Steve Jobs could have ripped off some other name from some poor schlub working for him, or just named the company Macintosh.

[begin_within]

24. Apple is in the wrong (and I say this as a die-hard Apple Computer buyer).

The iTunes music store should have started up as a completely separate company, not connected to Apple at all, and the iTunes software that Apple sells should have allowed the user to easily choose which music store to buy from, and not favored the iTunes store or made it the "default one" or the easiest one to get to. They should have just made the iTunes music store one of the many stores that iTunes users could buy from, and made that a completely separate company not related to or owned by Apple. Then they would have avoided all this mess.

[targetpractice]

26. Prediction: Apple Computer will acquire Apple Corps

I believe this lawsuit will be settled by Apple Computer acquiring Apple Corps and its library of Beatles music, thus making Apple a powerful new music label. The Beatles library will be distributed exclusively through iTunes, Paul McCartney will join Apple's board of directors, and Apple's role in music publishing and distribution will solidified for decades to come.

Imagine the PR.

Perhaps Apple Computer's goal is to become a media company, and this lawsuit is standing in the way. I think Apple Computer is in the driver's seat here.