Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the a-tale-of-two-apples dept.

367

novus ordo writes "Apple is being sued in London by Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs. This is a third battle over the name 'Apple' in Britain. Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."

cancel ×

367 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL at data transmission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001844)


and Wallmart are in the the plastic and carbon based goods disemmination business

the facts are

Apple corp = sell music
Apple Computers = sell music

now the Beatles have had their Apple Brand totally damaged by Apple computers i would hate to think how much jobs (and by proxy the shareholders) is gonna lose

still go short on AAPL, everybody in our traders floor are

Re:LOL at data transmission (1)

IAmAMacOSXAddict (718470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002062)

Apple Corp. = Former seller of Music, Hasn't sold anything in years Apple computer = Company that has a large bank account that Apple Corp wants...

Re:LOL at data transmission (0, Offtopic)

L0k11 (617726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002123)

sorry to be pedantic, but plastic is a carbon based good...

Re:LOL at data transmission (2, Interesting)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002131)

It's a bit hard to speculate. Since Apple were well aware of what they were doing post the 26M settlement, all music sales occur under "iTunes" instead of "Apple".

It's deliberate that the word "Apple" is not associated with any music selling.

The case is being brought on the merit that Apple Computer is ultimately selling music. Should settlement occur, it won't be a giant blow-out curtosy of the steps Apple have already taken. (This is why no one is particularly worried.)

Re:LOL at data transmission (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002148)

Who is Apple Corp again?

I never heard of them until the second lawsuit a few years ago after iTunes had opened.

Apple Copr is a defunct Music corp whose small handful of artists would be better served selling mp3's themselves.

They may have a legitimate claim, but that doesn't make them any more known or useful. I don't know of a single band who uses them.

What's next? (5, Funny)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001845)

The Pope sueing anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

Bill Borg sueing anyone who has the ordacity to install "Outside Viewing Portals" in their home?

Re:What's next? (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001858)

Or the Spelling Police locking up /. posters who can't spell simple words like audacity. Or teh ;-)

Re:What's next? (1)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001904)

...if that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John had entered in a binding legal agreement not to do something which they then violated 15 years later, sure. Why not?

Re:What's next? (2, Interesting)

bev_tech_rob (313485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001973)

According to TFA, that agreement covered only PHYSICAL media like CDs or tapes. I agree with Apple computer's position, that Itunes is just data transmission...

Re:What's next? (2, Interesting)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001999)

No, according to Apple Computer that agreement covered only physical media like CDs or tapes. Apple Records has a different interpretation. This settlement was reached long before the downloading songs was a common method of music distribution, so this concept was not specified in the settlement.

Re:What's next? (1)

Bill_Mische (253534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002053)

So let's see Apple Computer thinks its promise not to sell music meant physical media only whereas Apple Records thinks it applies to all music. If only there were some long established (800 years should do it) system of adjudicating such disputes...

Re:What's next? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002075)

Bill Gates sues anything called .indows

and wins.

Gah? (5, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001847)

I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.

If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.

Tom

Re:Gah? (3, Insightful)

rebeka thomas (673264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001866)

If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.

Re:Gah? (4, Insightful)

adjensen (58676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001954)

If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

Or maybe it's because Apple Records (records? what the fug is a record?) haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years? When was the last Badfinger album?

Personally, I thought that the Beatles' claim to the original trademark infringement was pretty tenuous. Apple Computer should have fought that one tooth and nail. At this point, it's a lot more relevant, but, again, their basis seems pretty diluted.

At any rate, although Apple Computer (not "Apple") runs the iTunes Music Store, I don't think that they're promoting it as the "Apple Music Store". They should tell Paul, Ringo, Yoko and whoever's running the show for George to cheese off -- it's time to get this monkey off the back, even if it means a long court stint.

Oh no. (-1, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002006)

Apple records is a holding company for a defunct ban. Let them sue all they want - I'll never buy another Beatle's product and I can't wait for the rest of the sorry washed up old lot to be as dead as george and john and the twist.

Re:Gah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001882)

I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles.

If when you see "Apple" in relation to music you think of Itunes instead of Apple Corps (the registered holder of the mark with respect to music distribution) then that's the confusion they're talking about. I would have thought it's pretty obvious. They put their trademark on music related stuff and people connect it with Apple Computers instead of with them.

Their complaint seems to be reasonable and justified.

Re:Gah? (2, Interesting)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001897)

I'm 27, I was not a Beatles fan, My son who is 8 LOVES the Beatles.

SO... what was your point?

Re:Gah? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001961)

He is not saying that you have to be old to be a fan of the beatles. What he means is that only people over 50 will associate the Beatles with the Apple record label. I doubt your 8 year old son knows that Apple is the Beatles record label.

Re:Gah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002147)

Hmmmm usually people who are 27 and have an 8 year old son are into rap music.... Either dem or dey baby momma, hitting you wit dat baby momma drama. Yo what up. Can I get a what what?!?!?!111?!?!one?!?!uno!!!1111

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001905)

[in light of things like GNUpod]

Mod parent up +5 Funny! The ability of Linux Hippies to self delude never ceases to amaze.

Re:Gah? (1)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001938)

but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.

People over 50 and people like Slashdot readers who keep reading about this lawsuit.

Re:Gah? (1)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001953)

And if you asked that group about Apple Records, how many will respond thinking that it somehow involves Apple Computer?

Re:Gah? (1, Insightful)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001956)

I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
I, for one, am not over 50 but certainly associate The Beatles and "Apple" so perhaps you should reconsider making blanket statements.

Re:Gah? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002172)

Well, that's because you SUCK

Re:Gah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001978)

When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.

Excellent troll, but try to put some more heart and soul into it next time. Trolling about iTunes' "horrible DRM" is kind of lame since it's the weakest of all of the DRM present in modern players. Instead, try choosing a topic like poor battery life of the iPod, or its propensity to scratch. Talk about how iTunes makes your system completely unstable and it locks you into running it on Winblowz (use the misspelling, they eat that shit up).

Re:Gah? (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001993)

As I recall, Steven Jobs never disputed the fact that he took the name from Apple Corps., because he was a fan of the Beatles. I think that the terms of the original settlement were quite clear (and generous). I assumed when I first heard about the I-Pod things that surely there was some new arrangement. I find it shocking that no one took care of this a long time ago. There is no ambiguity here that I can see. Fucking Lawyers.

Re:Gah? (1)

HaydnH (877214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002041)

I'm 29 so a little older than 16-24, but way under 50 and just about everyone I know (incl those who have never known about the previous apple vs apple court cases) know who The Beatles record label were... perhaps that's because I'm British though...

Apple are in wrong (1)

Garry Anderson (194949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001849)

Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC countries.

Please visit my site - http://wipo.org.uk/ [wipo.org.uk]

Site is nothing to do with corrupt people at UN WIPO.org ;-)

Re:Apple are in wrong (3, Interesting)

Prong_Thunder (572889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001860)

It should also be mentioned at this point that Beatles->Apple are obliged to take action against Jobs->Apple over the trademark infrigement, otherwise the trademark will be automatically nullified.

Re:Apple are in wrong (1)

iain (30832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001958)

No.

They're not.

Even slightly.

This action is taking place in the UK. This means that US law doesn't actually apply. Shocking, I know, but true.

        Iain.

Re:Apple are in wrong (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002046)

This action is taking place in the UK. This means that US law doesn't actually apply
He never said it did, but never mind. It would of course be totally impossible for two countries to have similar laws. Especially two countries an ocean apart that have no connection between them. And never did have. Ever.

Re:Apple are in wrong (1)

Prong_Thunder (572889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002101)

You're right. I probably ought to have RTFA more carefully. Sorry!

Re:Apple are in wrong (5, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001877)

Apple are in wrong
Absolutely. I hope Apple wins, taking Apple to the cleaners and resolving this issue once and for all in favour of Apple.

The great thing is, after this lawsuit is over, whatever the outcome, you and I will be able to say "I told you so." ;-)

Re:Apple are in wrong (1)

RDW (41497) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002047)

What I don't understand is why Apple [apple.co.uk] doesn't sue Apple and Apple for blatant use of Illustrations in their product packaging!

Re:Apple are in wrong (1)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002001)

Well yeah.

One Apple sells Beatles songs to British people in record stores.
The other Apple sells those same Beatles songs to British people over the internet.

Don't you think that there is perhaps grounds for confusion here?

is this new? (-1, Troll)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001850)

Is any of this new, or did somebody just think that maybe we needed to be reminded?

Re:is this new? (1)

DRM_is_Stupid (954094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002139)

The article reads: "This week the Apple Corps goes to the High Court seeking multimillion-pound damages..."

and it's dated March 27, so yeah.

How edifying (4, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001851)

Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.

Re:How edifying (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001869)

I guess that explains why "Baby You're a Rich Man" is one of the few Beatles songs available on the iTMS.

How lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001881)

Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.

Well, don't know about Paul and Ringo, but Steve is in it for the success. Now here success is measured in units sold which equates to dollars, but as you've mentioned, he is far beyond simple groveling for a few million more. Funny how it's people like YOU who can't see past the money. And it's also interesting to note that people like Steve are billionaires because they can.

Re:How lame (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001895)

Can you speak more clearly please.
It's difficult to understand your speech with Steve Jobs' cock in your mouth.

Re:How edifying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001931)

Yes, but at least this is Britain -- so the lawyers won't actually get paid a penny until a verdict is returned. And then the losing side will bear all costs.

Interesting that ... (3, Insightful)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001854)

Apple seem to be relying on the "It doesn't come on physical media, so it doesn't apply" argument. I wonder if the fact that Apple produced the special U2 iPod (A physical product containing "music") will be held against them.

Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers. The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers, and the stupidity of current trademark legislation.

Re:Interesting that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001939)

The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago...
It was resolved years ago. Apple Computers have unilaterally decided that that earlier ruling simply doesn't count anymore.

They'll lose, and they'll lose remarkably quickly.

Re:Interesting that ... (1)

ashooner (834246) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001959)

The U2 iPod came with a coupon for $50 a $150 boxed set.

Re:Interesting that ... (2, Interesting)

Sesticulus (544932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001965)

Actually the U2 iPod didn't come with the music loaded. Some of the media reported that, but I checked one out at the store and what it had was a coupon for $50 off the price of buying the entire U2 collection.

Re:Interesting that ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002054)

It *was* resolved years ago, in 1991: Apple Computers got to use the name so long as they didn't get involved in the music business or set themselves up as a record label. Since that was explicitly set out in the settlement, and was the basis of the agreement, it's hardly surprising that iTunes has got up their nose.

Re:Interesting that ... (3, Informative)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002084)

Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers.

Yes. Apple Group are trying to get money out of Apple Computer for breaking the agreement that they came to in 1991.

The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers

(smacks forehead).... no, no it doesn't.

Wrong (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002109)

Uhh... the agreement specified physical media - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.

Confusion! (5, Funny)

TangoCharlie (113383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001856)

I must admit, When I hear "All you Need is Love" on the Radio, I
immediately think: "Wow that was a good record by Steve Jobs! Why
he ditched music and went on to start a computer company is completely
beyond me!" Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
Jobs at all... it was Woz! Sheesh I'm an idiot!

Re:Confusion! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002065)

Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
Jobs at all...


No! It's wasn't your fault. Jobs deliberately, deceptively, decieved you. All along his goal was to usurp Apple Corps rightful place as master of the recording industry by insidiously starting up a "computer" company, with the sole intention of eventually moving into the music industry.

Clearly the owners of Apple Corps, whose ancestors worked so hard so that they might profit, are long overdue for a modest sum from the duplicitous Jobs & Co. 70% or perhaps only 60% of Apples profits of the last twenty years, adjusted for interest of course, is more than fair for the danamge to reputatation, earnings and the slur on the memories of poor dead John Lennon that the owners of Apple Corps have had to endure.

Re:Confusion! (1)

TangoCharlie (113383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002150)

Fantastic! Now I'm completely unconfused....
So, Steve Jobs is actually Stevey Wonder!
I've always wondered.
Now everything is clear.
I will definately not be buying anymore Apple Walkmans!

Re:Confusion! (2, Funny)

anothy (83176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002088)

Woz was always the real talent and soul behind the band. Jobs just had the business smarts to get the deal, and better hair, so he got to be the front man.

Well if you say you will not go into music and... (4, Insightful)

johnjones (14274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001857)

err its their fault

AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music )

and now they are acting like a record label

so the courts will hear all the evidance and decide

regards

John Jones

p.s. this is a story ?

Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001932)

The whole record industry moved into computers though.....

Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (1)

Kombat (93720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001944)

The whole record industry moved into computers though.

So? They never promised not to. On the other hand, Apple, a computer company, did promise never to move into the music industry.

Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002028)

AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music ) and now they are acting like a record label

RTFA. The (abbreviated) terms of the current agreement are there:

Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on "creative works whose principal content is music" while Apple Computer was allowed "goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".

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.

--- end cite

The article doesn't quote the prohibition against distribution on physical media, and the writer's opinion seems to be in conflict with the earlier statement. The phrase: "goods and services ... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content" seems to describe iTunes and the iPod.

Court can't play Beatles song? (4, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001859)

From the article -- "The court will be treated to a demonstation of an iPod, but it is unlikely to play a Beatles song, as they have not been licensed for download and it would therefore be illegal." How is that true? I checked the iTMS and there are 16 Beatles songs available, including the appropriate-for-this-lawsuit track "Baby You're a Rich Man." Are they just off base or is there something I'm missing here?

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (1)

dario_moreno (263767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001874)

"not licensed for download" still "16 beatles songs available" maybe not on the UK itunes store.

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (1)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001898)

Or you could just - you know - rip an album to MP3 and copy it to your iPod. Last I checked we still had that fair use right. :\

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001942)

Not in the UK you don't. There's no such thing as fair use rights - any unlicensed copying is a copyright violation.

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (1)

iain (30832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001949)

You didn't check carefully enough, then. Format shifting is not explicitly allowed, and is therefore unlawful.

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001943)

Couldn't they just put a Beatles CD into a PC or Mac, import it into iTunes and transfer it to the iPod? It's all fair use, you would have thought...

Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (2, Interesting)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001968)

I looked on the UK iTMS, and there are 16 songs, but they're "Pro Backing Tracks", not actual Beatles songs. The rights over the Beatles' compositions and the Beatles' recordings are held by different companies, it's only the company who licences the Beatles' recordings (Apple Corps) that doesn't like Apple Computer. Sony ATV Music[1] presumably don't care if covers of Beatles' songs appear on iTMS, as long as they get paid.

[1] There are some Beatles songs held by other companies AFAIK, just Sony ATV is the main one.

It'll Probably Hold Up (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001862)

I know it sounds ridiculous. But this suit will probably hold up. Even though they settled before.

The fact of the matter is that Apple Ltd. became Apple Corps which had many components. One of which was Apple Electronics. Then Apple (Macs) were made and it's clear that this could be an infringement on the products that Apple Electronics makes (if any).

Now that Apple's Ipod is so involved in music, I'm certain the other divisions of Apple Corps would like to have a go at the computer maker since their pockets are so deep. Please don't think this is The Beatles at work, it's just people working for a company based off a band that's now broken up. Hell, Michael Jackson has The Beatles' catalog, the only thing Apple Corps has is its name.

Another legal battle plays out. A lot of money re-allocated. How does this affect me? It doesn't.

Re:It'll Probably Hold Up (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001933)

What would be kind of funny is if a generic consumer electronics manufacturer went to Apple Corps and asked to license the name for an MP3 player. Ironically, this would be one case where Apple Computer infringing on Apple Corp's trademarks might actually work to the benefit of Apple Corps.

Re:It'll Probably Hold Up (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002050)

Does Apple Corps have any other active divisions other than the record label though? I thought most of the other stuff like the boutique etc. folded several decades ago.

Plus any previous agreement with Apple Computer probably waived any rights for Apple Corps to use "Apple" for computer equipment etc. Apple Computer would probably win against other companies using the name Apple for electronics. Apple Corps may win this battle against Apple Computer for using Apple to distribute music.

Anyway, need to hoover my room, better get my Vax out.

"Tens" of millions of pounds damages (1, Interesting)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001863)

The article says

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.

How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds. Apple Computer keeps shaving as much off that settlement as they possibly can, and they're going to have to pay sooner or later. The best thing would be a settlement for a few hundred million pounds, a disclaimer ("iTunes and Apple Computer are not affiliated with Apple Corps Records") and an agreement to release the Beatles' catalogue on iTunes giving McCartney, Starkey, and the Lennon and Harrison estates an extra-large slice of the ... well, you know.

Re:"Tens" of millions of pounds damages (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001997)

How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds.

Why? The courts are not a lottery. Any damages paid to Apple Records should be based on actual damages suffered by Apple Records due to the dilution of their trademark. Apple Records did not invent or market the iPod, and as far as I am concerned, the value of their trademark is minimal.

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's... (2, Insightful)

fatduck (961824) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001865)

It's not music, it's just data? Wonder how that affects RIAA and the DRM debate.

FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (5, Funny)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001868)

Just so you know, The Beatles were a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's, Apple was the name of their record label at the time.

'Records' were large black circular discs with grooves in them made from Vinyl, a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).

Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time.

There were no video games back then, which is why music was so popular.

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001884)

Fuck! I wonder will this be modded as "Informative" or "Funny"...

Damn kids... Get off my Lawn!

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (1)

Library Spoff (582122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001912)

Isn't guitar music on the way out Mr Epstein?

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001928)

a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).
You mean, those "records" you speak of did not have enough capacity to encode the content into something higher than 64kbps? *shudders at the thought*

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (1)

Slugbait (17229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001957)

Also of note, as there is no DRM you can still listen to those old fragile black plastic circular discs. Bet you won't be able to say the same thing about iTunes in 40 years.

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (1)

cob666 (656740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002018)

The Beatles were a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's
John Lennon broke up the Beatles on September 20, 1969, when he informed Paul that he wanted a "divorce". [aboutthebeatles.com]

Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002143)

Whether they were still together or not is not relevant. Their popularity remained in the 70s and were therefore "a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's" Also, even though Let It Be was recored around 1968, it was released in May 1970 so The Beatles did make it into the 70s.

Um... (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001871)

... maybe I am the ignorant here, but I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.

Also, how in gods name does this happen in today? It's like when "LindowsOS" was smacked for being to similar to "Microsoft Windows Operating System". Should Ham producers start sueing Hormell for their SPAM product? I mean, it's a lot closer between "Ham" and "Spam" (EVen based on the same animal!) than between "Apple Computers" and "Apple Corps".

Re:Um... (1)

altinos.com (919185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001899)

Actually, I recall Hormel suing Jim Henson for a Muppets character called Spa'am. Hormel lost because it was shown to be a parody.

Re:Um... Sure they can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001920)

Sure they can, because the result of the last suit was a settlement between Apple Computers and Apple Records promising that Apple Computers would never get into the music distribution industry. But guess what Apple Computers decided to do? They got into the music distribution industry. That means that they broke their settlement and that Apple Records may bring suit again not only to show infringement on the name but also to show mischievous conduct doing so, as evident by the breach of settlement. The fact that there was a settlement is evidence that the last suit didn't bode well for Apple Computers, otherwise they would have just fought it in court. This time around it's even worse because Apple Computers decided to tread directly into Apple Records market despite their agreement. Apple Computers should have launched a spin-off company for iTunes/iPod and named it something different, but Apple Computers frankly ain't that bright.

Re:Um... (3, Interesting)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001930)

I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.

That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.

You Never Give Me Your Money (4, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001879)

You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
and in the middle of negotiations
you break down

I never give you my number
I only give you my situation
and in the middle of investigation
I break down

Baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man too.

Money (That's What They Want) (1)

chiskop (926270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002069)

Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Well now give me money
Ow, money
Wow, yeah, I wanna be free
Oh I want money
That's what I want
That's what I want, well

Now give me money
ow, money
Wow, yeah, you need money
now, give me money
That's what I want, yeah
that's what I want, yeah

Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (5, Insightful)

aidanjpadden (314134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001906)

What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?

I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?

Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?

As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?

Seeing as he's in financial trouble lately from what you hear with all the news reports maybe it would make commercial sense for Apple Corporation to buy the back catalogue from him, which I think would really wind up the existing Beatles.

Surely as a band they would want to make sure that their music is available to the largest possible userbase. The world has changed since 1960 and this would appear to be the way forward?

Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15001955)

What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?

They don't have to "do" anything, they hold an active trademark on the brand name "Apple."

I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?

Yes. They distributed music other than the Beatles.

Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?

Why should Apple Corp sell for less than they stand to be awarded at trial? Why should Apple Computers or Disney buy an ancient company with insignificant profits for hundreds of millions of dollars?

As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?

No, it would very likely be Sony.

Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001995)

How do you suggest that they will "buy them"? Apple Corps is a private company, and Apple Computer can't just buy them just like that. The owners of Apple Corps might say "Nope, we are not selling". Or they could demand 10 billion for their shares.

Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001998)

I think you're confusing the rights to the songs / compositions (mostly owned by Michael Jackson and Sony through their Sony ATV Music company) and the Beatles' recordings (owned by Apple Corps). Apple Corps is still an active record label, even if they only release Beatles stuff nowadays, and therefore want to protect there trademark as a record label, which they think Apple has infringed.

Money Grabbing Old Foggies (1)

Ed Almos (584864) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001917)

Last time I checked Sir Paul McCartney and the rest of Apple Music were not short of cash. Either they are doing this from some misguided principle or they're going crazy.

An an exercise think of the last album released on the Apple records label.

I'm waiting..............

Just what I thought. Apple records are no longer in the music business.

Ed Almos

itunes ipod mac's (0, Redundant)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15001941)

it's the itunes music service which deliver music to ipods
not the apple music service delivering to the apple pod.

in general references are made to mac's not even apple mac's

This law suit is bogus. hopefully apple corp will lose this one.

There is no confusion except possibly in the minds of aging exbeatles

Get the facts straight... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002002)

"Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."

Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.

i dont care much for the beatles but... (1)

Stanneh (775821) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002013)

How would you like it if this happened to you? its not how long ago the beatles secured apple and weather its really that important a brand anymore what matters is they own it thats the bottom line.

spin off itunes (2, Insightful)

rogueuk (245470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002014)

So I guess this would be another reason for Apple to spin off iTunes into their own company.

I would think Apple records would have a harder time suing iTunes Corporation

Apple Jacks cereal should sue too (2, Funny)

GrmpyOldPgmr (824319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002030)

They could get super-fly rich. First, sue Jobs and Apple. Then the people who invented the game Jacks. Or maybe that singer from the '70s, Terry Jacks. Uh oh, he's a Canadian so maybe that won't fly in court. OK, how about anyone famous with the name Jack. That's close enough for the purposes of suing. Jack Daniels, Jack Nicholson, Jack Palance (oops, he's dead), Jack Lemmon (is he dead?), and so on. You get the picture. I wish I had something to sue for so I could get rich too :(

Atlast (4, Funny)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002076)

.. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)

Beatles Suck (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002090)

The Beatles suck, they have always sucked, and they will always suck. This is just another reason to add to the list as to why they suck.

can't you just feel the need for greed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15002114)

So much for moral leadership. Sadly, this lack of integrity has become the norm among the growing ranks of the overly affluent. Both groups should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. This is just such a total waste of time and money. For the record, I wouldn't give either of these parties a dime.

Am I the only one who realizes... (4, Insightful)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002166)

That none of the the iPod or iTunes marketing material uses the trademark "Apple"! At most, they use their trademarked slick stylized fruit.

Go ahead, search for the word "Apple" on this page:
The fact is, the trademark they seem to be using for anything music related is a stylized fruit, along with the trademarks "iPod" and "iTunes". When have you ever heard a phrase like "the Apple iTunes store". It's just the iTunes store, it's just the iPod, and the posters just use a stylized fruit (sorry, there's no html entity I can insert for it.), which is Apple's trademark.

They can't help having a certain company name, which they don't use in their music business! Not because it wouldn't add value, but because (in music) it's not their trademark to use. They don't infringe. [wikipedia.org]
Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.

Dupe... (1)

DRM_is_Stupid (954094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15002167)

by Apple Corps this time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>