toggle

AAPL Stock: 565.32 ( 0 )

Beatles music may hinge on Apple vs. Apple lawsuit

updated 02:30 pm EDT, Thu September 23, 2004

Apple vs. Apple


Recent recent rumors of a settlement between Apple Computer and Apple Corps, the company founded by the Beatles, reports may be overblown, according to a CNET News.com report. Noting that current discussions for digital distribution rights to Beatles' music are running between $15-25 million for 6 months of exclusivity, the report says that Apple may be the only company willing to pay that much, while at the same time delivering a specialized area within iTunes for Beatles' music, interviews, and more--especially if it is part of a legal settlement between the companies over the use of 'Apple'. Apple was given the right to use the brand as part of a $26 million settlement in 1991 for "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," as long as it was not on physical media such as a CD."


by MacNN Staff

print
email
(9)

TAGS :

 iPod

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. gudin

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: May 2000

    0
    09/23, 03:11pm | report spam | Reply |

    if Apple had that right..

    since 1991, what is the basis for the beatles' argument now? Apple isn't selling cds. . . it's delivering content.

  1. koolkid1976

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: May 2003

    0
    09/23, 03:31pm | report spam | Reply |

    re: if Apple had that rig

    Because the Beatles were given the right to use the Apple name wherever their songs were involved and on "any current or future creative works whose principal content is music."
    It's because the principal content of iTunes and iPod is music. But in my opinion, that still leads in favor of Apple Computer, since iTunes and iPod are not creative works. They are "goods and services" whos principal content is music.

  1. Feeling_Macish

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    09/23, 04:38pm | report spam | Reply |

    This better be the last..

    Whatever they do, Apple had better make _this_ settlement be the final one they ever have to make with Apple Corps. The lawyers better close off every possible avenue for future complaint. No need to fund solid gold tombs for Paul and Ringo and trust funds for 20-odd generations of their descendants. It's time to let that money be made by new creative blood.

    I wonder if John ever said to Paul during a tea-break whilst recording (Sgt. Pepper, say): "You know Paul, we are creating one h*** of a pile of content - we'll be able to do nothing while it keeps the royalties rolling in when we're 64..." Too bad for John that Yoko turned out to be the beneficiary of his share of all that.

  1. Makosuke

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0
    09/23, 09:05pm | report spam | Reply |

    $15M, huh?

    So they want at least $15M for 6 months of exclusive content, do they? I could imagine some company (especially Apple) going for that, but think about what an extrordinarily bad investment that would be, and how unreasonable the former Beatles figure is:

    Apple says they're selling 16 million songs a month. Assuming that works out to somewhere around $10 million gross including album sales, that would mean that during this six month exclusive period just to have the exclusive pay for itself in the gross, Apple would have to increase their sales by 25% based solely on the Beatles tracks... which, keep in mind, everybody already has CDs of anyway. 24 million tracks in half a year? I doubt it.

    More importantly, though, Apple is apparently only squeezing 4 cents a track (does that factor in albums?) out of the iTMS. That works out to Apple having to sell at least *375 MILLION SONGS* (38 million albums?) just to break even. HELLO? That's two years worth of sales. Even the Beatles aren't going to drive that kind of business

    The hugely popular "1" album maxed out at 1 million sets in a week, and it'd have to sustain half that rate for six months straight just to equal that kind of numbers. Heck, during the Beatles entire career they've only sold around 175 million albums. One fifth of their 30-some years worth of sales for a six month exclusive.

    I'm actually starting to dislike the Beatles, if they actually have any kind of control left in the dealings of Apple Corps anymore.

  1. Buzy Beetle

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jan 2004

    0
    09/24, 01:49am | report spam | Reply |

    AAPL Doesn't Record

    It's simple, the 1991 settlement lawer-induced wording is actually about defining what is a computer company, and what is a record company and it says that the two companies must remain in it's field.

    Apple computers doesn't record the music it sells. Macs are often used nowadays in recording studios to record content sold by the iTunes Music Store. But you have to remember that Apple was given the right to sell Macs with audio recording abilities by this same settlement.

  1. JEB

    Junior Member

    Joined: May 2001

    0
    09/24, 03:15am | report spam | Reply |

    Peace generation

    . . . hopefully we'll get back to the sentiment of those times.

    I have a good feeling things will work out . . . Beatles on the iTunes store would be wonderful. Everybody, now, all you need is Love . . .

    I think a friendly outcome is imminent . . . for some reason my karma feels that way.

  1. eddd

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Dec 2001

    0
    09/24, 11:12am | report spam | Reply |

    be cool

    No need to hate the Beatles for creating something that is still desireable 35 years later. That's what business is all about... finding the true value of a given item. The fact that the Beatles' music can still command such a premium is great for them... it doesn't make them evil, lazy, or opportunistic. I'd rather see them get this kind of money than see some NBA player get it in a season or two. But I digress...

    Apple has two goals at the moment: fend off MS and sell 1 million iPods this holiday season. A deal like this might help make both happen. 6 months of exclusivity would be great timing at a crucial moment. Plus, it will hopefully avoid future legal battles.

    And if Apple pays that much for an exclusive contract, don't be surprised to see Beatles stuff carry a premium. Something like $2 per tune.

  1. Elektrix

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: Sep 2001

    0
    09/24, 11:49am | report spam | Reply |

    Apple Corps

    It's worth keeping in mind that Apple Corps has always been pretty screwed up as a company (if you go and read some of the really good Beatles books, like "Shout", they go into a lot of detail about all the troubles with Apple Corps and how much I think even the Beatles got sick of it's weirdness). I'm sure the Beatles and their estates still have some control over what Apple Corps does, but Apple Corps also acts in its own interests and I think it's worth keeping the Beatles as a band separate from whoever is running Apple Corps now.

  1. Buran

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: May 2000

    0
    09/24, 12:19pm | report spam | Reply |

    This is stupid

    It's OK to have two businesses with the same name as long as they aren't in the same industry. Computers are not the same as music. So a computer can record, edit, and play back audio. That doesn't mean that because I build computers at home from scratch (and yes, I do) I'm suddenly in the recording business. Only an idiot and a lawyer could claim that I was.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker

iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...

Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover

One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...

Logitech UE Air Speaker

If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...

toggle

Most Commented

 

Popular News