Should the Beatles estate give it up already?

[Frodo]

I think the whole issue about when they first put a sound output jack on a computer is sort of stupid...

That's because Apple Corps was afraid people would make their own cassette tapes!!

[funkyfreddy]

I think the whole issue about when they first put a sound output jack on a computer is sort of stupid and Apple should have fought that to the bitter end. Lord knows they have enough cash they could afford it. Of course you know the real deal here... the old situation that it costs more to fight in court than to pay Apple Corps to go away and they count on that. Let's knick Apple Computer just enough money that we can get our periodic handout and it's still cheaper for Apple to give us our extortion money than fight us.

I Agree! Apple computers lawyers sold them short..... the trouble was is that back when the lawsuit first started Apple computer didn't have the resources it does now, so their lawyers settled w/o out thinking of the companies future.....

That's problem with these kind of lawsuits. They have nothing to do with truth or justice but everything to do with who has the most resources and can afford to stay in court the longest...... In my opinion the judge should have thrown the lawsuit out of court when it first began.....

One more thing about this case that really irritates me is the headlines - more and more i'm reading headlines like "The Beatles vs. Apple computer", which is BS! Do you think Ringo or Paul want anything to do with this? I'm sure John or George are cringing with embarrassment if they are aware of it......

[chrispick]

I Agree! Apple computers lawyers sold them short..... the trouble was is that back when the lawsuit first started Apple computer didn't have the resources it does now, so their lawyers settled w/o out thinking of the companies future.....

The way these things work is they run a cost analysis on case scenarios, then opt for the least expensive solution. Often, this is "fine, go away" money.

But, it's worth noting that Apple Computers wouldn't pay a dime to Apple Corp. if Apple Corp. didn't have a legal leg to stand on. Companies have every right to protect their name and name association. Apple Corp is in the business of distributing music. Now Apple Computer is as well. Both are well-known simply as Apple.

This case just presses up against some tolerance levels. Apple Corp barely distributes music anymore and Apple Computers distributes music by means wholly different than Apple Corp ever did.

Like I said before, the fringe-level legality doesn't sit well with the ethicality in this situation.

That's problem with these kind of lawsuits. They have nothing to do with truth or justice but everything to do with who has the most resources and can afford to stay in court the longest.

I think most corporate law suits have little to do with truth or justice. It's about people protecting their investments.

One more thing about this case that really irritates me is the headlines - more and more i'm reading headlines like "The Beatles vs. Apple computer", which is BS! Do you think Ringo or Paul want anything to do with this? I'm sure John or George are cringing with embarrassment if they are aware of it......

I bet Paul and Ringo have no interest at all in being associated with this suit. I think they have no interest in association with Apple Corp. I think there's a reason the Apple Corp logo is a green apple. Sour, man.

[emulatorloo]

Real nice summary at the BBC site of the history of the thing, and darn funny quote from the judge regarding the current case:

<snip>

In considering this latest development, High Court judge Mr Justice Mann said the new clash followed shortcomings in Apple Corps and Apple Computer's 1991 agreement.

He said: "If their intention... was to create obscurity and difficulty for lawyers to debate in future years, they have succeeded handsomely."

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3610523.stm


------

[billf]

If the suits behind Apple Corp have a functioning brain cell, the best thing they could do is strike a special deal with Apple Computer to sell Beatles stuff via iTunes. The future for music is online and virtual, and if Apple Corp stays stuck in the physical media model, they're finished no matter how this lawsuit plays out.

[dougieb]

I'm surprised to see Mr. Steele, "Mr. Anti Piracy under any circumstance even when the consumer is screwed" advocating the theft of Apple's trademark and Apple computer's blatant violation of their own agreement.

Trademarks like copyrights are properties owned by investors and heirs. Using your logic, since Bob Marley isn't really making any records anymore, it would be okay to steal and resell his music. (of course, Tupac doesn't seem to have this problem - lol). You might also see the recent BlackBerry case. Hey, MOTU isn't really selling DP3 anymore, so I guess that's fair game as well (lol)

Of course, this just isn't the case. Apple simply did not have the foresight to make the correct deal in the first place - kind of like the all encompassing deal Scully struck with Microsoft. Not to mention that Apple isn't the least litigious company itself. It has been known to be the bullying party in a goliath vs. david way on many occasions not to mention how they lock down the iPod to not allow wma's (something I predict will eventually be the iPod's downfall).

I'm just shocked to hear someone so blatantly anti-piracy (even when I feel its warranted) advocating the theft of Apple's trademark and advocating the disregard of an entered to agreement just because someone may not be using the mark as much as someone else.

Apple will pay the price for their avarice. They really need to start playing a fair game.

Just my .02

[James Steele]

I'm surprised to see Mr. Steele, "Mr. Anti Piracy under any circumstance even when the consumer is screwed" advocating the theft of Apple's trademark and Apple computer's blatant violation of their own agreement.

I'm not surprised to see Mr. Dougieb lying in wait to play "gotcha." You miss my point and it's not a blatant violation. If it were so obvious it wouldn't be in court. If you read the language there's ambiguity because Apple had a right to data transmission and whether transmitting music as data constitutes physical copies of music. When the agreement was reached this was not forseen. We'll see how it plays out. Thanks for the prejudicial framing of my position on software piracy, dougie.

[markwayne]

I wouldn't be too worried for Apple computer. I'm sure they have a better team of lawyers drinking coffee in any given break room in Cupertino than Apple corp. could ever hope to employ for their biggest case. I'm also certain that iTunes, iPod, et all was given stringent going over by said same legal department with regard to specific wording of said same, bone-headed deal to not distribute music on a physical medium.

I'm surprised no has yet mentioned one of my favorite bits of Apple trivia. It was pretty funny after that first deal was struck when Apple choose to include in its very next OS realease its first, musical system sound: "sosumi". Say it out loud with me. You gotta love a huge, multi-billion dollar corporation with a sense of humor like that.


Wayne

[dougieb]

I'm surprised to see Mr. Steele, "Mr. Anti Piracy under any circumstance even when the consumer is screwed" advocating the theft of Apple's trademark and Apple computer's blatant violation of their own agreement.

I'm not surprised to see Mr. Dougieb lying in wait to play "gotcha." You miss my point and it's not a blatant violation. If it were so obvious it wouldn't be in court. If you read the language there's ambiguity because Apple had a right to data transmission and whether transmitting music as data constitutes physical copies of music. When the agreement was reached this was not forseen. We'll see how it plays out. Thanks for the prejudicial framing of my position on software piracy, dougie.

*Lying in wait* (lol) - Okay, well I think the "whether transmitting music as data constitutes physical copies of music" portion of this argument was settled (at least in the US and albiet wrongly) in the Napster, Grokster, etc. cases. Maybe the european courts will be more realistic, but who knows.

As for your position on software piracy even when it pertains to fair use, your position on this is well documented.

PS: Sorry to be off on this, but I saw 2 posts that were essentially the same as ones I'd made two months back right in the center of the DP forum. I'm either ahead of my time or ???

[hellcat]

you want to know what the real story is about Apple Corp./Beatles? Its GREED. Here's a company that bascially has not been active since the early 1970's, except for collecting royalties that Micheal Jackson didn't rob them of, and now they see an opportunity to cash in on some lame lawsuit they will probably loose. McCartney is known for his exceptional stinginess, and let me tell you -- I have a friend who worked on a project with Yoko Ono, who STOLE money from him. She asked him to foot a large photo shoot (which he did, being the photographer) and then just didn't pay him for his part, even after he inquired time and time again. When he was in New York with her, he says that she would stop the cab a few blocks before their destination in order to save a few bucks. I mean, she must have ZILLIONS of bucks from Lennon's works, and still.... so the moral is, its all about GREED in the music industry, again and again. I've seen it before....too many times in my 25 years experience. These people are self-indulgent bloated whales living on their own mythologies -- and far over rated at that. Come a company like Apple Computers who actually have flair and vision, and these cockroaches come crawling out looking for something to snag. I say bury Apple Corp./Beatles like the corpses they are. So there!

[johnnytucats]

Glad to hear the music business in Norway is keeping up with the music business in the rest of the world. With all business in the rest of the world, for that matter. What's the insurance or banking business like over there?

[dougieb]

so the moral is, its all about GREED in the music industry, again and again. I've seen it before....too many times in my 25 years experience. These people are self-indulgent bloated whales living on their own mythologies -- and far over rated at that. Come a company like Apple Computers who actually have flair and vision, and these cockroaches come crawling out looking for something to snag. I say bury Apple Corp./Beatles like the corpses they are. So there!

1. If YOU owned the rights, would you just give them up? How much $ would you need to have before you did?
2. It might be different if Apple didn't stand to make a buck or two from the legally obtained rights... but let's just imagine that Apple is going to make some money from this... and face it - they are a corporation - their function is to make money (see "greed").
3. Apparently the ol' "Apple Corps" has not been as dormant as previously thought and has remastered their entire catalog.
4. I think you could easily apply "self-indulgent bloated whales living on their own mythologies" to Apple.

Even if Apple stopped being "greedy" themselves and started selling their hardware at a reasonable profit comparable to the rest of the industry, the fact is that Apple Corps as another corporation has to defend its rights. It shouldn't matter that the shareholders of that company just happen to already have money. What if the shareholders of Apple Corps were orphaned children with no $ - would it make any difference?

A lot of people are saying this about the Blackberry/RIM case. Because the patent holders don't actually USE the patents themselves - however RIM made an awful lot of money on the other company's patents. Apple themselves I believe are in a suit with Creative over Creative's patents. And one thing to remember is that by litigating, RIM may have forever lost their market advantage because there are now many more options in the field.

Apple did what any of us would have done. Did you think back then that Apple would be in the music business? Probably no more than Western Union thought it would be in the money transfer business or Polaroid thought it would be in the map business. But when you make mistakes, you pay... and I'm sure Apple Corps won't mind not getting $ if Apple doesn't get any either If Apple didn't like this deal they have - they should not have agreed to it.

[Frodo]

Article posted May 8, 2006, 6:33 pm PDT

Apple beats Apple-- (but, which is which?)

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors ... /index.php

http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/08/apple/index.php

Also:

Steve Jobs invites Beatles to iTunes...

http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/05/08/ ... /index.php

[lane_hagood]

i dont think itunes is actually the spirt of what is intended by the music buisness. is music retail in anyway competing with the marketing or publishing of the apple record label. if anything the fact that we are even talking about it only advertizes the mere existence of apple records. i am sure if you ask the average itunes consumer ( 13 yo girls?) if they ever heard of apple records they would say no, if they had even ever heard of the beatles. and if they had heard of apple records it would be cause they HAD heard it in the context of itunes legal problems with them.

[lane_hagood]

they should just leave thingsas they are. i dont think its that complicated, as of now you cant get the beatles on itunes. it does look that if they agreed to stay out of the music buis. they might have a small problem. but in any lawsuit you have to prove damages. no one can get anything from the apple catalog from itunes. no harm no foul.