Beatles go away.

yeah seriously. when you buy a beatles album it says "Beatles 1" or whatever you are buying. Not Apple Corps. It's such poopy (poopy, poopy, poopy I say!) everyone knows the difference between Apple Computer and the Beatles. Most people don't even know who the Apple Corps. are.

Once you get all the cash, you get greedy and start squeezing out every dollar they can. This is proof.

Is a growing sham. They were so counterculture in the '60s, it's amazing to see how more than 30 years of aging can change personalities. I mean, if the surviving Beatles are going to be ÑŒber-commercial, then they should simply eschew their former idealism and do it unabashedly, like the shameless Rolling Stones (whose music I will continue to listen to, because they've never tried to hoodwink people into thinking they're deeper than just mere entertainment).

Perhaps we should all just work for free??? ... You've been around long enough that we don't think you should be paid or compensated any further???
The songs are their property (technically Sony's and Michael Jackson's). Apple Corp was established to protect their rights and property - and if you do bother to look you will see Apple Corp listed on their products.
If the courts decide that Apple Computers has violated their previous settlement with Apple Corp not to expand in to the music business then Apple Corp should be compensated accordingly.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Apple Corp was established to protect their rights and property...

And yet they're suing over the APPLE part of it...not the property part.

So I guess the word "Apple" IS part of their property. So you can't really say Apple Corp was established to protect their property when it is in fact actually their property...

...or something. I'm confused too.

The songs are not the property of Michael Jackson and Sony. They own the publishing only. The songs are owned by Apple (ie, The Beatles).

I came upon this not as a Mac user, but as a music fan. Boy, are you guys showing your bias! (Just as I am Beatles-biased.) But it really boils down to trademark law (Apple is a well-established music label and trademark for music, and was long before there was an Apple Computer or PCs, and contract law (a deal is a deal). Apple Corps. (which is the name of the company, not the trademark - Apple is the trademark) will win, the computer company will lose.

Maybe Steve should have come up with an original name. Would have saved him a lot of hassel.

Of course he should have refrained from selling crap computers too...

Apple owns the Beatles PERFORMANCE of the songs. Sony and Jackson own the publishing rights (or the songs).

Once you get all the cash, you get greedy and start squeezing out every dollar they can. This is proof.

And Apple Computers would NEVER do that! Yeah, right. Try and create a product and call it "i" something.

The Apple Records LOGO came first, many years before Steve and Steve used it. When they settled that dispute, Apple Computer agreed not to get into the music biz, but...

The Beatles were ripped off while they were together, they made money in later years.

If Lennon was still with us, how he'd love the internet.

Since this is a case of contractual laws, let us look at the agreement via the link below:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm

The agreement is: Beatles is given the right to use the Apple name wherever their songs are involved and on "any current or future creative works whose principal content is music." except "when certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use", Apple Computer is allowed to use its brand on "goods or services (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," as long as it was not on physical media such as a CD.

According to Apple Corps, the release of iTMS has violated that agreement.

IMHO, iTMS is merely a software service used to deliver content in digital form.

yea i know everyone knows who the beatles are and they have enough money to last them more than a lifetime!

I admit I am no lawyer (don't you wish lawyers spoke normally, instead of legalese?) but this section of the agreement seems to undermine Apple Corps argument:

"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

The above section seems to say:
1.) Both apples agree that computers (or other devices within the perview of Apple Computer) are capable of delivering content that is within the perview of Apple Corps (ie: music.)

2.) That Apple Computer can use their "marks" (ie:apple name and logos) to "REPRODUCE run play or otherwise deliver such content" (ie: music) as long as they do not use Apple Computer marks on PHYSICAL MEDIA that delivers pre-recorded content.


Isn't that an agreement that Apple Computer can use Apple Computer labled items - Macintosh computers, iPods, AND iTMS - since it avoids placing Apple Computer lables on any physical media which contains prerecorded music?

Like I said, I am not a lawyer. But the language of the 1991 agreement DOES seem to contain the acknowledgment that computers can be used to deliver music, and Apple Computer can use thie devices to deliver music as long as they stay away from delivering physical prerecorded media to do so.

BTW: I am a HUGE fan of the Beatles, and as far as I am concerned, they deserve every penny they have made - and will continue to make - off of their music.

Also, while I will most likely never use iTMS as a music source (I am too picky about my music quality) I would like to see Beatles available on iTMS.

And to those who think the Beatles are SOOOOO over and should just go away, why do they continue to sell albums at rates sometimes higher than current bands? There are a LOT of Beatles fans out there, and those fans are spread out among ALL age groups.