Apple Corps - The Beatles' official record label - says Apple computers' online music store iTunes, which charges people to download music from the internet, is improperly using the Beatles symbol.

Owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, Apple Corps has begun legal proceedings seeking damages and an injunction to enforce the terms of an agreement between the two.

In a report by the Britain's BBC here, "Over a decade ago, Apple signed an agreement with Apple Corps, a business controlled by the Beatles and their heirs, which specified the rights each company would have to use the Apple trademark," said Katie Cotton, Apple Computers' vp of worldwide communications.

"Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute."

grate i hope apple itunes gose the same way as the big 5 that are just as bad as the big 5 if not worse thay mark up the prices tell you you can only lisson to there music in one format there songs can't beplayed in most car cd players the only real place that thay can be played is on an i-pod and a apple computer and thay want 99 cents for this crap? hahahaha don't bet on it pal

This is just hilarious! In spirit, Apple (the computer co.) IS in the "wrong" because of the trademark associating an "apple" (name/trademarkwise) with music because of confusion with Apple (the Beatles co.) because they were first. But IANAL and have not even read the prior long ago agreement they made between each other, I have no idea of the details...

and you know what? I really don't care all that much... but it is fun to watch big corps beat up on each other!

(I bet John woulda sided with boycott-riaa even if Paul has become tainted by the RIAA!)

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Johnny Cash, we miss ya!

I believe there was an agreement that as long as 'Apple computer' stayed with computers as 'Apple records' with music, then no problem.

But now, 'Apple computer' is associated to music. This changes the landscape.

Yuck. McCartney, go home.
If anyone watched the Queen's Jubilee concert and saw McCartney onstage, you'll know why I hate him.

He's a stuck up, complacent little bastard. Why?

I'll tell you why. There was a 15minute talk about the Beatles, yes, you read that correctly, in the middle of the concert. So you're expecting some classic Beatles' songs, aren't you? McCarteny comes on and sings a pile of RUBBISH. It KILLED the athmosphere. He just went on and on, crap song after crap song.

Since that, he's done this and that with the media, and now he's trying to take on Apple for no apparent reason?? Pur-lease. Perhaps he should sue The Lord Most High for including the phrase "Adam ate the Apple" (or whatever it is) in the Bible!

He needs to either retire or be shot.

I believe that Paul is right. I was around when the Beatles launched their Apple, Ltd. and yeah, they were using that same logo.

As for Paul personally, I don't know him, and haven't really followed him post-Beatles except for hearing a few of his tunes during the Wings era.
Maybe he is exactly like Beansprout said, I'm just dealing with the legal issue. I really should speak much on this, having not seen the alleged legal agreement between Apple Corps and Apple, makers of Macs.
~code

Yeah right. As if the public is going to confuse Apple Computers, Inc, with Apple Corps, a tiny little label that exists soley for the purpose of releasing Beatles compilations.

Yoko Ono's lawyers must need new BMWs. Apple Corps doesn't want to sell Beatles tunes for .99 each, but an out-of-court settlement with Apple Computer may actually represent less money. Stupid move.

Pre-EmptiveC...

When I first heard of Apple (video games, then home computers) I honestly thought it was an outgrowth of the Beatles Apple corp. HONEST, for about 2 years I thought that the Beatles were behind the new "home computing" thing...

little did I know.

but all of that is more than FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, which is longer than our founding father's intended a copyright or trademark to last...

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music

Apple isn't playing the game by the rules of the cartel. Apple will be eliminated from the game by litigation from the cartel.

TheBeansprout - You're dead right. I liked his hair job, though. heh. And his jowls were nice too.

I think that Linda was his ground to reality, and now that she's gone everything has changed.

I'm as big a Beatles fan as there ever was, but I don't agree with Paul and his lawyers these days. He even thought about suing Yoko to change the position of his name in Lennon-McCartney songs that he says he actually wrote to McCartney-Lennon.

He finally backed down on that one. But some people did some digging around and found out that the song he was most concerned about being credited to himself, "Yesterday", was actually very much inspired by another tune called "Answer Me" by Nat King Cole.

Just goes to show that there really are very few "original" ideas and that copyrights have had and should have again, reasonable limits.

My personal belief is that the only true original thinkers in the world today are true scientists. What if their ideas about science and space were copyrighted for the next 95 years?

Just something to think about.

A benighted knight.

Paul aint been the same since John died

ziemann, your back!

I think the RIAA are the Green Meanies

HA HA code, most people won't get that one though.

If you want to download music with little risk of lawsuit, simply move files out of your shared folder immediately after download. Files will always be available worldwide anyway, we don't have to get them from servers in the U.S.! There's no need for guilt over lack of sharing in this situation. The RIAA is targeting Americans, now we will target the RIAA. Downloading will continue forever, and cd sales will continue to plummet. RIAA, be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

Actually, I think the RIAA are the Apple Bonkers.

Regarding the legal aspects, I wasn't around 14 years ago (well, I lie: I was two!), but it does seem incredibly petty to me. And I HATE millionaires who argue about such petty things!

Of course the RIAA are the GREEN MEANIES because MONEY is not BLUE!!!!!!!!!!

stilltrying - there ya go!

maybe they should name themselves banana corp. lol just kidding

*rolls eyes* I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fight between apple and apple or the beatles references in the replies which I actually understand.

nitedreamerxp - Oh no, then they'd be sued by the Banana Splits - remember them-

One banana, two banana, three banana, four
Four bananas make a bunch and so do many more.
Over hill and highway the banana buggies go
Comin' to bring you the Banana Split show

(CHORUS)
Tra la la, la la la la
Tra la la, la la la la

http://www.dfcom.freeserve.co.uk/hbw/banana/

LOL LOL

Hmm, the Banana Splits? Now THAT'S scary.

Remember the Banana Split the guitar that the lead guitarist played? I used to love that guitar...LOL

Remember the the guitar that the lead guitarist of the Banana Splits played? I used to love that guitar...LOL

The question that Apple Computer will pose to the courts is would any reasonable person confuse Apple Computer with Apple corps. Speaking from personal experience, I would never confuse Apple Computer with a company that I've heard of only briefly. It would be equivalent to confusing the computer company with Apple . I think in the past Apple computer gave in too easily to the frivolous lawsuits, and let's hope they dig in their heels with this greedy, out-of-touch, litigious corporation.

Actually, a court could find apple computer could be confused with apple music, if the service in question is a music service.

Ive never heard a court make a ruleing more rediculous than the Astrix/Mobilx confusion, where they decided there was a reasonable change people wanting to buy Astrix comics would buy Mobilx RAM boards instead. That was a french court, and it was overturned on appeal, but it illistrates the unpredictability of courts. Theres always the chance the judge will be someone who has never touched a keyboard without an ink ribbon attached.

Its quite clear that Apple is at a disadvantage. They agreed not to use the Apple brand to sell music or music services. Now they sell portable music players and run a successful music download service. Apple Comp doesn't have a chance here, but they should be able to get out by renegotiateing their agreement with Apple Music and paying another settlement.

fsck the beatles, their music blows anyways

anyways, i didn't know the gay record company apple existed till i heard this crap. But anyways, I think since iTunes is digital it should step out of the bounds of the agreement, since the beatles trademark was supported for physical media.

so the beatles can go munch on some leaves and get crushed by a rock, and let some little kid burn them with a magnifying glass.

sue happy d*ck heads.

And this (apple logo) hurts the Beatles how?

You can say whatever you want about the two sides, but regardless, they did enter a contractual agreement, and they should obey that no matter what, unless they agree again to something different.

And the wording of "damages" that they're seeking is a very broad word, the arcticle really does not state anything further. There are some actual court cases that sue for damages amounting to exactly $1, so it's just to get a court to rule on the issue.

So I'd have to believe that Apple Music wants Apple Computer to comply with their contract above all else, including money, until I hear otherwise.

But that's just me.

Dakota81's right on. Both Apples made agreements in '81 and '91 which basically stipulated that, in exchage for Apple Computer to retain the use of that name, they were to stay out of the music business. With both iPod and iTunes, Apple Computer has gone back on those agreements, thus the suit. Apple Corps, whatever you may think of them, have a very strong case at the very least.

Here's an article detailing what went on between the two companies: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/13/BU268132.DTL&type=business

~



Imagine



~

yoko has driven everyone crazy,next monkeys will be sued for consuming banannas.

The interesting thing, too, is that half the Beatles are now dead. Soon only their families who had nothing to do with their success in the 60's will be the only ones making money off of them. So much for "supporting the artists". How does one support a dead artist through record sales?