monty666 Yes, well the seventh seal hasn't been broken... yet...

2003-09-13 02:31:21 AM nolimitz13

Just die, biatch...Nobody cares about you and your crap art...biatch

/Unrelated, yet true...

My landlady looks EXACTLY like Yoko Ono. Seriously. Methinks Yoko is the evil twin sister. My landlady gave me a free haircut today :)

chime IT'S A TRAP!!!

Run, man, run for your very SOUL!

Heirs of Adam and Eve to sue The Beatles

wow, quite a few posts already and no "OMFG mac's are t3h sux0r!!1" posts? Way to stay on topic!

do americans actually cuss each other out over bullshiat like this in real life or is it just an internet thing?

CarNuN

WTF do you mean #$%^#$ GDRT%$DFGDF PG#$DFG!

Just kidding. Well it depends entirely on where you are and who you are with. In my college, only once have I ever heard a professor say fark. At work, people in my dept. say it often and of course while talking to friends, cursing is common. But I don't think people go to weddings and start cussing the bride's parents. Well unless they're from (insert-the-state-you-hate-here).

TheJoe03:
Chumps...Kazaa Lite is waaay better than that iTunes. Sure Apple has better quality songs, but anything that is free is always better.

Is that why when I was in Dunkin' Donuts the other day buying a coffee, I saw you outside in the dumpster grabbing the day-old bear claws they were throwing away? I guess I'm not as smart as you.

Iollow,

Good analogy...ummm not...

schrodinger THanks, my other cat's name is Pixel (if anyone gets THAT reference, I'd like to know)

Heinlein. Pixil is the orange cat that walks between walls while living with the Longs, aka shrodinger's cat.

The behavior is not restricted to Americans, CarNuN.

when schrodinger's cat's away
the mice may or may not play.

we have no way of knowing.

on topic:

it seems shortsighted of jobs and woz in hindsight, but think of their limited concepts at the time (yes...even them) of what their home computer revolution would become. Wasn't it about this time that Gates was saying some drivel like 'nobody will ever need more than 64k'? this was even earlier than that, i think. to say "ok...we'll never do music stuff" likely made sense at the time because they were so far away from anything creative like music that it made perfect sense.

but like the man said, ain't that a kick in the head...

2003-09-13 03:05:38 AM iollow TOTAL*FARK
TheJoe03:
Chumps...Kazaa Lite is waaay better than that iTunes. Sure Apple has better quality songs, but anything that is free is always better.
Is that why when I was in Dunkin' Donuts the other day buying a coffee, I saw you outside in the dumpster grabbing the day-old bear claws they were throwing away? I guess I'm not as smart as you.
I can't get a disease from slightly worse quality muisc. You are also pretty dumb to pay a dollar a song, when you can just get it for free. Remember downloading is legal, sharing is not. So I'm not breaking any laws. Asshat.

There was a contract.Apple Computers is breaking it.'nuff said.
/stop giving excuses for a really bad mistake Apple Computers made.

People seem to keep making the mistake of thinking this is a trademark issue. It has nothing to do with trademarks. This is a breach of contract lawsuit. Apple computers lost the last round of this battle, to the tune of $50 million. They signed a deal with Apple Corp that they would not enter the music business. Apple Corp sees the iTunes music store and the iPod as breaking the contract.

I have heard several times that the iTunes music store in in direct competition with Apple records. This is simply not true. Even if Apple records was actively putting out albums, this would not be true. The iTunes music store is just that... a music STORE. This is like comparing The Wherehouse to Reprise.

I understand why Apple Corp may be upset, but I don't think they really have a case. Of course, I'm not sure of the exact details of the contract, either.

2003-09-13 02:22:55 AM Nietzche101

All things are possible for the harbingers of the abyss.

/Una Salvus Victus Nullam Separe Sanctum


Would you happen to be a fan of andromeda? One hope of the doomed was the name of a good episode.

The makers of the early Mac computers stated that they would never be used to make music.
/sosumi

I'm late here......but doesn't Michael Jackson own some/most of the Beatles songs now????

so1omon: Of course this is a trademark issue. The contract was put in place as part of the settlement of a past TRADEMARK lawsuit.

Apple (Computer) lost the last two lawsuits and each of those was less clear cut than this case. They are absolutely going to lose this one, all that needs to be decided is how much they are going to pay up.

And I won't shed any tears for them, Apple (Music) did have the name first, and Apple (Computer) did promise not to get into the music business. If you don't consider iTunes/Apple Music Store them getting into the music business then you're daft.

TheJoe03:
I can't get a disease from slightly worse quality muisc. You are also pretty dumb to pay a dollar a song, when you can just get it for free. Remember downloading is legal, sharing is not. So I'm not breaking any laws. Asshat.

The idea brought up by TheJoe03 was of music quality, not legality. His position was that if it's free, it is always better, quality aside. I don't agree, and gave an example. Do try to keep up.

And who says I pay a dollar a song? Who says I have ever used iTunes, or even own a Mac? It looks like you are just looking for an excuse to bash Apple, even if you have to change the topic slightly, and totally disregard the content of whose posts you're responding to.

Is that why when I was in Dunkin' Donuts the other day buying a coffee, I saw you outside in the dumpster grabbing the day-old bear claws they were throwing away? I guess I'm not as smart as you

He's the Got-No-Green Lantern!

I bet his girlfriend is named Lois Lone.

Robotninja:



Lois Loan.

I see now that I misspelled "loan."

*hangs head in shame*

robotninja:
He's the Got-No-Green Lantern!

I bet his girlfriend is named Lois Lone.

A vague reference, sure... but at least someone got it :p

Robotninja:

yuo == pwned

iollow - I don't know why, but that visual gave me the best belly laugh I've had all night. No hard feelings, The Joe.

/The Joe is not deaaaad.... so glad The Joe is not dead....

I thought you couldn't sue for the same thing twice, or does that only have to do with civil cases??

Two more bullets will solve this problem.

I don't really see how Apple is "in the music business." They're not actually producing any music, they're just making hardware and software that plays music and have a store that sells other people's music. Besides which, I don't understand how a company called Apple Computers could be sued by a company called Apple Records. I seem to recall some precedent in that area allowing similar names in different areas of business.

"Technology is consistently ahead of the law"
In other news, Dirtydan is consistently above the law.

gfm - this is NOT a trademark issue. The original lawsuit WAS a trademark issue. This is strictly a breach of contract lawsuit. If Apple Corp was to try a straight ahead trademark suit today, they would fall on their asses. Apple Computers is a much stronger trademark than Apple Corp. Look into the suit, and you'll see that it has nothing to do with trademarks.

I don't know what the details of the deal the two Apples came up with was. That's confidential information, and that's fine by me. My only point was that people seem to be saying that ITMS is competing directly with Apple Records, and that's just not the case. Yes, Apple Computers is in the music business, just like Blockbuster Video is in the movie business.

bah. i'm drunk. feel free to ignore me.

Just in case there's some confusion... my previous statement comparing Apple Computers to Blockbuster Video should be read as sarcasm. The statements immediately following it should NOT be read as sarcasm.

Perhaps Suncoast Video would have been a better example, since they don't do rentals. To the best of my knowledge, no one could realistically claim that Suncoast is "in the movie business". They just sell the damn things.

i'll have a rum with a rum chaser, thanks.

According to Apple Computer lore, Jobs' defiance in this matter pretty much accounts for the name of the 'sosumi' sound bundled with macs since they first had audio. Lawyers... a pox on humanity.

so1omon:

A) It is still a trademark claim. The whole case would be a non-issue if not for Apple Music having a trademark on the Apple name in the music business.

B) Apple Computer would still lose on trademark. Apple Music had the trademark first and has shown a legal history of defending their trademark (thus the previous lawsuits against Apple Computer). Just because Apple Computer is more well known doesn't mean Apple Music's trademark on Apple as it relates to the music business isn't valid. Duh.

C) By your logic Paramount (as an example) would have no case if someone started up a Paramount video rental chain. Do you really believe that? There'd be a lawsuit filed in a second, and Paramount (the movie studio) would win.

D) If you don't think Apple is now in the music business, their PR campaign of the last 6 months that was aimed at convincing you they are in the music business has failed. Doh.

B) Apple Computer would still lose on trademark. Apple Music had the trademark first and has shown a legal history of defending their trademark (thus the previous lawsuits against Apple Computer). Just because Apple Computer is more well known doesn't mean Apple Music's trademark on Apple as it relates to the music business isn't valid. Duh.

Just like how Apple Records defended their trademark against Bad Apple Records. And Big Apple Records. And Black Apple Records. And Crab Apple Records. And Mountain Apple Records. And Screaming Apple Records

Am I forgetting anyone?

Perhaps you just forgot to add the qualifier "with money." Apple Records has a history of defending their trademark against people "with money."

C) By your logic Paramount (as an example) would have no case if someone started up a Paramount video rental chain. Do you really believe that? There'd be a lawsuit filed in a second, and Paramount (the movie studio) would win.

Except for one thing: It's the "iTunes Music Store" not the "Apple Music Store." iTunes is a seperate trademark.

Schrodinger:

You might want to check out this idiotically named URL:

www.applemusic.com

(I'm a Mac tech, too, before I get flames from anyone. ;-))

Michael Jackson controls the beatles records, Michael like touching boys genitals - therefore The Beatles and Apple Records are child molester sympathizers.

Who would you support Steve Jobs and Pixar (the kids love Nemo!) or evil winky wackers Apple records....

Apple computers deserve to goto court, Everyone with the idea of actually enjoying a computer knows not to go apple. Apple are only good to appear on bad t.v show simply to make the actors look good. And maybe the odd decent multi-media, but thats the problem in the first place, media. I thought that apple records would use there brains and change the name to something most people dont associate with crap.

much worse than imusic, apple computer acquired emagic which produces professional music production software.

emagic

apple acquires emagic

first, music coming out of a computer's speakers, then music production software, and now marketing music with computers over the internet. i tell you, this is JUST THE BEGINNING!!!!

it's hegenomy, global aural hegenomy that jobs is after, and only apple corps can stop it.

(somewhere bill gates is smiling and stroking a cat.)

now what size ipod do i need to buy?

apple corp = SCO
can't make any money with their own business, going to have to find someone to sue

yay 4 teh l4wy3r5

EatMorePossum "Fark the fruit and fark the Beatles. They were the Backstreet Boys of their generation. Paul Revere and the Raiders did better music, just didn't have the right PR.

If anyone gets off on 'She loves you, ya, ya, ya', I am sorry for you.

Apple sucks but not as much, so I vote to make them the head fruits."

Feel free to die at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

I have to wonder when Apple Records will be bought-out by Apple Corp.. Seriously, fronting the money and ether-ragging a few board members will save a lot more money in the long run than letting this crippled company sit back and siphon Apple Corp's money with ancient contracts.

Beatles' fans, check out www.kbtl.com streaming radio from Texas. Broadcasting Beatles music and different types of music (not all rock). About every 4th tune is a Beatles number. Lots of variety here. Enjoy!
So now, will Apple Computers cost more if they lose a ton of dough to Apple Corps?

Me bad, messing up Apple Records and Apple Corps...d'oh!
/too early

GojiraXP
my cat's name is winston. as in john winston lennon.

2003-09-13 03:47:49 AM iollow
TheJoe03:
I can't get a disease from slightly worse quality muisc. You are also pretty dumb to pay a dollar a song, when you can just get it for free. Remember downloading is legal, sharing is not. So I'm not breaking any laws. Asshat.

The idea brought up by TheJoe03 was of music quality, not legality. His position was that if it's free, it is always better, quality aside. I don't agree, and gave an example. Do try to keep up.
And who says I pay a dollar a song? Who says I have ever used iTunes, or even own a Mac? It looks like you are just looking for an excuse to bash Apple, even if you have to change the topic slightly, and totally disregard the content of whose posts you're responding to.
When I said you, I meant iTunes users, not you. I don't give seven sh|ts about bashing apple, just the itunes idea. Looks like you just need to release your computer nerd energy on my. I have never, and will never partake in the Microsoft-Apple-Linux bashings/fueds. I said the legality thing to make sure a bunch of do-gooders wouldn't say anything to that extent. You sir are in need of a life. Asshat.

gfm - it's early, and my head hurts...

If you look at the suit, trademark is not the issue. Period. The only issue is that of breach of contract. The contract has to do with what rights each company gave each other to the trademark, but trademark itself is not the issue of this suit. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

Apple Computers does have a much stronger trademark, and yes, that really does make a difference, even if Apple Corp came first. They haven't defended their trademark very valiently if they allowed aonther company to become synonymous with the name "Apple". How many people think of the Beatles when the name "Apple" is mentioned?

Like I have said several times... I don't know what the details of the contract were. If the contract says that Apple Computers can't sell music, then they're screwed. If it doesn't say that, I can see Apple Computers getting away this time.

Apple Corp is currently partially owned by EMI. There are other artists being distributed by EMI in the iTunes music store. At the very least, EMI has given tacit agreement to the iTunes music store by accepting money from .aac sales.

Also, If Paramount Construction Company started a video chain called Construction Video, would Paramount Movies have a trademark case? The music store owned by Apple is The iTunes Music Store. This is also an important distinction, which is part of why this is not a straight ahead trademark case.

arched - i'm too lazy to go to snopes right now, but Michael Jackson DOES NOT control the Beatles records. He owns about 50 percent of the publishing rights to their songs, which is a completely different ballgame.

Micheal Jackson owns the good half(which explains why come together, revoulution #1, getting better, etc. are in the commercials, and not Help! or She Loves You). The beatles wouldn't sell out like that on their own decision, not even that damn Paul Mccartney. The only people that don't hate/freaked out/insult micheal jackson, are a few delusion black people(ie steve harvey, who thinks that he is just misunderstood. If I was black I would hate Jackson for wanting to be white), and really creepy, delusion, white people.