great article by the way

If sharing music is theft, why are they being sued, and not charged? Because the only thing the people who are downloading and sharing music are doing is violating the terms of the copyright that you purchase when you buy a CD or song. It is not, by definition, theft. RIAA’s position is like saying I should automatically turn myself in and pay a fine everytime I drive faster than the speed limit…and that if I don’t, it’s the same as stealing from the government.

if i were one of those kids, i would NOT think “Doesn’t that picture look like I’m telling the RIAA to shove it up its ass?”
i would be embarassed of being in this advertisement, sucking up to huge corporations.

i don’t consider downloading music “breaking the rules” or “being rebellious”
when everyone does it, its not exactly cool, or cool to star on tv for it.

the majority of my peers would be much more proud of being on tv for a cause (im not gonna be specific here, because this is not the place to start political fights), rather than earning money for a CEO.

a 12 year old might think it would be cool to be on tv for something like this, but most of us are not corporate whores, to be blunt.

Isn’t that the case, regardless?

I feel if we’re looking at the technicalities of the use of the word “prosecuted”, people who are educated enough to know the legal distinction between that and “accused” are also people who will know enough to understand the point of the advertising campaign. While those who do not know this distinction likely already have these feelings toward the kids, as each of these kids have appeared in newspaper articles, magazines, and journals around the country for what the RIAA is doing.

Among kids, these kids are heros. Among a large (hopefully majority) of adults, these kids may have done something wrong, but they aren’t ruthless criminals.

I don’t feel that the ad campaign is going to change people’s perception or image of what the RIAA lawsuits have done or continue to do. I do agree that I haven’t seen this sort of campaign come out of Apple before, but I have to assume that Pepsi did most of the legwork on this ad campaign, as it never mentions Apple, shows the logo, or anything, but only references iTunes and music downloads. It feels like a Pepsi ad that happens to involve a product Apple has, and Apple OK’ed it.

But so my point is, comparing this ad to 1984 is ridiculous. This isn’t an Apple ad, this isn’t Apple’s new message. Taco Bell, McDonalds, they have all had ad campaigns surrounding Apple products in the past, for contests, sweepstakes, etc., but they certainly do not go down in history on Apple’s record.

I hope that makes sense. I mean, it is illegal to download music from P2P, and there should be certain consequences for doing that. Whether or not these kids actually did it is another matter, and one that doesn’t seem to be altered by this ad campaign in my opinion. As corrupt as RIAA may be, it’s not a justification for stealing music, only an excuse for those who want free music.

The more effective method is to buy only independant artists, which iTunes Music Store DOES provide, so not all 100 million downloads will be pumped back to the RIAA…

As far as their parents are concerned I’m sure they are just glad that someone is paying that fine of $3,000.

This article is the worst example of someone taking his own irrational image consciousness and assuminng that everyone else shares in his stupidity that I’ve ever read. I think it is sad that you would be bothered were you in these teenagers’ situations but I think it is downright pathtetic that you think that they are too.

To initiate civil or criminal court action against. (So she is correct when she says she was prosecuted)
To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.
To pursue (an undertaking, for example) until completion; follow to the very end.
To chase or pursue (a vessel): “He held a dispatch saying that [they] had prosecuted and probably killed an Echo-class missile submarine” (Tom Clancy).
To carry on, engage in, or practice.
v. intr. Law
To initiate and conduct legal proceedings.
.

To say that “the AAC format that only the iPod will play” is misleading.

This is not true. each song is split in such a way that Apple gets 33 cents and the RIAA ( who represents the major record labels) recieves the remaining 66 cents. Then of this amount the appropriate amounts are funnelled to the respective record lables (minus whatever fees the RIAA imposes). The Record labels, after imposing whatever fee they do, then gives the artist whatever cut they have negotiated. If the RIAA was getting $66 million out of the deal and the record companies saw nothing, then the RIAA would cease to exist.

I understand that artists see little of the 66 cents, but lets not use that fact to mudy up the real cash flow.

Simply, not everyone who watches the ad is going to think “how bad the RIAA is for suing these kids”. Many of them may think the kids are criminals who have been caught by the police and punished by a court.

Some of these people may be potential future employers, or employees, of these kids. Or their neighour, some one on their bus or train route, or a jury member. They could always remember that these kids are convicted criminals. And act on that memory, denying them a job, a seat on a bus, or a fair trial.

Think about it. Would you really want people you meet to think you’re a convicted thief? For the rest of your life?

The ad is good, it’s been made to be liked, to appeal to certain people, the target demographic. You appear to be in that demographic, so the marketing is working. That’s why sums of $75,000,000 are involved here, and that’s just for the music, not the packaging, the design and the marketing.

Think about all that money and who is involved and what is really going on here. The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is not being generated by the commentors on this page. It’s being generated by those who can profit by it.

DethLok

DownhillBattle has announced the Tune Recycler aimed at people who win a code, but don’t want to bother getting a song out of it. They’ll go and buy a non-RIAA song from iTunes with it to furthor help artists.

Rich Menta is an idiot for not remembering this fact, and Jon Newton should check his facts. If you look at the top selling songs on iTunes, sure there’s lots of RIAA label songs there, but there’s a lot more non-RIAA label songs up there too.

I really don’t understand why “the 2004 production will be remembered with shame” attitude, when everyone who sees this will think of how bad the RIAA is for suing these kids.

No one in their right mind would think the kids were being exploited. In fact i would have loved to have been in the ad. if i was a teenager.

Aparently you’re attempting to spread random FUD and you just love the ‘compensation culture’ which is so prevailent in the US today “possible libel suits filed by the teenagers after the ad was cut” why would they want to sue!?

in conclusion you are probably jealous you weren’t featured in the ad, and have decided to publicise your bitterness in an attempt to spoil the ad. for normal people.