the greed that is the beatles

[zentatonic]

The Beatles can do no wrong. They are the greatest band ever, so who gives a rat's shite what shady deals their management pulls?

[Catoogie]

First of all it's not their management and more importantly it's not a shady deal.

[Al]

The Beatles are all,or were business men,they have investments left right and centre in everything,this is old news!!...and yes i love the Beatles,but dont agree with all they stand for.

Their music is what i'm interested in,cause lets face it,is fuk'n good!

[Electricide]

Jobs and Apple computer have made millions on the ipod, and will make millions more from the online music service. So they are dealing in the same business as a record label, but at the same time they're only promoting the sale of Beatles' records and songs online.

They should just announce a merger, and create the biggest, baddest music/recording label online music distibution technology conglomeration ever. Ever.

[arneal]

To be clear, Apple Computers is not in the same business as a record label, they're in the same business as a record store (a very large record store, but....). However, a broken agreement is a broken agreement.
Armond

[wing]

i guess my point is just that the agreement is ridiculous to begin with... but oh well.

[wayne kerr]

i guess my point is just that the agreement is ridiculous to begin with... but oh well.

Ridiculous from which side? Apple records could have told Jobs and Wozniak to go pound sand in 1981, but they didn't. They owned the name 'Apple' and as such had every right (and still do) to control its use or public representation. Apple computer broke the terms of the agreement and now I suspect they will have to pay the piper... It's kind of like that old joke about the travelling salesman whose car breaks down and the farmer says he can stay as long as he doesn't sneak into his vestal 19-year-old daughter's room at night and try to... awww never mind.

[KingOlaf]

Do you think the brewers of Bass Ale would sue me if start making a beer called Bass Lager? I'm mean they'll both be beers but mine will be a lager and their an ale plus I'll have a fish on the bottle and I'm American they're English so it would be totally stupid for them to sue me, right?

[endofanera]

i guess my point is just that the agreement is ridiculous to begin with... but oh well.

Actually it's not ridiculous -- the right of trademark, unlike copyright, is established not merely by creation, but by use in the marketplace. If you have a trademark and you dont exploit and protect its meaning in the marketplace, you lose that trademark. This suit, aside from the money changing hands, is essential to Apple Records maintaining its trademark in the marketplace. If the Beatles' Apple Co. overlooks it and Apple Music/Itunes takes off, then Apple computer could have a very good chance of making an argument in a few years to force Apple Records to abandon the trademark, in spite of Apple Records' earlier establishment and use of the trademark. Not saying it would be successful, just saying that in our system of law that's one of many ways one maintains a trademark -- cease and desist, threat of and actual lawsuit/damages, etc.

[wayne kerr]

Do you think the brewers of Bass Ale would sue me if start making a beer called Bass Lager?

Absolutely. They would crush you like a bug.

[Electricide]

wow. I'm surprised to see this board in favor of a lawsuit by a major label, esp. against a company that provides services and technologies we all benefit from. Does this mean no G6????

By the way, I agree, Jobs should have known better.

[rtopia]

Does this mean no G6????

Does that mean you actually have an itch that the G5 can't currently scratch?

- r[/list][/b]

[BrianK]

Have you noticed how there are NO cajun/italian/vegetarian/fancy restaurants called McDonalds - even though that is a very common name. There cannot even be a market with that name; If you are in the food service business, you can reserve the right to use that name. Same with Apple records and music.

For what it's worth - Neil Aspinall is the "manager" for the Beatles company, which is Apple. Did you know they have about 6 employees? It's not as big a company as one would expect. They are (as noted above) protecting their trademark, and enforcing something Apple Computers previously agreed was wrong to do. Both are big money. If the tables were turned, it would happen the other way too.

[hulahalau]

I do not recall that the earlier settlement included an admission by Apple Computers that it had infringed upon the Apple Corps. trademark. In my NSFHO, the earlier lawsuit by Apple Corp had nothing to do with any then-current trademark infringment by Apple Computer, inasmuch as Apple Computer had no activities in music talent development, concert development, booking or promotion, music distirbution, or manufacturing of music media, which are the hallmarks of a "music entertainment" enterprise. Rather, the purpose of the earlier lawsuit was to prevent future activities by Apple Computer into those areas, with the hope of precluding the need for a trademark infrigement suit in the future. Hence the terms of the settlement agreement.

As far as whether there was a breach of that earlier agreement, based upon the claim that Apple Computers is entering the music entertainment business, that will be for the courts to decide. It is a business and legal matter, and I fail to see any fundamental moral precepts or ethical issues involved that would favor either Apple Computer or Apple Corp in this dispute.

I suggest that it would be more fruitful to return to the technical and artistic matters which have typically been the home of at least this forum of the TapeOp bulletin board. I think there are other forums where this would be better located.

[soundispatch]

I suggest that it would be more fruitful to return to the technical and artistic matters which have typically been the home of at least this forum of the TapeOp bulletin board. I think there are other forums where this would be better located.

hey hula,

i agree absolutely with your position, except i think this suggestion would lead to a very boring and lifeless forum. trademark and copyright law are incredibly relevant to the music industry and (personally) i found everyone's attitudes and arguments interesting and thought provoking. 'artists' have traditionally been excluded from the legal discourse that surrounds pertinent issues that, depending on your position, could hinder their success if not considered.

sometimes this is more important than knowing which <$100 condenser will serve you best when recording your trumpet player!

thanks bluepxl for bringing it up...
-cal