Beatles lose court battle against Apple.

DailyGeek

DailyGeek

DailyGeek

Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
4,789
Location
Arkham
BBC News link

Is it me or were the Beatles being a bit pathetic over this?

Now I'm far from being a beatles fan, but I had never even seen their Apple Corps logo before reading that story, so I'm doubting the impact itunes/ipod etc actually have on their business.
 
DailyGeek said:
Is it me or were the Beatles being a bit pathetic over this?
Click to expand...

no, it's not just you. fair play though, Apple are getting a fair bit of press recently
 
Common sense prevails for a change. Needless to say Apple Computers are much more well know than Apple Core Records and anyway I thought Michael Jackson owned all the Beatles copyrights.

As for the Beatles, I do not understand how they ever became so popular, crap tbh.
 
I was aware of the Apple Corps label, however.. It does make you wonder why the never stepped up earlier? :rolleyes:

I mean, they waited for 1,000,000,000 downloads and iTunes to hit the headlines before remembering?

"Where have I seen that apple logo before.... :confused: ....DOH!"
 
I'm a big fan of The Beatles and Apple Computers. I wanted Apple Computers to win, just for the sake of cheap and legal music downloads to stay possible which it has thanks to Apple.

I said to my Mum that it could come down to how Apple Computers are perceived to be involved in the music industry by the judge hearing the case. I said I reckoned it would come down to a simple choice: Are Apple Computers breaking the agreement by being involved in the music business, but only as a middleman between the artists/record labels and the buying public?

I thought that the only way Apple Computers could break the agreement with Apple Corp would be to set itself up as a record label and sign artists and release music that way. They haven't so they haven't broken the agreement.

From what I've read of the ruling this is what the judge has decided. Apple Computers aren't involved in the music business in a way that breaks their agreement with Apple Corp.

As for stopping Paul McCartney, well Apple Corp was setup by all four Beatles and so you would presume that McCartney, Starr and the widows/estates of Lennon and Harrison would have equal say in matters regarding Apple Corp so I doubt McCartney could have started this on his own, he'd need the support of at least 2 other Beatles (their interests I mean) preferably the support of Starr and Harrison's and Lennon's widows/estates.

Overall an interesting legal battle because I like listening to the Beatles and admire what Apple have done with the iPod and iTunes and their contribution to legal music downloads. I also am interested in computers and legal music selling so this case interests me very much. Plus it isn't often you get two identical fruits suing each other is it? The only other example I can think of is when an episode of the Simpsons insulted an American media company. That company decided to sue; unfortunately for the idiot who ran that company, he/she forgot the company was owned by Fox who own the Simpsons show.
 
@ AJUK

Michael Jackson owns the audio recordings, Lennon/McCartney still own the written scores.

I feel ashamed to say I can't remember... will dig out a book later :o
 
AJUK said:
As for the Beatles, I do not understand how they ever became so popular, crap tbh.
Click to expand...

well, there's a statement. they seem to have done ok for themselves considering how crap they were.
 
AJUK said:
Common sense prevails for a change. Needless to say Apple Computers are much more well know than Apple Core Records and anyway I thought Michael Jackson owned all the Beatles copyrights.

As for the Beatles, I do not understand how they ever became so popular, crap tbh.
Click to expand...
The legal battle wasn't about the Beatles music it was about the name "Apple" being confused. Apple Corp (Beatles) thought that people would confuse Apple Computers with their company.

The judge seems to have decided that people using iTunes to buy music are "pretty IT savvy", quoting a BBC correspondent, and so are quite likely to know that Apple Computers aren't the same Apple that looks after the Beatles' interest.
 
Sic said:
well, there's a statement. they seem to have done ok for themselves considering how crap they were.
Click to expand...
I know, which just adds to my confusion. :confused: ;)

MarcLister, thanks for clearing that up. ALthough I will confess that I have never heard of Apple Corp records until this case. Probably because I refuse to have any overated boy-band music in my collection. :p
 
I think its more to do that Apple said they wouldn't get involved in the music industry and signed a contract saying that (dunno how long ago that was) they broke that contract with the relese of iTunes.
they could have sorted this out with apple corps before they started iTunes and had everything nice, but they didn't, they shouldn't of been alowed to get away with this, they should have sorted it out to start with rather than waiting to see if apple corp let it go.
 
AJUK said:
I know, which just adds to my confusion. :confused: ;)

MarcLister, thanks for clearing that up. ALthough I will confess that I have never heard of Apple Corp records until this case. Probably because I refuse to have any overated boy-band music in my collection. :p
Click to expand...
Tut tut. Got most of their stuff.

I can't remember if I'd heard of Apple Corp before Apple Computers but I reckon in this high-tech age you'd have to be perhaps 35-40 years old to associate the words Apple and company with the Beatles one rather than the computer one. If someone asked me about Apple I'd think they meant the iPod, iMac, iTunes and iEverything not Love Me Do, Long and Winding Road and One After 909 Apple.
 
AJUK said:
As for the Beatles, I do not understand how they ever became so popular, crap tbh.
Click to expand...

You will be wanting to go back to the UK in 1960 and seeing that the UK music scene was still pretty much Jazz, Big Band, swing and somtimes some Frank Sinatra and Elvis coming over from America. The BBC was very stale and the majority of 'new' music from the US was played on Pirate Radio. There was no widespead popular music movement in the UK at the time, there was no 'black' music which was a huge influence on US rock and roll (The whiteman's R&B) the impact of the beatles at the time was pretty astounding for the British Youth of the time.
 
MarcLister said:
Tut tut. Got most of their stuff.

I can't remember if I'd heard of Apple Corp before Apple Computers but I reckon in this high-tech age you'd have to be perhaps 35-40 years old to associate the words Apple and company with the Beatles one rather than the computer one. If someone asked me about Apple I'd think they meant the iPod, iMac, iTunes and iEverything not Love Me Do, Long and Winding Road and One After 909 Apple.
Click to expand...
I'm 37 and the Beatles thing was well over by the time I got interested in music. :o
 
Sic said:
well, there's a statement. they seem to have done ok for themselves considering how crap they were.
Click to expand...

Wasnt impressed with them myself like, they are OK, but i dont see what the fuss was about with them.

It is pretty pathetic that they tried to do that IMO, but whatever floats your boat.
 
There is a lot more to this case than most people in this thread know.
To go through all of the points would take a couple of threads alone so it isn't worth going too deep.
However this is a case of Apple Computers potentially going back on an agreement from 1991.
Apple Corp have a good argument - I think the appeal will be very interesting.

As for the general comments on The Beatles in general.
You can either say you like or displike them however you cannot describe them as crap.
Considering thier music influenced nearly everything alound even today.
Their music is still instantly recogniseable even now.
Ask anybody to name a handful of Beatles tracks and they can, ask them to sing half of them and they can.
Just try that with people and bands from even 2-3 years ago.
The "music" from today will be forgotten after a few years.
A band that can have hits some 40 years ago and their music still as popular as ever really cannot be described as crap.

Oh and so as we can be fair - if you fancy telling us your music tastes so we can take the ****?
 
MarcLister said:
I wanted Apple Computers to win, just for the sake of cheap and legal music downloads to stay possible which it has thanks to Apple.
Click to expand...

Legal? Yes.

Cheap? No.

We are getting ripped off in the UK - 79p a track???!!! The rest of Europe pays more like 68p and the US and Canada more like 40 - 50p.
 
Jimbo Mahoney said:
Legal? Yes.

Cheap? No.

We are getting ripped off in the UK - 79p a track???!!! The rest of Europe pays more like 68p and the US and Canada more like 40 - 50p.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the industy as a whole and its future. Yes we have to pay more than the US and mainland Europe. I believe licencing reasons are to blame for that? It is the record companies insisting on that price here I think. Do let me know if I've got that wrong.

What I was trying to get across, poorly it seems, is that I think had Apple Computers lost today then the legal music download industry could have been in trouble since it has a lot to thank Apple Computers and iTunes to thank for having been so revolutionary.
 
So they're not selling music - they're transmitting data... ;)

Someone should try that on the RIAA and the MPAA

"I'm not downloading music/movies - I'm transmitting and receiving data..."

I was hoping that Apple Computers lost - but then again - I'm also for the French forcing iTunes open....

Simon/~Flibster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom