Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

On 12/29/04 11:51 PM, "dennis gunn" <dennis@...> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 30, 2004, at 9:53 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:
> 
>> Apple (Beatles) is already going to court (and will
>>  almost assuredly win) against Apple (Mac) over the iPod and iTunes
>> store.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Yeah, I almost bought a Beatle's apple Ipod the other day, its so
>> confusing with two different apple companies. (Sarcasm). I love the
>> Beatle's music and what they did. But this kind of thing makes me lose
>> respect for them. Apple records doesn't even exist anymore except to
>> harass Apple computer. Paul McCartney is already the richest rocker in
>> the world, and I am sure Ringo is not on the dole.
>> 
>>  It reminds me of the Moog thing. Some guy in England registered the
>> name Moog. So Bob Moog himself can not sell synths in England under
>> his own name.
>> 
>>  And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit song
>> Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from a Stones song,
>> and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not get a nickel from
>> their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard up for money?
> 
> In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from someone
> with more money than you?


When you're talking about culture, appropriation is a very different thing
than stealing. The Rolling Stones did their share of appropriation, they
simply did not have a technological means to do so. Legally your argument is
correct, but who is in charge of the law? And is art and culture best served
by strapping legal definitions to them?

I really doubt that the interests of either Apple Music or Apple Computer
are served with this lawsuit, if they were smart they would come to an
agreement to offer the entire back catalog of Apple music on iTunes and make
everyone happy!

Eddie
IMS


> 
>>  Its just sad to see.
> 
> Boo Hoo.
> 

--