Beatles and Apple Inc finally settle up

We were getting wind of Apple and Apple finally settling their differences similarities and possibly even making some snazzy sort of iTunes deal to show off their new found love for each other. No word yet on iTunes, but it does look like the pair have finally reached a naming agreement that has both sides pleased, ending years of legal sparring. "We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks," said Steve Jobs. "It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future." And just how was this resolved? Both companies are going to be paying their own legal costs, and Apple Inc is walking home with the entire brand, with an apparent agreement to license certain trademarks back to Apple Corps. No wonder Steve was pleased. We'll keep our fingers crossed for some sort of iTunes deal, but obviously that oft-rumored Super Bowl ad spot opportunity has come and gone. Luckily, the word from Apple Corps' Neil Aspinall hints at good things to come: "It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of peaceful co-operation with them."

[Thanks, Raghu]

[Special_K @ Feb 5th 2007 10:29AM]

Good for them! It's too late for me to buy the songs, but I would if I hadn't already illegaly downloaded them for lack of a way to get them legally online. Either way, Apple Inc. definately seems to come out on top here, I wonder how they hashed this deal out...

[Fitz @ Feb 5th 2007 10:55AM]

Schmuck. Nobody cares if you steal music. Trying to justify it with that lame comment doesn't excuse it, either.

[John B @ Feb 5th 2007 11:31AM]

"for lack of a way to get them legally online"

WTF? What the hell kind of excuse is this? Is THIS what we've come to? "Oh, well, if I can't download the album digitally I'm not going to buy it at all."

So, for some reason it's impossible for you to BUY the CDs and rip the songs to your MP3 player? Hey, here's a news flash -- you can buy the CDs online, too. Yes, you have to wait a bit for it to be delivered, but if you can't deal with that slight delay that's your problem.

[Nick @ Feb 5th 2007 12:09PM]

here's an idea... download them anyway and pay this time. Then throw them away. Or don't. None of us give a shit.

[nodnetni @ Feb 5th 2007 10:38AM]

With this dispute over, does that mean Apple can get in to the music business? That could mean huge things if it does. Apple as there own record label, where artists get a better cut then with regular record labels.

[PJK @ Feb 5th 2007 11:04AM]

What the hell makes you think artists would get a better cut? With the way apple treats consumers with its locked in and closed down bullshit he'd probably have the artists locked in a cell and beaten with reeds until they produced a platinum album.

[beeman @ Feb 5th 2007 10:48AM]

Ugh. John and George will turn in their graves. At the rate things are going, Apple will soon become another Microsoft. Boo...

[Joe V @ Feb 5th 2007 11:07AM]

I think John's Apple-related grave-spinning probably occurred when he was plopped into their "Think Different" campaign; at this point he's probably all spun out.

Anyway, the Beatles' albums have been released in about a dozen different formats over the years, with devoted fans rebuying them each time, and no one at Apple Corps seemed to complain about the money. What's the difference here?

[DM @ Feb 5th 2007 10:56AM]

It is great that they've settled but this will never change the fact that Steve Jobs just could never come up with an original idea. Ever.

[rob @ Feb 5th 2007 4:05PM]

They would get a better cut because Apple is not as concerned about CD sales as the recording industries are, nor is Apple as inclined as UMG or the like to place a heavily obtrusive DRM scheme to their content. iTunes presently has a much better content scheme than ZMP, and ZMP apes the ecosystem.

[nodnetni @ Feb 5th 2007 11:56AM]

I have no idea what pjk is talking about, I have never had a problem with anything apple has sold me. I personally could care less that i only can play it on an iPod, maybe thats because I have an iPod. As for customer serves, they have always been very helpful to me. And artist get practically nothing for record(cd) sales, Look at the break downs. CD cost $16.98 Retailer takes about 33% so lets say on average the the record company gets about $10 artist gets $2 of that. CD on iTunes $10 record company gets $6.50 assuming same %20 to artist(s) that would be $1.30, apple uses 25% of theres to pay for distribution, leaving apple with $1. Now you get ride of the record label, Apple takes a bigger cut, but the artist can make more because they got ride of the middle man there.

[BobbyDigital @ Feb 5th 2007 3:22PM]

@PJK

I am in a band that sells our music on iTunes - We make a killing from iTunes profits compared to the sales of our physical CDs. Apple takes a very very small cut of the sale, and they have the right to. After all, they are providing the service.

From my experience with Apple, they know how to treat their customers.

[jimbo @ Feb 5th 2007 11:09AM]

strawberry fields forever

[hesh @ Feb 5th 2007 12:14PM]

What? There are two separate Apple companies that are still the same company? This is like a two-headed boy that couldn't play nice with himself and the left head sued the right head for use of the penis.

[yessindeed @ Feb 5th 2007 12:51PM]

"It is great that they've settled but this will never change the fact that Steve Jobs just could never come up with an original idea."

That's one of those nail on the head award comments. I swear RIApple whines so much that people are stealing their ideas that it has to be a diversion so no one will notice that they almost never have an original idea.. The idea for every RIAApple product came from somewhere else. I'm not saying they could 'never' come up with an original idea but it's pretty darned rare.

[Mr.Ortiz @ Feb 5th 2007 2:08PM]

This is pretty stunning, if I understand correctly. Apple Records have given up the rights to their own trademarks (which they held long before Apple Computer even existed), and are now PAYING Apple a licensing fee to use those same trademarks.

I'm betting Apple (Computers) paid Apple (Records) a whole lot of cash and the licensing fee is a nominal $1/yr, like Jobs' salary.

[Siva @ Feb 5th 2007 3:06PM]

Apple is not the one using a closed format. It is the music companies that are requiring the DRM. Also, do you complain that your SACD does not play in your discman. Do you complain your Zune songs are not playing on your Creative MP3 player? Singling Apple out is unfair. I would rather have DRM free lossless compressed music. Wait, I already have that - I rip CDs using lossless codec.

[Howie @ Feb 5th 2007 4:46PM]

Beatles branded iPod in the near future?

[boh tong @ Feb 6th 2007 12:16AM]

Ah finally it comes to a happy ending for both parties.I am a fan of the Beatles and I am glad.
http://bohtong.blogspot.com

[me duh @ Feb 7th 2007 1:46AM]

The biggest news in tech since forever and only 19 posts?
It's not even featured!?!?!?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^