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."
Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
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.Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:3, Insightful)
On top of that, Corp has virtually zero expenses and plenty of income due the still extremely valuable rights to that 40 year old music. It could fight a protracted legal battle with no danger whatsoever of being "crushed."
One more problem. Apple Inc fans are plentiful, but fans of the Beatles are far more plentiful and even far more emotional about the product. Apple Inc could end up looking like a real shit in a lot of people's eyes for picking on the Beatles. Think Different can not compare with Give Peace a Chance and Imagine. Pride does not trump love.
TW
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:3, Insightful)
The law, the tests required to prove a claim and just about everything about these two types of "intellectual property" are completely different, please stop confusing the two. Just because RIM eventually learnt the hard way that the system is so broken that it's better to just pay the patent trolls doesn't mean the result of the trademark dispute between Apple Corp vs Apple Inc was in any way a forgone conclusion.
Just because they can fight, doesn't mean they want to, they'd much prefer to sell increased volume of that extremely valuable 40 year old music. Copyrighted music actually... speaking of which copyrights actually expire eventually just about everywhere except the USA, so there is a certain expiry date on that value they need to start cashing in on it now.
As far as Apple vs. Beatles fans... well, sure I like the Beatles and all, but really, nothing is forever, and 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?) their future is pretty predictable.
l4h
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:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
I, too, am a young'un (20) and you'd be mistaken to think that apple corps' product is not marketable to young people. I am a big fan of the beatles and I know many other people around my age who are also big fans and own large portions of their catalogue (and, no, I don't go out seeking people who are also fans).
It'd be a real mistake to think that apple corps is irrelivent. In fact, I'd say I know more people who own beatles albums than people who download music via itunes (however I certainly know more ipod owners than beatles fans)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:not by The Beatles (Score:5, Informative)
It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about one company throwing their weight around, nor is it about Apple Corps getting what's coming to them. It is just a story of one company that owns a trademark becoming alarmed that another company seemed to be moving into their area of business while using essentially the same trademarked name. The newer company argued (apparently successfully) that they were not in fact violating the trademark, but they were apparently worried enough about it to purchase the trademark from Apple Corps, and license it back to them at some unknown rate (I'd guess they aren't charging anything - maybe an exclusive deal to release Apple Corps' collection on iTunes).
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). This is still an extremely valuable library, and I'm sure Apple Inc is eager to try and put a deal together to distribute their music through iTunes now that all the trademark stuff is finally over.
Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:2)
--jeffk++
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.
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
Phil Schiller, of course [N/T] (Score:2)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)
Beatles on iTunes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Beatles on iTunes? (Score:2)
Re:Beatles on iTunes? (Score:2)
It just goes to show that.... (Score:4, Funny)
the love you take... (Score:4, Funny)
oops, buy.
oops, negotiate through intermediaries.
the music gets stale after 40 years, i guess.
All you need is T-Bills... (Score:5, Funny)
And $8.7 Billion USD in cash [appleinsider.com]. But that's a lot harder to rhyme.
You know where you say, "all you need is love?" (Score:2)
Farmers beware! (Score:3, Funny)
Money can't buy me love... (Score:4, Funny)
Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I'm bit confused on the whole "Apple Records" vs. "Sony/Michael Jackson" thing and what the difference is between "ownership" and "publishing rights" for music. Anyone want to clear this up?
"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:4, Informative)
Some of the best info about music copyright can be found here [dvinfo.net] (DVInfo.net a site for video producers) because video productions require music (unless they are bad ones) and music on film / DVD / internet requires complicated licensing.
Unless you go with royalty free productions straight from the producer / talent and bypass the label (if allowed by the artists contract).
jason
Re:"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:3, Informative)
that equals one HUGE pain in the butt for a producer.
jason
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)
All I can tell you about the first part is that Michael Jackson is an Alien who has been altering his appearance to look more like his true self over time. But the latter part is that you can license your rights to your intellectual property to allow other people to distribute it. The GPL is an example of one such license, but that's not the kind used here. Still, it puts you on the right track.
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)
Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is a sponsor of the John Lennon songwriting competition and have provided some of the prizes. Seems to me like this predates the current trademark agreement, and Apple Records is not involved with this bus as far as I can tell.
Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:2)
If I ever get assassinated by a crazed fan I'll be lucky to get a pair of rusty skates named after me.
Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:2)
Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:2)
Rumors were off by a day (Score:3, Interesting)
Crab apple. (Score:2)
Mind you, I'm not exactly impressed by Apple Corps attitude or behaviour in all of this. Or, indeed, in any of their business conduct. Nonetheless, the fact remains that if a trademark is to have meaning, legalized theft of that trademark is not acceptable.
settlement, not court case (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Apple Inc. was able to get away with distributing music under the Apple name only because the medium it is using is not physical...
Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
Bob
Re:Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
jason
Re:Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
In contrast, I can't get the hang of most US beers, and if I'm going for imported beer, I'll always look to Europe first.
(I'm in Australia by the way)
Bring on the remasters (Score:2)
Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (Score:2)
He isn't as affected by this as the others. They have their solo work on the Apple label as well as the joint Beatles work; his solo work is on another label, MPL--his own.
I think Paul did help push this settlement through. Paul has actually used Apple Inc. products in his work. And I did notice Steve Jobs on Paul's last tour DVD. [sardonic grin]
When Apple Corp. interests (anything Beatles) and MPL interests (anything Paul) intersect--watch out!
This seems odd (Score:2)
I hope that Apple Corps. isn't paying for those licenses. I mean even if Apple, Inc. paid money to Apple Corps. in settlement, Apple, Inc. will just collect it all back in license fees later. And I doubt that Apple Corps. paid money to Apple, Inc..
Comment removed (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
I figured out step 3! (Score:2, Funny)
2. Get sued
3. Agree to sell their own name back to them
4. Profit!
Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ordering music online? I buy music online that's not on iTunes lots of times! It's called a "compact disc"! Sure, it takes a few days for it to arrive, but when it gets here I can do whatever I want with it, including rip it to MP3 and put it on my MP3 player.
I know, I know. iTunes gives you the ability to download individual songs as well at whole albums. Well, I'm a big Beatles fan and probably 90% of their most popular songs are on the "1962-1966 (Red Album)" and "1967-1970 (Blue Album)" CD sets.
But even if you wanted songs that are not on those two sets, in total we're talking about 13 original albums that were produced. Sure, that would cost a bit of money to buy brand-new CDs online or at brick-and-mortar stores, but what about discount stores? What about used CD stores? What about eBay, for crying out loud? You can get all of the Beatles CDs (used) for probably less than what iTunes will charge, and you'll at least have a physical, DRM-free CD in your hands! Yes, there are certain things where "instant gratification" is required, like insulin to a diabetic. But music is NOT an "instant gratification" requirement to survive! Is it really that hard to wait a few days for a CD to be shipped?
Come on, people! Just because music isn't available on iTunes doesn't mean that it's not available at all! It's absolutely staggering to see that there are actually people out there who refuse to buy a physical disc anymore, and even more staggering to see people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available. Don't you think this whole iTunes thing is being taken a bit too far?
No, this isn't flamebait, damn it, but it is certainly a question of the degradation of patience in this society when we can't wait a few days for a 5-inch piece of reflective plastic to arrive in the mail and we can't look in the phone book for used CD stores in the area.
Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
As for only using the Apple store, I'm on a Mac. I have yet to find another service that offers me both a broad choice of music genres and works with Macs. If you happen to know of one please point it out.
Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
I understand that jewel cases can be bulky and a waste of space, so why not take the CD and put in a paper sleeve. The CD would then take up - what? - 1/8" of space? You could then put it in a shoebox somewhere!
Honestly, that excuse just doesn't fly. I have over 500 CDs. They're all on two CD racks of about four shelves each rack in the corner of my basement. They're completely out of the way. If I need the disc for some reason, I just run downstairs. If space becomes an issue, I'll just buy a few of those CD binders and put them on a bookshelf.
And I can still have all of my music DRM-free on my file server.
I'm not saying that your way is wrong. If that's the way you want to do it, fine. I just can't understand for the life of me why anyone would want so badly to avoid a very thin piece of plastic and rely solely on a digital medium that is stored on a mechanical medium that will -- not might -- eventually break with no method of recovery except to once again rely on another mechanical medium that will -- not might -- eventually break.
Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
I am just not into collecting CDs, and apparently millions of people feel the same way I do.
iTunes != Unlimited playability (Score:2)
(Not trying to be a prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate at this point.)
Re:iTunes != Unlimited playability (Score:2)
No. And I don't care.
Re:iTunes != Unlimited playability (Score:2)
The benefit of commercial CDs (Score:2)
CDs make excellent backups. Buy a CD of the music, and you (probably) have a full-quality backup for the music in your computer, complete with meta-data. You won't have to burn a backup CD, and you don't have to worry about the transfer limits.
Re:The benefit of commercial CDs (Score:2)
Re:The benefit of commercial CDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Does iTunes sell lossless iTunes trax?
I'm reasonably sure that there is more data in the vs. of a song on an average commercial CD than there is in the average Fairplay-AAC iTunes sells. You don't get much better, digitally, than CD quality, and so you don't get problems with recompression.
Does the spare harddrive fall under iTunes's 5-computer limit, or is it free?
Re:The benefit of commercial CDs (Score:3, Informative)
buying and buying and buying (Score:2)
My Son in law has gigabytes of shit he bought through napster. In return for his troubles he has to keep track of licenses and, if he wants to transport them, convert each one to an MP3 file.
Well, I ain't buying either of'em. Not again.
Re:buying and buying and buying (Score:2)
But with CDs, just rip a high-quality set of MP3s/OGGs/AACs or whatever, then tuck the original away in a cool area where you won't be bothered by it. Then use a backup CD for the car or wherever. If something happens to that backup CD, burn another copy from your MP3s/OGGs/AACs or whatever. All of the CDs in my car are copies of my legally-owned CDs. They're also ripped to my hard drive as 240-320 VBR MP3s. If anything happens to the copies in my car, I burn another one from the MP3s. If anything happens to my hard drive, I can get the original CD from the CD rack in the basement and create new MP3s.
Until something completely replaces CD, which I don't see happening any time soon, a CD purchase that you make today should last a hell of a long time.
It aint just about CDs (Score:2)
No matter how it's obtained, a media collection represents considerable time and effort - much more than jsut a box of CDs. If I lose it, even if it's all "free," I still have to recollect, reclassify, and possibly rerip.
So, if anything happens to my "hard drive," I just take out the failing one, replace it, add it back into the raid and wait for the computer to do all the heavy lifting. I've had oodles of cds become unreadable, but I've not lost anything from this RAID in years... even through lightning strikes and pebkac errors (dd if=/dev/zero of=dev/shit/this/is/a/raid/partition).
I have a few CDs I have purchased because I wanted to support the artist and I wanted higher quality rips than others were sharing. I've bought more, though, from places like magnatune - where I can get the quality I want, I know the artist is getting a good chunk of my money, and I don't have to devote "shelf space" to a package I would otherwise never use. Seems to me something already has completely replaced CDs: the combination of internet, dirt cheap hard drives, and SAN appliances.
Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
What's staggering is that you are so staggered by this. I don't like CD's (nor did I like vinyl albums when they were the thing), and given there is such a convenient, simple and cost effective solution in the form of the iTunes store, I no longer buy CD's. Haven't bought one in years. I suppose if I were a truly die-hard Beatle fan I would buy the CD, but I'm not, so I won't. I'll probably buy a few tracks from the iTunes store when they're available though.
And as for "people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available", remember the Beatles music isn't available from any online store.
Re:Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-3241028-3714
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dynchars
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/
Yes, yes, I know. You hate CDs. But the notion that Beatles music is not available at any online store is a misnomer. And I guess that we're just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to our definitions of "a convenient, simple and cost effective solution".
Negotiations went like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs: "We Can Work it Out."
Beatles: "Don't Let Me Down"
Jobs: "It Won't Be Long"
Beatles: "Money, That's What I Want"
Jobs: "Come and Get It"
Beatles: "I Feel Fine"
Re:Negotiations went like this... (Score:2)
The demo might be on Anthology 3.
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:Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (Score:2)
How the Conversation Went: (Score:2, Funny)
Apple Corps: "Please please me!"
Comp: "Can't buy me love"
Corps: "Money (That's what I want)"
Comp: "Got to get you into my life!"
Corps: "Tell me why?"
Comp: "I want to tell you!"
Corps: "Baby You're a Rich Man!"
Comp: "Act Naturally!"
Corps: "That'll be the Day!"
and finally, years later...
Inc: "Love me do?"
Corps: "Don't let me down"
Inc: "Yes it is?"
Corps: "I will"
Inc: "The End!"
With thanks to http://www.stevesbeatles.com/songs/ [stevesbeatles.com]
The Beatles (Score:4, Funny)
So... (Score:2)
typo in the story (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ITMS (Score:5, Insightful)
There will be, yes. Me for one. I'm not even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, I'm no form of Beatles fan at all. I like a few tracks that I've heard and that's that. I am, however, pretty curious and might well sample the off track of various albums. I'm not suddenly going to start buying the full collection, and I'd rather get individual tracks than full albums. I'm 35 - the Beatles never happened for me. I always new of them and there'll be many on here younger than me who know their music better, but that's because you actively sort it out. You didn't casually sample it, like I probably would if it appeared online.
Cheers,
Ian
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:ITMS (Score:2)
If you want to go a little deeper and check out original albums, I'd start with "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".
"Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" should probably be picked up as well, and together.
IMHO, those four albums are the essentials that any music fan should have in their collection.
After that I'd pick and choose. You prefer their early pop sound? Check out "Help!" or "Hard Days Night". You dig the later, more complex stuff? "Abbey Road" or the white album "The Beatles".
"Love" has received pretty good reviews but I haven't heard it yet myself. It's basically an eclectic mix that has been remaster and reedited to serve as the soundtrack to a Cirque du Solei show. If you're interested, pick it up after "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver".
Re:ITMS (Score:2)
I'm 40 - young enough to have missed the whole Beatles phenomena, old enough to have been brought up steeped in their effect on popular culture. While I was never a fan - being brought up on the better styles of country music, and developing my own tastes in the 70's sort of precludes that - I realised the Beatles actually did some good stuff. So, a few years ago, I bought the box set.
What a revelation that was.
There's a lot more good Beatles music than you remember. Everybody can name the big ones, but the rest of the catalogue is absolutely stuffed with good music you've forgotten about, or never even heard. And, unlike today, there's remarkably little crap on any of their albums - pick any one and I guarantee you'll at least appreciate, if not outright like, 3/4 of the tracks. And that missing 1/4 won't be cringeworth dross either. When was the last time you bought something new like that?
And for some strange reason, against all popular opinion, this all comes together on "Magical Mystery Tour". This is the point where their pop stuff meets their rock and experimental stuff, and drags George Harrison's Indian mysticism fetish along for the ride.
Re:ITMS (Score:2)
Agreed. I like a lot of music from that era, but The Beatles never clicked for me. I have about a dozen of their songs, but the only full CD I bought was Sgt. Peppers. It has a many good songs, but it's got some duds in my opinion (Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, specifically).
On the other hand, I really like the song "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," so being able to buy a few Beatles songs makes sense.
Re:ITMS (Score:2)
As penance (not punishment) you must buy the movie Yellow Submarine and watch it twice a day for a whole month. That might teach you to love good music.
Concerning the Apple Computer/Apple Corps deal - well, I liked Apple Computer in the 90'es when noone else did. I'm done with them today. (Still love my original shape iMac though.)
-Lasse
Re:ITMS (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be me. (Score:2)
The burglars got surprised and left my house with CDs "A" thru "D", so no more Beatles CDs, save for Abbey Road that was in the car at the time.
The files from the net were mostly badly done.
I'll be getting these on iTunes.
(I wish I had all the original 45s we would buy weekly at the old 5&10, the proceeds from those would likely pay for the entire repertoire.)
Re:ITMS (Score:2)
Having the Beatles on iTunes is so they can sell to the under 30 crowd who don't want any music they can't download. These people don't buy CDs. They don't have a problem with paying to download though. There is no way right now to sell any Beatles songs to these people, leaving them no choice but to turn to P2P networks to get it for free. Apple Corp. knows they are missing out on a lot of sales to this market segment, so that's why they're going to iTunes.
Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (Score:2)
Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (Score:2)
Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Typical Monopoly behavior (Score:2)
Apparently no judge seems to agree with this obviously biased opinion. In fact, in the most recent case a British judge ruled in FAVOUR of Apple Inc., not Apple Corps.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_displ
Re:What about... (Score:2)