iPod A solution to the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps (Beatles) lawsuit

TexasMac

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 30, 2005
45
0
Texas
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

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,317
0
I live in a giant bucket!
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

Suspended
Jun 29, 2005
96
0
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

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
ehayut said:
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

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 30, 2005
45
0
Texas
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

macrumors 6502a
Feb 7, 2003
937
50
TexasMac said:
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

macrumors regular
Apr 24, 2004
222
0
here.
Dr. Dastardly said:
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

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 2, 2004
15,725
447
The Centennial State
anubis said:
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

macrumors 68030
Jun 24, 2004
2,679
1,147
England
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

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2003
1,555
32
Toronto, Canada
dejo said:
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.