evildan
Super Moderator
Okay, since I feel like I'm not really getting anywhere in this conversation, I promise I'll chime out after this... But I'm getting bothered by the misinformation... so I keep feeling compelled to correct it.
I may have misspoken on trademark vs copyright law, but Apple Records is a British company. There very may well be Apple Corps in the US, but that doesn't matter... we're talking about an international law which prevents this sort of thing.
EMI is the record label where the Beatles met George Martin (sometimes referred to as the 5th Beatle). The company is a British company NOT an American.
The Beatles may have had some albums that were released by EMI but they were in the UK originally. What's not commonly known for those of us under 40 is that the Beatles records differed in the US from what was released in the UK. The Beatles released more singles in the US markets and NEVER in the UK.
What is commonly sold in today's stores are the original UK albums (13 I believe). So by looking at the back of a 45, only shows that you're looking at a British released album, which was re-released in the US.
Apple Records later cut albums called Past Master Volume 1 and Past Master Volume 2 to fill in the songs that were released as singles in the US and may not have appeared in the UK counterparts. For example, there was a song on "Let it Be" called "Don't Let Me Down." which did not make it on the UK album, but it appears on one of the Past Master volumes.
Logos have nothing to do with anything regarding this discussion. Apple Computer wasn't sued for having the same logo as Apple Records.
And -- while I have to admit my understanding of all the nuances of international trade laws -- I can say that the Beatles music and the name "Apple" was protected in the US, UK and other countries. The name opened the suite, by simply causing consumer confusion. There was a population of people who may have believed that Apple Computers was somehow linked to the Beatles. This obviously is not the case any more.
But there's no point in even arguing this, as history has already decided that Apple Records and Apple Computer resolved their differences.... Apple Computer paid a settlement to Apple Records and now the final and only thing left to decide is if Apple Computer is violating an agreement that is still legally binding.
In conclusion, it might seem trite to be held to some agreement that took place several years ago with a company no one knows about, but it is not. Law is blind, it has nothing to do with 'popular opinion' or wishful thinking. And let's not forget that Apple Computer relies these same laws to prevent companies from stealing from them. And think of how frustrated we get when we hear M$ is taking something from Apple. Well, Apple Records is just protecting itself and it's interests, which is their right.
It's not up to me or you to decide who is right or wrong. We can't, it's impossible to do so with out first examining the original agreement between the two companies. So instead of providing misinformation on the subject, or feeling as if you need to come to the defense of Apple Computer, let's sit back and wait for the lawyers to fight it out. After all this is a legal dispute that happens everyday between both of these companies. But it makes the headlines because news organizations realize that the headline "Beatles sue Apple Computer!" will draw interest in their publication. Don't be drawn into the hype.
mi5moav said:
I may have misspoken on trademark vs copyright law, but Apple Records is a British company. There very may well be Apple Corps in the US, but that doesn't matter... we're talking about an international law which prevents this sort of thing.
EMI is the record label where the Beatles met George Martin (sometimes referred to as the 5th Beatle). The company is a British company NOT an American.
The Beatles may have had some albums that were released by EMI but they were in the UK originally. What's not commonly known for those of us under 40 is that the Beatles records differed in the US from what was released in the UK. The Beatles released more singles in the US markets and NEVER in the UK.
What is commonly sold in today's stores are the original UK albums (13 I believe). So by looking at the back of a 45, only shows that you're looking at a British released album, which was re-released in the US.
Apple Records later cut albums called Past Master Volume 1 and Past Master Volume 2 to fill in the songs that were released as singles in the US and may not have appeared in the UK counterparts. For example, there was a song on "Let it Be" called "Don't Let Me Down." which did not make it on the UK album, but it appears on one of the Past Master volumes.
Logos have nothing to do with anything regarding this discussion. Apple Computer wasn't sued for having the same logo as Apple Records.
And -- while I have to admit my understanding of all the nuances of international trade laws -- I can say that the Beatles music and the name "Apple" was protected in the US, UK and other countries. The name opened the suite, by simply causing consumer confusion. There was a population of people who may have believed that Apple Computers was somehow linked to the Beatles. This obviously is not the case any more.
But there's no point in even arguing this, as history has already decided that Apple Records and Apple Computer resolved their differences.... Apple Computer paid a settlement to Apple Records and now the final and only thing left to decide is if Apple Computer is violating an agreement that is still legally binding.
In conclusion, it might seem trite to be held to some agreement that took place several years ago with a company no one knows about, but it is not. Law is blind, it has nothing to do with 'popular opinion' or wishful thinking. And let's not forget that Apple Computer relies these same laws to prevent companies from stealing from them. And think of how frustrated we get when we hear M$ is taking something from Apple. Well, Apple Records is just protecting itself and it's interests, which is their right.
It's not up to me or you to decide who is right or wrong. We can't, it's impossible to do so with out first examining the original agreement between the two companies. So instead of providing misinformation on the subject, or feeling as if you need to come to the defense of Apple Computer, let's sit back and wait for the lawyers to fight it out. After all this is a legal dispute that happens everyday between both of these companies. But it makes the headlines because news organizations realize that the headline "Beatles sue Apple Computer!" will draw interest in their publication. Don't be drawn into the hype.
