What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
41 Comments
- thedove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29you DO know that was this submitted to the music category (under the entertainment container), right? you DO know that digg isn't just tech news, right?
- DeejayLupo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32It's in the Entertainment --> Music section, where it belongs. Not the Tech area.
- madkow420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Um, this is filed under MUSIC. I did not think it had to deal with Tech.
- AIzzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Actually, if you take a look at the article, looks like the record companies trying to pull a fast one (again). I'd side with any artist before I'd side with EMI or Capitol.
- lazerdave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Could John Lennon swear to tell the truth in the name of a god who he's bigger than? "
You don't swear to tell the truth so help [me] Jesus...
He didn't say they were bigger than [G]od. - bbhh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11(edit: garoo should check his bookmark) ... anyways, i love reading stuff like this and then imagining how awesome some people must be to think big record companies aren't horrible.
- thedove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12although this is kind of naive to say....dammit, the beatles are THE rock 'n' roll cultural icon of all time (imo)...it's a shame there's a "business" built around their songs. i think the beatles should be able to do whatever they want with the music they wrote. it's theirs...EMI didn't write helter skelter, yer blues, or anything else. i don't care what contract they signed. imo, they should just do whatever they want.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I call Mr. John Lennon and George Harrison to the stand!
- zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9About damned time they do this.
- jizzimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If some of you would actually read the article it makes sense for The Beatles to sue EMI.
- dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9in my opinion -anybody- should be able to whatever they want with the beatles' songs. copyright protections should* have run out by now. it was a generation ago that they made music. doesn't it belong to our culture now (in much the same way as mark twain books or the shakespeare)?
*- the original us copyright law said 14 years + an optional 14 renewal. this has since been changed. - soupnrc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yea, but the point is that these guys wrote these songs and they want the original track masters... And "The Beatles" is still a copyrighted band name.... so as long as it is they are still "The Beatles" even though 50% of them are no longer with us.
- mc4_a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's a difference between owning the songs and the recordings of the songs.
- tobiasproject, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Doesn't Michael Jackson own the rights to a lot of the Beatles songs?
I wouldn't want to guess at the weird things Jacko would make beatles do for their rights back. "Don't just stare at it, eat it." - beernutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I REALLY hope they win and set a precedent that other groups can use to get more fairly compensated. It is CRIMINAL the way the major labels in general get away with screwing the artists.
- raoulduke87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well, I think any reasonable music fan would agree that things have gotten way out of hand with control over the Beatles catalog. Remember when "Revolution" was sold to Nike for a shoe commercial? I'm sure that a footware insurgency is just what John had in mind when he wrote that song.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Fact is, the recording industry generally treats both its customers and its artists like [bleep].
They are widely criticised by artists as pulling every accounting trick in the book to avoid paying royalties. The allegation that EMI stole physical recordings in which the Beatles could claim a financial interest is not surprising. Why not steal from the big league? Why rob a hot-dog stand when you can rob a bank? - NobleArc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Lawyers for Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono, the estate of the late George Harrison and the Beatles' company Apple Corps want at least $25 million (�13.1m) in damages for fraud and breach of contract." Uh, the Beatles themselves aren't filing the lawsuit, their lawyers are on behalf of the living ones, and the estates are on behalf of the deceased ones. Saying that The Beatles are going to sue someone makes no sense.
- brydude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, all Beatles should be released into the Public Domain. It is a cultural icon, part of our history. History cannot be copyrighted.
- chuckayoub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2More on the Beatles:
http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/the_beatles_lyrics.html - brydude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't Forget Mr. Billy Preston
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think jacko sold those rights off.. I could be wrong though.
- brydude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*****?
- antron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Millions of pounds? Wow, that's heavy.
- mc4_a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So I wonder who these tapes were sold to. Bootleggers? Collectors?
- CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6But... but... but... lazerdave, all the Christian's I've talked to always tell me that Jesus and God are the same (in some weird way). Don't ask me, though, it's the words from their mouths, not mine.
- jediknickers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One wouldn't say McCartney, Starr, Lennon [Ono], and Harrison [estate] want the $25 mil [well actually it could, but that's not the way it works] -- it would be said that the lawyers do, just as the article states. All they have to do is go to their lawyers and be like "this is *****, we want our money" and the lawyers would go to work with all of the details, figuring every last penny that they could possibly sue EMI for and then they'd file the lawsuit on the behalf of their clients. It would still be stated as "Beatles to sue EMI" -- because the lawyers just work on their behalf and do all of the legal process for them. It wouldn't make any sense to say the lawyers were going to sue EMI, because they aren't involved with EMI and they aren't the ones being royally screwed over. [No pun intended.]
That may not have made any sense, but I don't know. If you see where I'm coming from, then good -- and if you don't, then that's good too. It doesn't really make much of a difference either way. - mrsticks1982, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I could see it now
"Weekend at the Courthouse" - freaky! - Erasmus1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5
Apparently you did need to be reminded as you were the jackass that misquoted John. - MikeOSX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think the Beatles have lawyers that just sit there and read the newspaper to see who they can sue next.
- Erasmus1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7In my opinion the Beatles did not play Rock and Roll, at least by today's standards. They were/are however the grandfathers of Pop music. If it weren't for the Beatles we would have never had to listen to the likes of Brittany Spears.
- DeejayLupo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4That said, it might have made it in the tech secion just for having the word "Apple" involved in it somewhere.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Yeah Yoko Ono needs more money....
- calu99, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4There is no tech connection. It's topic is music under entertainment.
oops. slow typer. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Me too, it's nice that we agree at least on one thing. :)
- Wooism, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Shutup troll
- Wooism, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Innacurate. "The Beatles" are no longer a band, entity, etc. "The Beatles" can't sue anyone.
- raoulduke87, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"You don't swear to tell the truth so help [me] Jesus...
He didn't say they were bigger than [G]od."
Thanks lazerdave, I needed to be reminded of the EXACT wording of one of the most famous quotes in rock history.
Boy, I'm glad we have lazerdave around. - josegutz, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2This is so perposterous!!! Irreprehensable!!! All because of Paul getting jacked half his money from that divorce and Ringo is not making any real money... What IDIOTS!
- raoulduke87, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Could John Lennon swear to tell the truth in the name of a god who he's bigger than?
- garoo, on 10/12/2007, -83/+5I like the Beatles as much as the next guy, probably more. But I'm struggling to see the tech connection here. It has the word "Apple" in it. Maybe that's it
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is