PDA

View Full Version : A solution to the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps (Beatles) lawsuit




TexasMac
Jul 9, 2005, 11:59 AM
Ok so I just thought of this while I was taking a shower this morning. It seems that is where I do alot of good thinking.

Apple Computer and Apple Corps should sign a deal allowing the Beatles catalog to be put on the ITMS exclusively. Apple Corps would get all of the profits from sales of the songs.

This would allow the ITMS to further cement itself as the market leader in legal online music downloads, Apple Corps would receive a steady stream of income for years to come, and consumers would get what they want ie Beatles music available for purchase online. It's obvious from the McCartney Live 8 songs people will buy.

The only problem I see is if other artists would begin wanting exclusive deals like this one.

What do you all think?



Dr. Dastardly
Jul 9, 2005, 12:08 PM
The only problem is that iTunes is essentially why Apple Corp is suing Apple Computer. Before Apple Corp said that Apple Computer can use the name if they didn't get involved with music in any way. Thus with the success of iTunes they are now being sued. The Beatles have no interest in being on iTunes at this time. No matter how much Steve would want it.

ehayut
Jul 9, 2005, 12:11 PM
Wow, I had no idea why this lawsuit was going on. It's really a shame that The Beatles music is not available on itunes :(

So what is Apple Corp demanding from Apple Computers now? :confused:

PlaceofDis
Jul 9, 2005, 12:15 PM
Wow, I had no idea why this lawsuit was going on. It's really a shame that The Beatles music is not available on itunes :(

So what is Apple Corp demanding from Apple Computers now? :confused:


if you search the forums you will find a LOT of info on it, but basically it boils down to that Apple Corps feels that Apple Computer is infringing on their territory through the iTMS and that part of their last lawsuit was that apple would not have anything to do with music.... personally i don't see why its an issue, people are not going to mistake one for the other, and the iTMS is not a record label, just a store......

btw, the Beatles music is not available anywhere legally in digital download format

TexasMac
Jul 9, 2005, 12:38 PM
Something else I just thought about. Is it true that Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatle's music?

I'm really sketchy on how the whole music industry works.

anubis
Jul 9, 2005, 03:39 PM
Something else I just thought about. Is it true that Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatle's music?

I'm really sketchy on how the whole music industry works.


Michael Jackson owns partial rights to some Beatle's songs. I don't think his rights are exclusive. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

JonMaker
Jul 9, 2005, 05:03 PM
The only problem is that iTunes is essentially why Apple Corp is suing Apple Computer. Before Apple Corp said that Apple Computer can use the name if they didn't get involved with music in any way. Thus with the success of iTunes they are now being sued. The Beatles have no interest in being on iTunes at this time. No matter how much Steve would want it.

Remember the hardware synth in the ][gs?

dejo
Jul 9, 2005, 05:10 PM
Michael Jackson owns partial rights to some Beatle's songs. I don't think his rights are exclusive. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

From Wikipedia.org:

"In 1985 ATV's music catalogue was sold off and Michael Jackson paid a reported $47 million (beating Paul McCartney's bid) to buy the publishing rights to over 200 Beatles songs. A decade later Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles' songs.
While the Jackson-Sony catalog includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, a few of the early songs weren't included in the original ATV deal. Accordingly, Paul McCartney later succeeded in acquiring the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Ask Me Why". Sony reported Jackson used his half of his Beatles' catalogue as collateral for a loan from the music company. However, Lennon's estate and McCartney still receive songwriter royalties."

Loge
Jul 9, 2005, 06:07 PM
Any exclusive deals are most likely going to be time-limited, say 6 months. Otherwise you open up all sorts of issues to do with interoperability and anti-competitiveness.

MarkCollette
Jul 9, 2005, 06:39 PM
From Wikipedia.org:

"In 1985 ATV's music catalogue was sold off and Michael Jackson paid a reported $47 million (beating Paul McCartney's bid) to buy the publishing rights to over 200 Beatles songs. A decade later Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles' songs.
While the Jackson-Sony catalog includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, a few of the early songs weren't included in the original ATV deal. Accordingly, Paul McCartney later succeeded in acquiring the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Ask Me Why". Sony reported Jackson used his half of his Beatles' catalogue as collateral for a loan from the music company. However, Lennon's estate and McCartney still receive songwriter royalties."


That settles it, I'm never buying Beatles music gain.