×

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!

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the ways-to-get-a-better-deal dept.

The Courts 176

Sometimes_Rational writes to mention Apple Inc. formerly (Apple Computer) has announced an agreement with The Beatles' company, Apple Corps Ltd. which settles the lawsuit brought by Apple Corps. Under the new agreement, "Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to 'Apple' and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The terms of settlement are confidential."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

176 comments

Only a moron in a hurry (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893058)

could get fp.

Amazing (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893060)

formerly (Apple Computer)
C'mon ScuttleMonkey...

Wow, a somewhat happy ending to a big lawsuit...too bad this doesn't happen more often.

Re:Amazing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893362)

I wouldn't call a corporate goliath with it's proverbial boot on all things "apple" a happy ending.

Re:Amazing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893488)

And I wouldn't call an apostrophe mangler with hi's proverbial illiteracy on all things possessive a happy ending either. But you still wrote IT IS up there. Why?

/Did you see what I did there? "His" is already possessive, so it doesn't need an apostrophe. Looks dumb, eh?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17895400)

Actually the idiot rambling on about an apostrophe looks pretty dumb in this situation. Take that how you may.

OMGOSH GRAMMAR!!

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894022)

I had to read it again because of that word. "Formally" and "formerly" aren't even close, completely inexcusable.

Re:Amazing (1)

Sometimes_Rational (866083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894158)

formerly (Apple Computer)

My bad. I did proofread my submission several times and even saw the error once but somehow neglected to correct it.

Damn my tired bloodshot eyes!

Money/stock changing hands? (1)

johndierks (784521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893122)

Anyone care to guess how much this settlement is worth?

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (1)

servo335 (853111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893154)

I think it's amusing they settled since the law suit was frivolous anyway. The Beatles music inst even owned by Apple and more..

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (2, Interesting)

Grech (106925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893282)

Easy. Goes like this:
"Give us the marks and shut up. In return, we will:
  1. Let you use the marks to which you are actually entitled
  2. Let you sell Beatles songs through iTMS

In the alternative, we can crush you in court and drain your bank accounts along the way. Additionally, you could then be sure that you'll never be paid for any Beatles track that travels by Internet."

The Beatles are 40 years old, and need iTMS much more than it needs them.

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893636)

You're living in fantasy land. True, Apple Corps has more to gain in name recognition by being associated with Apple Inc then visa-versa, but the case is a pretty straight forward trademark and contract dispute in which Corps' position is very strong. If the little guy can win against RIM, and RIM actually get an order to stop selling product, then Corp most certainly has the potential to win against Inc.

On top of that, Corp has virtually zero expenses and plenty of income due the still extremely valuable rights to that 40 year old music. It could fight a protracted legal battle with no danger whatsoever of being "crushed."

One more problem. Apple Inc fans are plentiful, but fans of the Beatles are far more plentiful and even far more emotional about the product. Apple Inc could end up looking like a real shit in a lot of people's eyes for picking on the Beatles. Think Different can not compare with Give Peace a Chance and Imagine. Pride does not trump love.

TW

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (2, Insightful)

lurker4hire (449306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893846)

Trademark != Patent

The law, the tests required to prove a claim and just about everything about these two types of "intellectual property" are completely different, please stop confusing the two. Just because RIM eventually learnt the hard way that the system is so broken that it's better to just pay the patent trolls doesn't mean the result of the trademark dispute between Apple Corp vs Apple Inc was in any way a forgone conclusion.

Just because they can fight, doesn't mean they want to, they'd much prefer to sell increased volume of that extremely valuable 40 year old music. Copyrighted music actually... speaking of which copyrights actually expire eventually just about everywhere except the USA, so there is a certain expiry date on that value they need to start cashing in on it now.

As far as Apple vs. Beatles fans... well, sure I like the Beatles and all, but really, nothing is forever, and if Apple Corp can't market their product to the young'uns (and how likely are they to go to a store to buy their parents, nay grandparent's, music?) their future is pretty predictable.

l4h

not by The Beatles (1)

Doc Ri (900300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894232)

Think Different can not compare with Give Peace a Chance and Imagine.
Your choice of songs to make your point is a bit unfortunate. These two are not by The Beatles but by John Lennon, after The Beatles split up. I'd say Think Different can not compare to Helter Skelter.

Re:not by The Beatles (4, Informative)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894412)

"Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine" are not by the Beatles--but they are Apple Records productions. Apple Records does John Lennon's solo work, too.

It's a tennis game. (5, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893820)

This is one of many lawsuits that have been happening since the 80's (remember the Apple IIgs?). It's just a balance of power. In the early days, the Beatles thought that they were bigger than Jesus, and so they sued a little computer company. Now, that little computer company is bigger than the Beatles, and Jesus has an iPod.

Re:It's a tennis game. (5, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894902)

This isn't really a fair characterization of the "battle". Apple Corps existed long before Apple Computers. Apple Corps quite fairly wanted to make sure that this new computer company wasn't going to diminish the value of their name, and that they weren't going to try to compete in the same market (you only get those trademarks as long as you are willing to defend them). back in '80 ot whatever, they came to an agreement that Apple Inc would stay out of the music business. Well, technology marches on and by the end of the 80's computers are beginning inroads into the music industry. Apple Corps feels that Apple Inc is starting to encroach on their area of business, and the two again end up in court. The case is settled, with Apple Inc again agreeing they won't go into the content creation or distribution aspect of the music business. Then along comes iTunes, which is pretty clearly associated with selling music, if not exactly distributing it in the industry Label sense. Now, Apple Corps (from what I have read) had no objection whatsoever to iTunes; what they objected to was it being branded as Apple iTunes. iTunes is and was clearly associated with the music industry, and Apple Corps had a long-standing trademark on the Apple name within that industry. Unfortunately for Apple Corps, a judge decided that since iTunes isn't distributing music in the traditional sense (i.e., they don't sign artists to contracts for sole distribution of music) they aren't infringing the Apple trademark.

This isn't about one company throwing their weight around, nor is it about Apple Corps getting what's coming to them. It is just a story of one company that owns a trademark becoming alarmed that another company seemed to be moving into their area of business while using essentially the same trademarked name. The newer company argued (apparently successfully) that they were not in fact violating the trademark, but they were apparently worried enough about it to purchase the trademark from Apple Corps, and license it back to them at some unknown rate (I'd guess they aren't charging anything - maybe an exclusive deal to release Apple Corps' collection on iTunes).

As for all those that think the Apple Corps label has little value today... according to the Billboard Top 200 [billboard.com], a brand new release from Apple Corps is currently at number 22, down from a peak of #4 (not to mention the 6 Beatles albums that have sold 10 million units or more). This is still an extremely valuable library, and I'm sure Apple Inc is eager to try and put a deal together to distribute their music through iTunes now that all the trademark stuff is finally over.

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893550)

It's not just the money. But they're going to wait a few weeks before announcing that Steve Jobs is on the Apple Corp. board.

Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893890)

Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?
If so, he is doing a very lousy job since he is on the board of directors of exactly two companies: Disney and Apple. He is the CEO of Apple and the largest shareholder in Disney (because of the Pixar buyout). He is not, for example, on the board of Viacom or Time Warner or Sony.

Re:Money/stock changing hands? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894900)

It's priceless to Apple Inc. The Beatles and Apple Corp. will never be a threat again. The iTunes Store will stay open--though its European branches aren't exactly out of the woods yet.

Beatles on iTunes? (5, Interesting)

georgewad (154339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893130)

Certainly adds fuel to the rumors of the Beatles catalogue (sic) showing up on ITMS.

It just goes to show that.... (3, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893166)

.... All you need is love.

the love you take... (3, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893534)

is equal to the love you make.

oops, buy.

oops, negotiate through intermediaries.

the music gets stale after 40 years, i guess.

Farmers beware! (3, Funny)

Bwana Geek (1033040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893168)

In other news, the Apple Growers Association of America has recently come under fire...

Re:Farmers beware! (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893942)

And, watch out Apple Martin - If you even think of chosing the same career as your father...

Beatles on iTMS? (4, Interesting)

necro81 (917438) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893200)

A big hint was dropped during Jobs' keynote address when he played the Beatles on the iPhone. Everything about those presentations is scripted, certainly the addition of Beatles music was no accident. This latest deal might mean that one of the last barriers between the Beatles vast music collection and the iTunes Music Store has been cleared. Whether the Beatles still resist online distribution (through anyone) remains to be seen. They were a late adopter of CDs. Their music, their prerogative.

Re:Beatles on iTMS? (5, Funny)

cybereal (621599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893360)

According to http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] they haven't resisted everyone.

Re:Beatles on iTMS? (2, Informative)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893980)

By, "their music," you mean "Michael Jackson and Sony's [slashdot.org] music," right?

Actually, I'm bit confused on the whole "Apple Records" vs. "Sony/Michael Jackson" thing and what the difference is between "ownership" and "publishing rights" for music. Anyone want to clear this up?

"ownership" & "publishing rights" (5, Informative)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894160)

Okay. The Beatles catalog is in Northernsongs, which is de facto owned by Sony unless Michael Jackson starts getting some financial sense. (The financial advice he took from Paul appears to be the last sound financial advice he ever took.) Apple Corp. does own something valuable, though--the Beatles recordings.
To put it another way: if you wanted to record a cover of a Beatles song, or play one in public, you would need to contact Sony, Northernsongs division. If you wanted to use an actual Beatles recording--that is, one actually made by the Beatles--then you would need to contact Apple Corp.

Re:Beatles on iTMS? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894180)

Actually, I'm bit confused on the whole "Apple Records" vs. "Sony/Michael Jackson" thing and what the difference is between "ownership" and "publishing rights" for music. Anyone want to clear this up?

All I can tell you about the first part is that Michael Jackson is an Alien who has been altering his appearance to look more like his true self over time. But the latter part is that you can license your rights to your intellectual property to allow other people to distribute it. The GPL is an example of one such license, but that's not the kind used here. Still, it puts you on the right track.

Re:Beatles on iTMS? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895466)

George Martin remastered the Beatles' back catalog and released the first batch in 1987, that's hardly a "late adopter." The world didn't really get their hands on CDs until 1983-ish.

Dispute settled a while ago? (4, Interesting)

kupekhaize (220804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893202)

One thing a lot of people seemed to have missed is that the official John Lennon bus now has an Apple logo on the front side (and has for at least a few weeks if not more):

http://www.jlsc.com/bus/ [jlsc.com]

Image is about halfway down the page.

I wonder what exactly the terms of this settlement were? :)

Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (4, Informative)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893402)

I don't think that's related.

Apple is a sponsor of the John Lennon songwriting competition and have provided some of the prizes. Seems to me like this predates the current trademark agreement, and Apple Records is not involved with this bus as far as I can tell.

Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893444)

One other thing I seem to have missed is the fact that there is such a thing as "The John Lennon Bus."

If I ever get assassinated by a crazed fan I'll be lucky to get a pair of rusty skates named after me.

Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894728)

you should see the STEPHEN KING SHOT JOHN LENNON van. Used to see it around Santa Cruz a lot, wonder what ever happened to that guy. I heard he got in trouble for stalking S.King once when he came to Santa Cruz to do a book signing. King also almost ran over a friend of a friend on his motorcycle. Seems he doesn't understand how crosswalks work in California...

Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (1)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893598)

You're referring to the tour bus sponsored by Apple for roughly 3 years and sporting copies of Apple's Pro hardware and software line including Logic and Final Cut Pro?

It does seem that the logo only appeared on the front of the bus in late 2006.

But since Apple has always been one of their top three sponsors, it could just be that one of the other sponsors dropped out.

Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893666)

No, this is related to the settlement. John Lennon's solo work is on Apple Records. If Apple Inc. got to advertise openly on the Lennon bus, then the battle was over then...

Rumors were off by a day (2, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893204)

There were rumors [insidemacgames.com] going around that Apple would be announcing that the Beatles catalog would be available on iTunes during a Super Bowl commercial. Clearly that did not come to pass. I wonder if this was the root of that rumor, or just a coincidence. Supposedly, Apple WILL be having a special announcement coming up on Feb. 20th.

Crab apple. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893206)

What this means is that although Apple Corps is older, although Apple Inc. violated the terms of the original settlement by pushing first multimedia and then music, and although Apple Inc. has all the sensitivity of a Bavarian weevil on speed, it is Apple Inc. that wins the court case. Presumably on the grounds that even if they'd lost, they'd not have done anything any different.

Mind you, I'm not exactly impressed by Apple Corps attitude or behaviour in all of this. Or, indeed, in any of their business conduct. Nonetheless, the fact remains that if a trademark is to have meaning, legalized theft of that trademark is not acceptable.

Re:Crab apple. (0, Flamebait)

tribentwrks (807384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893310)

legalized theft of that trademark is not acceptable

legalized theft ... isn't that just called commerce?

settlement, not court case (4, Informative)

mbaudis (585035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893412)

they settled the lawsuit, which means mutual benefit. no court decision. and no complaining about apple inc. lawyers - and they lost last tiome anyway.

Wrong! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893498)

"although Apple Inc. violated the terms of the original settlement by pushing first multimedia and then music"

The British judge in the Apple Corps vs Apple Computer case found that Apple Computer DID NOT violate the terms of the 1991 agreement.

The judge found that the computer company did not enter into the music business - they merely provided a vehicle to DISTRIBUTE music, not make it.

The Apple Corps lawyers should have been more careful in drafting the words of the agreement.

Re:Wrong! (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894204)

You are aware that distributing music is one of the key functions of a record label, so long as record labels exist?
Apple Inc. was able to get away with distributing music under the Apple name only because the medium it is using is not physical...

Re:Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894478)

That's like calling Tower Records, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart music labels because they sell music. It doesn't matter what medium the music is sold in, the function of a store (like iTunes Music Store) is completely different from the function of a music label (such as Apple Corps).

What about... (1)

Don't Click Here (1036124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893234)

...The Osmonds "One Bad Apple"? Fiona Apple? The "Big Apple"? Do they need to cut a deal as well?

Re:What about... (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893490)

...The Osmonds "One Bad Apple"? Fiona Apple? The "Big Apple"? Do they need to cut a deal as well?
If they decide to market music under the name "Apple," then I would say yes.

Sounds familiar... (4, Interesting)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893244)

This whole lawsuit reminds me of the battle between American Budweiser vs. the Czech brewer Budvar. Fortunately, and rightfully so, the European courts upheld precedent in trademark name on behalf of Budvar. I may be American, but I am a proud Czech first. Stick it to "the man". That's my motto, and I proudly raise my Budvar to it.

Re:Sounds familiar... (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894000)

If only they'd been able to get an injuction against selling crappy beer in the US, I'd call it a win all around.

Re:Sounds familiar... (1)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894046)

Not to mention the fact that Budvar doesn't taste like watered down horse urine, and the fact that it's actually a beer. As in made with barley and not rice, unlike the "King of Beers"

Bob

Re:Sounds familiar... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894264)

The US brewery grabbed the trademark much earlier but Budvar has the advantage of being located in Budweis. I suppose it comes down whether you believe in first-come-first-serve or more-legitimate-interest-prevails (see also domain squatters).

Re:Sounds familiar... (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895366)

That's a bit of a coincidence - I tried that beer just last night! I liked it a lot and so did my wife. I'll be keeping an eye out for Budvar in future.

In contrast, I can't get the hang of most US beers, and if I'm going for imported beer, I'll always look to Europe first.

(I'm in Australia by the way)

ITMS (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893332)

If you're even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, wouldn't you already have all the Beatles music you need. Are there going to be people actually seeking out Beatles songs on iTunes?

Re:ITMS (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893600)

If you're even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, wouldn't you already have all the Beatles music you need. Are there going to be people actually seeking out Beatles songs on iTunes?

There will be, yes. Me for one. I'm not even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, I'm no form of Beatles fan at all. I like a few tracks that I've heard and that's that. I am, however, pretty curious and might well sample the off track of various albums. I'm not suddenly going to start buying the full collection, and I'd rather get individual tracks than full albums. I'm 35 - the Beatles never happened for me. I always new of them and there'll be many on here younger than me who know their music better, but that's because you actively sort it out. You didn't casually sample it, like I probably would if it appeared online.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:ITMS (4, Interesting)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894522)

It's a funny thing, I always used to assume that I'd be an Elvis man, not a Beatles man, you know, the same way that I'm a Kirk man, not a Picard man, and so on. There are some questions that you are on one side, not the other.

And then, thanks to my ipod, I tried listening to Elvis properly, and found to my surprise that I didn't like him that much.

So, logically, I must like the Beatles... and when I listened to them properly, it turns out I do!

One of the interesting things about listening to them properly, is that your first thought is "this sounds so modern" and then your second thought is "ah, because everyone in the world has ripped them off!"

Re:ITMS (1)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894844)

I'd start with their album "1". It has pretty much every song you've probably heard.

If you want to go a little deeper and check out original albums, I'd start with "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

"Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" should probably be picked up as well, and together.

IMHO, those four albums are the essentials that any music fan should have in their collection.

After that I'd pick and choose. You prefer their early pop sound? Check out "Help!" or "Hard Days Night". You dig the later, more complex stuff? "Abbey Road" or the white album "The Beatles".

"Love" has received pretty good reviews but I haven't heard it yet myself. It's basically an eclectic mix that has been remaster and reedited to serve as the soundtrack to a Cirque du Solei show. If you're interested, pick it up after "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver".

Re:ITMS (1)

sg3000 (87992) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895416)

> the Beatles never happened for me

Agreed. I like a lot of music from that era, but The Beatles never clicked for me. I have about a dozen of their songs, but the only full CD I bought was Sgt. Peppers. It has a many good songs, but it's got some duds in my opinion (Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, specifically).

On the other hand, I really like the song "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," so being able to buy a few Beatles songs makes sense.

Re:ITMS (2, Insightful)

Dashcolon (946284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893760)

They're a band that has fans spanning a few generations, and this span keeps getting larger. I'm only 21 and, naturally, missed Beatlemania, but in time I discovered them, and came to deeply love a few of their albums. I'm sure that this independent discovery is common with music fans since the Beatles broke up. Maybe appreciation for them will become a little more rare once they all die off. (Note that I am not trying to curse the last remaining two - live long, Paul and Ringo!)

That would be me. (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893940)

I'm a Beatles fan from back in the 60s.
The burglars got surprised and left my house with CDs "A" thru "D", so no more Beatles CDs, save for Abbey Road that was in the car at the time.
The files from the net were mostly badly done.
I'll be getting these on iTunes.
(I wish I had all the original 45s we would buy weekly at the old 5&10, the proceeds from those would likely pay for the entire repertoire.)

Re:ITMS (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894798)

If you're even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, wouldn't you already have all the Beatles music you need. Are there going to be people actually seeking out Beatles songs on iTunes?

Having the Beatles on iTunes is so they can sell to the under 30 crowd who don't want any music they can't download. These people don't buy CDs. They don't have a problem with paying to download though. There is no way right now to sell any Beatles songs to these people, leaving them no choice but to turn to P2P networks to get it for free. Apple Corp. knows they are missing out on a lot of sales to this market segment, so that's why they're going to iTunes.

Bring on the remasters (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893356)

I'm just glad it's over, regardless of which side came out on top. Maybe now I'll see a digitally remastered Beatles catalog appear, like, before I die. And not on iTMS, but on SACD or some equivalent.

Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (3, Funny)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893396)

I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.

Re:Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893978)

Well, Sir Paul got himself into this. This time, I believe he chose it freely.
He isn't as affected by this as the others. They have their solo work on the Apple label as well as the joint Beatles work; his solo work is on another label, MPL--his own.
I think Paul did help push this settlement through. Paul has actually used Apple Inc. products in his work. And I did notice Steve Jobs on Paul's last tour DVD. [sardonic grin]
When Apple Corp. interests (anything Beatles) and MPL interests (anything Paul) intersect--watch out!

Hey! An excuse to make Heater Mills jokes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894026)

I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.

Don't underestimate Sir Paul's violent temper when pressed. If his last relationship is any indication, he'd leave them without a leg to stand on.

Try the veal.

Typical Monopoly behavior (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893458)

Apple's move into the music business was a blatant violation of their agreement with Apple Corps, but as Jobs has shown time and time again, they are more than happy to play it fast and loose with other people's intellectual properties. Steal now, settle out of court later (after running up millions in legal fees which would crush a smaller company, of course).

We can give all this long history of bad behavior a pass, however, since Apple has held the "Slashdot Most Favored Monopoly Status" for over a decade already. It's a good thing we granted that status, otherwise we might look like hypocrites when our anti-MS FUD applies just as equallly to Apple.

Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893686)

Apple has held the "Slashdot Most Favored Monopoly Status" for over a decade already
A decade!? Where was apple a decade ago? Oh yeah, not doing so terribly well with such hot selling products as the newton [apple-history.com], the emate [apple-history.com], and the 20th Anniversary Mac [apple-history.com]. Doesn't seem like much of a monopoly to me.

Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (1)

Conception (212279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893948)

The difference of course being that Apple makes a good product... these days at least... and after the first revision...

Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (3, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893960)

Apple's move into the music business was a blatant violation of their agreement with Apple Corps
The judge in the case disagrees with you. You are not a judge. You lose.

This seems odd (1)

dctoastman (995251) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893512)

Looks like Apple Corps. got the short end of the stick on this one. Apple, Inc. got ownership of all trademarks in regard to the Apple name and will license them back to the company that used it first.

I hope that Apple Corps. isn't paying for those licenses. I mean even if Apple, Inc. paid money to Apple Corps. in settlement, Apple, Inc. will just collect it all back in license fees later. And I doubt that Apple Corps. paid money to Apple, Inc..

Re:This seems odd (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893964)

Corp. agreed to this. Something tells me Apple Inc said "listen you agree to give us your trademark, and we will not only protect it with OUR lawyers (thus costing Apple corps nothing) BUT throw in all the help mastering your albums for the iTunes Music Store for free AND let you use the name without having to pay us"

I strongly suspect thats how it goes, especially since Jobs was the one who inked out the deal and released the press announcment. Jobs is A HUGE Beatles fan.

Re:This seems odd (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894122)

It appears the deal they made was at least more attractive than further/ongoing litigation. They probably got the short end of a stick bigger than any stick they had ever seen before.

Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17893658)

My spellchecker suggests the names Apple Ink and Apple Corpse.

I figured out step 3! (2, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 7 years ago | (#17893730)

1. Use company's name
2. Get sued
3. Agree to sell their own name back to them
4. Profit!

Formerly known as.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894004)

When will the day come that we refer to Apple or Apple Computer as the company formerly known as Apple? They'll just be a symbolic apple, like the musician formerly known as Prince.

And what will Steve Jobs choose as his next moniker?

Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (4, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894100)

Honestly, I don't understand what this is all about. Why are people making such a big deal about the Beatles being available on iTunes? Has everyone suddenly forgotten about this thing called a compact disc? You just pop it in your CD-ROM drive, run CDex to convert the audio files to MP3, then move the files over to your MP3 player! I've done it! It's not so hard! I actually slammed some knucklehead on Engadget who said that he downloaded the Beatles' songs illegally because he couldn't download them legally! WTF? Is this what we've reduced ourselves to? Are physical discs now completely taboo?

Ordering music online? I buy music online that's not on iTunes lots of times! It's called a "compact disc"! Sure, it takes a few days for it to arrive, but when it gets here I can do whatever I want with it, including rip it to MP3 and put it on my MP3 player.

I know, I know. iTunes gives you the ability to download individual songs as well at whole albums. Well, I'm a big Beatles fan and probably 90% of their most popular songs are on the "1962-1966 (Red Album)" and "1967-1970 (Blue Album)" CD sets.

But even if you wanted songs that are not on those two sets, in total we're talking about 13 original albums that were produced. Sure, that would cost a bit of money to buy brand-new CDs online or at brick-and-mortar stores, but what about discount stores? What about used CD stores? What about eBay, for crying out loud? You can get all of the Beatles CDs (used) for probably less than what iTunes will charge, and you'll at least have a physical, DRM-free CD in your hands! Yes, there are certain things where "instant gratification" is required, like insulin to a diabetic. But music is NOT an "instant gratification" requirement to survive! Is it really that hard to wait a few days for a CD to be shipped?

Come on, people! Just because music isn't available on iTunes doesn't mean that it's not available at all! It's absolutely staggering to see that there are actually people out there who refuse to buy a physical disc anymore, and even more staggering to see people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available. Don't you think this whole iTunes thing is being taken a bit too far?

No, this isn't flamebait, damn it, but it is certainly a question of the degradation of patience in this society when we can't wait a few days for a 5-inch piece of reflective plastic to arrive in the mail and we can't look in the phone book for used CD stores in the area.

Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894256)

Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them any more. It's a waste of money and materials. It's also cheaper (usually) to buy my tunes at the Apple store because I don't have to pay for all that extra packaging and distribution (and who knows what else).

As for only using the Apple store, I'm on a Mac. I have yet to find another service that offers me both a broad choice of music genres and works with Macs. If you happen to know of one please point it out.

Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894550)

Sorry, but I just can't buy (no pun intended) the argument about waste of money and materials. It's only a waste of money and materials for the time that you think that you don't need it. If something happens to your data and you have no immediate way to get your songs back from iTunes, a CD that you tucked away in a closet would be the perfect solution.

I understand that jewel cases can be bulky and a waste of space, so why not take the CD and put in a paper sleeve. The CD would then take up - what? - 1/8" of space? You could then put it in a shoebox somewhere!

Honestly, that excuse just doesn't fly. I have over 500 CDs. They're all on two CD racks of about four shelves each rack in the corner of my basement. They're completely out of the way. If I need the disc for some reason, I just run downstairs. If space becomes an issue, I'll just buy a few of those CD binders and put them on a bookshelf.

And I can still have all of my music DRM-free on my file server.

I'm not saying that your way is wrong. If that's the way you want to do it, fine. I just can't understand for the life of me why anyone would want so badly to avoid a very thin piece of plastic and rely solely on a digital medium that is stored on a mechanical medium that will -- not might -- eventually break with no method of recovery except to once again rely on another mechanical medium that will -- not might -- eventually break.

Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895036)

I have no trouble backing up an entire drive on a regular basis, so I'm not the least bit worried about drive failure or whatever. All your CDs might melt in a fire too.

I am just not into collecting CDs, and apparently millions of people feel the same way I do.

iTunes != Unlimited playability (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895394)

My CDs can be used on every Windows/Mac/Linux/Solaris box and CD player in my house, my car, or at work with no loss in audio quality and no restrictions on how many pieces of hardware it's played on. Can you say the same for your iTunes downloads?

(Not trying to be a prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate at this point.)

The benefit of commercial CDs (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894588)

"Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them anymore."
CDs make excellent backups. Buy a CD of the music, and you (probably) have a full-quality backup for the music in your computer, complete with meta-data. You won't have to burn a backup CD, and you don't have to worry about the transfer limits.

Re:The benefit of commercial CDs (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894874)

Original CDs make lousy backups; they don't hold enough data, they're too expensive, too wasteful, and they take up too much space. I would much rather back up the entire hard drive.

Re:The benefit of commercial CDs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895256)

They don't hold enough data?!
Does iTunes sell lossless iTunes trax?
I'm reasonably sure that there is more data in the vs. of a song on an average commercial CD than there is in the average Fairplay-AAC iTunes sells. You don't get much better, digitally, than CD quality, and so you don't get problems with recompression.
Does the spare harddrive fall under iTunes's 5-computer limit, or is it free?

buying and buying and buying (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894460)

What I dont get is how people can still accept the notion of "buying music" over and over again. Back in the day, when it came on vinyl or whatever, it was easy to see the tradeoff: if you dont take care fo your shit it gets worn out, scratched, warped or otherwise screwed up and you gotta replace it. Without going into detailed analysis of my past collections I can recall at least three purchases of Sgt. Pepper's (two vinyl and one on 8 track), two purchases of the red and blue collections (LP and 8 track) and that's just the Beatles stuff - I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I have bought some Alice Cooper releases like "Killer" and "Easy Action" (LP, 8 track, CD, cassette... how many of each?)

My Son in law has gigabytes of shit he bought through napster. In return for his troubles he has to keep track of licenses and, if he wants to transport them, convert each one to an MP3 file.

Well, I ain't buying either of'em. Not again.

Re:buying and buying and buying (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894704)

I do understand where you're going with that. I've done the same thing. I have some CDs that were the fourth iteration of that album, having been preceeded by 8-track, cassette, and LP. But with CD it's not nearly as much of an issue. Vinyl gets worn every time you run the needle over it. That's unavoidable. Tape loses its signal quality every time you play it. That's unavoidable.

But with CDs, just rip a high-quality set of MP3s/OGGs/AACs or whatever, then tuck the original away in a cool area where you won't be bothered by it. Then use a backup CD for the car or wherever. If something happens to that backup CD, burn another copy from your MP3s/OGGs/AACs or whatever. All of the CDs in my car are copies of my legally-owned CDs. They're also ripped to my hard drive as 240-320 VBR MP3s. If anything happens to the copies in my car, I burn another one from the MP3s. If anything happens to my hard drive, I can get the original CD from the CD rack in the basement and create new MP3s.

Until something completely replaces CD, which I don't see happening any time soon, a CD purchase that you make today should last a hell of a long time.

Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (1)

Genevish (93570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894668)

What's staggering is that you are so staggered by this. I don't like CD's (nor did I like vinyl albums when they were the thing), and given there is such a convenient, simple and cost effective solution in the form of the iTunes store, I no longer buy CD's. Haven't bought one in years. I suppose if I were a truly die-hard Beatle fan I would buy the CD, but I'm not, so I won't. I'll probably buy a few tracks from the iTunes store when they're available though.

And as for "people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available", remember the Beatles music isn't available from any online store.

Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894952)

Not available from any online store? I beg to differ.

http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-3241028-37140 34?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=Beatl es&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go [amazon.com]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharse t=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=Beatles&sc= artistSP&cp=1&sp=&qp=ccat02001%23%23-1%23%23-1~~q4 26561746c6573~~nf47%7C%7C426561746c657320285468652 9&list=y&usc=%A0-Artist&nrp=15&iht=n [bestbuy.com]

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/B eatles/a/Beatles.htm [cduniverse.com]

Yes, yes, I know. You hate CDs. But the notion that Beatles music is not available at any online store is a misnomer. And I guess that we're just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to our definitions of "a convenient, simple and cost effective solution". :)

McCartney being prudent? (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894190)

I reckon he pushed for a settlement on the basis he'll be needing some cash for his divorce. He wants to count himself lucky- In the olden days, when you got robbed by a monopod, often as not it was Davy Jones's locker next....

Negotiations went like this... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894262)

The Beatles: "You Never give Me Your Money"
Steve Jobs: "We Can Work it Out."
Beatles: "Don't Let Me Down"
Jobs: "It Won't Be Long"
Beatles: "Money, That's What I Want"
Jobs: "Come and Get It"
Beatles: "I Feel Fine"

Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (5, Interesting)

TedTodorov (121485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17894482)

This is potentially huge, as Apple inc. now seems to own the trademark and will license it back to Apple Corps Ltd. Unless I am missing something, this means that Apple can sign bands directly, cutting out the record companies which collect 69 cents on every iTunes dollar.

As online music sales surpass physical media, this has the potential of allowing Apple to take over the record industry. I doubt they want to, but it gives them a great deal of opportunity to expand their iTunes business.

YUOj FAIL IT... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894552)

duty to be a big BSDI is also dead, project returns iT there. Bring rival distribution, so that you don't can connect to of various BSD

How the Conversation Went: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17894950)

Apple Computer: "I wanna hold your hand"
Apple Corps: "Please please me!"
Comp: "Can't buy me love"
Corps: "Money (That's what I want)"
Comp: "Got to get you into my life!"
Corps: "Tell me why?"
Comp: "I want to tell you!"
Corps: "Baby You're a Rich Man!"
Comp: "Act Naturally!"
Corps: "That'll be the Day!"

and finally, years later...

Inc: "Love me do?"
Corps: "Don't let me down"
Inc: "Yes it is?"
Corps: "I will"
Inc: "The End!"

With thanks to http://www.stevesbeatles.com/songs/ [stevesbeatles.com]

The Beatles (3, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17895064)

Some background info - the 'Beatles' was a band popular in the late Pleistocene epoch. It featured four musicians who used to work in a semiconductor plant (hence their nickname 'Fab Four'). One of them is that guy who's getting divorced. No, not him - the other one. They formed a distribution company called Apple which owned their music before Michael Jackson bought it. Apple was suing Apple over the name Apple (or maybe Marklar), but Apple has settled with Apple and is now free to use Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...