Considering that the average iTunes user has most likely never heard of an Apple Corp that does anything but make computers, it

So bad business skills justifies one of the most frivolous lawsuits in the history of international intellectual property rights? Steve Jobs should tell Paul and Ringo to get a life and go fuck themselves. Since the terms of the earlier lawsuit spell out clearly that Apple computer was not to go into the music business, I would have to imagine that the Cupertino lawyers thought this one through. If its really that big of a deal maybe Paul could buy some of his music back by producing something interesting, like a nice song or something. Being an old curmudgeon is not an excuse to stifle innovation and industry. I wish a broken hip on them both.

I'll just say this, Apple Computers signed a contract with Apple Corp that they would not get involved with music in any way and that they would be financially responsible to reimbursing Apple Corp if they did. Talk about bad business deals. They broke a contract, they should pay.
And what Duncan said.

(As I say this all from an iMac listening to iTunes.)
MT

"Apple Computers signed a contract with Apple Corp that they would not get involved with music in any way and that they would be financially responsible to reimbursing Apple Corp if they did."
that is the key to this whole thing.
why did apple pc think this was OK .. I mean its hard to sneaky behind a multi million dollar ad campaign and a ton of revenue. why did they think this was in the realm of there agreement.

Yeah, "Fruity Loops: featuring Ringo Starr! V3.5"

v:O)~

This article should offer a little insight into how hip the Beatles are too what's going on with internet based music distro.

"When asked why the former band members were not putting the group's music online, he added: "I do not think there is any reason for it at all."

Way to stay relevant guys...

<link>

Quote:

In regards to your unrelated question Duncan. It

Quote:

Buck Paxton
Point being this is was trademark dispute; it was relevant at the time because the Apple Corp logo was still relevant at the time.

Relevant at the time? Apple Corp is more relevant now than it was in '81. Hell it was started in '68 and practically out of business by '70. It wasn't until many years later that is dug itself out of debt because of all the frivolous spending. The mid 90's "Anthology" series brought it shitloads of money making Apple Corp and The Beatles more "relevant" than they had been in decades.

Don't get lost. I just re-read my posts and I make perfect sense.

The Beatles, who are musicians, and the management of Apple Corp, are two very different entities. For you to point out that perhaps Ringo Starr doesn't know what the Internet is, is dumb.

We can safely leave arguments over artistic success out of this because I think we both are on the same page regarding the artistic merits of The Beatles. That said, The Beatles are FAR more successful in business over the past 10 years than they were at the height of their artistic successes. I am not saying The Beatles were sleeping on the street during their heyday but they were being taken to the cleaners by corrupt accountants and bad management. They are not alone in this scenario of course, The Stones had it worse I think. Anyway, to think that they had the fortune that they have now, back in the 60's when the entire world was screaming for them, is wrong.

If you start a sprocket company tomorrow called Apple, feel free to make sprockets and enjoy all the spoils that good sprocket making will bring you. If you decide one day that you are going to start selling music you had better check with Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia. It's simple Trademark law. I think it's a little crappy and I think that there is as much confusion with this as there is with the WWF but I like Beatles more than I like computer companies so I cast my vote for them.

Quote:

I would disagree with this being simple copyright law.

I would too. I said it's simple trademark law.