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

More Beatles vs. Apple Speculation

man...i love the beatles more than a lot of things, but this is just ridiculous. apple records doesn't have nearly the name recognition as The Beatles does...they should let it drop.
 
Apple records pulled this stunt when Apple computer was first created. they reached an agreement that apple computer could use the name as long as they never produced audio/music equipment. when the first macs with microphones shipped, they included the "sosumi" sound.

Apple records needs to give it a rest. i didn't even know it was around any more. they should be looking forward to the publicity they'll get when people accidentally stop by their site instead of apple.com, or perhaps that's the entire motive behind this move...
 
I think Steve Jobs should buy Apple Records and, while he's at it, Michael Jackson's rights to the Beatle's catalog. I'll chip in a dollar, Steve.
 
Love the Beatles, but I must say that I'm a little tired of these antics. Nobody cares about the name, Apple Records. They care about the studio at Abbey Lane.

Dan
 
now that would be something if SJ ewre to go to MJ's house to negotiate for the rights to the beatles songs, but wouldn't having the rights to the beatles songs make the beatles even more pissed?
 
Err... Sony Ericsson is a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson - Apple Records has no connection with Apple Computer.
 
Re: More Beatles vs. Apple Speculation

Originally posted by Macrumors
This DotMusic article revives speculation on the Beatles vs. Apple.

It appears to be based on older information however, with references to the rumors of Apple acquiring Universal Music.
Click to expand...

I believe Apple Corp is primarilly owned by Michael Jackson (the pop star artist) and Sony Records. Both are on record as strong supporters of Apple Computer Inc generallly and iPod, iTunes and computers specifically.

As such this is more an issue of dealing with a lisencing modification to a long standing contract and dealing with how to deal with the unexpected shift of Apple Computer Inc into music distribution proper, which I am sure neither party expected on day one of this contract.

Apple Corp is effectively a single product company (like a movie company often is) while Apple Computer Inc is a multi-product, multi-industry company.

I bet the end result is the new contract adds 10-30 cents per iPod to Apple Computer Inc's licensing cost to Apple Corp to address this unforseen issue.

Rocketman
 
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
erm...abbey road
;) :D :)
Click to expand...

When one can afford a G5 dual 2 ghz, one lives on Abbey Lane NOT Abbey Road :p

BTW, no one commented on the last line of the rumor?

[admin edit: please, no comments about the merits of foxnews as it always degrades into pointless political debate]
 
apple the music company already sued apple computer in the early nineties. they got a settlement, and cannot sue again. this is old, and misinformed "news"
 
Originally posted by 1stunna
apple the music company already sued apple computer in the early nineties. they got a settlement, and cannot sue again. this is old, and misinformed "news"
Click to expand...


I think they can certainly sue again because Apple Computer has breached the contract again. I'm sure both parties have been negotiating for several months.
 
You are wrong, they can sue again.

Apple has entered into a new business line, in the music industry. Which they had formerly agreed to stay out of.

So, I smell some type of settlement with Apple Records.
 
Originally posted by daRAT
When one can afford a G5 dual 2 ghz, one lives on Abbey Lane NOT Abbey Road :p

BTW, no one commented on the last line of the rumor?

[admin edit: please, no comments about the merits of foxnews as it always degrades into pointless political debate]
Click to expand...

oops sorry! ;]
 
Originally posted by mdntcallr
You are wrong, they can sue again.

Apple has entered into a new business line, in the music industry. Which they had formerly agreed to stay out of.

So, I smell some type of settlement with Apple Records.
Click to expand...

The original suit was when Apple included CD-ROM drives for the first time, since they could be used for playing music (close enough to justify a lawsuit).

The interesting thing this time is Apple Computer is doing something that could make Apple Records happy - selling music. Why not a settlement that places The Beatles top-center of ITMS? Hmmm...
 
Originally posted by bignumbers
The interesting thing this time is Apple Computer is doing something that could make Apple Records happy - selling music. Why not a settlement that places The Beatles top-center of ITMS? Hmmm...
Click to expand...
... I think you should be gla-aad!
yeah! yeah! yeah! yeeeaaahhhhhhhh!!!
 
Originally posted by Doctor Q
I think Steve Jobs should buy Apple Records and, while he's at it, Michael Jackson's rights to the Beatle's catalog. I'll chip in a dollar, Steve.
Click to expand...

Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles music?
 
What happened was Yoko said she could get the rights at a good deal and Paul trusted her to do that. Then the next thing he new Micheal owned them. Paul has lost a lot of sleep since then.

I read that in an interview with Paul McCartney and it is sad. It was when Nike was using the song Revolution in their ads and Paul was working hard to stop them. He and John agreed when they were young to never use their music for advertising and he felt he owed it to John's memory to keep any ads from using music he co-wrote (Lennon/McCartney). But wacko jacko didn't care about that.
 
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