Apple vs Apple
p2pnet.net News Feature:- The legal battle between Apple Corps, the company founded by the Beatles, and Apple Computer, which makes the Macintosh and the iPod, has taken an interesting turn.
The two companies have had an uncertain relationship since 1980 when Beatle George Harrison spotted an advert for Apple Computer in a magazine.
The band had set up Apple Corps in 1968, and they were worried that fans would think the upstart computer manufacturer was something to do with them.
In the end they cut a deal, and agreed to share the trademark and stay out of each others’ business.
But then came the multimedia Macintosh, which shipped with a rather provocative system sound titled ‘Sosumi’.
Apple Corps did exactly that, and in 1989 they went to court. In the end they settled for something around $30m and a revised agreement.
When Apple launched the iPod and started running the most successful music download service to date, Apple Corps got a bit upset again
The court case began at the High Court in February, and continues. However, rumours abound that the two sides are going to cut a deal instead of waiting for a legal opinion, and that part of that will see Beatles music available exclusively on Apple’s iTunes Music Store for a six month period.
So far no Beatles songs have been available on legal download services, but the surviving band members are believed to have changed their mind about this recently and to be keen to see it happen
All it will cost is $25 million or so. Or perhaps only $15 million – the rumours are rather vague.
Some of the stories circulating are positively silly, like the idea that Paul McCartney might join the board at Apple – useful, perhaps if they want someone to lead the corporate anthem at board meetings, but hardly a sensible business decision
The rumours are also, it should be pointed out, denied by both Apples.
But the well-known fact that Apple founder and CEO Steve Jobs is a big Beatles fan, allied to the new-found respectability of the digital download services, must give credibility to the tale.
After all, if Beatles albums were available to download then they’d probably be number one in the newly launched download charts, to add to their many other number ones.
Perhaps they could release an online-only album called “Ones. And Zeroes.” As it happens, I’ve got all of my Beatles music on my iPod, because I copied it from the CDs I bought during the 1990’s when I spent vast amounts of money replacing my vinyl albums. I wouldn’t be tempted by Beatles downloads, because I don’t really feel like paying a third time for the same music, especially as it would be lower quality than the CD and come with restrictions on how I could play and copy it.
We should not, however, forget just how much The Beatles like money.
When Apple Corps settled for their $30 million back in 1991 few people from my generation, let alone my children’s, would have confused the two because nobody had heard of Apple Corps.
And now they want another $15 or perhaps $25 million for songs they wrote and worked on over thirty years ago, despite the fact that Paul and Ringo are rich beyond the ambitions of nearly every one of us and John and George are dead.
While it’s reasonable that creative artists should be rewarded for their work, this does seem to be rather excessive
The Beatles have made a lot of money from their fans, and they have in return given many of us a great deal of pleasure.
In the days they set up Apple Corps they were radical hippies who challenged the establishment in many ways.
Wouldn’t it be nice if they did the same thing now, and made the music available without rights management systems, under a non-commercial Creative Commons license that let others reuse their songs? It would be a wonderful gesture to the future, recognising that the Fab Four only succeeded because they were inspired by those who came before, taking riffs and musical forms from others.
They re-interpreted them, added to them and used them in unexpected ways, but even though I Saw Her Standing There is a brilliant creation, it built on the work of many other people.
Of course it won’t happen.
The Beatles want their money, just like the record companies who take 75 cents for every 99 cent iTunes download despite the fact they contribute almost nothing and are selling an inferior product to the CD.
It’s an unfair and unworkable system, but the alternatives rarely get mentioned.
At the In the City music conference last week in Manchester former music journalist Andrew Orlowski put forward a proposal for a flat-fee royalty system.
But his eloquent arguments will have no impact because the owners of what is rather quaintly called ‘mechanical copyright’ have the law on their side, don’t see any reason to change, and like the fact that they currently make more money than anyone else.
It will take a revolution to persuade them to do things differently, a second Napster which may well destroy their business model completely and drive them out of business, instead of just asking them to change the way they work and still stay profitable.
But we can all imagine no digital rights management, can’t we. It’s easy if you try…
Links
- Apple (The computer company)
- Apple Corporation (The Beatles one)
- Mac Rumours
- Andrew Orlowski keynote speech
- In The City Conference
- Interactive @ In The City
- Sosumi
Bill Thompson – andfinally.com
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:27 am
Ya, it’s called P2P.
Someone needs to stand up to these thugs. Even if they just go it alone in court, I can’t see a jury convicting someone for copyright infringement.
October 2nd, 2004 at 2:01 am
Trademarks make little sense anyway.
It’s a chase to be the first to “own” a name.
Why should people own words?
Very vague and broad words?
“Apple corp.” is rather abusive.
Why not “Beattle’s Apple Corp”?
Ah, because corporations can then use the system to extort money.
And we all know they like money.
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:18 pm
Grow up, business is business. The Beatles are entitled to be paid until their copyrights expire, period. The argument about their having been influenced by previous music is completely besides the point.
October 2nd, 2004 at 11:33 pm
“All You Need Is Cash” Monty Python spin-off The Rutles perhaps were onto something…
October 5th, 2004 at 9:51 pm
Have you heard of a slippery slope!? Even if Steve Jobs had the best intentions, he can’t do what he did. By letting him slide it will set up a legal precident to let other infringers slide. Wouldn’t you feel stupid if you bought a Beatles record only to find out it was some mexican Mariachi band who’ve decided to use the name, The Beatles. There have to be rules. It protects the artist and the buyer!
February 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Like many opinions about The Beatles, they are slanted by the author’s own opinion.
Mr. Thompson suggests that, in 1991, nobody had heard of a firm called Apple Corps. I doubt that very much. There are enough fans of The Beatles who know plenty about their history. I’m sure many of us recall seeing the name “Apple Corps Ltd” on the ‘Magical Mystery Tour’ album (in the US) or EP (in the UK) back in 1967, and, wondering what that was about. Fans being fans, we really did want to know everything about our favorite group. How could you not know about ‘Apple Corps Ltd’ since evey recording from the “Hey Jude” single forward was a self-promotion for the company based on the logo itself.
What is excessive about being paid for your work considering the unknown shelf life of music (intellectual property seems, to me, to take an awful beating in the world of commerce versus other more tangible goods). Think about it. Not everyone is or can be a Beatles. Even to The Beatles, this “business of music” is new territory. So, why not protect your property?
So, Apple Computer makes agreements and breaks them (allegedly), and, the implication is that Apple Corps should be more humanistic and generous. What?!
I like these comments about The Beatles taking from the past and they were radical anti-establishment “heroes” (my interpretation of Mr. Thompson’s comments).
Of course, music is influenced by what came before. That’s someting that makes it so damn interesting as an art form. It’s organic. So what? The Beatles gave us brand new interpretations that were solely their own, which is what artists do. The Beatles never claimed credits for recordings of others they covered. Those writers did quite well from Beatles sales as well.
Yes, I am in complete sympathy with anyone, in any field of art, who, due to past practices, was not paid properly. That needs to be fixed.
The more perspective I have on The Beatles’ history, the less I find that they were radical anti-establishment “hippies” to the degree that is sometimes associated with them. When push came to shove, three of them fell into Allen Klein’s world, while Paul went with traditional entertainment lawyers, the Eastmans. Even prior to Apple, Brian Epstein was pretty traditional. Yes, their music and personal behavior was radical and anti-establishment and they were loved by people from 9-90 around the World, but that is one part of their lives, a huge part. Thier business world was not so radical and anti-establishment. I think that’s what we are addressing here.
As far as business models go, how do we address the lack of ethics that appears to have become the norm when it comes to intellectual property? I mean, really, when do you, as an individual, understand the potential suffering that is caused by treating intellectual property as something different from buying a refrigerator. I suggest that the general public is no better than the old record company moguls who stole from their artists.
Maybe we need to re-think the business model, but if we are going to have a world where some people use their heads to write a book or compose a song, they should at least get paid for it, so they can live to write another day. I don’t think anything’s going to change the fact that there are going to be those who, in the eyes of the genral public, are so good at what they do, that, as a group summed, these vast majorities will fork over an ungodly sum.
Thanks for the space to reply