Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The thread title is meant as a joke. 2 of the 4 Beatles are dead, and I seriously doubt Paul or Ringo have anything against iTunes or the iPod.

It's the Apple label that is greedy.
 
Originally posted by raynegus
The thread title is meant as a joke. 2 of the 4 Beatles are dead, and I seriously doubt Paul or Ringo have anything against iTunes or the iPod.

It's the Apple label that is greedy.

And just who do you think owns the Apple label? Go back and read my posts on the last page - the whole label was set up to be a tax shelter for the 4 Beatles, each of which owed 25% of the label.
 
Originally posted by alandail
And just who do you think owns the Apple label? Go back and read my posts on the last page - the whole label was set up to be a tax shelter for the 4 Beatles, each of which owed 25% of the label.

Which then was Killed off for now Record companies.

'Apple Corp' is basically owned by EMI/Capital Directly now.

Jack-o Owns the Rights to many of the songs.


Get ur facts straight!
 
If this so called Apple Corps is going to continue to sue then Apple Computer could just change their corporate name to Macintosh Computer, Inc and keep the same logo. They could do anything they wanted with music after that. Heck anymore the brand Mac has more recognition in the computer world then Apple does, but I hope it would never come to that!

I don't think much will come out of this except they will get some money out of Apple. Again.
 
Re: Ha

Originally posted by alset
Well, this is interesting. Can't say I blame them. I get confused between pop supergroups and computers all the time.

When the Jacksonville Jaguar's first logo was released during it's first season in 1996, the Jaguar Motor Company sued them over the logo. Apparently, both companies had, get this, a Jaguar as their logo!

The Jags have since adopted a severed jaguar head, vs the Jaguar body in full stride. Jaguar (the car) had won.
 
Re: Re: Ha

Originally posted by mainstreetmark
When the Jacksonville Jaguar's first logo was released during it's first season in 1996, the Jaguar Motor Company sued them over the logo. Apparently, both companies had, get this, a Jaguar as their logo!

The Jags have since adopted a severed jaguar head, vs the Jaguar body in full stride. Jaguar (the car) had won.

And Jaguar the operating system never actually ran into any problems at all.

Maybe the Carolina Panthers will sue...
 
To add to my point/argument I quote My Red Beatles '1962-1966' Album (CD's)

"The Copyright in these sound recordings is owned my EMI Records LTD.
1993 The Copyright in this compliation is owned by EMI Records LTD.
1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."


and on the CD:

"Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc."


I own about every Beatles CD's in history.

😀 🙄
 
It is incorrect to say that Michael Jackson "owns" all the Beatles songs, it is simply not the case. First of all, he never "owned" the songs, he simply owned a majority share of the company that owned the publishing rights to the Lennon/McCartney songs (Northern Songs Ltd.) Both Lennon (Yoko Ono, once John was killed) and McCartney owned minority shares in the company, but were unsuccessful in attempting to buy the majority stake in the company, once the main shareholder decided to sell. Jackson (acting on advice, ironically, from McCartney who had told him earlier that music publishing was a good investment) then outbid McCartney and Ono for the majority share.

McCartney and Ono still received royalty payments from the songs, they simply didn't own the publishing rights to them. However, by the early 90s Jackson ran into financial difficuly and sold his share to Sony.

Apple Corps, on the other hand, was the record company the Beatles created to release their albums from the White Album (1968) on. It also owns their intelectual property, likenesses, pictures, films, etc. It is not a pointless company like some people here claimed, but a legitimate holding company. Also, the idea that Apple Computer should "buy" Apple Corps is simply absurd. I assure you the holdings of Apple Corps are quite valuable, and I doubt you would find it an easy sell to McCartney and Yoko Ono, having been cheated out of Northern Songs Ltd.

Also, Apple Records didn't just release Beatles records either, it launched the career of many artists, including James Taylor and Badfinger.

(Sorry, just had to get that off my chest after reading the many erroneous posts in this thread.)
 
here is a new thought

back in the day...
It was Apple Corp. vs. Apple Inc.,
Since then Apple has changed its name to Apple Computers Inc.. And not to long ago changed it again to just Apple Computers.

I wonder if Apple Corp. vs Apple Computers is the loophole Jobs is going to use.

You guys see what I'm getting at?
 
Originally posted by MrMacman
To add to my point/argument I quote My Red Beatles '1962-1966' Album (CD's)

"The Copyright in these sound recordings is owned my EMI Records LTD.
1993 The Copyright in this compliation is owned by EMI Records LTD.
1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."


and on the CD:

"Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc."


I own about every Beatles CD's in history.

😀 🙄

Actually, I read that to say the opposite of what you said. it says EMI has an exclusive license to the copyrights from Apple Corps. From what I read, the Beatles Apple Corps recordings were always released by EMI. Apple Corps was formed as a tax shelter - instead of EMI paying royalties to the Beatles, they payed Apple Corps, which dramatically reduced the taxes that had to be paid on the royalties.
 
Originally posted by hsilver
Spike Lee / Spike TV. Where is this going?

Spike Lee sued to prevent the renaming of TNN to Spike TV. Turns out they gave Spike Lee a few million and it went on as planned.
 
McCartney Advances MAC techonology

Originally posted by Stella
Beatles do not like new technology.
Actually, Paul sometimes acts like he really loves Apple Computers and that he's trying to help Apple out...

About his last CD/DVD w/extras: "I tell you what other far out thing for me was... just the other day, one of the guys came up, they said: 'wait a minute, we've just heard that Apple Mac users won't be able to access this 'cause the technology is different for the Mac.' So I got onto our our guys and I said 'Get on the phone. Start making inquiries!

"What's happened is they just actually sorted it so that Apple Mac WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT! So like, WE'RE advancing Mac technology! I mean, I'm not a 'tech guy' but that, to me, is really exciting. Apparently Steve Jobs is gonna come 'round to one of the gigs 'cause he's excited about this thing.

"You think about it, you know, there's something that an Apple Mac couldn't do and now they can because of our DVD: we're advancing Technology!"

From the Tom Nakashima (Eagle 96.9) interview with Paul McCartney:

http://www.macca-central.com/macca-concerts/2002-10-21_Sacramento/PaulMcCartney-Tom.mp3
 
I don't get it. I have always thought of the Beatles label as "Apple Core" which was the intended play on words of the official name 'Apple Corps".

Apple isn't Apple Core computers. Nobody in their right mind would confuse the 2 companies, they don't overlap in what they sell. Does Apple Corps even sell anything other than Beatles music?
 
Does anyone know if the Itunes Music store is a seperate sub company? If not, that could be an option for Apple computer. Spin off the iTunes Music store with Apple computer as the parent company. Would be much easier than changing the name to Macintosh. Plus, since Apple also acquired eMagic this might also be an argument against Apple records not protecting their mark.

In the long run this does suck, but should just be a bump in the road. I mean really, with all the cash Apple is sitting on, even $150 million (3x what they have already paid out according to Fox) would be a drop in the bucket and worth while to just make them (Apple Records) go away!
 
GREED!

Is Fox News suggesting that Eversheds of London is instigating this action with the Beatles just going along?

If this is true, I can see Eversheds getting a lot of rather pointed emails. Pure Greed!!

Perhaps they should go after MS who really does steal ideas!

Anyway, I don't believe Jobs and co haven't seen this one coming

Apple Corps should recieve their counter-claim monday morning prompt!
 
no iLife

iLife, you are indeed a awkward individual if you care about the label more than the music... HELLO! I could care less who makes the stupid CD and does the advertising. In the end its the song, me and like most normal people, is all we care about. And no, I have never bought a Beatles CD/Tape/Record/8 track. So I have never seen this Apple logo... and you know what? I really dont care about seeing it either. I do have these cool apps I have used called Kazaa/napster/imesh/gnutella/limewire that i use to obtain my music. Call me cheap and dumb but again... 99.9% the population use this stuff to.

Not knowing a label name means I have better things to do with my time. And I dont think you are any better if you do know such useless information. I focus on making money.

You know what if Microsoft pulled something like this and we couldnt call everyday windows that we look through outside windows anymore... not really the same thing but that is what it is getting to.
 
i'm sure it has been mentioned already but this lawsuit was inevitable.
you'd think. just think that Apple would have cut them in on the deal.
I swear. Apple's biggest flaw always ends up being its naming of products and services.
From the original Apple Records lawsuit to Carl Sagan to Rendevous to this one. I'm not even going to get into the iBook name.
I know that with the technological explosion names are a penny a dozen and everyone owns every word but Apple should have known better than to try and skirt around a contractual agreement.
Like I said, it surprises me that they didn't cut the Beatles a deal on iPod sales.
Man.
This is not koo-koo-ka-kool.
 
"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."
-- Brittney Spears



" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
-- Theodore Roosevelt


I know it's not on topic, but I just really wanted to see those two quotes together on one post for contrast. 😀
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.