A Threefold 'Thank You' to Los Angeles
Canter's & Ice Cream Sandwich Could Live in Perfect Harmony
Dear Los Angeles: I'm Thankful For...
-thumb-110x110-213475.jpg)
A Photo Gallery of the Things I am Grateful for This Year
7 Reasons to Love L.A.
This week Apple Computer will be in court in the UK, facing two of Britain's favorite sons: Sir Paul McCartney and not-sir Ringo Starr. Seems that Jobs & Co. had an agreement with the Beatles and their heirs to keep Apple Computer out of the music business, where the Beatles had a firmly established their fruit identity as Apple Corps in 1968.
The agreement has been revised a couple of times; in its most recent revision (from 1991), Apple Computer agreed not to distribute music on physical media, such as tapes or CDs. The surviving Beatles and Yoko say that iPods and iTunes could be construed as music distrubition, but Apple says that they're providing a delivery service, not content.
We're not sure what Paul and Ringo and the widows of John and George are after. The band hasn't been together for 35 years. Their label does quite well re-releasing Beatles material with Capitol/EMI, but it's essentially a back catalog. Is there really a great fear that consumers will confuse Apple with Apple? Or that the Beatles' Apple might lose money in the process?
In fact, it's quite the opposite. Yesterday we tried to buy a Beatles download on iTunes but could only find cover versions. So we resorted to a friendly file-sharing service and found the song for free. Which means if the Beatles etc had just made nice with Apple Computer, they would have gotten their share of our 99 cents — instead they got nothing.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Same goes for Metallica. Good going guys - sue your fans for downloading your music for free, then don't offer downloads for sale... Now the only place you can find Metallica mp3s is free file-sharing sites. Lars, you are BRILLIANT!
same here... i've actually been following this story for the past couple of years as the battle has unfolded... it's interesting stuff. Had the Beatles allowed their songs to go on iTunes they would have recieved the profit from my purchases of Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, Maagical Mystery Tour... their loss!
the Beatles Apple company is all about music,dont you get it? Apple computer stole their name not the other way around and the Beatles won in court and it was ordered that apple computer was not to have anything to do with music.The Beatles are right all the way to the bank !!!
Uh, Curt... if the Beatles Apple corp. were "all about music," they should provide people with an outlet to obtain their music online legally. A question, though; is Badfinger available on iTunes? They're another Apple Corp. band. If they are, then I suspect this non-availability of Beatles music on iTunes is more a problem with Sony Music Publishing/Michael Jackson than with Apple Corp. Of course, couldn't Michael Jackson need some more money right about now?
Elizabeth, you bring up a good point.I think the Beatles have seen this court case coming for a long time and are waiting to see how it plays out,don't be surprised if you see the Beatles songs on iTunes after all is said and done.Also I think Jackson would love to see the Beatles songs online but I think the Beatles have blocked it until they get what they want.
Elizabeth, you bring up a good point.I think the Beatles have seen this court case coming for a long time and are waiting to see how it plays out,don't be surprised if you see the Beatles songs on iTunes after all is said and done.Also I think Jackson would love to see the Beatles songs online but I think the Beatles have blocked it until they get what they want.