Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Beatles Sue Apple Computer?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
oh Paul!
first he(Sir. Paul) wants to change the songs and lyrics from lennon-paul to paul-lennon on the records, and now this. Didn´t Michael Jackson buy the copyright of the Beatles i.e Paul, like 10 or more years ago?😱
first he(Sir. Paul) wants to change the songs and lyrics from lennon-paul to paul-lennon on the records, and now this. Didn´t Michael Jackson buy the copyright of the Beatles i.e Paul, like 10 or more years ago?😱
mustang_dvs
macrumors 6502a
Confirmation of the story
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5075721.html
Geoff Baker, spokesman for Apple Corps, confirmed the suit was filed two months ago in London High Court. He referred further questions to a statement put out by Apple Corps, the company the legendary rock ban formed in 1968 to manage its business interests.
"Specifically, (the) complaint is made over the use by Apple Computer of the word 'Apple' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading pre-recorded music from the Internet," according to the statement, apparently referring to Apple's successful iTunes Music Store service for downloading digital songs
By the way, here you can find the staccato, E-flat, diminsihed triad called "Sosumi."
Apple Corps is still partly run by Sir Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the estate of George Harrison -- they each have a 5% stake.
As for Michael Jackson's legal control over Beatle's songs, he has the controlling interest in Northern Songs, LTD, which maintains the publishing rights to a fair number of the Beatles' catalog. I point you to: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune.
Also see: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5075721.html
Geoff Baker, spokesman for Apple Corps, confirmed the suit was filed two months ago in London High Court. He referred further questions to a statement put out by Apple Corps, the company the legendary rock ban formed in 1968 to manage its business interests.
"Specifically, (the) complaint is made over the use by Apple Computer of the word 'Apple' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading pre-recorded music from the Internet," according to the statement, apparently referring to Apple's successful iTunes Music Store service for downloading digital songs
By the way, here you can find the staccato, E-flat, diminsihed triad called "Sosumi."
Apple Corps is still partly run by Sir Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the estate of George Harrison -- they each have a 5% stake.
As for Michael Jackson's legal control over Beatle's songs, he has the controlling interest in Northern Songs, LTD, which maintains the publishing rights to a fair number of the Beatles' catalog. I point you to: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune.
Also see: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm
Haha
F*** the beatles im tired of all this crap of whiners trying to get rich over other company's I think its basically they see as the ITMS as a threat and with music players a even bigger one tell you what Apple Corp I bet you was eve who took a chunk into Apple Computer and now we are F***** screw corps go Apple Computer
oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either)
F*** the beatles im tired of all this crap of whiners trying to get rich over other company's I think its basically they see as the ITMS as a threat and with music players a even bigger one tell you what Apple Corp I bet you was eve who took a chunk into Apple Computer and now we are F***** screw corps go Apple Computer
oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either)
Re: Haha
oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either) [/B][/QUOTE]
Beetles a animal? hmmmm I thought insects...
oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either) [/B][/QUOTE]
Beetles a animal? hmmmm I thought insects...
Re: Re: Haha
Insect: 1 a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented. . .
-- an animal is any living creature from the Kingdom Animalia basically meaning anything that moves... if he had said mammals then he would have been wrong.
Insect: 1 a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented. . .
-- an animal is any living creature from the Kingdom Animalia basically meaning anything that moves... if he had said mammals then he would have been wrong.
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
The 9th Circuit Court is an appeals court. They don't actually hear the original trial.
Apple could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, however, if they lost, since they are within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit (California).
This is, of course, ignoring the international issue (since they're being sued by Apple Records in the UK).
And by the way, the death penalty sucks, and so does the Pledge of Allegiance. Sosumi!
Daveman Deluxe
macrumors 68000
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
mustang_dvs
macrumors 6502a
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
According to MacAddict, the Wild Eep is a distant relative of the Domesticated Eep, species B. eep, which appears in the form of the Simple Beep.
Re: Re: McCartney Credability Shreded
newbie here, but just for everyone's info, the current directors of Apple Corps are (from the UK website companieshouse.co.uk):
LENNON, YOKO ONO
HARRISON, OLIVIA
GERRARD, HILARY LESTER (not sure who this is, but the address is Monaco and that's where Ringo lives so I assume it's someone acting on his behalf)
EASTMAN, JOHN LINDNER (Paul's brother-in-law, handles all his business affairs, also director of Paul's private company MPL, in which Paul is the sole shareholder)
Who knows how involved, if at all, any of the ex-Beatles are regarding this lawsuit. But one would presume that they had the final say in whether or not to sue being that they are the shareholders of Apple Corps. The wire stories quoted Apple spokesman Geoff Baker, who actually works for Paul, is Paul's PR guy. But to clear up any confusion, Apple Corps is owned by Paul, Ringo and the estates of John and George - not Michael Jackson, EMI or Capital Records.
newbie here, but just for everyone's info, the current directors of Apple Corps are (from the UK website companieshouse.co.uk):
LENNON, YOKO ONO
HARRISON, OLIVIA
GERRARD, HILARY LESTER (not sure who this is, but the address is Monaco and that's where Ringo lives so I assume it's someone acting on his behalf)
EASTMAN, JOHN LINDNER (Paul's brother-in-law, handles all his business affairs, also director of Paul's private company MPL, in which Paul is the sole shareholder)
Who knows how involved, if at all, any of the ex-Beatles are regarding this lawsuit. But one would presume that they had the final say in whether or not to sue being that they are the shareholders of Apple Corps. The wire stories quoted Apple spokesman Geoff Baker, who actually works for Paul, is Paul's PR guy. But to clear up any confusion, Apple Corps is owned by Paul, Ringo and the estates of John and George - not Michael Jackson, EMI or Capital Records.
Re: Haha
Err, they have a legitimate gripe. What needs to happen is a combination of the two, though.
Err, they have a legitimate gripe. What needs to happen is a combination of the two, though.
Not for nuthin, but isn't Apple Records use of Digital Media a violation of THEIR side of the agreement? The DVD's of Anthology and other performances? The software, games and web tie-in that are on multi-media releases that need a computer to utilize?
Just wondering...
Just wondering...
It most definitely is Yoko.
Shes not getting her check from the U.S. Military anymore because the Army stopped using her songs to drive the Taliban out of caves in Afghanistan. Now shes trying to make a fast buck off of Apple Computer. That Bi*ch!
my god...
I am a huge Beatles fan and I think everyone who is attacking the band is an idiot. This thread was porly named. It's not The Beatles that are sueing Apple Computer, but Apple Corp. Yes, The Beatles started Apple Records but the band is gone now. So how about everyone starts saying screw Apple Corps. , not screw The Beatles. So on that note, since I love Mac, SCREW APPLE CORPS. 😉
I am a huge Beatles fan and I think everyone who is attacking the band is an idiot. This thread was porly named. It's not The Beatles that are sueing Apple Computer, but Apple Corp. Yes, The Beatles started Apple Records but the band is gone now. So how about everyone starts saying screw Apple Corps. , not screw The Beatles. So on that note, since I love Mac, SCREW APPLE CORPS. 😉
Hmmm...
I don't know if it's true or not, but my wife, who is big into music, swears that the reason they don't sing "Happy Birthday" in restaraunts like Applebee's is that McCartney actually copyrighted that song. If that's the case, then going after Apple is precisely the thing an aging ex-hippy with delusions of his own talent would do.
If he just had the grace to die about six decades ago... Not only would we not have had to deal with that noise they called music, but this wouldn't be an issue either.
~D.
jpmack said:
I don't know if it's true or not, but my wife, who is big into music, swears that the reason they don't sing "Happy Birthday" in restaraunts like Applebee's is that McCartney actually copyrighted that song. If that's the case, then going after Apple is precisely the thing an aging ex-hippy with delusions of his own talent would do.
If he just had the grace to die about six decades ago... Not only would we not have had to deal with that noise they called music, but this wouldn't be an issue either.
~D.
Coach Wade said:
Paul doesn't own the rights to Happy Birthday, Warner Brothers does. And if they'd had the grace to die six decades ago, the world would have been deprived of almost as much creativity as your scenario suggests.
Let's face it - the Beatles are the most creative, most important musical artists since Mozart and Beethoven. And that stands through today. There has been nothing in music that has changed and shaped it as dramatically, importantly, or positively as the Beatles.
Here's the story of the song Happy Birthday:
Happy Birthday to You, the four-line ditty was written as a classroom greeting in 1893 by two Louisville teachers, Mildred J. Hill, an authority on Negro spirituals, and Dr. Patty Smith Hill, professor emeritus of education at Columbia University.
The melody of the song Happy Birthday to You was composed by Mildred J. Hill, a schoolteacher born in Louisville, KY, on June 27, 1859. The song was first published in 1893, with the lyrics written by her sister, Patty Smith Hill, as "Good Morning To All."
Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)
In 1988, Birch Tree Group, Ltd. sold the rights of the song to Warner Communications (along with all other assets) for an estimated $25 million (considerably more than a song). (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)
In the 80s, the song Happy Birthday to You was believed to generate about $1 million in royalties annually. With Auld Lang Syne and For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, it is among the three most popular songs in the English language. (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)
Happy Birthday to You continues to bring in approximately 2 million dollars in licensing revenue each year, at least as of 1996 accounting, according to Warner Chappell and a Forbes magazine article.
You can't see it, Bob, but I'm bowing to your information. Like I said, my knowledge, such as it was, came from my wife, not even second hand. Probably eighth hand or even foot.
I'm afraid I don't agree about the impact of the Beatles' music. Well, I agree, but I don't think it was a positive thing. I've heard most of the Beatles' music over my 31 years ping-ponging around on this rock we call earth, and I haven't liked ANY of it. The closest thing to a good song they wrote, in my opinion (which certainly isn't humble, ask anyone) is "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
Let me say that again, the most non-auditorily torturous song produced, written, and performed by the Beatles was a DRUG ANTHEM!
Okay, some sixty million people loved and love the Beatles. Where do I get off telling cyber-space that their music makes a dental drill sound soothing? I just honestly think that they were a waste of time.
This is new for me. Most of the time when I post an opinion online I'm able to back it up with specific facts that lead me to my stance. I don't think I've ever said, "I just don't like it," before.
Don't even get me STARTED on Elvis. He's freakin' dead, people! D-E-A-D! He is not coming back to lead you to the promised Graceland. He died on the crapper ninety pounds overweight. Current theories involve smothering from his wookie-like chest hair.
Seriously, though, thanks for the information on the song. Where did you get that, anyway?
~D.
I'm afraid I don't agree about the impact of the Beatles' music. Well, I agree, but I don't think it was a positive thing. I've heard most of the Beatles' music over my 31 years ping-ponging around on this rock we call earth, and I haven't liked ANY of it. The closest thing to a good song they wrote, in my opinion (which certainly isn't humble, ask anyone) is "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
Let me say that again, the most non-auditorily torturous song produced, written, and performed by the Beatles was a DRUG ANTHEM!
Okay, some sixty million people loved and love the Beatles. Where do I get off telling cyber-space that their music makes a dental drill sound soothing? I just honestly think that they were a waste of time.
This is new for me. Most of the time when I post an opinion online I'm able to back it up with specific facts that lead me to my stance. I don't think I've ever said, "I just don't like it," before.
Don't even get me STARTED on Elvis. He's freakin' dead, people! D-E-A-D! He is not coming back to lead you to the promised Graceland. He died on the crapper ninety pounds overweight. Current theories involve smothering from his wookie-like chest hair.
Seriously, though, thanks for the information on the song. Where did you get that, anyway?
~D.