You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: McCartney Says 'Thank You' With Video iPods

News

McCartney Says 'Thank You' With Video iPods

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 PM - by Staff

A source told Macworld UK that Paul McCartney gave everyone who joined him on his last U.S. tour a video iPod as a thank you gift. The source also related that Sir Paul uses Macs in his UK recording studio. Apple is in the middle of a new lawsuit with The Beatles' Apple Records, which claims the company has violated a previous settlement by launching the iPod and the iTunes Music Store.

8 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:28 pm

How much of a part, if any, does Sir Paul have with Apple Records? Is he a stockholder or anything, what is the connection?

Quote this post ↓

dynamicv said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 51 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:38 pm

McCartney and the Beatles formed Apple Corps, but apparently there were big changes in 1975 for financial (tax) reasons, and the company is now owned by another company called Apple in Switzerland. McCartney is obviously still a heavy shareholder, but to what extent is unclear. Yoko Ono has also obviously inherited a stake via John Lennon. How many other shareholders there are is difficult to ascertain due to Swiss law.

Guest wrote:
How much of a part, if any, does Sir Paul have with Apple Records? Is he a stockholder or anything, what is the connection?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:40 pm

Apple Corps (to use its proper name) was the entity set up by all of The Beatles to promote joint business interests, including the protection of The Beatles image rights and potential future recordings.

McCartney and Starr are the only two surviving members of the group, however the interests of the now-deceased Lennon and Harrison obviously passed to their estates and then, presumably, to Yoko and Sean Lennon (for John) and Olivia Harrison (for George).

Apple was a phenomenal failure at doing anything that wasn't related to The Beatles, apart from possibly their involvement with Badfinger.

On the subject of the story, I wish there were annual awards for hypocrisy and/or irony - because this would definitely sweep the board.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:46 pm

Dynamicv:

The tax reasons probably being the 90% upper rate tax burden for private individuals that was the norm in the UK in Seventies prior to the Mad Old Bat (aka Margaret Thatcher) taking charge.

In a sense, this is no different to The Rolling Stones vesting their interests in Promotone BV which is a Dutch Antilles based entity. Actually, the law in the Dutch Antilles is particularly good for artists which I think explains why the late Robert Palmer might have run his Revpek entity (which pretty much managed his interests whilst he was with Island Records) through that neck of the woods.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:54 pm

Reminder of all. Using the name Yoko Ono in a public space is liable to get you shot.

Refer to her as "that woman" married to John Lennon if you must.

It's just the polite thing to do.

Quote this post ↓

Dreadnought said:

member since 01 Jan 2005 with 162 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:44 am

"That woman" is supposedly the driving force behind Apple Corp's litigation against Apple Computer, and the failure to settle.

I do believe that the reason why the iTMS is called such, instead of the Apple Music Store, is because of the 1981 Consent Degree, whereby Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. Using the word "Apple" and "Music" is just too blatant a run against the terms of the Consent Decree.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:42 am

What is really going on is this:

The iTunes Music Store is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Computer.

This is the same as File Maker, formerly known as Claris.

What Apple Computer is doing to Apple Records is baiting them to spend all their money in a legal battle, so iTunes Music Store can buy Apple Records when they deplete all their cash. Any other deal to come out of this will fully benefit the iTunes Music Store, which will fully benefit Apple Computer.

Surprising enough to me, Apple Computer has not done a public offering of iTunes/iPod. Wouldn't that be a hoot for the stocks.

Anyhow, Apple will be sued more often now, as they are a bigger CA$H target for lawyers. This does not mean they do not deserve some of the legal battles. It just means that there will be more FRIVOLOUS ones.

Apple Records is just jealous they never amounted to more than a 1 group front, where as Apple Computer has owned 1 infinite loop.

Smile.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:59 pm

If Steve Jobs or Apple Computer wanted to be decent, they would by the Lennon/Mccartney songbook from M. Jackson and offer it to Paul and Yoko in exchange for allowing Beatle Music to be sold on iTunes (and dropping all suits).

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.