Apple vs. Apple — Hoping they both lose

Thirty years ago, two guys in a garage very likely chose "Apple" for the name for their computer company because like a lot of guys in their demographic, they really, really loved the Beatles. At the time they did this, the Beatles' Apple Corps was practically moribund. Most of the Beatles albums I purchased were Capitol reissues, which eliminated the elegant Granny Smith logo found on the LP labels of the time. In the mid-1970s through 1980s when I was obsessively buying the "Beatle Canon" it was entirely possible to purchase most of their catalog in the U.S. without ever buying an Apple-branded record.

This was the first of several waves of purchase for me. Over time, I learned that the American editions of the Beatle records were, in many cases, shorter edited versions of the records as they had appeared in the UK. So after compiling virtually the whole AMERICAN Beatles catalog, I decided that what I really wanted was the albums in the form that they had been released originally, and that only the UK editions would serve my goal of listening to the records as the loveable moptops had intended.

I completed this project just in time to start again, on my third purchase of the entire Beatles catalog, when they were relased on CD. I thrilled to the audible minutiae that were available on the pristine, shiny silver disc-y versions, and thanked the recording industry for standardizing on the UK versions. And I enjoyed what I understood to be the definitive digital versions of the Beatles' records. (I am not surprised to learn that Capitol has recently embarked on selling the AMERICAN version in pricey CD box sets.)

Now, a few years back, Apple Corps pursued what I consider to be a nuisance lawsuit against Apple Computer, the gist of the complaint being that Apple's trademark was an established brand with respect to the sale of music. The result of that suit was an Agreement between Corps and computer that Corps would stick to music and Computer would stick to, well, computers.

In my estimation, Apple Computer did renege on this agreement when it 1) invented the iPod; and 2) realized that it was impolitic for there to be no clearly legitimate marketer for mp3-type downloads; aned 3) got into the music business, bigtime. Apple Computer didn't have a lot of good options here. The iPod arrived just as Napster was being shut down. Without a streamlined, functional and clearly legal suppier of digital tunes, the value of the iPod would be sorely limited. So, clearly, naughty, naughty Apple Computer broke its word to Apple Corps and if words mean anything, Apple Computer should face consequences for breaking its word.

BUT, this does not mean that Apple Corps' current lawsuit addressing this point is anything other than lame.

Apple Corps exists for the sole purpose of selling a portion of the Beatles' back catalog. I haven't seen them actively managing their back catalog of work by Grapefruit, Mary Hopkin, or even Badfinger. And let's face it, the only reason to buy a Badfinger record is because you've momentarily exhausted your tolerance for Beatles records and would like to hear "not the Beatles, but an incredible simulation."

I am confident that NOBODY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET HAS CONFUSED APPLE'S iTUNES MUSIC STORE with APPLE CORPS, purveyor of (some) Beatles music. And here's why: The Beatles have refused to make their music available (legally) online. So one of the few catalogs you can't get online, anywhere, is the Beatles' catalog.

So the claim that Apple Computer's activities impinges on the business of Apple Corp's activities and might lead to market confusion is, simply put, garbage.

And another thing.

I'd like to ask Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the estates of George Harrison and John Lennon this: we really like your music and have paid you many times over to have it on a series of formats, so at what point will you decide that you've made enough money from the work you completed back in 1970 (at the latest)? Are we getting close yet? There's probably some poor soul out there with not only my American and British LPs, but also CDs, and cassettes and 8-tracks. That person paid the going rate for your music five times. Do you want more money from this person? Really?

Paul and Ringo, you have so many fans that you can release lousy records annually, and a LOT of people will still buy them. I don't think you're hurting financially, and if you are, heaven knows, you can head into the studio, bleat into the microphone for 45 minutes, and release it for a quick cash influx. Seriously. Your music from the 1960s was just that good.

Some of your fans will buy whatever you do . Go ahead, cover Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" if you don't believe me. Dudes, the 1960s music was great and you've been issued lifetime licenses to mint money whenever you decide to put out new records. And you'll make even more money if the records kind of sound like what people liked about the Beatles -- but that's your call entirely.

So what do you say? Haven't we all paid enough for those Beatle records that are now embedded in the Jungian unconscious of most westerners? If not, would you please put a dollar amoung on how much more you think you should be paid for those really great records, so we can simply BUY them, once and for all, and slap a Creative Commons license on them?

Remember, it's just the Beatles stuff we want. We'll take a pass on the solo LPs (though if you threw in Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" that would be mighty sporting of you). Please take into account that many among us have already paid you for this music three or more times. How much more for you all to be happy and not grumpy when some 15-year-old does the DJ Danger Mouse thing and mashes "Introducing the Beatles" up with the latest Missy Elliot CD?

(And yes, I know you all got royally ripped off on the whole song publishing thing, and I'm really sorry that Michael Jackson owns the rights to a lot of your songs (for the next few weeks at least). But we didn't sign those contracts.)

When I read Neil Aspinall saying that the Beatles catalog is going to be remastered and that the release of Beatles music in digital form should coincide with the release of the remastered CDs, I roll my eyes and try to suppress the disgust that is increasingly attached to my interactions with all things Beatle. Apple Corps knows its hardcore fans will pay for these two more bites of the Apple, and maybe they'll convince a British court to extract some more cash from Apple Computer.

I have a fading memory of some band singing: "I Don't Care Too Much for Money / Money Can't Buy Me Love."

But, on the off chance that it can, I encourage the Beatles and Beatle family members to simply come up with a price for the release of the Beatles' canon into the functional public domain afforded by an appropriate Creative Commons license.

And maybe even to consider whether we've all paid that price already.