digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Beatles lose Apple court battle!

news.bbc.co.uk — The Beatles have lost their court battle with Apple Computer over its iTunes download service.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • scratt, on 10/12/2007, -119/+39Sweet! Thank god someone saw sense! Good on the Judge in this one I say, and screw Paul McCartney. Next step, take his knighthood away...
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -31/+61maybe we should take your knighthood... oh, sorry you don't have one
    • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -14/+55Let me assure you, this isn't the craziest law suit I have heard of.

      I say, good work for trying.

      Btw, it wasn't "The Beatles" that took Apple to court.
    • acusticthoughts, on 10/12/2007, -36/+14I don't know about this one....there is one key part which I think should have been brought up. The fact that Apple allows private musicians to sell their product without a label through their iTMS. If I, bad ass bassist, decide to release my product (bad ass bassist CD) through a gorup to get the best distribution possible I go to a label (iTMS?) and release my music to the world.

      Though I am happle that Apple Computers won because I happen to be anti copyright of a lotta things...I think that potentially the English Apple folks had a point...maybe they didn't articulate it all that well though. Cheap lawyers...
    • digid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't directly deal with independent musicians. If you try and sign up as an independent musician they will refer you to CDBABY or the like and go through them to get your music on itunes.
    • picklepete, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7 >Btw, it wasn't "The Beatles" that took Apple to court.

      Are you sure?

      "Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison took Apple Computer to court."
    • aniseed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27I think it was Apple music, company founded to manage Beatles-music and film, that sued Apple computers.
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26"I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't directly deal with independent musicians. If you try and sign up as an independent musician they will refer you to CDBABY or the like and go through them to get your music on itunes."

      You are indeed correct. I have no label and applied to iTMS and was directed to one of many services, like CDBABY, that have agreements in place with iTunes (and other music stores) and will distribute on behalf of the artist.

      They will not deal with individuals as it is too much of a minefield (and probably cos they didn't want to breach the Apple Corp deal).
    • doctornakul, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8I think it was Michael Jackson that took Apple to court.
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Beatles lose Apple court battle" People have said it wasn't the Beatles who sued Apple. I take those peolpe don't know who owns 'apple corps'. Sure if John Lennon or Harrison were around they might have talked Paul and Ringo and their own wives out of this thing, but they're not and the remaining people own apple corps. I like their music, but I think it might be true what they say: "the more you have the more greedy you become" Give it a rest lads, and for God's sake put your tunes on iTunes ;)
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Isn't it Michal Jackson who owns Apple Music? I'm fairly certain he outbid Paul McCartney for the rights to their music...
  • Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13I wonder if Beatles music will now appear on iTMS or if they (the Beatles) will snub them in a sulk?
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Actually Apple is already in the works of remastering The Beatles collection and it's soon to be offered for download.

      http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/13/technology/beatles.reut/?cnn=yes
    • bubbagump, on 10/12/2007, -45/+15Its an excellent point...while I think that most of the beatles music is 'hack' work (flame suit on), with exceptions. The only time I like listening to it is while recovering from a night of heavy drinking.

      That siad, any kind of 'retaliation' by either ceasing the sales, or by refusing rights to sell is a self-destructive move. As long as the money for the license changes hands, then it is in the best interest of both companies to keep it available. A sale is a sale...revenue is revenue.

      It is this kind of bickering that ultimately is bad for us...the consumers.
    • DrEbola, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18Nobody cares about your connoisseur opinion on the Beatles' music. There are people who have a much more educated perspective on popular music than we do that think they were incredible--and, yes, they've heard of Dream Theater and Jethro Tull and Led Zeppelin and.......

      Besides, that's not even what the article's about and I doubt the actually remaining members of the Beatles really give a ***** about Apple Computer.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16"...while I think that most of the Beatles music is 'hack' work (flame suit on), with exceptions."

      Dude, I got news for you.....had the Beatles never existed the music you listen to now would not be what it is.

      The Beatles created possibly the greatest influence-waves in music history which continues to ripple through the music industry to this day - be thankful, even if you don't like them.
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7"Dude, I got news for you.....had the Beatles never existed the music you listen to now would not be what it is."

      I think you mean Elvis. "Beatlemania" was just a large number of teens looking for idols. It's no worse than everyones obsession with 50cent or Tupac

      Hell, i'm willing to bet the backstreet boys HAD more fans than the beatles, just because of population difference between our times! So long story short: The Beatles did NOT revolutionize music as you claim, just popularized the revolution.
    • dizm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Right, well since the Beatles are responsible for all the music that's around today, that means that they were one of the worst things to happen to music. The majority of music today sucks.

      Elivs and the Beatles brought about the rock star culture. Ever since they became rich and famous, it is now the goal of every group with their guitar, drums and bass setup to be rich and famous as well. Before them, music was something done by musicians that were trying to create great music not get rich. These days it's all about "hits" and "making it big" and guitar, bass, and drums. I wish it would all go away.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What's all this about number of fans and rock culture etc. ? ?

      I'm talking about the MUSIC! You know the sound that comes out of your little ipod that needs to be created by talented individuals with an understanding of the difference between an A and B# and can keep a rhythm etc.

      This is a rather pointless argument since you obviously have little or no understanding of MUSIC. Ask any professional musician (if you know any) what I said here about the Beatles and see how they react..........go on...
    • metalhed, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"Ask any professional musician (if you know any) what I said here about the Beatles and see how they react..........go on..."

      I just did, and he basically said exactly what dizm said.
  • kapowaz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31Sanity prevails. More to the point, this case was motivated purely by greed; the fine print of their previous agreement explicitly permitted precisely what Apple Corp were complaining about (i.e. digital transmission of content - well, what else is iTMS?) and so the remaining Beatles take yet another drop in my estimation.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"... so the remaining Beatles take yet another drop in my estimation."

      Is it really necessary for anyone to take a drop? It is possible for good and honest people to disagree. That's why we have courts and judges.
    • kapowaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think that depends upon whether or not you actually believe with The Beatles' assertions that Apple Computer, Inc. were unfairly exploiting a branding which (in their minds) was synonymous with Apple Corp., or if you believe that they brought about this case as a means of extracting money from a very wealthy corporation. Given that it seems obvious to me (and anyone who didn't grow up in the 60s, really) that the Apple logo that we see on TV adverts and iPods and whatnot is synonymous with computers and not The Beatles, it is then fairly simple to conclude that this was nothing more than an unscrupulous cash-grabbing exercise.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Come on...do any of you really think the remaining Beatles are 'cash-grabbing' they're probably the richest musicians ever; why would they want more money??

      It's a fairly normal business disagreement, the likes of which happen all the time between different company's over brand names etc.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Good and honest"? Look, just because you like their music doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to naked avarice. These grasping, greedy old men bear little resemblance to the passionate young men who made that music.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Why are they '"grasping, greedy old men?"
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Why are they 'grasping, greedy old men?'"

      Because they're trying to use lawyers to grab a ***** of money they didn't earn.
  • torrentado, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46"let it be, let it be..."
    • endersadvocate, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3my thoughts exactly, you beat me to it
  • themattman, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5^^ Nicce :)
  • sinner0423, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I was just watching CNN and apparently the Judge who just ruled in Apple's favor owns an iPod.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/26/im_an_ipod_user_admits/

    Old story, but, I had no idea about it. Pretty interesting. All we need now in the states are judges who smoke weed, download movies & music, and I'll be happy.
    • slartie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20"I was just watching CNN and apparently the Judge who just ruled in Apple's favor owns an iPod."

      Why should that make any difference? Given the sales figures, it's not exactly _incredible_ that the judge owns an iPod.
    • sinner0423, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It doesn't make a difference one way or the other, but, I just found it interesting. I inferred with the rest of my post that I wish more judges were open to other things too, not just iPods.
    • tijer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I'm pretty sure the judge who decided on Microsoft and antitrust-law owned a computer with Windows on it too... It really is a meaningless point.
    • fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Whoa, he owns an iPod? What are the odds? I guess the whole judgement must have been slanted.

      If it had come out the other way, I wonder if CNN would have been reporting, "This just in.. it appears that the judge in the case has been known to have listened to Beatles songs! His favorite albums include the White Album and Abbey Road... more on this breaking news after these words from Microsoft."
  • editopen, on 10/12/2007, -43/+6good, I hate the Beatles
    • ThomasCJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Apple ≠ Beatles
    • Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%89%A0+&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

      It shows nothing on Google. What does it mean?
    • t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9≠ means does not equal
    • carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Xiol, dugg for hilarity
    • lepton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I think this is a good time to kiss andf make up. Apple (Computer) would love Corps (Apple Corps) content on ITMS. Apple doesn't dislike Corps, it's just how the computer and media world evolved.

      So Apple could offer some things that might help: 1) Take away all traces of the Apple logo from the ITMS. Actually, I had a hard time finding an Apple logo in the ITMS until I read the descriptions in the full judgement (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2170977_1,00.html) My ITMS usually shows "iPod update complete" rather than the logo in the LCD-looking pane. And though I knew the logo appears whenever the Visualizer starts up, I learned you can't turn on the Visualizer while in the ITMS store, even while music is playing (such as when a tune starts playing automatically after you bought and downloaded it).

      2) Stop causing exclusive content to be produced. I'm not talking about recordings that are exclusively on ITMS, but those very, very few recordings that Apple caused to be produced (a few live events) and made available exclusively on ITMS. This upsets Corps because it feels it puts Apple in the record-label business.

      3) Stop accepting recordings directly produced by artists, make them go though a third party such as a record label first. I don't mean stop accepting free independent podcasts, but the independent commercial music offerings sold on the main store. Again, the Corps believes this puts Apple in the competing record label business. Apple could set up a deal with some third party label to handle this stuff without too much impact.

      In fact none of this impacts Apple much, but it does address basically everything the Corps complained about in the suit. So now get together, the two of you could do a great publicity thing that boosts both companies, talking about getting together, the new digital Beatles content, and generally leveraging the huge publicity already around over this.
  • Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19The previous agreement between Apple Comp. and Apple Corp. concerned the production and/or distribution of *physical* music materials (ie CDs). Given that, plus the fact that the Beatles were shown the iTMS a few months before it went live *and they didn't object to it*, this whole court case should have been thrown out at the start.

    They can appeal the decision, and that will depend on how rich/bored/vindictive they feel. I hope for their sake they see sense and just calm down about this. Maybe then we can get back to enjoying the music, which is what it should all be about.
  • Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1cool I guess...
  • gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6This whole ordeal is just another example about how litigious this modern world has become. Some one sees someone else become more successful and make more money than themselves with a logo/service/idea that mildly resembles something they originally came up with, and they decide that in some form or fashion they have been cheated. And to try and make the world "fair" again (most people were taught early on in life the the world is in fact not fair) they feel the need to sue with little cause. Meh, meh, double meh. Kudos to the court system for slapping down yet another buzzing fly that is frivolous litigations.
  • philmunt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Anyone who knows anything about trademark law knows that you really don't have much of a choice about getting into battles to protect your trademarks because if you don't you'll lose them.

    I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
  • JoPettitt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Damn, I lost the bet on this at work. So how long until Apple Records vanishes? The Beatles copyright is running out...

    Nice move though to say it was a data transfer service rather than a music distribution service.
    • CyberTroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15You mean like the Disney copyrights. They will NEVER expire, like Disney when they remaster the works they will have the copyrights extended.
  • TheJenks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Thats good news, Paul McCartney just bores me anyway.
  • mikes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5This is awsome, We should now be seeing The Beatles on itunes!! I can't wait. It's going to be awsome and attracte attention to the beatles and to itunes.
    • CyberTroll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What draws you to that conclusion? they may be on Napster, or another of the services.
    • plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10There is no guarantee that they'll be on iTunes, but something tells me they might end up on it.. I mean, 80% of the online legal music market is a big chunk to ignore.
  • rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7I'm going to be abruptt here. It's ridiculous to say that Apple hasn't associated its name with music, and this is just another case of a judge who lacks the courage to take on a major corporation like Apple.
    • Hypertime, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Apple Computers or Apple Corps?
    • Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Except that Apple Computer were *allowed* to distribute _digital_ music files, it was only _physical_ music media that they weren't allowed.
    • plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The terms and conditions were for the sale of physical music and becoming a record company.
      As they do not sign any individual artists to contracts (independents go through CDBaby) then they haven't broken the terms of the contract. Its no different to Apple stores stocking CDs in their shops. They aren't a record company, sure the music is sold through its outlet, but that doesn't make HMV a record company, so why would it Apple?
  • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7After that anti-seal hunt ***** from McCartney and his retarded wife, and now this, I have little respect for those guys... they should have stuck to being moptop singers.
    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I remember Linda McCartney, an extremely militant vegetarian, had to withdraw thousands of her food products in the UK because they were found to contain meat. Ah, Linda McCartney, another sad individual riding on the coat-tails of the Beatles' excellent talent.
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6How come you get "militant vegetarians", but I never hear of "militant meateaters"?
  • scratt, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4The bottom line is the verdict was right.. Paul McCartney is a *****. Don't get me wrong I love the Beatles music, and John's too.. But this was just a failing and sad company from yester year trying corporate piracy, and they were sussed out finally.. Good riddance. The sooner that Apple Corps goes bust, and their music is public domain the better.. Or even better Sony buys it all and Paul McCartney buggers off once and for all...
    • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Paul hasn't controlled Apple Records for ages. Why the hate?
  • Bloekie, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6I'ld say: "Let it be!"

    But I'm just the walrus.
  • darkalias, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Imagine judge Mann owning at least one Beatles LP or CD in order to use his iPod legally correct when listening to Imagine.
  • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14I am sure that Lennon would be rolling in his grave, his philosophy was to share the music.

    Apple Corps (the Beatles record label) had to bring this suit, because lets-face-it, since the death of the most talented Beatle their careers haven't exactly been on fire have they - Paul McCartney: "The Frog Chorus", "Mull of Kintyre" and "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time" and Ringo Star - the narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine, a childrens cartoon. George Harrison was probably the only one left who really cared about music still and now he has gone, bless him.

    We have to face the fact that Lennon *WAS* the Beatles and since his death the others have been riding his coat tails making money from the music he was the chief architect of. Ringo ("..oh look, its Thomas coming out of the tunnel....") and Paul ("...croak croak croak, biya ya, croak croak croak, biya ya...") have only shown themselves up to be money grabbing bastards who cared nothing for what the Beatles were supposed to stand for in the 60s.

    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6All the people digging my comment down should be forced to listen to Paul McCartney's bagpipes from Mull of Kintyre and Ringo droaning on about the fat controller for the rest of their lives!

      Give me George Harrison's sitar any day, has anyone ever heard his sitar cover of I Can See for Miles, a classic down under the psuedonym Lord Sitar?
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A lot of the best Beatles songs were written by McCartney. Not that I'll ever forgive him for Mull Of Kintyre and The Frog Chorus ;)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_mccartney
    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It is funny that the Wikipedia entry for John Lennon says exactly the opposite ;-) I'd prefer to believe that John Lennon was the talent because everything that Paul McCartney has done since the Beatles has sucked a dangly part of a donkey.
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For many years I'd assumed all the best ones were done by Lennon, but later learned that quite a few I'd assumed were Lennon were in fact by McCartney. However they shared songwriting credits for all their songs, making it difficult to work out who wrote what. But I doubt if Lennon would have let McCartney share songwriting credits on all songs unless McCartney had written a few good songs himself.

      You're right about the donkey's bits thing, though... :)

      Anyway, this is all academic. We all know Paul died in a car crash in 1966... ;)
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dear, dear me..... how little you know of the Beatles. Go read up; try Wikipedia for starters before you make ridiculous claims like "John Lennon WAS the Beatles", " the others have been riding his coat tails" and and other misinformed verbal *****.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles



    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, of course I'll read a Wiki-based Website and believe everything that is said on it as fact, especially when it is written by both the Pro-Lennon and the Pro-McCartney brigades. I kind of made that point by pointing out that the Lennon entry said he wrote everything and the McCartney entry that said he wrote everything.

      Better to read some of the excellent, shock horror - *BOOK BASED*, biographies.

      I think rather than relying on Wikipedia to form my opinions I actually listen to The Beatles music (I own every original album on vinyl, managed to buy them for under £1 each in the 1980s) and then listening to everything released by former Beatles afterwards when they were solo. I think no-one can argue that most of the solo stuff sucked arse. Of course, you could say the same about Lennon - especially that appalling Imagine /sarcasm.

      But I take your badly researched point.
  • HeliumHigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wow, I'm kinda getting sick of everyone disjointedly saying Apple. They are both Apple! Please say Apple Records or Apple Computers, or whatever. Its kinda hard to read a comment, especially replies, when I don't know who is being reffered to.
  • compwizz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hey, did any of you notice the judge's name, "Mr Justice Mann." What a name for a judge. I wonder if he had his named changed to that when he became a judge?, haha.
    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Aren't all judges (I know at least in the UK) referred to as Mr Justice?
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yes, all judges in the UK are known as "The Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice [surname]".
  • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Good for Apple Computers. Apple Records had a grievance and used the system to work it out. It has now been clearly and legally delineated that a store does not violate the terms of the original agreement as it is not a record label nor confusing in the marketplace. We can all stop arguing about it and move on to whether or not Steve Jobs should sue bloggers who love his company and haven't broken any confidentiality agreements. ;)
  • jpatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ok, take it away from apple here....

    the Beatles sued over thename Apple... so if I started a store called Atlantic or Wind-Up, the respective music labels could sue me? isn't this a bit ridiculous?
    • jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As was pointed out by HeliumHigh, one company is called Apple Computer and one is called Apple Corps.

      A quick search of Companies House in the UK shows that there are over 300 companies starting with "Atlantic" including Atlantic Aero Services, Atlantic Agency, Atlantic Holdings, Atlantic Amusements, Atlantic Insurance, Atlantic Apartments, Atlantic and General Investment Trust, Atlantic Estates, Atlantic Antiques - a quick Google shows most of these only display 'Atlantic' on their branding.
    • Goatman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But they aren't in the same industries.
  • smorzander, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4sweet! take that hard shelled insects!
  • dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"It's getting better all the time..."
  • DJMac317, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Maybe it's sort of like Michael Jacksons last album, where he called the record companies racist because his album didn't sell well. Maybe Yoko Ono was upset that people weren't buying her albums and figured it's because people are confused about the Apple logo. Or maybe people don't want to buy Jacksons or Ono's crappy music. Just a theory. It also sucks that Michael Jackson owns the beatles catalog.
    • Jams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I thought he only owned half, the rest were bought by Sony. I remember reading someplace that he is gonna sell the rest off to pay his debts
  • Jarda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Quite frankly... I don't care. As long as Apple wins I'm all good... Don't really care who is right.
    • breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Then you'll be happy no matter who wins because they're both "Apple."
  • warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4The problem, to me, is that Apple Music allowed Apple Computer to use their name because they had an agreement with them that Apple Computer would stay out of the music business. Then Apple Computer got into the music business and continue to use an Apple logo. So much for good will.
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm not a lawyer, but I'm certain there's no agreement that says anything as vague as "would stay out of the music business". The agreement will have been far more specific and say exactly what Apple Computer would not do. Otherwise it would never stand up in court.

      Exactly what is the "music business"? Creating music (eg. a musician, or a record company), recording music (eg. a music studio), building and selling musical equipment (eg. a piano maker), distributing music (eg. a distribution company), selling music (eg. a music shop), sell computers and software that can be used to make music (eg. as Apple Computers do now) etc. Should Apple Computer not be able to enter any of these markets?
    • Goatman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2IF they had a agreement not to (written, implied or vocal) yes. they should stay out. This shows us the public how much of a greedy bastard Steve Jobs is. You know right well that if Apple Corps. decided to make a computer Steve Jobs would have them in court faster than you can download from the iTMS.
  • kimwhite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2the Beatles represented a lot of freedoms to me at one time... then they got old and like everyone else.

    Why will they not sell there music on itunes? are they so out of sync with what is going on in the world?
  • GhengisKhan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Good! Fvck 'em.
  • ivanjs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Life is very short, and there's no time
    For fussing and fighting, my friend.
    I have always thought that it's a crime,
    So I will ask you once again.

    Try to see it my way,
    Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
    While you see it your way
    There's a chance that we might fall apart before too long.

    We can work it out"
  • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Steve Jobs is the walrus.

    I'm just sayin' :D
    • Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1lol
    • f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Ill bury your comment because I feel like it. And because I like mobs.
  • chiefwahoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The article brought up the logos for both Apple companies, and really I do not see the familiarity nor the reason the lawyer brought up the number of times the Apple icon appears in iTunes.
  • andruzzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5LET'S NOT FORGET:

    If you buy Beatles Music YOU ARE PUTTING MONEY INTO MICHAEL JACKSON'S POCKET!!!!!

    I'd rather eat nails than put coin into that freak-of-nature's pocket.....
  • f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5This just proves what kind of money-hungry capitalists apple really are. A pity they lost. Steve Jobs should get a haircut and a job. Damn hippie.
  • ElectricDisk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Beatles and Frogger together.....

    http://www.moonbasev2.com/frogger.htm
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Anyone who knows anything about trademark law knows that you really don't have much of a choice about getting into battles to protect your trademarks because if you don't you'll lose them."

    True, but this wasn't as close to confusion to really justify it. This was a stretch. Granted, they had an earlier agreement but even that was a stretch. This idea of litigating anyone with an apple in their logo is stupid. The logos do not significantly look alike, their businesses are not significantly enough alike, and therefore they lost as they should have.
  • zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This was not a stretch this was a chance for apple records to try and make some cash from apple computer...again.
    I was kind of shocked and surprised that the judge in this case made the right choice and said no.
    This was not a Apple was not in default.

  • Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Another example of how Apple crushes artists. Apple= greedy fascists.
  • mikernd1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Is it just me, or did anyone even know / care about Apple Corps before all this hit the courts?
  • linkwray, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@yukevster says...

    "Dude, I got news for you.....had the Beatles never existed the music you listen to now would not be what it is.

    The Beatles created possibly the greatest influence-waves in music history which continues to ripple through the music industry to this day - be thankful, even if you don't like them."

    Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Beatles DID NOT invent Rock & Roll. "Rock & Roll" in its earliest pop form came about in the mid 1950s from the blending of Black blues and White country & western. It existed long before the phrase "Rock & Roll" was coined, going back to Western Swing and Rhythm and Blues bands from the late 1940s. Without real rock and rollers like Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Bo Diddley, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Carl Perkins, and my namesake Link Wray, the Beatles would never have existed.

    THE BEATLES DID NOT INVENT ROCK AND ROLL!
    • andruzzo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Finally....someone who knows what they are talking about.

      LED ZEPPELIN had more influence on the rock scene, both in terms of music and image than the Beatles have ever had.

      The Beatles were NOT rock....
    • plastid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5yukevster's claim was not that the Beatles invented rock and roll, but that they have been a large influence in music (which is pretty much impossible to dispute).

      What you say may be true, but your reason for saying it is wrong.
    • astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No the Beatles brought the England Rock scene over and introduced America to the sounds of the European Rock sound. That was then known as 50's rock...then later 60s and then the (my favorite) the Psychedelic 70s Beatles!

      Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd landed after the Beatles ...

      Now as far as Rock N Roll in America, that would be the era of Chuck Berry and Johny Otis. Thats when
      Rock n Roll was in its infancy in America.
  • linkwray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@plastid

    What I said is true. yukevster said the music I listen to now would not exist without the Beatles, and I claim the Beatles would not have existed without the influence of Rock and Rollers I mentioned in my original post. The music I listen to now bears little, if any, resemblence to to Beatles, but the influence of Link Wray, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, T-Bone Walker, Roy Brown, Muddy Waters and Bill Evans (you know, REAL rock and roll) is clearly heard.

    I agree that the Beatles had a large influence on music, but that influence isn't as great as some people would like to believe. Music more influential to Rock and Roll existed long before 1964.
    • fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm afraid I'm with plastid on this one (in the scope of rock and roll.. I don't agree with the way he worded it though).

      The Beatles were influenced by all the prior rock and roll bands, of course, because like you said the Beatles did not invent rock and roll. But I think there is a great deal of evolution of sound that heavily influenced everything else in the 60s, 70s, and later. I would argue that they influenced a lot of other major groups like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, and they in turn influenced later bands. They were the first rock band to really make such a large transformation. I would probably say that Pink Floyd made a larger transformation, but that's not entirely relevant.

      The thing I disagreed with in yukevster's original message was that he said they "created possibly the greatest influence-waves in music history", which is not even within the proximity of correctness in my opinion. I would be arguing in favor of Beethoven, but I'd rather not get too far off onto that topic. :)
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Right, I should have said ' biggest influence-wave in popular music'. Obviously I wasn't comparing the Beatles to any of the classical composers - though many music historians do I might add.
  • hashkaran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Go Apple.
    i mean Apple Computers.. :)
  • aliensporebomb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I liked the response above from the person who thought bands who use guitars, basses
    and drums were just in it for the money.

    This is not the case - take a look at the load of us at kronosonic.com, we're all just
    trying to make the weirdest damn music possible. Forget American Idol. We just
    want to be "America's Weirdest."
  • aliensporebomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another thing: this lawsuit appears that it was largely instituted by Neil Aspinall,
    the Beatles former Road Manager and ostensible head of AppleCorps, a company
    which exists solely to promote any Beatles product should there be any.
  • salweem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The beatles didnt sue them, Apple Corp did.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3..which is controlled entirely by the Beatles and thier families.
    • MikeZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+110101101010110
  • RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everyone seems to be with Apple on this one, but didn't Woz suggest the name "Apple" because of The Beatles? That's been at the center of all the various lawsuits between Apple and AppleCorps. In the last suit Apple agreed that they wouldn't engage in the music business. They see this as Apple Computers essentially assuming their identity.
  • peter303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2In 1960s and 1970s when people said "Apple" you thought of the Beatles.
    After Apple II became a hit, plus their stock IPO (largest to date)
    the Apple meant computers.
    Probably since 2003 it means Ipod.
  • linkwray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More information about musicians who influenced the Beatles. Pay particular attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#Influences_and_music
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.