Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

More Beatles vs. Apple Speculation

Ambrose Chapel

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,141
3
Massachusetts
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.
 
Comment

FattyMembrane

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2002
966
154
bat country
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...
 
Comment

Doctor Q

Contributor
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
38,312
4,741
Los Angeles
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.
 
Comment

alset

macrumors 65816
Nov 9, 2002
1,262
0
East Bay, CA
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
 
Comment

bennetsaysargh

macrumors 68020
Jan 20, 2003
2,367
0
New York
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?
 
Comment

Foocha

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2001
588
0
London
Err... Sony Ericsson is a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson - Apple Records has no connection with Apple Computer.
 
Comment

Rocketman

macrumors 603
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.

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
 
Comment

daRAT

macrumors regular
May 12, 2002
134
0
Kennebunk, Maine, USA
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
erm...abbey road
;) :D :)

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]
 
Comment

1stunna

macrumors newbie
Aug 12, 2003
5
0
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"
 
Comment

junior

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2003
530
45
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"


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.
 
Comment

mdntcallr

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2000
1,469
177
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.
 
Comment

daRAT

macrumors regular
May 12, 2002
134
0
Kennebunk, Maine, USA
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]

oops sorry! ;]
 
Comment

bignumbers

macrumors regular
May 9, 2002
206
0
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.

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...
 
Comment

rjwill246

macrumors 6502
Feb 22, 2003
415
0
USA (often) and Adelaide, OZ
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...
... I think you should be gla-aad!
yeah! yeah! yeah! yeeeaaahhhhhhhh!!!
 
Comment

ollywilson2003

macrumors member
Mar 15, 2003
59
0
New Zealand
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.

Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles music?
 
Comment

raynegus

macrumors regular
Jul 5, 2003
188
0
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.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.