Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses News Apple

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal 176

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the ways-to-get-a-better-deal dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal

Comments Filter:
  • Beatles on iTunes? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by georgewad (154339) <georgewad.mac@com> on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:51PM (#17893130) Homepage
    Certainly adds fuel to the rumors of the Beatles catalogue (sic) showing up on ITMS.
  • Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by necro81 (917438) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17893200) Journal
    A big hint was dropped during Jobs' keynote address when he played the Beatles on the iPhone. Everything about those presentations is scripted, certainly the addition of Beatles music was no accident. This latest deal might mean that one of the last barriers between the Beatles vast music collection and the iTunes Music Store has been cleared. Whether the Beatles still resist online distribution (through anyone) remains to be seen. They were a late adopter of CDs. Their music, their prerogative.
  • by kupekhaize (220804) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17893202) Homepage
    One thing a lot of people seemed to have missed is that the official John Lennon bus now has an Apple logo on the front side (and has for at least a few weeks if not more):

    http://www.jlsc.com/bus/ [jlsc.com]

    Image is about halfway down the page.

    I wonder what exactly the terms of this settlement were? :)
  • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17893204) Journal
    There were rumors [insidemacgames.com] going around that Apple would be announcing that the Beatles catalog would be available on iTunes during a Super Bowl commercial. Clearly that did not come to pass. I wonder if this was the root of that rumor, or just a coincidence. Supposedly, Apple WILL be having a special announcement coming up on Feb. 20th.
  • Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skoaldipper (752281) <skoalstr8@@@gmail...com> on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:56PM (#17893244)
    This whole lawsuit reminds me of the battle between American Budweiser vs. the Czech brewer Budvar. Fortunately, and rightfully so, the European courts upheld precedent in trademark name on behalf of Budvar. I may be American, but I am a proud Czech first. Stick it to "the man". That's my motto, and I proudly raise my Budvar to it.
  • by Grech (106925) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:58PM (#17893282) Homepage
    Easy. Goes like this:
    "Give us the marks and shut up. In return, we will:
    1. Let you use the marks to which you are actually entitled
    2. Let you sell Beatles songs through iTMS

    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.
  • by TedTodorov (121485) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:23PM (#17894482)
    This is potentially huge, as Apple inc. now seems to own the trademark and will license it back to Apple Corps Ltd. Unless I am missing something, this means that Apple can sign bands directly, cutting out the record companies which collect 69 cents on every iTunes dollar.

    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)

    by biglig2 (89374) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:27PM (#17894522) Homepage Journal
    It's a funny thing, I always used to assume that I'd be an Elvis man, not a Beatles man, you know, the same way that I'm a Kirk man, not a Picard man, and so on. There are some questions that you are on one side, not the other.

    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!"
  • by SydShamino (547793) on Monday February 05, 2007 @06:40PM (#17896688)
    To put it another way: if you wanted to record a cover of a Beatles song, or play one in public, you would need to contact Sony, Northernsongs division. If you wanted to use an actual Beatles recording--that is, one actually made by the Beatles--then you would need to contact Apple Corp.

    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.
  • by Lord Flipper (627481) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:57PM (#17899652)

    if Apple Corp can't market their product to the young'uns (and how likely are they to go to a store to buy their parents, nay grandparent's, music?)

    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.

  • by hcdejong (561314) <hobbes.xmsnet@nl> on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @08:38AM (#17902924)
    As for all those that think the Apple Corps label has little value today... according to the Billboard Top 200 [billboard.com], a brand new release from Apple Corps is currently at number 22, down from a peak of #4 (not to mention the 6 Beatles albums that have sold 10 million units or more).

    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.

Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...

Working...