Beatles vs. Apple! (computers)

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Against Will, Sep 17, 2004.

  1. Against Will

    Against Will Supporting Member

    Dec 10, 2003
    Big Sound Central

    You know, I had almost forgotten that the Beatles ever existed!

    Good thing they're sueing Apple Comps, otherwise their marginal impact on music might have been swallowed up into the sands of history. :rolleyes:
  2. Toasted


    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    I sincearly hope you're being sarcastic about "marginal impact." The words I would use are "total revolution"
  3. Against Will

    Against Will Supporting Member

    Dec 10, 2003
    Big Sound Central
    Note the :rolleyes: ;it is a duel purpose emoticon
  4. "Considering that the average iTunes user has most likely never heard of an Apple Corp that does anything but make computers, it’s time that the surviving Beatles begin to recognize that heir relevance lays in the past. They are quite literally history. To even try to challenge the right of Apple computer to design, refine and innovate today, defies logic. It can’t possibly be about money, The Beatles need to let go of a little pride and let this one go gracefully. They will do nothing but help stifle a company that has done more, with lower profit margins than any other major computer manufacturer, is there a deal to release the Beatles catalog over the new MS service? What gives Sir Paul?"
    (a quote from a friend of mine.)

    Seriously tho, I know in the early 90's Apple (the label) won many millions of dollars and Apple Computer stipulated that they would never get into the music business, so, shame on them really but, McCartney, quit being such a ninny, and stop trying to stifle innovation and industry. It's bad enough you're seen as a baby over the whole whose name first on song credits deal, and I KNOW it's the artist that always gets the shaft, but you're HARDLY a starving artist at this point. And don't get into "principle of it all"... how about you go write an interesting song instead?
  5. Adam Barkley

    Adam Barkley Mayday!

    Aug 26, 2003
    Jackson, MS
  6. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    People are speculating that the settlement for this latest suit might be the largest non-class action settlement ever

    Which is pretty ridiculous. It hurts the beatles name, makes apple seem like goons(both apples) and the beatles still aren't on the world's most popular online music store and selling millions more songs.

    Ya know iTunes has over a million songs online now, and they are currently selling ~125 million songs a year, it's a ****ing juggernaut.

    This isn't going to change any time soon. Like it or not, Apple Computer single handedly made legal online music popular and desirable. They made it so friggin convenient that they've made people not mind spending $10 to avoid the hassle that is peer to peer. The whole mindset has changed.

    I think it's pretty crass of the richest musician in the world to be so up at arms with this suit. Though I don't know how much direct involvement paul has, it's definitely more than a little.

    the whole thing is just a big bleh, this is why apple computer has always opted for quiet out-of-court settlements, because they don't want to deal with it and just want apple corps. off their back.
  7. jondog


    Mar 14, 2002
    NYC metro area
    I don't think Paul wants to sell more songs -- Michael Jackson bought the whole catalog, so if anybody is losing $ by not iTuning Beatles tunes it's M.J.
  8. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002
    From what I understand, MJ only owns part of the rights, I think he only owns the lyric/sheet music publishing rights or something. But eitherway, from what I understand, he sold like 80% of it all back to the beatles not too long ago.
  9. OK, your point being?

    And, moving forward, I sincerely hope you don't have an IPod or something of their ilk, lest you brand yourself a hypocrite.
  10. Absolutely.

    AND, MJ doesn't really own much of the Beatles catalog, that would be Sony, to whom MJ used as collateral on a RIDICULOUSLY huge loan 4-5 years ago, as promise on big sales of his "HIStory" and "Invincible" or whatever narcissisticly ludicrous named CD flops were called...
  11. Look, simple really...I love the Beatles. They are without a doubt more impacting than any other musical group not only to me, but the world really. They'll be revered long after Apple computer is gone, and I really am NOT lessenning their contribution to anything in light of technology orwhatnot, but what started as a small dispute initiated by George (iirc) about the potential of brand confusions has really gotten out of control.

    I cannot believe anyone would in this day and age would mistake the two entities. Apple Corp (the label) is essentially more relevant now than they ever were (with the Let it be Naked and #1 releases) but I really don't see this suit as anything more than greed...
  12. bassmonkeee

    bassmonkeee Supporting Member

    Sep 13, 2000
    Decatur, GA
    Um--you do all realize that Apple Corp is obligated to sue Apple Computers, right? It's called protecting a trademark, and if they don't protect it in court, they risk diluting the trademark. Bottom line--Apple Computers broke their agreement. What did you think the response would be? "Oh, well, we're rich enough." :eyebrow:

    But, you know--I'm glad a bunch of internet folk feel so high and mighty as to tell Paul, Ringo, et al who they should sue and when they should sue them. :rollno:
  13. Just an opinion man, I'm hardly high and mighty about this.

    I already said it was wrong of Apple Computer.
  14. Apple Corps did have an electronics division some eight years prior to the formation of Apple Computers.

    (as I drag my mouse around on my Apple mousepad...)
  15. Adam Barkley

    Adam Barkley Mayday!

    Aug 26, 2003
    Jackson, MS

    Why are you pegging McCartney? Apple Records as an entity is suing Macintosh/Apple Computers.