Beatles to Label: You Never Give Us Your Money

[GullyFoyle]

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/news/eo/20051216/113477928000p.html

The Beatles are asking the courts for a little help.

Apple Corps, the company representing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the families of the late George Harrison and John Lennon, is suing EMI Records, alleging the label failed to pay more than $50 million in royalties.

In the lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court against EMI and its U.S. subsidiary, Capitol Records, the band's reps claims they discovered the discrepancies after conducting an audit of Apple's accounts. The band, with a little help from its lawyer friends, pulled the trigger after two years of protracted talks with EMI to resolve the matter went nowhere, man.

"We have tried to reach a settlement through good faith negotiations and regret that our efforts have been in vain," Apple manager Neil Aspinall says in a statement. "Despite very clear provision in our contracts, EMI persist in ignoring their obligations and duty to account fairly and with transparency. Apple and the Beatles are, once again, left with no choice but to sue EMI."

The last time Apple faced off against EMI over Fab Four recordings was in 1991, when London's High Court ruled in the band's favor and blocked the label from releasing a box set the band hadn't approved. Before that, the two sides dueled throughout the '80s, when Apple accused EMI of screwing the Beatles out of millions of royalties from record giveaways to retailers. The two sides reached an out-of-court settlement in 1989.

For it's part, EMI is downplaying the latest spat, chalking it up to "differences of opinion."

"Artists occasionally request an audit of their record label's accounts. That's not unusual and we have no problem with it because we like to have full financial transparency," says a company spokeswoman. "But sometimes there are differences of opinion. Very often the recording contracts are complex and there may be a issues of contractual interpretation and in those rare situations, the result will be the parties go to court or mediation."

The rep continues: "99 out of 100 audit problems are resolved by amicable settlements for a small fraction of the claim. We were in settlement negtiations for several months with them in this matter. We've offered to go to mediation, but Apple rejected that offer."

Forget love, all you need is lawyers.

John, Paul, George and Ringo formed Apple Corps in 1968 to handle all things Beatles, which the company has continued to do since the band's split in 1970. Apple Corps has a reputation for getting litigious to protect the seminal group's legacy.

A frequent target has been Apple Computer, with the Beatles' company most recently filing a trademark infringement suit over the iTunes Music Store, claiming the computer company violated the terms of 1989 settlement that forbade the iPod purveyors from entering the music business.

While the Beatles struggle to get back their money, McCartney has been earning some pocket change to tide him over. He recently published his first children's book, High in the Clouds, and just wrapped a sold-out U.S. tour in support of his latest disc, the critically acclaimed, Grammy-nominated Chaos and Creation in the Backyard.

[RottenFoxBreath]

wtf...the beatles had a case to stop apple from entering the music business..thats just ******* mental.
they should just get the money there due,if any,and piss off back to there teepees,or wherever there living now.

[mattso]

I thought Michael Jackson owned the rights to Beatles songs?

[adam]

I thought Michael Jackson owned the rights to Beatles songs?

He owns the publishing rights only, and not to all of their songs. He doesn't have full control over the music and any songs/albums released still go through their label. Publishing rights for the most part just entitle you to royalties everytime the songs are used for anything. But the Beatles still get their cut too, or at least they're supposed to.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I thought Michael Jackson owned the rights to Beatles songs?

He owns the publishing rights only, and not to all of their songs. He doesn't have full control over the music and any songs/albums released still go through their label. Publishing rights for the most part just entitle you to royalties everytime the songs are used for anything. But the Beatles still get their cut too, or at least they're supposed to.

WTF was McCartney thinking when he sold the publishing rights to Jacko?!
And why is Apple(computer) still allowed to sell music?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Noahtuck]

Actually, McCartney did not sell the rights to jacko, what i read awhile back when it happened, was that they were up for sale or auction, don't remember who owned them at the time, & Paul was going to buy them and was friends with him and he knew paul was going to try and obtain them again, and then jacko put in a substantial larger offer and bought them out from under paul, who i then read was not very happy with the little freak

[adam]

WTF was McCartney thinking when he sold the publishing rights to Jacko?!

He didn't, at least not directly. Lennon and McCartney sold the publishing rights to a startup corporation to avoid certain taxes. They didn't handle things well and they ended up not having controlling stock. The corporation was bought out from under them and the rights were later sold to Jacko. McCartney and Jacko were friends at one point but supposedly McCartney is furious now that Jacko has the publising rights.

And why is Apple(computer) still allowed to sell music?

Apple computer has nothing to do with Apple corp and Apple Records. The Beatles founded Apple Records, a subsidiary of Apple Corp. and assigned all of their rights to it, again to shelter themselves from British taxes. At some point all record releases were consolidated so that everything went through EMI, though it is still considered the Apple label. So EMI owns the rights to records produced, but they still must pay royalties to Apple Records and the Beatles.

Trademarks are national only, meaning you can have Apple here in the states and Apple corp. in the UK. They don't get along too well though, understandably, and they have been involved in trademark litigation for years because of their overlap.

[Noahtuck]

McCartney and Jacko were friends at one point but supposedly McCartney is furious now that Jacko has the publising rights.

Deja Vu :P

Is there an echo in here here here here........... 8)

[MOVIEGEEK]

@Adam,
I was referring to the 1989 settlement between Apple records and Apple computer:
"A frequent target has been Apple Computer, with the Beatles' company most recently filing a trademark infringement suit over the iTunes Music Store, claiming the computer company violated the terms of 1989 settlement that forbade the iPod purveyors from entering the music business."

[ViRaL1]

"I don't care too much for money..."

- The Beatles

[lordsmurf]

99 out of 100 audit problems

How many audit problems have they got?