Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal 176
Sometimes_Rational writes to mention Apple Inc. formerly (Apple Computer) has announced an agreement with The Beatles' company, Apple Corps Ltd. which settles the lawsuit brought by Apple Corps. Under the new agreement, "Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to 'Apple' and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The terms of settlement are confidential."
Beatles on iTunes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.jlsc.com/bus/ [jlsc.com]
Image is about halfway down the page.
I wonder what exactly the terms of this settlement were?
Rumors were off by a day (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Give us the marks and shut up. In return, we will:
In the alternative, we can crush you in court and drain your bank accounts along the way. Additionally, you could then be sure that you'll never be paid for any Beatles track that travels by Internet."
The Beatles are 40 years old, and need iTMS much more than it needs them.Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (Score:5, Interesting)
As online music sales surpass physical media, this has the potential of allowing Apple to take over the record industry. I doubt they want to, but it gives them a great deal of opportunity to expand their iTunes business.
Re:ITMS (Score:5, Interesting)
And then, thanks to my ipod, I tried listening to Elvis properly, and found to my surprise that I didn't like him that much.
So, logically, I must like the Beatles... and when I listened to them properly, it turns out I do!
One of the interesting things about listening to them properly, is that your first thought is "this sounds so modern" and then your second thought is "ah, because everyone in the world has ripped them off!"
Re:"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:3, Interesting)
If you wanted to use an actual recording, wouldn't you need to contact both? Apple Corps. owns the recording, but the words and music are owned by Sony. I understood that you needed to pay royalties to both parties. Or do you just need to get permission from one, and the other automatically grants permission provided you pay the royalty? Isn't there a third party that sometimes needs to be paid, or is that only the case when the songwriter and song performer are different entities?
Actually, if anyone on here who's licensed music for use (or is a copyright lawyer) could explain this, I'd greatly appreciate it. I won't take anything I read on the internet as legal advice, yadda, yadda, but I'm curious.
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2, Interesting)
I played in bands starting right around the time the Beatles were being turned down by all the (then) majors, and continued playing for about three decades. I saw a 'modified' Beatlemania sweep through the schools every 5-8 years or so. Did it last and last? No, But anyone familiar with the London scene knows that the average 'mania' lasts about two weeks, on average. England swings, yup, and like a pendulum, the Beatles take an astonishing swing through the ears, hearts, and minds of 'kids' on a very regular basis.
And that's reality
In the early-mid sixties,music, from Classical to pop to jazz, was turned on its ear (so to speak) around the World. Was it ''because' of the Beatles? No, not really. But make no mistake, they were the straw that stirred the drink. My girlfriend's kids (they're 18 and 21, the g-friend is 56) gave me the Beatles "Love" thing (the George martin, Cirque du Soleil piece) for Christmas this year, and the daughter and I trade uot-takes from the whit Album, on a regular basis.
Don't hold yer breath waitin' for them to mosey into olivion, no way.
Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:3, Interesting)
But that doesn't mean the brand has any value. Music brands in general are IMO worthless: no-one buys music because it's published by a particular label; people buy music because they like the artist. I couldn't tell you which label published any of my CDs. For most music, people just don't care.
The one exemption I can think of is classical music, where some labels are regarded highly because they publish music of high quality (they invest a lot in hiring the best performers and making a good recording). Classical music is fairly unique: this is a market where you can get the same music in several different performances (and at different price points). This rarely happens with popular music. You just get the original artist and 'muzak' covers, generally.
You could even argue that the only value a label can have is negative. Just ask Sony.