Forgot your password?
Close
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal

Comments Filter:

  • Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)

    by johndierks ( 784521 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:50PM (#17893122)
    Anyone care to guess how much this settlement is worth?

    • Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2, Interesting)

      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.

      • Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:24PM (#17893636)
        You're living in fantasy land. True, Apple Corps has more to gain in name recognition by being associated with Apple Inc then visa-versa, but the case is a pretty straight forward trademark and contract dispute in which Corps' position is very strong. If the little guy can win against RIM, and RIM actually get an order to stop selling product, then Corp most certainly has the potential to win against Inc.

        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)

          by lurker4hire ( 449306 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:37PM (#17893846) Homepage
          Trademark != Patent

          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)

            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.

      • It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Funny)

        by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:36PM (#17893820)
        This is one of many lawsuits that have been happening since the 80's (remember the Apple IIgs?). It's just a balance of power. In the early days, the Beatles thought that they were bigger than Jesus, and so they sued a little computer company. Now, that little computer company is bigger than the Beatles, and Jesus has an iPod.

        • Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Informative)

          by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:50PM (#17894902) Journal
          This isn't really a fair characterization of the "battle". Apple Corps existed long before Apple Computers. Apple Corps quite fairly wanted to make sure that this new computer company wasn't going to diminish the value of their name, and that they weren't going to try to compete in the same market (you only get those trademarks as long as you are willing to defend them). back in '80 ot whatever, they came to an agreement that Apple Inc would stay out of the music business. Well, technology marches on and by the end of the 80's computers are beginning inroads into the music industry. Apple Corps feels that Apple Inc is starting to encroach on their area of business, and the two again end up in court. The case is settled, with Apple Inc again agreeing they won't go into the content creation or distribution aspect of the music business. Then along comes iTunes, which is pretty clearly associated with selling music, if not exactly distributing it in the industry Label sense. Now, Apple Corps (from what I have read) had no objection whatsoever to iTunes; what they objected to was it being branded as Apple iTunes. iTunes is and was clearly associated with the music industry, and Apple Corps had a long-standing trademark on the Apple name within that industry. Unfortunately for Apple Corps, a judge decided that since iTunes isn't distributing music in the traditional sense (i.e., they don't sign artists to contracts for sole distribution of music) they aren't infringing the Apple trademark.

          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)

            by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Monday February 05, 2007 @07:55PM (#17897840) Homepage Journal
            What really pissed me off in the late eighties was that because of that lawsuit with Apple records, Apple Computers decided that their "MidiManager" system put them into the music industry, so they had to kill it. Then various competing systems were created (OMS, FreeMidi), fracturing the nice, ground breaking MIDI system that was in place in the beginning.

            --jeffk++

          • Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@NOspAm.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.

    • Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)

      by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:18PM (#17893550)
      It's not just the money. But they're going to wait a few weeks before announcing that Steve Jobs is on the Apple Corp. board.

      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?
    • It's priceless to Apple Inc. The Beatles and Apple Corp. will never be a threat again. The iTunes Store will stay open--though its European branches aren't exactly out of the woods yet.

    • Re:Money/stock changing hands? (Score:2)

      by e1618978 ( 598967 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:56PM (#17899646)
      We can probably figure it out once the next Apple quarterly report comes out - they will have a line item for lawsuit payouts, and we can just subtract the $100 million that they paid Creative.

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

    by georgewad ( 154339 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:51PM (#17893130) Homepage
    Certainly adds fuel to the rumors of the Beatles catalogue (sic) showing up on ITMS.

  • It just goes to show that.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:53PM (#17893166)
    .... All you need is love.

  • Farmers beware! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bwana Geek ( 1033040 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:53PM (#17893168) Journal
    In other news, the Apple Growers Association of America has recently come under fire...

  • Money can't buy me love... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Biff Stu ( 654099 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:53PM (#17893178)
    But it can buy a trademark.

  • 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.

    • Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Funny)

      by cybereal ( 621599 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:03PM (#17893360) Homepage
      According to http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] they haven't resisted everyone.

    • Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Phat_Tony ( 661117 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:46PM (#17893980)
      By, "their music," you mean "Michael Jackson and Sony's [slashdot.org] music," right?

      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)

        by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:57PM (#17894160) Homepage Journal
        Okay. The Beatles catalog is in Northernsongs, which is de facto owned by Sony unless Michael Jackson starts getting some financial sense. (The financial advice he took from Paul appears to be the last sound financial advice he ever took.) Apple Corp. does own something valuable, though--the Beatles recordings.
        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)

          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.

          • Re:"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:4, Informative)

            by robi2106 ( 464558 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @07:15PM (#17897286) Journal
            i am a videographer so this issue is something I have fought with for a while.

            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)

            by robi2106 ( 464558 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @04:09AM (#17901512) Journal
            to follow up.... in order to use music with a production (non-profit, profit, even person in home) involving visual media of any kind (slide show, movie, even just colors and splotches moving around) you are supposed to get no less than TWO licenses. A duplication license in order to store that music on a physical device, a mechanical license in order to mechanically sync the music to visuals, and possibly a royalty agreement on a per disc basis.

            that equals one HUGE pain in the butt for a producer.

            jason

      • Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:59PM (#17894180) Homepage Journal

        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?

        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)

      by Pope ( 17780 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @05:27PM (#17895466)
      George Martin remastered the Beatles' back catalog and released the first batch in 1987, that's hardly a "late adopter." The world didn't really get their hands on CDs until 1983-ish.

      • Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:2)

        by hondo77 ( 324058 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @06:42PM (#17896732) Homepage
        The point is that there were plenty of catalogs on CD by the time The Beatles got around to putting out their CDs so, in that sense, they were late adopters. However, to their credit, they put them out right the first time. It's not like Led Zeppelin where they put their catalog out once, then put out a box set of some remastered songs, then put out the catalog remastered. Or The Doors (put out, then remastered, now in quad...I mean surround).

  • Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kupekhaize ( 220804 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17893202)
    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? :)

  • Rumors were off by a day (Score:3, Interesting)

    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.

  • Crab apple. (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:55PM (#17893206) Homepage Journal
    What this means is that although Apple Corps is older, although Apple Inc. violated the terms of the original settlement by pushing first multimedia and then music, and although Apple Inc. has all the sensitivity of a Bavarian weevil on speed, it is Apple Inc. that wins the court case. Presumably on the grounds that even if they'd lost, they'd not have done anything any different.

    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.

  • Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skoaldipper ( 752281 ) 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.

  • Bring on the remasters (Score:2)

    by DreadfulGrape ( 398188 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:03PM (#17893356)
    I'm just glad it's over, regardless of which side came out on top. Maybe now I'll see a digitally remastered Beatles catalog appear, like, before I die. And not on iTMS, but on SACD or some equivalent.

  • Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Telephone Sanitizer ( 989116 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:06PM (#17893396)
    I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.
    • Well, Sir Paul got himself into this. This time, I believe he chose it freely.
      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)

    by dctoastman ( 995251 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:15PM (#17893512) Homepage
    Looks like Apple Corps. got the short end of the stick on this one. Apple, Inc. got ownership of all trademarks in regard to the Apple name and will license them back to the company that used it first.

    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..

  • I figured out step 3! (Score:2, Funny)

    by davidbrit2 ( 775091 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:31PM (#17893730) Homepage
    1. Use company's name
    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)

    by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:54PM (#17894100) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, I don't understand what this is all about. Why are people making such a big deal about the Beatles being available on iTunes? Has everyone suddenly forgotten about this thing called a compact disc? You just pop it in your CD-ROM drive, run CDex to convert the audio files to MP3, then move the files over to your MP3 player! I've done it! It's not so hard! I actually slammed some knucklehead on Engadget who said that he downloaded the Beatles' songs illegally because he couldn't download them legally! WTF? Is this what we've reduced ourselves to? Are physical discs now completely taboo?

    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)

      by Jerry Rivers ( 881171 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:07PM (#17894256)
      Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them any more. It's a waste of money and materials. It's also cheaper (usually) to buy my tunes at the Apple store because I don't have to pay for all that extra packaging and distribution (and who knows what else).

      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.

    • buying and buying and buying (Score:2)

      by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:21PM (#17894460) Journal
      What I dont get is how people can still accept the notion of "buying music" over and over again. Back in the day, when it came on vinyl or whatever, it was easy to see the tradeoff: if you dont take care fo your shit it gets worn out, scratched, warped or otherwise screwed up and you gotta replace it. Without going into detailed analysis of my past collections I can recall at least three purchases of Sgt. Pepper's (two vinyl and one on 8 track), two purchases of the red and blue collections (LP and 8 track) and that's just the Beatles stuff - I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I have bought some Alice Cooper releases like "Killer" and "Easy Action" (LP, 8 track, CD, cassette... how many of each?)

      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)

        by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:38PM (#17894704) Homepage Journal
        I do understand where you're going with that. I've done the same thing. I have some CDs that were the fourth iteration of that album, having been preceeded by 8-track, cassette, and LP. But with CD it's not nearly as much of an issue. Vinyl gets worn every time you run the needle over it. That's unavoidable. Tape loses its signal quality every time you play it. That's unavoidable.

        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)

          by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:34PM (#17899918) Journal
          Not even with itunes. Music is a relative fraction of the stuff I keep around - TV shows, movies, music vids, etc. I can't jsut go rip those again if they get lost (although I might, eventually, be able to recollect them... at 50 cents a gigabyte... from newsgroups). I don't have cable (can't get it), won't pay Hughes 600 bucks a year for country cable, and even if I did I still couldn't get many of the shows I like (The IT crowd, CBC reports, various Korean and Russian shows and movies) so what's the point? The "old media" is obsolete.

          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)

      by Genevish ( 93570 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:36PM (#17894668) Homepage

      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.

  • Negotiations went like this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:07PM (#17894262)
    The Beatles: "You Never give Me Your Money"
    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"

  • Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    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.

  • How the Conversation Went: (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:52PM (#17894950)
    Apple Computer: "I wanna hold your hand"
    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)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:59PM (#17895064)
    Some background info - the 'Beatles' was a band popular in the late Pleistocene epoch. It featured four musicians who used to work in a semiconductor plant (hence their nickname 'Fab Four'). One of them is that guy who's getting divorced. No, not him - the other one. They formed a distribution company called Apple which owned their music before Michael Jackson bought it. Apple was suing Apple over the name Apple (or maybe Marklar), but Apple has settled with Apple and is now free to use Apple.

  • So... (Score:2)

    by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @05:02PM (#17895114)
    I take it that this article has something to do with apples?

  • typo in the story (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @06:17PM (#17896292)

    The terms of settlement are confidential.
    They misspelled "astronomical."

Slashdot Top Deals

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Close