Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

then/now

benpatient said:
wow. the fanboyism has hit an all-time high. Apparently Steve's RDF is spreading via the internet...or maybe through Mac "pro" mice?

Anyone who thinks Apple Computer isn't in violation of their previous legal agreement with Apple Corps is either ignorant of the case or flat-out dumb.

There was no reasonable way for Apple Computer to create iTMS and not get sued by Apple Corps for...well, we'll see how much. The thing is, the question isn't, and wasn't, whether or not Apple Computer would lose this battle...it was simply a question of how long the battle would last, and how much it would "cost" apple in the long run.

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. The Beatles have had a much greater and longer-lasting effect on our culture than Apple ever hoped to gain.
Click to expand...

yah, but that was 40 years ago. times change, and apparently the contract they set up with Apple Corp didn't account for that. The tables are turning, Apple is doing the influencing now. Apple is changing the landscape & I would have to say that Apple is a cultural icon already. Just sucks that the contract was set up the way it was. I doubt Apple will be making that kind of mistake again.
 
I don't know enough about any of this to take an "Apple Comp. is right" or "Apple Corps is right," but it seems to me that there's an easy way to solve this.

Merge.

Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.

Then the traditional, greedy labels could be slowly removed from the scene entirely. What I love about iTMS is that the "staff picks" and so on are obviously chosen by music lovers, not greedy record execs trying to cram the latest pop "musicians" down our throats. I've discovered more great music in the last two months of "New Music Tuesdays" and weekly free tracks and iTMS staff picks and iTMS music videos than I'd found in the previous year listening to the radio.

Imagine if those same music lovers had control over record-label and distribution functions of the industry!

The world would be a better place.

I love the Beatles. I love my Macs. It would be a fascinating thing to see the two Apples come together into one company, rather than mindlessly litigating at one another.
 
Couldn't Apple simply spin the music department off into a company or a subsidiary with a different name, like iTMS? They doesn't make much profit out of it, and it's not like the music store is really related with computers or anything. Apple would still make profit selling iPods and at the same time expand the Mac user base.
 
achmafooma said:
Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.
Click to expand...

Powerhouse? Apple US is the powerhouse here... Apple Corps' extensive control over what, that handful of Beatles albums that are already available on every recording format known to man? Bah! :p
 
Could be good

This could be good news for lots if reasons:

It ends the interminable legal wrangling which is too costly for everybody - and let's face it we all hate lawyers ;)
The Beatles' music will hopefully pop up on the iTMS - and they are still undeniably one of the most popular bands of all time:
More and more people will flock to the iTMS in recognition of this fact, giving it an even greater advantage against the competition:
McCartney - like him or loathe him - is one of the most influential and powerful figures in the entertainment industry and his inclusion on the Apple board must surely be an advantage:
He is British, therefore he will give Apple a more European perspective:
Everybody is happy :cool:

P.S. will iTMS UK might be able to have iTunes Essentials like the US store? Are they currently prohibited from doing so as they would be acting as a sort of record label and that is restricted be the current legal dispute?
Here's hoping.
 
achmafooma said:
Merge.

Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. Some very confident dude on appleinsider a couple months ago went on a long rant about apple's future. He knew all sorts of stuff, cause he was an insider of apple, and apple legal would never find out who he was. Anyways, he seemed to think Apple Computer was all set to buy out Apple Records, and make a company just like what you described. Of course, this guy also said "say bye bye to all in one imacs, the next one's gonna be headless." Well, it was only two weeks ago that i learned this guy was most likely full of it. But something seems to be happening between the two companies.
The only thing is that some conflict would probably arise between apple and the other record companies who's stuff they sell on their store.

But ya, i'm all for a merger.

And by the way, i don't understand how anyone who knows anything about music could say the beatles had no talent. I'm not so into some of their early stuff, but they really developed into some insanely creative musicians, and they helped pave the way for just about everything we hear today, either directly or indirectly through all sorts of musical evolution.

And another thing, if they get the beatles onto ITMS, they better resolve that issue involving tiny gaps between tracks, cause that will not work with album like Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper that play like one whole masterpiece, not a bunch of separated singles.
That 0.3 seconds of silence is my arch nemesis!
 
morkintosh said:
well I guess we could go and take the Clintonian approach and ask "what is the definition of is", but come on, while there is always arguments to be made on both sides they aren't always STRONG arguments.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it could be a pretty strong argument...technology changes, if your logic was the be all end all, the RIAA would have killed mp3's and anything like iTunes LONG ago. Things change, rules bend and lose their meaning, and lawyers come in to sort it out.

PS- Hate the game, not the player.
 
daddy-mojo said:
yah, but that was 40 years ago. times change, and apparently the contract they set up with Apple Corp didn't account for that. The tables are turning, Apple is the influencing now.
Click to expand...

actually, Apple Computers has been losing court battles for years...up into the 90s, even. Apple Corps successfully sued Apple Computers for putting a SPEAKER in the Mac.

Seriously. If they can get Apple that easily, then this one's open/shut. The result of that and other clashes over the years spelled out very clearly what apple was and wasn't allowed to do with music on the Mac. They flat-out violated the terms of that agreement, and unless a statute of limitations was included in the language, we're probably looking at 50 years or more from now when Apple won't be under the stipulations of that settlement—unless they deal with it now.
 
maelstromr said:
Actually, I think it could be a pretty strong argument...technology changes, if your logic was the be all end all, the RIAA would have killed mp3's and anything like iTunes LONG ago. Things change, rules bend and lose their meaning, and lawyers come in to sort it out.
Click to expand...

Not really. This isn't a case of changing technology, this is a case of a trademark dispute that resulted in a mutual agreement between two companies. The RIAA analogy is completely specious as the RIAA didn't (that I know of) have agreements in place with any company that uses mp3 encoding, or old WAV encoding for that matter. Technology isn't the compelling factor here, breech of agreement is.
 
Rotten to the core

I had never heard of Apple records before this. It seems more like extortion than anything else. Even if Apple resells music through computers they are not a record label themselves.
I am guessing that this settlement is so big because it is going to kill all future disputes between the two companies. Apple should own its name and Apple Records name by the time this is all done. Paul McCartney is a prick, I guess he is still upset about Michael Jackson owning all of his songs. Give my regards to Eileen Paul, or whatever her name is.

Submitted by IJ Reilly? as in Ignatious J Reilly? how's your valve?
 
JtheLemur said:
Powerhouse? Apple US is the powerhouse here... Apple Corps' extensive control over what, that handful of Beatles albums that are already available on every recording format known to man? Bah! :p
Click to expand...
Well I didn't really mean that Apple Corps was currently a powerhouse -- I'm well aware that they're not. BUT, Apple Computer merged with them (thus eliminating Apple Computers' reluctance to become such a music powerhouse) could possibly become one.

My point was simply that Apple+Apple could become a music powerhouse together, but neither would separately (except as a distributor like we see in iTMS today).

Beatles albums would sell in iTMS. Heck, I only have a handful of Beatles albums but would love to have them all. The reason I haven't worked toward that goal lately is that I don't go to music stores anymore, except iTMS. I'm sure I'm not alone.
 
Xtremehkr said:
Paul McCartney is a prick, I guess he is still upset about Michael Jackson owning all of his songs. Give my regards to Eileen Paul, or whatever her name is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, talk about getting 0wn3d. Prolley spent too much of his money on tea and curry and chips to buy the catalog! hehe.
 
Whatever the agreement between Apple US and Apple Corps contained, it doesn't change the fact that Apple Corps are acting greedily.

Just because something is written down, doesn't make it ethical or fair.

Then again, when did 'ethics' or 'fairness' have anything to do with lawsuits like this.

Last - notice how it is the iTunes Music Store not the Apple Music Store?

If they do pay cash, I hope that a) it isn't too much and b) the Beatles get into the iTMS.

Floop
 
morkintosh said:
Not really. This isn't a case of changing technology, this is a case of a trademark dispute that resulted in a mutual agreement between two companies. The RIAA analogy is completely specious as the RIAA didn't (that I know of) have agreements in place with any company that uses mp3 encoding, or old WAV encoding for that matter. Technology isn't the compelling factor here, breech of agreement is.
Click to expand...


I wasn't arguing the RIAA as to fact and similar circumstance, I was pointing out that "it's that was because it was that way before" is not necessarily a viable argument. (Clarification, "an agreement always means and acts exactly the same way as it did when created" is NOT a truth legally speaking.)
 
jeffy.dee-lux said:
And by the way, i don't understand how anyone who knows anything about music could say the beatles had no talent. I'm not so into some of their early stuff, but they really developed into some insanely creative musicians, and they helped pave the way for just about everything we hear today, either directly or indirectly through all sorts of musical evolution.
Click to expand...

Amazing how they influenced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven through some kind of time travel.

And a merger makes no sense, they are in completely separate businesses.
 
benpatient said:
Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you're a Beatles fan, but this statement makes no sense. If the Beatles didn't exist, it would've been someone else- maybe a different direction, but technology would still have arrived at the same place.

Couldn't Apple spin off iTunes as its own company to avoid this rift? :eek:
 
I guess it's a good thing Apple has that 5 Billion just sitting around. This could have been a potential right cross to the chin had they not been stockpiling the cash (assuming, of course, that this settlement is indeed a monster).
 
Apple should just announce they are no longer going to do business in the UK and pull all their offices and support out. Then, screw apple UK. Of course, I have no idea how all this works. Someone enlighten me. :)

Steve
 
maelstromr said:
I wasn't arguing the RIAA as to fact and similar circumstance, I was pointing out that "it's that was because it was that way before" is not necessarily a viable argument. (Clarification, "an agreement always means and acts exactly the same way as it did when created" is NOT a truth legally speaking.)
Click to expand...

which generally is up to the courts to determine I will agree, however empirically speaking they tend to favor the plaintiff in these sorts of disputes, otherwise Mickey Mouse would have been in the public domain long long ago.
 
What do they owe

Koree said:
Guys, you do know that there is an aggreement with the two companies agreeing that Apple UK wouldn't make computers and Apple US wouldn't sell music, right? Apple US does owe money. But it'll be settled, Apple US does owe money to Apple UK.
Click to expand...


I don't have a quarrel with the view that Apple Computer owes Apple Corp money. However, the amount of the settlement should be commensurate with the damages actually suffered by the plaintiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back