What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
75 Comments
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38Come on beat Beatles grow up & put your tunes on iTunes ;)
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@mikeazorin & @anachron
er guys, you do realise that the beatles sold the rights to their songs years ago. Michael Jackson owned them and then borrowed some of them to Sony Music.
It's a bizarre situation but I read somewhere that Paul McCartney gets quite annoyed at having to pay a royalty to Jacko every time he performs "Let it Be" in the USA !
***** up or what ? - mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26The Beatles coming to iTunes will be one of the most revolutionary things ever. It might not seem like a big deal to some people, but they are the biggest band of the century, and many people who would love them might not have their albums, because they are not currently easily accessible.
- anachron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I'm guessing that the Beatles will make more money by putting their music on iTunes than they could by winning a lawsuit against Apple Computer. Plus, it's bad karma.
- gluteus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Don't blame Apple for that. Blame the record companies, and possibly the artists they represent.
- WizardGraphics, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Sooner or later an 80% or more market share will cast its magic even on the BEATLES themselves.
- grecorj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7RE: Jacko/McCartney ownership thing.
Read the Snopes page: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm
So McCartney & Yoko would still benefit big time if they sold millions of songs via iTunes (or any other e-delivery venture) as they are they would receive songwriting royalties. - vann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Eh? If these are the bands you're into, it's not like they're churning out albums. Presumably you already have most of them, so why not just rip the CDs you already own?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17damn apple *grumble grumble grumble*
fyi, there is a way to get rid of the DRM, it is called jHymn
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=7404 - Thezeppelin62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How about inviting Led Zeppelin? and every other like bands they dont have
- MisterCookie, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Monopoly? Since when is it evil for a Music store to simply be more used than any others? Besides, it's not like Apple doesn't have any competition.
- anthony1124, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sounds like you need a broader taste in music. I rarely use iTunes. I usually use it to download hard to find albums by artists long forgotten about. You can find Beatles, Metallica and Radiohead CD's anywhere used for like 5 bucks. Why would you look for them on iTunes?
- Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12The Beatles are too cool for itunes - I was so pissed off when I signed up for an itunes account and couldn't find The Beatles, Metallica, Radiohead or a number of bands I really like. Yet if an American Idol releases a single it's bashing me in the face when I visit the ITMS.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"There is little doubt in my mind that Apple Computer's wildly sucessful music-store business could cause people to think that Apple Corps less well known record label is just some new subsidy/project of Apple Computer."
So true - yet all the apple users who cry foul on microsoft for *everything* they do that is mildly monopolistic stick up for Apple on this one.
Every comment that disagrees with what Jobs is doing is modded down right now. If you are about to mod me and the parent down because you are an apple fan, please do the mature thing instead and reply explaining why this ruling was correct. - kakos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@bojoes:
In order for a company to qualify as a "de facto" monopoly (one which doesn't have 100% of the market share), the company must engage in monopolistic practices. Now, Apple, as far as I know, has not engaged in any activity that could be viewed as monopolistic. Hell, they just recently fought very hard to keep the prices low for their customers, which is the exact opposite of monpolistic behaviour. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6superkendall
They agreed to stay out of the music business, but that never said anything about specifically "producing music." They sell music, so they are in the music business.
Would you say that 7-11 is in the convinience products industry? According to your reasoning, no - they are just a "retailer." The problem with your logic is that iTunes mostly sells music, whereas 7-11 only sells some CDs (I've actually never even seen a CD there!) - galfridus73, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9That's NOT leveraging a monopoly. He is not forcing the Beatles to use the iTMS or otherwise making them face penalties - he has no way to do that and is in no position to do that.
Now, if MS makes an OEM set IE as the default browser on the machines they manufacture or they raise the price on the Windows licenses, THAT is leveraging a monopoly.
Whomever gets the Beatles' catalogue will immediately become a major competitor in the business. Jobs is doing what anyone in his position should do: Try to solidify their lead. If they have the Beatles, more than a few other stores will have to pack it in (I'm looking at you, Napster).
Now, I ask you: Who is the bigger jackass? Jobs, for being a smart businessman, or you for not knowing what leveraging means? - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have no idea how Apple Computer won this lawsuit. I thought it was a *very* clear-cut case against them. They agreed not to use their logo and name when distributing music, and it seems like iTunes is a violation of this. The only thing I can think of is the word "distributing" isn't entirely accurate to describe what iTunes does, but Jobs is clearly breaking the spirit of the agreement.
- MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@hammydude: I'm aware of that, but using that to circumvent DRM is illegal under the DMCA.
@tokachu: My iriver h120 (awesome, solid player) doesn't do PlayForSure (MS) either. Nice try. Also, what of the Linux users out there? - Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I think this is the first flame war I have seen on Digg..."
You must be new. =) - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Well Apple Corp really should have won over Apple Computer. The infringement is pretty obvious. Does Apple Computer have a right to do business? Of course. Does Apple Corp have a right to their trademark and branding? Yes, it was their brand first. There is little doubt in my mind that Apple Computer's wildly sucessful music-store business could cause people to think that Apple Corps less well known record label is just some new subsidy/project of Apple Computer.
Would anyone be surprised if someone asked "Hrm. Did Apple buy the rights to the Beatles?" after seeing a Beatles album? - MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@tokachu: WRONG! You let your eagerness to disprove me get ahead of you. Read the model I gave:
Iriver H120.
You sent me a link to the H10 series... not the H100 series.
http://www.iriveramerica.com/support/hd/h100.aspx
read 'em and weep. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The best compilation they did (IMHO) is one called "Beatles Love Songs" which never made it to CD
- sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Okay, now what pisses me off about any sort of law thing is that people instantly make up their mind based on select facts and their understanding of the law. The case is written down and analyzed, why don't you read it instead of jump to a conclusion?
A judge is going to be able to make a better determination because he has been presented facts and law to make his decision. But people just hear selected fact and they are up in arms about the decision. This applies to about everything, from the moussaoui trial to any patent case. - NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Wasn't part of Apple's deal that they would stay out of the music realm, and by agreeing to do so they would get the rights to use the name "Apple"?
- nater, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I think it's an act of kindness, to say in effect "No hard feelings, in fact can we be friends?" I can see how it could be taken to be an act of cruelty, but taking into consideration that the beatles brought the lawsuit against apple. Imagine getting attacked, then afterwards offering to be the person's friend. Both parties have something to gain from their friendship, just like in the real world. I think this is an excellent example of turning the other cheek.
- Area51mafia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If they DO happen to become available on iTunes I hope that they're atleast in 192kbps bitrate, and not the typical 128kbps bitrate of iTunes. The Beatles at a low bitrate does not do them justice at all.
- marix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Im i the only one who finds this on the mega douche level? I just beat you in a lawsuit. Come use my product. Jobs deserves 3x round house kicks to the face.
- dlm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple Computer won the lawsuit largely because it elected not to settle out of court as it has done in the past.
The agreement with the Apple Corps was largely over the trademark "apple" logo - the Apple Computer version of which is today highly visible and instantly associated with the computer company, not the Apple Corps. The Apple Corps logo, on the other hand, is a photo of a green apple (fruit), no bite missing, no stylized stem, etc.
The differences between Apple Computer and Apple Corps are violently apparent as well. Apple Computer sells computers, computer software and web-based data distribution services, including music-related products such as Quicktime, iPods, Garage Band, and of course, the iTunes Music Store. It does not produce music or other creative works itself. It at most acts as a conduit for many record labels to distribute their product via its servers and bandwidth.
Apple Corps is a company that records and produces music, i.e., a record label.
It seems to me the judge recognized this difference and ruled accordingly, putting an end to thirty years of legalized extortion.
If you want a relatively unbiased view, check out the BBC article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm - grogan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I think this is the first flame war I have seen on Digg...
- MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@tokachu:
it plays straight wma, not the protected one. I had no intention of this getting turned into a flame war, as I was merely correcting your misconception. It was you who responded with the aggressive language in an attempt to make your incorrect correction seem stronger.
In addition, this is not an ipod vs. [insert player here] argument, rather an argument against The Beatles choosing a locked down DRM.
AFAIK Apple hasn't licensed their drm out to other players... why is this? - 1337d00d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You would think the zen Apple Computer company and the peace loving Beatles could just make nice nice by now
- DeezKnots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I hope they don't. I don't use itunes to legally download my music, because of the DRM. My non-drm iriver can't touch .m4p, and by removing the DRM on a file I legally bought I'm breaking the law... instead I'd like to see them choose a different avenue of distribution.
It would be awesome to see them distribute their files DRM-less, but I doubt that'll happen."
I don't buy Music from iTunes and I'm not stuck using a piece of ***** iRiver. Time to upgrade river boy. - 500freestyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see it happening, but I wish it did. Honestly I was thinking the apples would settle the suit and the settlement would involve The Beatles licensing exclusively to iTunes.
- drunkenoaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I have loads of Beatles tracks on my iPod. I bought the CDs and ripped them. Plus any ones I'm missing, I can go down to the store and buy a CD. It's not like them not being on iTMS has stopped the Beatles from being on my iPod. And unless you're housebound and Amazon/ CD-WOW/ whoever don't deliver to your address, it won't stop you either.
- gluteus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6There's nothing wrong about having a monopoly either, no matter how you define it. Microsoft got in trouble for ABUSING their monopoly, remember?
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Apple agreed to stay out of the recording industry. They aren't allowed to sign up artists and what not. There was, however, an agreement that Apple could sell music in it's store. Apple(the recording company) just got all pissy because Apple(the computer company) was making more money, and they wanted some of it.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The spirit of the agreement, as I interpret it, was that Apple could put media player and authoring software on their computers (that would have sucked if they couldn't), but could not sell media. It prevented Apple from selling physical media like CDs, but in this lawsuit Apple computer argued that they are just "delivering" the media (which had no meaning before online media stores), while Apple corp is arguing that they are selling it. Again, its a subjective interpretation, but I think the spirit of the argument clearly puts it in Apple Corps' favor.
- zip22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1do you have the specific agreement? if it is worded that "They agreed not to use their logo and name when distributing music" then yes, it is clear.
here are some specific quotes from the original agreement (quoted from ilounge)
"Apple Corps got rights to the name on “creative works whose principal content is music'' while Apple Computer was allowed “goods and services… used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content,” according to documents."
http://ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/beatles-apple-corps-apple-computer-to-meet-in-court-this-week/
it sounds to me like apple had the right to deliver the content. - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, you love the beatles like everybody else in the world. And rightfully so - their albums are fantastic, even though mastered 30 years ago. Now how about *remastered* beatles albums on itunes? The improved sound quality will be worth it to me.
- gluteus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Jobs has stated repeatedly that he'd like to see the Beatles on iTunes. What's your problem with that? Would you rather hear him say "Screw you Beatles! Try peddling your music to some other second-tier online service."?
- galfridus73, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Very true... but argument doesn't hold water when you consider that the Beatles were the ones to release "1" and "Past Masters".
- Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I can't believe all the Apple apologists on this site. Man what a blind bunch of lemmings.
- PabloIV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually George's music is still owned by his estate, a Ringo's are still his so, just don't DL the Lennon/McCartney stuff and Jacko doesn't get a dime. George was the best Beatle anyways.
- soundgardens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They really got owned...
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Apparently Apple can break the terms, but no one else can. Imagine if I came out with an APPLE CALCULATOR, how pissed they be, then I said well so long as I don't do any "computer" stuff with it, we can remain friendly about it, k? then all of a sudden I start to release 'computing' devices.. I mean Apple sure the hell will protect themselves, but when it comes down to following the agreement, they show their true colors, brown-*****.
- vortec42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Steve Jobs channeling Lorne Michaels on SNL: "Here it is, a check made out to you, the Beatles, for $3,000."
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dear Beatles, please kill the music industry, starting with the blatant vampirism that is itunes.
- ninti, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8There is no doubt that Apple Computer broke the agreement that Apple and Apple signed. The judge in this case has an admitted previous bias, the decision is just ridiculous as a matter of law, and it will be overruled in pretty short order. Jobs will eat those taunting smug words.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is