What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
134 Comments
- torrentado, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47"let it be, let it be..."
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -14/+56Let 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. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -31/+62maybe we should take your knighthood... oh, sorry you don't have one
- sinner0423, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32I 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. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27"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). - aniseed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I think it was Apple music, company founded to manage Beatles-music and film, that sued Apple computers.
- 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.
- 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. - ThomasCJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Apple ≠ Beatles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yes, all judges in the UK are known as "The Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice [surname]".
- 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.
- 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" - 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.
- 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 - 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 - 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. - stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Paul hasn't controlled Apple Records for ages. Why the hate?
- 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." - 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. ;)
- 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. - CyberTroll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What draws you to that conclusion? they may be on Napster, or another of the services.
- jimmyblake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Aren't all judges (I know at least in the UK) referred to as Mr Justice?
- 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.
- 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. - 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 ;)
- 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... ;) - 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. - 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? - 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.
- 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
- 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. - 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. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9≠ means does not equal
- 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? - 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. - 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.
- dattaway, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7No, Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles. And he's in financial trouble. When you play the Beatles, Michael Jackson sings.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html - 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. - 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. - 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.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Steve Jobs is the walrus.
I'm just sayin' :D - 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.
- 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... - salweem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The beatles didnt sue them, Apple Corp did.
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is