Rotten Apple gives Beatles agida

Rotten Apple gives Beatles agida

Summary: Right about now, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is flicking his nose with his thumb at the music industry and saying "Whose your Daddy now?" In addition to getting the top four music labels to knuckle under to his rules for selling music on the Internet, Jobs has beat back a challenge from Apple Corps: the record label made infamous by The Beatles.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
5

Right about now, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is flicking his nose with his thumb at the music industry and saying "Whose your Daddy now?" In addition to getting the top four music labels to knuckle under to his rules for selling music on the Internet, Jobs has beat back a challenge from Apple Corps: the record label made infamous by The Beatles.  Wrote News.com's Tom Krazit:

Back in 1991, the two Apples [Apple Corps and Apple Computer] amended a previous 1981 agreement following a lawsuit that spelled out how each Apple would be allowed to use its trademarks. Apple Computer paid Apple Corps $27 million and agreed not to enter the music distribution business under the Apple Computer name and logo..... However, Apple Corps said it believed Apple Computer has been doing just that with the iTunes Music Store, and filed suit in 2003.

The judge disagreed.   The case will apparently be appealed.

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

5 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Music distribution

    If selling music through proprietary avenues (and with exclusivity clauses) to a worldwide audience isn't Music Distribution, what is it?

    Sony/BMG distributes music through retail outlets. Virgin distributes music through their own retail stores. Apple distributes music through an online retail outfit.
    glocks out
    • Sloppy journalism from Krazit

      You are falling for the very sloppy journalism in Tom Krazit's
      article, glocks out.

      The agreement specidically stated, in fact, that:

      "4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services
      within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering
      content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even
      though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or
      authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in
      connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple
      Computers shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize
      others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection
      with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software,
      hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play
      or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or
      authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in
      connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content
      within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the
      Rolling Stones music)."

      Seems pretty clear to me. The agreement prevented Apple from
      flogging music CD's and the like under their own brand name. It
      did NOT prohibit them, as Krazit claims, from being able to "
      enter the music distribution business under the Apple Computer
      name and logo". Far from it, in fact. It specifically allowed them
      to.

      Cheers

      Rod
      Rod Hagen
  • uh... relative possessive adjective..?

    whose |ho?z|

    interrogative possessive adjective & pronoun
    belonging to or associated with which person : [as adj. ] [i]whose
    round is it?[/i] | [as pron. ] [i]a minivan was parked at the curb
    and Juliet wondered whose it was.[/i]

    relative possessive adjective
    of whom or which (used to indicate that the following noun
    belongs to or is associated with the person or thing mentioned
    in the previous clause) : [i]he's a man whose opinion I respect.[/
    i]

    who's |ho?z|
    contraction of
    ? who is : [i]who's your daddy?[/i]
    yellowhouse
    • who cares?

      Do you really think if ZDnet doesn't care enough to put content into their stories, that they care about grammar?
      shraven
  • Jobs gets away with another one

    If it were MS instead of Apple, you can bet this article would have seen a couple of dozen replies already mentioning how it only confirms MS's greedy and solely money minded nature. Its amazing the amount of crap Apple gets away with just because they're not MS!
    failure