[Beer Penguin]

What's to stop Apple Records from sueing the living daylights out of Apple Computer? The original lawsuit resulted in Apple agreeing that none of their computers would ever produce sound, something that has long been overlooked. However, now that Apple is selling music, they are in competition with Apple records, and clearly in violation of the agreement reached with Apple records in the original lawsuit. What's to stop them? They have an incredibly strong case, and could very easily have Apple's crappy music service shut down, and it seems to me the money gained by such a lawsuit would far outweigh the royalites they're gonna get off of the six Beatles songs they have on Apple's service.

[::maroma::]

Was that really the original agreement? That doesn't seem like a smart thing to agree to on Apple Computer's part. And when did this lawsuit take place? I've never heard of it. Got any links? I'd like to read about it.

[juanvaldes]

1989

Apple vs Apple: Apple Records, the record company created by the Beatles,
sues Apple Computer for getting into the music business. According to
Apple Records, the computer company violated a secret 1981 agreement that
let Apple keep its fruit logo -- as long as it didn't have anything to do
with music. By 1989, however, the music and PC worlds are already coming
together.

The two Apples will later settle, with the computer maker paying the
record company.

source

[Rickster]

Is Apple Records even a corporate/legal entity anymore? It doesn't look like they've had a presence in the world, well, since that old lawsuit...

[chris_h]

haha, yeah, i'm sure apple is _real_ scared.

I don't think the agreement had an infinity clause in it anyway... may have been for 10 or 20 years? I can't recall.

[jubbly]

[from paul mccartney's autobigraphy, although not verbatim]

"It was actually a good move registering the Apple trademark worldwide, as later on someone else tried to use if for a computer company, and had to give us a very large amount of money as a result. Later on they put a music chip in their computer, and then had to give us another very large amount of money, because under the terms of the first agreement we were the only Apple company allowed to be involved in music"

I believe Apple records still exists in Saville Row London. It is still a functioning corporate entity, as evidenced by last month's 'Beatles Anthology', which was released on Apple.

Originally posted by Rickster:
Is Apple Records even a corporate/legal entity anymore? It doesn't look like they've had a presence in the world, well, since that old lawsuit...

[sambeau]

There is also a lack of Beatles/Wings/Paul McCartney on the shop I noticed last night - just one of Paul McCartney's classical ones. Any John Lennon? George Harrison?

Be interesting to see what happens...

[sambeau]

Originally posted by jubbly:
[from paul mccartney's autobigraphy, although not verbatim]

I believe Apple records still exists in Saville Row London. It is still a functioning corporate entity, as evidenced by last month's 'Beatles Anthology', which was released on Apple.

They had an album out in the UK in 1996 - which isn't that long ago really.

[Todd Madson]

Face it - Apple Records is more or less the "boutique" label for
any of the Beatles projects. Once they all die off all they
will simply re-release existing product until people stop buying
it.

I don't see them as signing new artists or having "new" projects
in the works beyond what we've already seen.

[cpac]

Apple made a deal with Apple to be able to do this music service.

[Beer Penguin]

Originally posted by cpac:
Apple made a deal with Apple to be able to do this music service.

Source?

[gatorparrots]

It has to be said:
Sosumi

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Beer Penguin:
Source?

I must admit I saw lots of rumours saying that they would have to but I haven't seen anything saying that they have.

Surely, if Steve Jobs had been on the phone to Paul and Yoko we'd see a bit more of the Beatles stuff than what is there right now..

[cpac]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Surely, if Steve Jobs had been on the phone to Paul and Yoko we'd see a bit more of the Beatles stuff than what is there right now..

can't seem to find the source. But actually Michael Jackson owns the rights to a large amount of beatles music so even if Stever were on the phone with Paul & Yoko, you wouldn't necessarily see it.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by cpac:
can't seem to find the source. But actually Michael Jackson owns the rights to a large amount of beatles music

I thought he sold up recently - to Paul McCartney.

EDIT: Nah my mistake - I can't find this anywhere - just stories about MJ maybe selling up and PMcC wanting to buy. Must have dreamt it

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by cpac:
can't seem to find the source. But actually Michael Jackson owns the rights to a large amount of beatles music so even if Stever were on the phone with Paul & Yoko, you wouldn't necessarily see it.

This issue is more complicated than people seem to make it out to be.

Michael Jackson owned (he has I believe since sold them to Sony) the publishing rights to most of the Lennon/McCartney songs in the Beatles catalog. That means he could license the musical compositions to other artists to record new versions. It means that every recording sold of one of those compositions, including a recording sold on iTunes Music Store, would include a mechanical royalty payment to the publisher, whether Jackson or Sony.

The Beatles' actual recordings are another matter. At the time they were made, all of the recordings created by the Beatles were the property of EMI, and remain so today unless the Beatles have managed to wrest them back. (Though the Beatles created Apple Records, they didn't actually belong to it--they remained EMI artists.) Apple Records, meanwhile, collects the Beatles' royalties from those recordings and also manages the use of the Beatles' names and likenesses.

This is further murkified (heh?) by the extraordinary clout the Beatles still possess. I suspect that the Beatles' current agreement with EMI gives them (the Beatles) extraordinary sway over how the recordings are used, and that what EMI is legally entitled to do with the Beatles catalog, as opposed to what they can do while still keeping the Beatles and their estates happy, are two very different things.

Bottom line: Michael Jackson or whoever owns the Beatles' publishing rights has no say in how the Beatles' recordings are sold. That decision belongs to EMI, and EMI certainly would/could not enter any licensing agreement without the Beatles' approval. Conversely, if Paul and Yoko said they wanted it to happen, EMI would see that it did. That's who Steve needs to convince.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
This issue is more complicated than people seem to make it out to be.

Bottom line: Michael Jackson or whoever owns the Beatles' publishing rights has no say in how the Beatles' recordings are sold. That decision belongs to EMI, and EMI certainly would/could not enter any licensing agreement without the Beatles' approval. Conversely, if Paul and Yoko said they wanted it to happen, EMI would see that it did. That's who Steve needs to convince.

Very good point and one I wish i had made myself.

And no doubt will in another thread..

..on a number of occasions.

[as2]

Just found this little snippit which I thought was quite amusing...

At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringment because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me").

[Dubloseven]

Originally posted by as2:
Just found this little snippit which I thought was quite amusing...

hahaha. so thats why its called sosumi!

[brianb]

want to see something intresting to all of this Apple Computer vs. Apple Records Search for any Beatles Album in the music store. There aren't any. You sepeculate on what that means

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Dubloseven:
hahaha. so thats why its called sosumi!

Yeah, and supposedly the sound itself is a one note sample from a Beatles record. You can only sue someone for stealing your melody or words in a song.... and one note can't be either, so it was a real jab from Steve to the Fab Four.

[nickm]

The story I heard was that the Sosumi sound was added when Macs first started having sound input. That was the IIsi if I recall.

[Eriamjh]

I can't back it up, but there was a settlement between Apple's when Apple put CD-ROMs that could play CDs on their computers. I think now, Apple records must realize that Apple Computer should be allowed to do whatever it wants with music since PCs can do the same.

At issue is the use of the word Apple as a business name. If Apple Computer Inc.'s full name is "Apple Computer Inc." then "Apple Records" can shove their suit up their A$$. They have different names. One is a computer company, one is a record company (What IS a record, anyway? ).

Obviously, this issue is long settled, but why can't anyone find anything on the net about it?

[ShotgunEd]

I think the last payout gave Apple Computer the right to do whatever the hell they want. I asked the question about Apple Records when the rumours about the music store first came to light and someone pointed me to a very informative article. (A quick search didn't turn it up).

The thing about there being no Beatles stuff in the store, well over here at least, when HMV has a sale, the entire Beatles catalogue never drops below �9.99. Its crazy, its a money thing.

[sdagley]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Yeah, and supposedly the sound itself is a one note sample from a Beatles record. You can only sue someone for stealing your melody or words in a song.... and one note can't be either, so it was a real jab from Steve to the Fab Four.

Nope. The Sosumi sound was originally called Xylophone and is just a note played on one. Apparently this was identified as an example of Apple Computer being in the music biz when Apple Records sued them.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by brianb:
want to see something intresting to all of this Apple Computer vs. Apple Records Search for any Beatles Album in the music store. There aren't any. You sepeculate on what that means

The Beatles have never licensed their music to any pay service, nor do they allow it to be included on compilations with other artists' music. The lack of Beatles music on iTunes is par for the course. In other words, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Mac Guru]

What was that one about Carl Segan when he Sued Apple? I thought that was Sosumi, must have all my trivia muddled up in my head.

Mac Guru

[freakboy2]

maybe john lennon will rise from the dead and say "give peace a chance".

fb2

[as2]

Just had a thought...

Does Apple Records still exist??

I did a search for the registered office, or a website on google and a couple of other places, but couldn't find anything.

Didn't Michael Jackson buy the rights to all their songs anyway?

[JLL]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
What was that one about Carl Segan when he Sued Apple? I thought that was Sosumi, must have all my trivia muddled up in my head.

Mac Guru

The original code name for the Power Mac 7100/66 was Carl Sagan.

He didn't like that (it seems like he thought that the public name would be Carl Sagan), and his lawyers made Apple change the name.

The new code name was BHA, and when Sagan learned that it stood for Butt-head Astronomer, he fired up the lawyers again.

The final code name for the machine was LAW: Lawyers Are Wimps.

[dylanw]

Originally posted by JLL:
The original code name for the Power Mac 7100/66 was Carl Sagan.

He didn't like that (it seems like he thought that the public name would be Carl Sagan), and his lawyers made Apple change the name.

The new code name was BHA, and when Sagan learned that it stood for Butt-head Astronomer, he fired up the lawyers again.

The final code name for the machine was LAW: Lawyers Are Wimps.

One must also consider that the two other models that Apple was working on at the time were code-named PDM (Piltdown Man) and Cold Fusion. It may have been as much the juxtaposition with scientific hoaxes that bothered Sagan.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by JLL:
The original code name for the Power Mac 7100/66 was Carl Sagan.

He didn't like that (it seems like he thought that the public name would be Carl Sagan), and his lawyers made Apple change the name.

The new code name was BHA, and when Sagan learned that it stood for Butt-head Astronomer, he fired up the lawyers again.

The final code name for the machine was LAW: Lawyers Are Wimps.

Hahaha

Funny.

Here is a fun page with Mac code names and info on them: http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/codenames.html

[Miniryu]

Originally posted by sambeau:
I thought he sold up recently - to Paul McCartney.

EDIT: Nah my mistake - I can't find this anywhere - just stories about MJ maybe selling up and PMcC wanting to buy. Must have dreamt it

This is completely off topic- but I have always loved your icon. It's so simple, yet striking.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by as2:
Just had a thought...

Does Apple Records still exist??

I did a search for the registered office, or a website on google and a couple of other places, but couldn't find anything.

Apple Corps still exists; it collects the Beatles' royalties and licenses their names and images.