Breaking: Beatles sue Apple (again)...

Wouldn't it be more like $4.3 billion? It's Microsoft with over $50 billion in reserve. (They could pay off California's budget deficit and still have more money left than most corporations.)
 
Originally posted by wiz7dome
I'll admit that Im very young, but I imagine that at the time Apple (computer) did not have the money to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just want to point out that Apple (Computer) had a ton of money "then". They were at their peak, when Apple Corp (Beatles) sued them.

Also, being a Beatles' fan, let me clear a common misconception.

It's not like Paul called up Ringo and said, "hey chap, let's sue Apple Computer for tons of cash 'eh?"

And Ringo likely responded "sure think Paul, you were always the smarter one when it comes to those sort 'o things, let's give it a good sue. And be sure to let me know how it turned out."

Paul, Ringo and Yoko, don't own Apple Corp. They (with the exception of Yoko) are musicians. They may have wrote, composed and recorded the music, but that doesn't make them owners of it.

When the Beatles came back from holiday with their Indian Guru, they decided to form Apple Corp. Apple Corp was going to be a recording company where any musician could have a shot at recording a an album. The Beatles would select a few of their pet projects and mentor the musicians through the music development process.

The idea was ahead of its time, and they did it because the Beatles themselves had a very hard time getting a professional record deal when they were first starting out. (Which I can imagine every executive that turned them down is kicking themselves to this day). Apple Corp was, at the time, owned by the Beatles, however it was sold off and divided when shortly after the band broke up (I believe).

Sony owned the library of music for awhile, and yes Michael Jackson sneakily out-bid Paul McCartney (and Yoko) with his "Thriller" money, thus ending his friendship to Sir Paul and making him one rich man.

But Michael Jackson may have sold some or all of his ownership to the Beatle songs to Sony, when he was in some of his legal battles. (You know what for).

Regardless of this, Apple Corp is always associated with The Beatles because they started the company and were the only widely successful band released under that label. (I think ELO may have been too... I don't know).

But, the actual surviving members of the Beatles don't charge themselves with the task of protecting the legal rights of a record label they started in the late 60's, they just don't. That's not the way these things work.

And, to some, I know this may seem unfair, but in many ways Apple (Computer) is going against the public understanding of the settlement. Of course there is a good chance that we don't know the actual details, and Jobs may have built in some kind of loophole for himself that he now plans on utilizing.
 
Apple Computer has a ton of money today also. A $50 million settlement (just making up a number) might just be considered a good investment for the long term viability of their music service. They could make that back in the first year once the Windows version comes out. Maybe sooner.
 
Going back a few months....there were rumors of Apple potentially buying a record label (Universal) along with the help of some record execs. A kind of patnership. However adverse shareholder reaction put an end to any further talks/speculation. Enter the present a record label with considerable grievances against Apple Computer, which could cause irreparable damage the Apple Computer's future profitability. Reality check....how much is Apple Corps really worth if they don't own the royalties. All they are is a name to be put on shirts and mugs and cds. A name protecting itself, because it has nothing else. How much is that worth? $1billion? I seriously doubt it, but even if it were, wouldn't that be well worth the potential time and energy that might be needed to subdue their lawyers.

Enter another thought.....what if Steve is using this as an excuse to buy Apple Corps, so that he may wholly own a music label, albeit a tiny one, from which he can further his music empire dreams....

conspiracy theory...maybe

something to consider? Absolutely.
 
And remember, Apple Corp don't own the Beatles' songs, as far as I know Sony still do. I would think the only substantial Beatles copyright that Apple still has is the name itself and presumably the mechanical copyright for the later records (that's if EMI don't own it).
 
Anyone see that episode of Family Guy where peter recalls being a security guard for George Harrison?
He's sitting in front of the teleivision singing the theme song for charles in charge and a guy in a black suit jumps over the wall with a knife. haha.

Mozart and Elvis must be rolling over in their graves thinking, "why didn't i sue all those rap artists for turning my music into crap? oh ho, im dead"
 
One of the things that Apple may be banking on is that they have more name recognition then Apple Records does. At some point in time Apple Records will loose since they appear to be more of a holding company then an active record label.

If Apple Records is not actively doing business other then managing the Beetles library they will have step aside and let Apple Computers do business unfettered.
 
I think Apple Corps.'s lawyers are just trying to stir the pot here because they're not making any money and they have nothing better to do; I don't think they really have a good case. Sure, Apple Computer may have violated their settlement agreement, but what has Apple Corps. done recently that Apple Computer would get in the way of?
 
Originally posted by kanecorp
WTF, did you just seriously ask whos ever heard of apple music???
Click to expand...
I had never heard of Apple Records/Corps until the first time I read about them suing Apple Computer. Personally I think the Beatles are highly over-rated and these lawsuits ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top