I just posted the article The Beatles record label sues Apple a second time..
GristyMcFisty used our news submit to tell us that despite Apple being a very succesful legal music download service, they have been sued, but not by the music industry. This time, it is not...
Read the full article here: [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6658-The-Beatles-record-label-sues-Apple-a-second-time_.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6658-The-Beatles-record-label-sues-Apple-a-second-time_.html)
Feel free to add your comments below.
Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
His is where it gets confusing, The Record label sues, but what about the actual owner of the copyrights to the Beatles music? Michael Jackson owns them, How can a label sue without permission of the actual copyright owner?
The label is not suing for music copyright infrigement, but for taking the name "Apple" for the music service, as they had promised not to do back in the 80s. They're not suing on behalf of an artist, but on behalf of themselves. It would be like saying that a parent can't sue, because they don't have their children's permission....
It's OK. Apple Computer can just change their name to "Screw Apple Records." Everyone's happy. On another note: Has anyone ever seen anything besides Beatles albums on Apple Records?
DocBoard, Badfinger, James Taylor, Ravi Shankar, Modern jazz quartet, Billy Preston, Elephants Memory, John Tavener, Mary Hopkin and a few others. I'm surprised Eric Clapton isn't one.
Is a 20 year-old UK court ruling really applicable to a USA music service (iTunes)? Does the original agreement extend to activity outside the UK? Just a thought ...
I'd just like to say that I'm an idiot. Just read my above post. Thanks. (That's my strange way of apologizing for saying something so stupid)[edited by DocBoard on 14.09.2003 18:22]