T O P

TIL that Apple Records, the record company created by The Beatles in 1968, has had many legal battles with Apple Inc over the years. It started with trademark infringement in 1978 and later because Apple Records claimed Apple Inc violated an agreement to stay out of the music business.

TIL that Apple Records, the record company created by The Beatles in 1968, has had many legal battles with Apple Inc over the years. It started with trademark infringement in 1978 and later because Apple Records claimed Apple Inc violated an agreement to stay out of the music business.

BloodAndSand44

It is also said that this is why it took so long for anything by The Beatles to be available on iTunes.


xxk3990

Definitely. But then they also weirdly became one of the first music services to have all of their songs too (this was after they settled their final legal dispute).


GrandmaPoses

Weirdly = $$$. Or rather £££.


A_L_A_M_A_T

That's the point of building a business and protecting IP


evasote

They were the last huge holdout and Steve Jobs really wanted them to showcase, but his whole “stealing the name of their record label and repeatedly breaking the contract by developing the multi-media home computer and then selling songs in the internet” made it tough, and Apple Records stubbornness didn’t help either. They both got paid though in the end


noobydoo67

Heh - all their lawyers got paid for sure, what a money spinner for them!


DesiArcy

One supposes that Apple could have settled for less by proactively negotiating \*first\*. Yet the only time they actually opened negotiations in advance (with Cisco over the iPhone name), they did so in blatant bad faith for the sole purpose of delaying Cisco’s lawsuit until after the iPhone launch.


SnakeBaconator

Didnt Michael Jackson own the distribution rights for The Beatles music too? I seem to remember that their music starting being sold on Itunes a little bit after his death I could be wrong but I thought that was the reason why


xxk3990

I think this is true. I know MJ had ownership of the Beatles' catalog for a while


GrandmaPoses

Jackson owned ATV, which owned publishing rights to the Beatles catalog. Sony eventually bought out Jackson’s estate after his death and about four years ago reached an agreement with McCartney to give him control of the catalog. Famously, “Revolution” was licensed to Nike and McCartney sued over it - however since he didn’t own it at the time the case ended up being settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. It’s unfortunate that every time the catalog came up for sale McCartney was outbid. Imagine being one of the most successful songwriters of all time and your own music is so sought after it’s too expensive for you.


cookieaddictions

Yeah I heard McCartney took it as a huge betrayal when MJ outbid him.


JohnGilbonny

Especially since Paul gave Michael the idea.


terrynutkinsfinger

Jackson did fuck him over. They recorded together as peers and Jackson did the dirty.


Bart_Oates

They sounded so friendly in that song too


xxk3990

That is so sad to hear I can't believe they don't let the guy WHO WROTE AND SANG MANY OF THE SONGS to have ownership of it!!


GrandmaPoses

At some point he and John tried to buy Northern Songs, the original publisher, but lost out to ATV. Music publishing is pretty cutthroat but that’s where the big long-term money is.


hoyohoyo9

I guess it really was *Only* a Northern Song


xxk3990

I saw what you did there!


[deleted]

He sold the rights once already fool


samhw

Rubbish. I should be able to sell you my music and then have it back again free because it’s _my_ music. Geddit? Like, I _created_ it. With my _artistic expression_. Your job is just to lose the hundreds of millions that you paid me for no reason.


[deleted]

[удалено]


samhw

I’m being sarcastic. That’s exactly the stupidity of the point. No one would normally argue this, but because of the aspect of ‘aRtiSTiC eXpREsSiOn’, apparently now it makes sense...


xThoth19x

To be fair he did sell those rights/gave them up via contract. It wasn't like they were stolen.


samhw

Yeah, what? “It’s so unfair that Paul McCartney sold the rights to his catalog for a vast amount, and is worth hundreds of millions, but doesn’t get back for free the thing that he made and sold for literal tons of money.” lol wat


richard-564

Oh wow, I misremembered this. For some reason, I thought Jackson left the catalog to McCartney when he died but apparently not.


BradyBunch12

It's his fault, he already sold the music once.


Stingerc

And he acquired it on the recommendation of Paul McCartney no less. McCartney didn't specifically tell him to buy the Beatles catalog, but he told him investing in publishing rights was a great idea. Apparently this ended their friendship, as they had recorded a few hit songs together prior to Jackson's acquisition. McCartney felt it was a betrayal because Jackson knew he and the other Beatles had spent years trying to regain the publishing rights to their music.


AndyInSunnyDB

“I said it was cool to buy and profit on other people’s music, not mine. You have betrayed me.”


Bikrdude

then the Beatles should have bid more money to get the rights, or not have made the decision to sell in the first place. Sounds like whining to me.


meltingdiamond

Rich assholes squabbling over who gets paid for imaginary property is one of these things no one should care about.


biz_student

Are the Beatles entitled to the songs? No. Was it a shitty move for MJ to swoop in and purchase the catalog? Yes.


jaykaybaybay

I remember when the full catalogue was released on Spotify on Christmas Day a few yrs ago


alfsdungeons

Came here to say this! 🤜


KikiFlowers

I remember when iTunes didn't have the Beatles or AC/DC. The only AC/DC song was big gun, from some movie soundtrack.


tplgigo

John telling you what Apple Corps is not. https://youtu.be/LmuqczpRW7M?t=82 Not exactly corporate behavior today.


Puzzleheaded_Bit_641

Interesting how in the recordings of this interview the audio is so horrible and makes John sound like a robot , but the recordings of them at the time are so full of depth


tplgigo

There's better copies. I just picked the first available ones.


xxk3990

Lol true


No-Pizda-For-You

“And the banker never wears a Mac…” -Penny Lane, 1967. Pay up, Apple Computer.


9793287233

“Put down your umbrellas, strip off your plastic Macs” - Mamunia, 1973. Pay up, Apple Computer.


dee_lio

Look up the chime "sosumi" from the early 1990s MacOS. It was a middle finger to apple (music) by apple (computer).


CharlesCalvin123

So? Sue me. You won't.


pseudocultist

To expand on this. The computer company had been bullied into signing an agreement with the music company to end litigation, stipulating that their OS wouldn't ship with the capability to make sounds besides simple beeps. As MIDI and multimedia became buzzwords in the 80s, Jobs decided that agreement would have to go. So Sosumi was in the first non-beep chimes released. Also in those days we had the "wild eep." This was the undomesticated cousin of the boring eep, or b.eep in latin. So this is where we got Simple Beep and Wild Eep.


DesiArcy

Note that Apple (music) did indeed sue, and Apple (computer) ultimately forked over 26.5 million dollars (which was a much bigger sum thirty years ago than now) to settle out of court because they knew they’d lose.


xxk3990

That's so funny omg very clever 😂😂😂 I guess I also never stopped and realized that the end of "A Day in the Life" sounds JUST LIKE the Apple startup sound


InterestingImage4

The podcast Twenty Thousand Hertz has an [episode](https://www.20k.org/episodes/letitbeep) about this.


Sosumi_rogue

Bahahaha! I hate Apple.


RevRagnarok

/r/UsernameChecksOut


dethb0y

I mean say what you will, itunes is definitely being in the music business.


RockyPendergast

What you will, itunes is definitely being in the music business.


President_Calhoun

That does it. Time to rewatch "Airplane."


[deleted]

[удалено]


curahee5656

It’s a large metal tube in the sky that’s full of passengers, but that’s not important right now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mrfusion2000

It's an entirely different type of flying.


Upvote_Me_Slag

I hope you said it as well as rewriting it.


jesuzombieapocalypse

It almost sounds plausible that a legal agreement with a company the beatles started in 1968 would include a line like “stay out of the music business” without specifying production, live shows, and *distribution*. If that agreement happened, it sounds like whoever wrote that really fucked up, even in those times.


PiXLANIMATIONS

That was the case. Apple argued that since they weren’t actually doing anything other than offering an outlet, that artists weren’t in any way required to use, they couldn’t be claimed to be within the music business.


jesuzombieapocalypse

Damn lol it sounds like they could have just started manufacturing vinyl records and they would have been covered for the same reason. That really is a horrible contract for a *record* company to draft.


PiXLANIMATIONS

Something you learn very quickly when you look at rules and laws drafted by companies is that Apple probably has the greatest lawyers, on par with Disney. They either go extremely cleverly with wording or they lay it out so simply you never consider what they’ve actually offered to themselves


Thelgow

And Apple rents the ability to call their os "iOS" from Cisco, because Cisco was using iOS for years before Apple. Their designs may be original, but nothing else is. Edit: Fixed There.


TheOnionBro

Idk, I'm pretty sure "Rounded Rectangle" was a thing, just no one bothered to patent it.


alkonium

Someone probably had to tell them to stay out of the bar soap industry.


budgefrankly

It actually took an enormous amount of engineering sophistication for Apple to figure out how to draw rounded rects in the first version of MacOS. In the Xerox UI it was impossible to distinguish buttons from text boxes: both were squares with text inside. Jobs was focussed on two things: one that the interface should look organic (“rounded corners are everywhere”), and secondly, that anyone should be able to pick up MacOS and be productive. Eventually, in 1981, a lone genius called Bill Atkinson found a neat hack fusing number theory, trigonometry and assembly language programming to support drawing rounded rects. https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt Apple then used this to given buttons a unique look so they could be easily distinguished from text-boxes. It became a hallmark of Apple’s design, and of their dedication to design, in the early eighties, and remains a reoccurring design motif of everything they have done since: from the shape of an iPod, to the shape of icons and buttons in iOS and MacOS.


stormboat

> Bill returned to Texaco Towers the following afternoon, with a big smile on his face. His demo was now drawing rectangles with beautifully rounded corners blisteringly fast [...] I'm not sure I'd call that enormous, it just sounds like it meant the guy had to go out of his way to figure out how to do it.


budgefrankly

After two months of figuring out how to do trig on a machine where it was so expensive to multiply numbers that he had to rely on non-obvious tricks like the fact the the sum of the first n odd numbers is n^2^, so that he could draw curves in adequate time on 1981 hardware… …he amassed enough experience and a sufficient body of hardware-specific tricks that he could figure it out in a day. It was an absolute technical marvel when it launched. No one else had been able to draw curves in 1981 in a way that didn’t crush performance. Even Windows 3, released over a decade later, still completely avoided curved elements.


stormboat

True. I guess I only compared the relative difference between circles and rounded rectangles which was not exactly the most relavent


stormboat

The more I think about this, the less I know how to feel about it. No joke, I've actually written programs that draw pixelated circles pixel by pixel with the sole purpose on focusing on making an efficient algorithm for completing circles in center out in both an authentically pleasing and efficient way, and I really feel like this is more about someone going out of their way to do something rather than it bring a crazy task in the first place. Like yes, programmers have come up with *crazy good* hacks (ever hear about the doom one? I think it was doom) but this sounds like someone drawing the second most obvious shape i could ever think of, then combining it with the first most obvious. I'm not saying this didn't take a lot of effort (I love optimization, but it can be difficult) but only when you completely step back and take a look at it as a whole picture does it give the tail you told.


FoliumInVentum

lmao


alkonium

So they're like the Thomas Edison of computer companies?


merc08

Pretty much. Apple is great at marketing and making things look nice, but they aren't actually very innovative.


SlyCooper007

The Apple ][ was fairly innovative.


Im_Futur_AMA

and marketing themselves to look innovative


Bobcat2013

Man I really hated those pretentious Justin Long ads


Morlik

But he was *so cool!*


TheMadWoodcutter

Apple is pretty good at refined design, and marketing, as you say, but to suggest that they’ve not been at the forefront of cellphone innovation in several key areas is just revisionist history. The original iPhone is basically the pattern that every modern smartphone is based off of. There really wasn’t anything similar that came before hand. More specifically, 1 to 1 scrolling on a touch screen is a purely Apple innovation. They practically spearheaded the entire modern minimalist design movement.


stumppc

IBM created the first all-touchscreen phone around 1997 I think. It failed, but I don’t know enough about that phone to know why. So the idea of an all-screen phone was around well before Apple decided to get into the cellphone business. It was really the Safari browser that was revolutionary for the iPhone. Existing web browsers (Blackberry and Windows CE for example) were garbage to say the least. Without Safari the iPhone would probably have failed. The operating system was nice, but the better browser sold the phone. Anyone who has typed on any of the older models of Blackberry know how superior a decent keyboard is to typing on a screen. But why have that extra hardware on the phone when the screen is good enough? Apple made the right decision to ditch the keyboard for more screen, less weight, thinner phone. Another reason the iPhone killed the competition, which was mostly Blackberry.


EllisHughTiger

I think the biggest thing they did was to make a GOOD onscreen keyboard! Before then, it was either physical keys or the cramped Windows Mobile keyboard that needed a stylus to use. Most everything else had already been done, they just combined them, added a sleek OS and made typing on a screen bearable.


mashtato

I'm sure they popularized it, but there were plenty of good digital keyboards. Even if it was true, I don't see that as a positive at all; I miss my damn physical keyboard phones!


xxk3990

I'm not sure if it still exists, but many years ago (I saw one on a friend's iPhone in maybe 2012) there was an iPhone case that came with an external keyboard and allowed you to swipe the keyboard below the phone and have almost like a blackberry keyboard for ur iPhone.


EllisHughTiger

I did too at first, got the knack for the touch keyboard in an hour, and it was more accurate and had autocorrect.


I_FAP_TO_TURKEYS

Put autocorrect on a physical keyboard... I miss being able to type without looking.


Zencyde

They more just managed to hit the market when the respective technologies became affordable enough to toss together. I wouldn't call that innovation. They're good at being a business.


drewsmom

First to market is not the same as innovating.


[deleted]

...it's quite literally innovating, actually.


drewsmom

I disagree because they weren't the only ones doing the exact same thing. They did win the race though, so i can see your point too.


[deleted]

They absolutely were the only ones doing much of what they did, though. What even are you talking about? Reddit has a real fucking problem with "I don't like Apple products" becoming "I have to lie about every single thing Apple has done because it is now my personal duty to make them look bad every chance I get." It's absurdly childish. You can just not like something without attacking every aspect of it, you know. For all the made up flak they get I sure as shit don't see Apple fanboys doing the inverse. They just don't like things and leave it at that.


drewsmom

I don't hate apple, but pretending like they were the only ones in the space in in 2006-8 is just wrong. I'm not trying to "make them look bad." Really couldn't care less. I just happened to be in cell R&D at that time and know other companies were trying to get there too. No doubt, Apple won. Not sure where the long winded aggression came from.


hypokrios

Fanboy gotta fanboy I guess


terrynutkinsfinger

Some of us don't like apple because they stole ideas. If you think they invented smart phones etc you need to do some research.


TheMadWoodcutter

Do you have any idea how petulant that sounds? Give credit where credit is due. Apple gets shit for a lot of very legit reasons, but not being innovators hasn’t historically been one of them.


drewsmom

I kinda ate my words with the other guy, but the innovators here were like 1500 people working for Apple, LG, Samsung, Kyocera, Nokia.... That's all I meant. No particular hate to Apple. They won the race and i respect that.


[deleted]

They didn't win a race. It's not as if everyone was racing for the same thing and they were first. They literally defined the modern smartphone market. This is an indisputable fact. You cannot disagree or argue otherwise, it's literally what happened. You don't have to like or respect them or their products, but that's actually what happened, and you're making yourself a fool by pretending otherwise.


drewsmom

That's actually exactly what happened. A lot of companies were trying to find that magic and Apple did it first. Palm was around for like 10 years, but they couldn't quite put it all together. Apple did, but there were many trying to do the same thing.


CocodaMonkey

You're really arguing semantics at this point. The original iphone didn't really have any new technology or ideas per-say. The touch screen, slide to unlock, rectangle, etc... all existed in other products already. Of course that's not say Apple had no impact and building that into a package that people actually buy certainly impacted the industry. You can really argue it either way. You can take the hard line and point to basically every "innovation" of Apple's and find something else that did it first. It's a fairly classic debate with technology though. You can have the same style debate about something like the telephone. Who gets all the credit, the true first inventor or the one who popularized it and delivered it to the masses?


rickshawJOJO

Imagine looking back at the first iPhone and thinking “nope nothing new or innovative here”.


pseudocultist

Yeah I remember that day, and I've watched the keynote since. I also remember what was on the market at the time. I was rocking a Blackberry and I had definitely *looked* at the full-touchscreen Motorola Communicators that were out, imagining a world where I could afford one, but also they sucked donkey dick in terms of capability. Mobile web, remember that? I think they were grayscale to boot. No gestures or anything, to say nothing of multitouch. But there's always someone in every group who claims "everything in an iPhone was already on the market before."


I_FAP_TO_TURKEYS

I remember I was young when the iphone released, both my parents had BlackBerry phones, and I thought "my dad's phone can do all that, why is it $500 more?" The only innovative thing was the marketing I think. All the phone commercials were aimed at business people, not regular everyday people.


logoth

What else was slide to unlock on before the original iPhone was announced (not shipped)? I don’t remember that being a feature anywhere.


jinzaemon

Neonode N1M Edit: launched in 2005, you can see the slide to unlock at around 7:29 of this [video](https://youtu.be/7IIdr63k1o4)


cuatrodemayo

I’m also curious about this, because the audience went apeshit over this feature at the keynote.


TheMadWoodcutter

Oh please. Show me one modern invention that wasn’t building off the backs of something that came before it. It’s the same for everything. EVERYTHING is inspired by something that came before it. That doesn’t make it any less innovation, and I’m sick to death of this whole “Apple bad” cult from people who think somehow fucking google of all things is a better alternative. Yes, corporate America can die a fiery burning shit death for all I care, but picking a side in the whole “Apple vs Google” debate is literally just a matter of picking one team over the other. There’s no substance to it.


CocodaMonkey

You might want to reread my post. I didn't say Apple is bad. All I said was you can argue it either way and that's the way it's been with tech for 150 years already. It's not a new debate and there's no clear answer everyone will accept.


TheMadWoodcutter

Fair enough, I’m just sick to death of all the people who hate on Apple because “it’s Apple” instead of actual well thought out reasons.


drewsmom

Not to add fuel to the fire, but it seems like there's more people projecting that idea than people actually espousing it. In this thread at least. I haven't seen one of these in a while myself.


SsooooOriginal

I'm tired of people needing to explain "fuck apple", like they need me to point out the charging cable nonsense? The fight against right-to-repair? It's simple, apple is a shit company, so fuck apple. They aren't going anywhere, just like nike. Fuck nike too. Do I really need to explain why?


radicldreamer

No, but they are pretty good at adding polish to things.


OldMork

and they do it very well.


hhhhhjhhh14

M1 is innovative


urielsalis

Microsoft has been doing it for years. Never popular due to Intel suing them for their Rosetta-equivalent thing


Mando_Brando

You’re so biased its unbelievable


AniZaeger

I use Cisco IOS in my home. *Soooo* much easier than those damned web interfaces...


Thelgow

I never got around to messing with one for home really. i have some old 48ports but i cant put that in the bedroom. Wife will murder me. I have some 10port switch but its some odd hybrid where it has some ios, but web interface too.


terrynutkinsfinger

They didn't invent smart phones, tablets, mouse, music devices or even calling things i.... They took ideas and refined them into a very expensive package.


Thelgow

I always like how they toted the "i" to make it "yours", meanwhile its the most walled garden environment where you can barely make any customizations.


TheSalsaShark

Back when Verizon had their Droid line of phones, they had to license the term from Lucasfilm.


Thelgow

Heh, and if they just used android they probably could have avoided it. Assuming google wouldnt hit them over the head.


AsleepNinja

>And Apple rents the ability to call their os "iOS" from Cisco, because Cisco was using iOS for years before Apple. > >Their designs may be original, but nothing else is. > >Edit: Fixed There. The LG Prada was on the market before the iPhone. Looks like apple stole that too.


Z0MBIE2

The iPhone is literally just an ipod turned into a phone - I don't think they stole the idea from LG Prada.


DanNeider

The iPod touch launched the year after the Prada (2007 vs 2006), so yes, 100% copied


plantsallthewaydown

The Prada launched a month before the iPhone, May 2007 vs. June 2007. > Sales started in May 2007, retailing for about $777 (600 euros). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/lg_prada


DanNeider

I was comparing announcement to announcement, but if you want to use sales date you should at least do it for both. The iPod touch wasn't for sale until September


plantsallthewaydown

The iPhone, which launched before the iPod Touch, released in June 2007. So, while the Prada launched first (by a month), Apple didn't copy it. They were developed and produced at the same time. > Jobs unveiled the iPhone to the public on January 9, 2007, at the Macworld 2007 convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.[28] The two initial models, a 4 GB[a] model priced at US$499 and an 8 GB model at US$599 (both requiring a two-year contract), went on sale in the United States on June 29, 2007, at 6:00 pm local time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone


[deleted]

[удалено]


DanNeider

The iPod had a scroll wheel before the Prada. Good luck turning that into a phone. And how exactly did the touch screen Prada copy the scroll wheel iPod?


samhw

Ignore that guy. The iPhone revolutionised the industry, there are tons of books on how it was designed by Jobs and Ive who designed tons of other iconic devices, and the idea that it was stolen from some shitty LG smartphone with a four-pixel screen is not even worth correcting. It’s on par with saying that Kennedy was shot by R Kelly - it insults all the right people, but it’s hardly credible.


Z0MBIE2

Eh, Jobs is a hack.


samhw

He was an asshole, but he was also an inspired designer. He and Ives, as a pair, revolutionised computer design. People are complicated.


Z0MBIE2

Fair enough.


Limp_Distribution

My first Apple purchase was vinyl.


xxk3990

Nice! What was it?


Limp_Distribution

The White Album


xxk3990

Nice! Great album!!!


Limp_Distribution

Awesome album and it blew me away back in the day.


riguitargod

Sosumi


schnurble

This should be higher up.


joelfinkle

Plus licensing the trademark Macintosh from Macintosh Labs, maker of high end audio equipment


LassoTrain

>Apple Records claimed Apple Inc violated an agreement to stay out of the music business. Not just claimed, did absolutely. Apple Computers wiped their butts with the paper every settlement paper was written on, and never paid the price for it. As any copyright attorney can tell you, copyright law is whatever the judge says it is on a given day, unless it is a corporation against a person in which case, fuck you person.


metalguru1975

Beatles got there first by at least a decade.


locks_are_paranoid

I'm surprised that Apple Bank never sued Apple Inc.


JohnGilbonny

So you are aware, the company wasn't known as Apple, Inc until 2007. It was Apple Computer, Inc until then. Also, Apple Computer did violate their agreement with Apple Records to stay out of the music business.


ecmcn

Maybe the rule should be that if you pick a dictionary word for the name of your business you can’t complain if somebody else uses it. I’m sure Apple Records wasn’t the first company to use Apple.


terrynutkinsfinger

Yet itv exists and apple were forced to go with "appletv" instead.


RedditMayne

Sosumi


HiggsBoson62

Remains in the Apple OS to this day. A 40-year fuck you.


PoxyMusic

I made a few of the UI sounds for OS9, like the windows expanding and closing, and the scrolling sounds. The original sounds were solder suckers and vise grips…from the studio toolbox, because it was the first thing I laid eyes on after my boss briefed me on the project.


valegrete

And now Apple music is on Apple Music


Try2getonmylevel

Very informative channel I'm subbed to that has a great video about the iPhone https://youtu.be/24O00Jz8R04


Andrew_Higginbottom

I always wondered if there had been any beef between the two.


Lennon__McCartney

sons of bitches


OkUniversity6985

DYK that the Beatles' drummer Richard Starkey is better known as RINGO Starr, the Beatles are Extremely Popular in Japan, and that in Japanese, "RINGO" means "APPLE"?


unclelue

Call Harvey Birdman!


AniZaeger

Apple's response? Sosumi...


assignment2

Steve Jobs was a big fan of the beatles, I wonder if the name for Apple computer was inspired by them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

He was very accurate with that statement. Both were revolutionary when they came out, and both are no incredibly over rated today. Fans also never shut up about either of them.


skylercollins

Intellectual property is trash. Should be abolished. #noip


samhw

I think this is a legitimate debate that’s worth having, but you need to make an actual argument for it.


skylercollins

I'll do you better: https://c4sif.org/wrongaboutip/


samhw

Haha, no, a very long blog post from someone who believes the same as you isn’t an argument. What’s _your_ rationale? I’m not saying it needs to be novel, I’m just saying infodumps aren’t really respectful of other people’s time.


skylercollins

My argument is that intellectual property violates real property rights. The purpose of property rights is to minimize conflict over scarce resources. Ideas are just patterns of information and by their very nature are non scarce. The purpose of intellectual property, rather, and historically is to give producers monopoly protections, not to protect property.


samhw

How does it ‘violate real property rights’? I don’t understand how the remainder of your comment substantiates that claim, if indeed it’s meant to.


skylercollins

You are correct I never really explained that point. Intellectual property rights create what's called a negative servitude over the use of your real property. Things like easements or servitudes are usually agreed to explicitly through contract, but in the case of intellectual property they are created by fiat by the state (a taking), transferring some control over your real property to the holders of intellectual property rights. Real property is scarce, meaning only one person can use it at a time, but ideas are nonscarce, everybody can use it all at once simultaneously. Hence the need for the state to use it's apparatus of aggression (police, monopoly courts, prisons) to grant monopoly protections over ideas. IP entails greater and greater aggressive state intrusions into privacy and scope if it is to protect these monopolies universally. Read: https://mises.org/library/goods-scarce-and-nonscarce Do yourself a favor and spend time with this. I can't do your homework for you.


samhw

This doesn’t explain how IP rights ‘violate’ real property rights. It simply explains how they don’t operate the same way as real property rights.


skylercollins

Your patent and copyright allows you some control over my scarce real property in the form of a negative servitude. By government fiat, I no longer have exclusive right of control over my property. I'm not allowed to arrange it as I see fit. You have taken part of it from me. Hence IP violates property rights. One is supreme over the other.


samhw

For starters, how do you mean that it allows me control over your real property?


Foo-Matic

Copyright & trademark laws are fucken stupid and waste of time,money, resources. Obviously they are 2 different companies who gives a fuck Edit: added trademark also


molotovzav

You create something, intangible or tangible but artistic that is worth money (art, novel, music) and tell me you don't want to protect it from someone ripping it off or ruining the legacy of it. Copyright laws aren't fucking stupid. It really just sounds like you are, since it's not even copyright law being argued about here. Them being two separate companies but battling over the name is trademark law.


starserval

Copyright laws are fine, just too long. The public domain has suffered because of repeated increases to the duration.


Foo-Matic

Nah if someone else can do it then why not


[deleted]

[удалено]


primalbluewolf

oh, my idea was so special - no, it really wasn't. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Follow through is what is important.


DerpdragonV3

If they come up with the same thing as your idea, independently then I agree with you, but copyright law is there 'mostly' to try to stop copycats, who just rip stuff straight from other artists


primalbluewolf

I love the intent. At the same time, the laws don't work, and they do punish people unjustly. It would be nice if we could have laws that worked solely as intended.


DerpdragonV3

You're not wrong, but getting rid of copyright isn't the answer, we just gotta have more accountability and fairness,which is something people have to push for


crossedstaves

This is trademark law not copyright law. They are very different.


Foo-Matic

Both are stupid


crossedstaves

Incorrect.


primalbluewolf

incorrect.


[deleted]

[удалено]


UncleTogie

Could I interest you in the new Foo-Matic electric dildo? 120V or 240V AC. Rumor says they're a fan!


BrazenBull

The company was absolutely not ***created by the Beatles.***


bdesign7

I love how confident you are while simultaneously being so wrong.


samhw

That’s Reddit in a nutshell. Know-nothings who think they know everything.


xxk3990

The record label and its parent company, "Apple Corps", were founded by them in 1968.


[deleted]

[удалено]


xxk3990

What?