The Beatles gearing up for a fight over Apple’s iTunes Music Store

“It’s a busy time for Apple Computer. Its iPod portable music player is the Walkman of the millennium. The accompanying iTunes program is resolving long-standing disputes in the record industry. Apple is reportedly even looking into buying a record company. But there’s a wrinkle,” reports Roger Friedman for

“It’s the Beatles. They haven’t recorded together since 1969. Two of the four original members are, quite sadly, deceased. And yet the Beatles stand to pose a big problem for Apple Computer. That’s because the Beatles own a holding company called Apple Corps, Ltd.,


  1. because you know…people would get confused and think that maybe steve was the really the 5th beatle

    and you know how pissed they’re going to get knowing that apple (computer) is going to make it so easy to buy music that people will be updating their beatles collections at the click of a mouse…that’s gotta suck…all of those royalties and stuff…

  2. I believe that Apple was named after the apple commune or farm (in Oregon) that Jobs worked at, before Apple Computer, hit it big. He didn’t name it after the Beatles label.

  3. Well and agreement is an agreement. If jobs wan’t visionary enough to see that music was in the computers future, then he shouldn’t have signed the agreement. I say that Apple just needs to pony up.

  4. What’s wrong with changing the name of it to itunes music store? As long as Apple has the service, I don’t care what they call it.

    And while we are on the subject of the Beatles and Apple Computer, why can’t Apple get the rights to distribute their music?

    – Mark

  5. One of many strikes against the Beatles, even though they had some great music, they are not the Gods that most would make them out to be. And this just proves how all the “imagine” fluff is a load of crap from them…

  6. I am sorry but the only living Beatle that holds any of the original spirit of the Band The Rocked the World is Ringo, and I doubt he really cares.

    Leave Apple alone, the Beatles should be trying to sell more songs to Michael Jackson, you know – because they arent sell outs or anything.

  7. Not that the Beatles don’t already have enough money. Let’s sue Apple for more. Personally, I think that it is Paul more than Ringo that throws all these fits. Didn’t Michael Jackson buy many of the rights to the Beatles?

    As a side note, has anyone seen the old Apple logo with Issac Newton and the apple falling from the tree? I think that in and of itself is differerent enough. My 2�.

  8. One, look at the source: Fox News. We aren’t talking about the most legit or unbiased news source out there. Two, even if Apple Records were gearing up to take on Apple, they would have known about this when Apple was talking with EMI…I, for one, think this is a complete load of crap and that it is possible that Apple is in negotiations with Apple Records to get Beatles songs on the store…

  9. Geoffrey Sperl: You mistake FOXNews brand of actually FAIR AND BALANCED NEWS (without a leftward liberal slant) as not “legit” because you are a tree-hugging, commie, pinko, hippie. You are so used to looking through the liberal bias prism of US National news media that when that prism is removed you can’t fathom the truth.

    Of interest to all:

    Origin of the Apple Name: Steve Jobs came up with the name Apple when he was driving with Steve Wozniak, and The Woz has provided a few possible reasons for Jobs’ selecting that name other than because it’s easy to remember. Not long before Jobs told Woz what he wanted to name the company, Jobs had been at the All One Farm in Oregon where there were a lot of apple trees. Woz also suggested it could have been because Jobs was a music fan and wanted to name the company after The Beatles’ record label, Apple Corp. If you look at the original Apple logo, you’ll notice it’s a picture of Sir Isaac Newton sitting under an Apple tree, so maybe Newton was the inspiration.

    In any case, The Beatles’ record label didn’t appreciate Apple ripping off its name and approached the computer company. Apparently, some secret agreement was made allowing Apple to continue to use the name so long as they never started making music products. In 1989, Apple started offering products that could synthesize music, which resulted in a lawsuit from Apple Corps. The suit was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million. As a side note, Apple gave Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon Macs when they debuted in 1984 and used an image of John Lennon and Yoko during its “Think Different” campaign.

    From TechTV:,24331,3330833,00.html

  10. Re: One, look at the source:

    Yeah, guess you would have believed it if it came from the “truthful” liberal NY Times…

    One other point: Berhard Goldberg, a longtime liberal reporter, has a book that outlines the liberal bias in the media. Your problem is that your so used to news being reported with a liberal bias. When Fox reports it with less of a liberal slant, you see it as a conservative bias.
    Goldberg, a liberal, has said Fox news is actually pretty fair and balanced. So who should I believe, you or a liberal who’s worked almost his entire life in the media?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.