p2pnet - rss feed: Pepsi-iTunes Super Bowl ad blasted
p2pnet news view | Kids & Kartels:- “Hi, I’m one of the kids who was prosecuted for downloading music free off of the Internet,” says a teenager in an ad slated to be aired during the Super Bowl tomorrow.
“And I’m here to announce in front of 100 million people that we’re still going to download music free off the Internet.”
She’s one of 16 naive US teenagers ‘persuaded’ to appear in the 45-second spot which was to have reprised Apple’s triumph of 1984 when, in the first Super Bowl ‘event’ ad, it launched the Mac.
However, the 2004 production will be remembered with shame.
The 16 teenagers were identified by the RIAA as alleged ‘copyright violators’ - ‘alleged’ because they never appeared before a judge. They, or their parents, settled out of court rather than risk much larger financial penalties had they gone head-to-head with the RIAA’s heavyweight legal team, and lost.
The ad has Pepsi ‘giving’ away 100 million iTunes songs as a promotion. Waving bottles of soda, the kids let everyone know that’s the kind of ‘legitimate’ music they’ll be downloading in the future.
“”I would like to see more of this,” Jimmy Iovine, chairman of Interscope Geffen A&M, part of Universal Music Group, is quoted as saying in a National Post story here. “We’re starting to see technology companies come on our side, now soft drink companies are coming on our side.”
Iovine’s reference to technology companies comes from his love-in with Hewlett-Packard when he appeared onstage at an HP dog-and-pony show to support the latter’s introduction of DRM systems.
In the meanwhile, Annie Leith, 14, whose parents gave the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) $3,000 to avoid a civil lawsuit, is featured and she says she’ll use some of her undisclosed ad fee to help pay for that.
Michelle Maalouf is another teenager caught up in the RIAA’s stop-at-nothing sue ‘em all campaign.
“It was fun being in the commercial, but being sued wasn’t so great,” Michelle, 13, says in this SFGate story here. “We didn’t know it was illegal. We really like music.”
All of the teenagers in the spot were “sued by the recording industry’s powerful trade group [the RIAA],” says the report.
What’s interesting is that the SFGate story uses the word ’sued’.
More on that later.
“Falsely attributing criminal conduct”
“It’s all in good spirit,” says Dave Burwick, chief marketer, Pepsi, North America.
Josh Wattles, however, doesn’t think that adequately describes the commericial. In fact, “Falsely attributing criminal conduct to someone is a slam-dunk libel in just about every state,” he says.
“There’s no calculus of relative harm to justify this kind of abusive, untruthful and cynical behavior towards minors no matter how complicit their misguided parents may have been in this deception.”
He’s the former acting general counsel of Paramount Pictures, a key architect of the MPAA’s (Motion Picture Association of America) anti-piracy programs in the transition to videocassette distribution, and the former senior executive in charge of Viacom’s music subsidiaries, The Famous Music Publishing Companies.
It started last year when Big Music instructed the RIAA, its principal enforcer, to sue any file swapper it could identify for copyright violations. Its lawyers used ‘instant subpoenas’ obtained under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to pressure ISPs into handing over subscriber names and addresses - until the Verizon decision put a stop to it.
However, before being ordered to use due process like everyone else, the RIAA had been able to track down and identify close to 1,000 p2p file swappers, mostly teenagers and students, whom they threaten with civil, not criminal, court actions. Unless they settle.
The 16 teenaged Pepsi stars were among those swept up in the RIAA’s ‘investigations’.
By the sheer volume of ink the RIAA has been able to generate in the media, it’s succeeded in making people believe anyone who downloads music, shares files, swaps music, or whatever you want to call it, is a criminal and thief.
That’s not true.
But the RIAA’s relentless, mind-numbing assertions have been sufficient to paint the picture and hence, the Pepsi/iTunes campaign could be catchily entitled “I Fought the Law”.
And, “I was one of the kids prosecuted for downloading music,” says a teenager. She was not, though, ‘prosecuted’ for anything. She’d never been in a court. She was, rather, mouthing words from a script contrived by BBDO and approved by Pepsi and Apple.
However, to make the theme stand up, the message that these kids were ex-criminals who’d been rightfully ‘prosecuted’ had to be driven home hard and therefore, Busted, Charged, Incriminated, and Accused appears over their images, and the carefully arranged lighting and their sullen looks purposefully suggest a gritty, urban, isolated feel - the kind of thing associated on TV with ‘lawbreakers’ and criminality.”
To make the point even more strongly, Convicted file swappers star in Pepsi Super Bowl ad, reads a ZDNet teaser headline leading to another site.
Convicted? When? By whom? And on what criminal charge?
And in During Breaks in Game, Satire and Silliness, New York�Times business writer Stuart Elliott thinkse the stand-out (his words) Super Bowl commercial was a, “cheeky spot, introducing a promotion co-sponsored by the iTunes division of Apple Computer, that smartly teased the recording industry for suing teenagers for illegal file sharing.
Sixteen of the miscreants appeared in the commercial, identified with tongue-in-cheek labels like ‘Incriminated,’ ‘Accused” and ‘Busted,’ as the soundtrack played ‘I Fought the Law (and the Law Won).’ The jest was topped at the end as these words appeared on screen: ‘Drink down Pepsi and download music at iTunes. Legally’.”
“Smartly teased the recording industry for suing teenagers”?
Questions
A number of questions go begging, however.
- Did the kids appearing in the commercials know exactly what the script would have them saying - specifically, that the word ‘prosecuted’ would be used? And did they know there’d be suggestive overlays superimposed while their images flashed up?
- Did the ‘actors’ or their parents or their guardians or lawyers see and OK the ads - and the various elements such as the overlays - in writing after they’d been edited and approved for airing by Pepsi and Apple?
- Were they given the option of backing out if they didn’t like the look of the final cut, if they indeed saw it?
- Was the agreement between BBDO and the teenagers carefully crafted and honestly written to protect them?
- Or was it a standard ‘name and likeness for a fee’ boilerplate or worse, a cold and cynical contract made by a calculating team of highly paid lawyers and account executives with 16 naive and easily impressed youngsters to insulate Pepsi, iTunes and CBS from possible libel suits filed by the teenagers after the ad was cut?
“I still can’t get over the fact that these fresh faced teenagers are being attacked by companies just to preserve a business model in need of freshening up itself,” says Wattles. “I don’t want my kids treated that way by business and I don’t want other people’s kids treated that way.”
And on the choice of language, “Prosecutions are usually understood to be actions by the state to enforce criminal laws,” he says. “Prosecutions aren’t generally understood to mean civil lawsuits. The word ’sued’ would be appropriate and accurate in this context.
“The ad falsely pumps up the music industry’s enforcement effort, and its suggestive criminalization of the kids’ behavior building up to the tag line ‘we’re still gonna download music for free off the Internet - and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it,’ reinforces the ad’s presumption that their behavior had been criminal.”
What’s the problem?
But, “What’s the problem?” - asks a nameless, faceless RIAA spokesperson. “We’re only involved as good corporate citizens. We gave Pepsi and Apple and BBDO the kids’ names to help them. The kids, that is. This is our way of working with wholesome American institutions to save the Children of America from having us prosecute them for stealing music. What can be wrong with that?”
“And Gosh! Pepsi is giving the music away anyhow. But this time, the kids won’t end up in a court for downloading!”
‘Giving’ is probably the wrong word, though.
Actually, Pepsi is marketing the tunes on behalf of the RIAA’s owners, the major record labels, who sold the songs to Apple in the first place. People get the songs by buying Pepsi and looking under the bottle tops, some of which have a code which can be redeemed to ‘buy’ a song from iTunes.
Rich Menta, editor of MP3newswire, says here, “The RIAA will earn $0.75 from Pepsi for each of the 100 million downloads.” And that’s $75 million, “in pure profit for the record industry, which is why RIAA president Mitch Bainwol is happy to go along with the joke,” suggests Menta.
“Apple wins, of course, because now they have more than quadrupled their total sales of downloads from 30 million to 130 million tunes - all using the AAC format that only the iPod will play, thus pushing iPod sales.”
Is ‘get sued by the RIAA and star in a TV commercial’ the message? - Menta asks.
“It’s bad enough that the RIAA targeted kids for their lawsuits but, it’s worse to criminalize their behavior on national television just for the sake of a provocation, or to sell soft drinks and iTunes downloads,” Wattles told p2pnet.
Moreover, he goes on, “Congress, in making the copyright laws, never, to my knowledge, considered the circumstance that kids would be engaged in mass infringements, however technical. Certainly, imposing extraordinarily high statutory civil damages on an ill-behaved and/or ill-informed teenager seems out of step with the result a legislature would have openly picked.
“And there’s a big legal question mark over whether or not they can be tried as juveniles for criminal copyright infringement.”
Wattles - who was at Berkeley in 1969 - points out that he’s speaking as an individual concerned over the excessive and intrusive behavior of an industry to which he’s contributed, and in which he still has a stake.
“I don’t want to see it [the entertainment industry] behave in this way and I believe I’m speaking out responsibly to help it correct itself,” he says.
“No matter how old they are and even if their parents or a court signed off for them, they could possibly sustain an action for libel if they weren’t completely aware of what this ad was going to look like and suggest about them.
“These kids weren’t criminally prosecuted, but they’ll get to live with this characterization for the rest of their lives - even after they grow up and move away from their childish false bravura performances.”
Jon Newton
January 31st, 2004 at 7:49 am
Is it an Apple ad or a Pepsi ad?
January 31st, 2004 at 2:05 pm
It’s a disgusting, sleazy way for Pepsi, Apple, and the RIAA thugs to advertize and promote their products and propoganda. The RIAA reminds me of 1939 in many ways. The world is heading towards anarchy sometime in the near future, when sleazbags like that can dictate to our judicial system and politicians and pull the wool over their eyes. All in the name of keeping hold of their own self centered, greedy powerbase. Guess what? I wouldn’t buy an IPod now if my life depended on it. And Pepsi just lost another customer. And here is another blockbuster. The entertainment industry is making record profits. Billions of dollars. The RIAA and their counterparts in the movie industry should be thrown out in the trash. They make me sick. And I am posting as Anonymous because I choose to, not because I am a coward, like the page says. I would get sued by the RIAA if I used my “real” name, right ? Because anyone who disagrees with the RIAA is their enemy. Sounds kinda like someone else I have seen on TV recently. Dontcha just love rants ?
January 31st, 2004 at 3:47 pm
It’s a Pepsi ad, but Apple’s going to have all the profits it will create.
January 31st, 2004 at 4:28 pm
This is the most ridiculous article I’ve read in a long time. The average person who will watch this ad could care less about the difference between the act being criminal or or civil. Get a life already! These “poor” kids are laughing all the way to the bank with their nice check from Pepsi/Apple. And what is wrong with Apple winning?
January 31st, 2004 at 4:31 pm
This concerns me as well…are there any othere mp3 players that can compare with the Ipod coming out? Any that support ogg-vorbis?
January 31st, 2004 at 5:07 pm
what profits?..check again. if YOU buy a pepsi abd there’s a code for a FREE itunes download..there aren’t any “profits” other than the pepsi you purchased.
After i saw the add, i thought it was all most a slam on the riaa….by saying “i’m still going to download music”.
-ZURIEL-
January 31st, 2004 at 5:54 pm
Quoting:
“Apple wins, of course, because now they have more than quadrupled their total sales of downloads from 30 million to 130 million tunes - all using the AAC format that only the iPod will play, thus pushing iPod sales.”
Itunes music store AAC files will play on any computer using Windows 2000, XP or Macintosh OS 9, X using the itunes software available free at the Apple web site. These songs can also be burned to a regular audio CD that can be played on most of the CD players in the world. AAC is not a proprietary standard. It is part of the MPEG standard that is used in DVDs, satelite television services, digital cable, Video CDs. Like most open standards, all are part of it is owned by someone. VHS is an open standard, but liscencing fees must be payed to JVC to manufacture players. The audio CD standrd is ontains tecknology owned by Philips and Sony. AAC is owned by Dolby, not Apple. The “proprietary” part of the itunes AAC is the rights management. This aspect was required to allow a structure that record companies would allow their music to be sold online. Non-Apple DRM AAC files will play on other devices as well, such as Real Networks Real Player 10.
Also, an article complaining about the lack of integrity in advertising in like complaining about snow in Buffalo, that’s just the way it is.
January 31st, 2004 at 7:20 pm
Wow..Jon Newton.. you really hit the nail on the head there…
Not.
What a pathetic and deeply biased article aimed to..what…make Pepsi and Apple look bad for promoting a legal way to buy digital music?
Well no.. nothing wrong with that…
Well all this legal crap about the minors on the ad.. is THAT what you’re pissed about?
Well..um.. I guess I don’t really care… I just want Kazaa to stick around.
Your problem is that you’re attempting reason with your readers, but you sound self-righteous.
Guess what..Stealing is wrong. From the word Go, you’re wrong.
What the hell is the point of a peon like you trying to diminish what Apple is doing?
What a joke.
January 31st, 2004 at 7:22 pm
The geek who named it OGG VORBIS could have read a few books in Branding before complaining that it’s so freakin’ obscure.
Every geek that cheers for OGG VORBIS deserves to get smacked.
January 31st, 2004 at 7:25 pm
“The entertainment industry is making record profits. Billions of dollars. The RIAA and their counterparts in the movie industry should be thrown out in the trash. They make me sick.”
Have you turned on the TV in the last three years?
The entertainment industry sucks ass!
I can’t name ONE music company that hasn’t seen pathetic sales in the last three years.. and it’s not for lack of great music.
The bottom line is that a band that sold 7 millions albums three years ago, and then put out an even BETTER album, sold 3 million.
Why?
File sharing.
What band am I talking about?
Linkin Park.. ever heard of them…
Billions of profits.. what a complete fool..
January 31st, 2004 at 8:57 pm
When I watched this ad. the first thing i thought was ‘hah! swivel on that RIAA!’, it never occured to me in the slightest that this was something to be ashamed of.
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.
January 31st, 2004 at 11:39 pm
I doubt they even care about the Ad.
They only saw it as a way pay off their lawsuits.
I would’ve done the same.
January 31st, 2004 at 11:41 pm
It’s a Pepsi Ad.
February 1st, 2004 at 2:23 am
“”And Gosh! Pepsi is giving the music away anyhow. But this time, the kids won’t end up in a court for downloading!”
‘Giving’ is probably the wrong word, though.”
Actually “giving” is EXACTLY the correct word to use. They pay $75 million for something, then turn around and charge nothing for turning that something over to others. Let’s not make martyrs of these kids, or underestimate their intelligence. unless they had been living under a rock they knew very well they were breaking the law. They got busted, and managed to limit the damage to $3000. Now they have lucked into a way of making some money out of the misfortune of getting busted. My heart bleeds for them!
February 1st, 2004 at 2:39 am
This is just so much self-righteous drivel. If Mr. Newton was truly concerned about integrity he wouldn’t jump to the 100,000,000 million number so quickly. From what I’ve read Pepsi is only expecting about 10-20% of these to be turned in.
And why is this not “giving”? A person buys a product, gets what they pay for and in 1 out of 3 marked bottles they get something for free. Sounds like “giving” to me.
February 1st, 2004 at 3:00 am
Give it a rest already.
It’s a Pepsi ad (not Apple) and you’re just looking for a way to slam Apple and the iPod by spreading more FUD.
I’m sure the new Napster or any of the other music services would have jumped at this given the opportunity.
It just so happens that the iPod is hot right now and just about anyone with two brain cells can spot a winner.
February 1st, 2004 at 3:15 am
Blah Blah blah diatribe diatribe.
There’s so many incorrect facts on this page I wouldn’t know where to start.
Correct the title firstly. It’s a Pepsi ad.
If tis is a jouralistic piece then rewrite it.
If it;s a rant, take a logic class.
If it’s an editorial piece, plainly state your opinion.
Are you worried about the exploitation of teenage downloaders? who exploited free file sharing? Who’s side are you on?
The 75 million that the RIAA makes will not be total profit.
bleeh
February 1st, 2004 at 4:05 am
>>”The RIAA will earn $0.75 from Pepsi for each of the 100 million downloads.” And that’s $75 million, “<<
What a crock. The RIAA makes nothing from them.
http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp
February 1st, 2004 at 4:09 am
Get over it, stop crying like little bitch!
February 1st, 2004 at 4:33 am
i agree,,,sounds like this guy is trying to drum up business in the most insidious of ways
February 1st, 2004 at 5:10 am
Who are you people? The whole premise of this site is ridiculous. You act as if downloading copyrighted materials is somehow ok because “everyone” does it.
Furthermore, lighten up. The kids in the AD got well compensated I’m sure.
You people seem to find a conspiracy around every corner! Ooohh, the big bad corporate boogey man is out to get you again my pretties!!
Grow up.
February 1st, 2004 at 6:39 am
Jesus, lets look at the dam TV Ad for what it is! Theres no hyper analysis of it necessary. Apple and Pepsi are teaming up giving away 100 million free songs in hopes that you will not only drink Pepsi, but will use Apple iTunes and keep using it. Countless Couch poatotoes will see the ad, many of whom do not know about iTunes and will snap up a chance to get some free music. They will buy a Pepsi product and then download iTunes. They’ll use it once to download the free song and hopefully keep doing it. Theres no hidden message, no analysis of the kids necessary. Geez lets write about something worthwhile.
February 1st, 2004 at 7:41 am
This is a lame piece. Kids do ad. Kids get paid for ad. Get over it.
February 1st, 2004 at 10:04 am
Just found it ironic that the ‘Ads by Google’ column over on the right is currently full of links to Apple computers. Guess your in it to make money too.
Although, to sum up…
1. The ad you write about is a Pepsi ad.
2. Pepsi expects about a 20% rate of redemption = 19.8 mill. $ not 100 Mill. $ (though I’m betting it’ll be staggeringly higher). What’s 80,200,000 really worth anymore these days tho.
3. this is a lame waste of my time now.
/etc
February 1st, 2004 at 10:16 am
No more excuses,
During Napster days I remember a lot of people saying that they downloaded songs for the conveniance and that it was the riaa’s fault that there was not a way to pay for it. Well now for the most part there is, and guess what? People downloaded that piece of crap Kaaza and are still downloading music. If you are downloading from Kaaza a song you could get from Itunes then you are now just downright stealing like a thief in the night. You are a snake that should be sued. Just because technology exists to make it possible does not mean you should. If technology made it possible for you to easily steal a new car would you? Some of you would and complain that cars are built poorly, that you only like some of the cars features, and that the car companies make too much money.
I buy my CD’s from a store that I support, (how many Music Warehouses went out of business?) rip em on my mac and carry em around on my ipod. I have bought some songs off of iTunes and I feel better about my collection knowing that it is something I have worked for and that the artist will get something for their work.
February 1st, 2004 at 12:43 pm
How can one believe and article about intergity, when the article is intentionally dishonest itself.
1) This is not an Apple advertisement. Apple and Pepsi have been very careful to make that clear - if only one has enough integrity to do some basic research.
2) This article seems to me to glorify dishonnest behavior. Many, many, many people steal music every day. Everyone knows it. Probably everyone personally knows a couple of people who don’t give it a second thought. So why is this article white washing such action.
3) quote: “y the sheer volume of ink the RIAA has been able to generate in the media, it’s succeeded in making people believe anyone who downloads music, shares files, swaps music, or whatever you want to call it, is a criminal and thief.
That’s not true.
”
Its not strictly true, but it is generally true. Most music good enough to be desirable is copyrighted and is not freely distributed, and does indeed fall into the stealing category.
And you yourselves make a distinction between generally true and strictly true when you try to defend the prosecutions agrument.
4) quote: “And, “I was one of the kids prosecuted for downloading music,” says a teenager. She was not, though, ‘prosecuted’ for anything.”
So what’s your point. The person herself made this statement, with supervision and permission of an adult guardian. There is not false attribution of the person admits it publically.
But of course you didn’t complete your thought in the article or even completed quoting enough context to prove your point.
But all-in-all you seem overly bitter and intent on doing what every you wish to do even to the point of a much spun disingenuous series of personal rants.
…
February 1st, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Note that this site carries a copyright–Copyright © p2pnet — p2pnet(at)p2pnet(dot)net. Does the site owner expect this copyright to allow him to control and restrict the use of the content at the same time he argues that the music industry should not be allowed the same protection?
Or is it just that honoring copyrights is only justified when it is personally convienient?
February 1st, 2004 at 3:01 pm
Get a life.
Get a mac.
February 1st, 2004 at 3:43 pm
Is there no one left in the States with a sense of humour?
February 1st, 2004 at 4:03 pm
Jon,
I’m sorry, your article makes little sense to me. You’re stretching to find a controversy here. I don’t see that Pepsi/Apple have done anything substantially misleading or improper.
Yes, these kids were “sued” in a civil action. However, as a civil attorney myself, the distinction between a civil case and a criminal case can be somewhat blurred in cases such as this. In other words, the conduct of using copyrighted material can give rise to BOTH criminal and civil actions. For example, there is criminal theft and civil theft, the latter called “conversion.” Basically they are the same thing, but give rise to different penalties. Civil penalties generally being, of course, money damages; while criminal penalties equal jail time and fines. They can overlap in some cases.
I use the word “prosecuted” in a general sense sometimes to describe my representation of clients in auto accidents, for example, though it’s a civil case and I’m not representing the State. And usually, my clients’ cases settle out of court when they receive money damages. The folks they sue rarely have to see a judge. That doesn’t mean the defendants were not sued, it just means they settled out of court. Clearly these teenagers were prosecuted by the RIAA in a very real sense. Your point that they “never saw a judge” is not relevant to me. They were still named and targeted in a lawsuit, whether it be civil or criminal.
You are defining “prosecuted” very narrowly, but I see your point (barely). Come on, lighten up.
Neil
February 1st, 2004 at 4:05 pm
Exactly. It took me three paragraphs to try and make your point. Well said.
See my post, “what an attorney thinks.”
Neil
February 1st, 2004 at 4:09 pm
Excellent point! I can hear the sizzle . . .
February 1st, 2004 at 4:16 pm
However you wish to call it, these kids were Defendants in a legal action. They were sued/prosecuted/subpoen’d, whatever you wish to call it: The RIAA called them to Court for allegedly wrongful behavior. (The fact the kids’ parents settled out of court to avoid a trial makes no difference: they were civilly prosecuted.)
You can quibble with the way the Pepsi/iTunes ad describes it, but you sound really uptight when you do.
The Kids are Alright! And so is Apple.
February 1st, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Mr. Newton writes: “However, the 2004 production will be remembered with shame.”
Say what?
Probably out of the 100 million people watching the ad, Nr. Newton and the folks at Napster, et al., will be filling “shame.”
It’s a shame that his rant made little sense.
February 1st, 2004 at 4:25 pm
My thoughts exactly. Well put!
February 1st, 2004 at 4:27 pm
Excellent logic, well said. I couldn’t agree more. Mr. Newton is way out there.
February 1st, 2004 at 4:32 pm
it’s a Pepsi ad. the article is bogus.
February 1st, 2004 at 4:32 pm
Wow! The facts here are so out of line the realities of marketing (unfortunately, it’s this kind of drivel that drives traffic to a site.)
“Convicted” vs. “sued”…hmmm…who cares! in advertising you have 30 - 60 seconds to make as powerful a point as you can. few modern TV watchers take that point literally else we’d all be able to dunk like Michael Jordan if we drank Gatorade, walked on Nike shoes and wore Hanes underwear!!
Give it a rest Mr. Newton… it’s a decent commercial that will benefit Pepsi, Apple AND the RIAA TREMENDOUSLY (in my humble opinion).
FYI - Pepsi is only expecting a 10 - 20% redemtion rate on the caps. that’s 10 - 20 million songs “cashed” in on the iTMS. Anything more would be a PHENOMENAL return rate for ANY advertising endeavor which would only disprove your points even more…
February 1st, 2004 at 4:51 pm
NEwton - I understand you wrote the bizarre FUD-laced article to get some traffic to your site but I don’t see your point; this article makes no sense.
You are asking to be abused by writing stuff like this….no one is a victim in this commercial. It’s all pretty good marketing if you ask me….I’ll be buying Pepsi the next couple of months so I can cash in on some free music (without the pitfalls of Peer to Peer crap software).
February 1st, 2004 at 5:22 pm
on something that, ultimately, is completely unimportant.
it’s not like these kids did porn. this isn’t going to damage any reputations.
February 1st, 2004 at 5:28 pm
I used to work with someone who earned the nickname ‘the Stick’ becaused he like to stir up the Sh#t at work. Always had a hand ‘helping’ people have bad relationships.
I have to question you intentions on this ‘Stick’ article.
It IS not legal to steal music. The Kids did download it.
If the parents of those kids agreed to settle out of court and agreed to allow the kids to appear. What is your point? Just poking at the ethics of the music industry? What about the ethics of stealing. Do you support allowing kids to think that it is OK to steal?
It amazes me that so many people feel it’s OK to steal music. It’s NOT ok to steal anything.
The person quoted about the 75 million pure profit isn’t a businessman. I’m sure that the record companies spend a lot of money getting musicians to the point where their records make money.
But as a ‘journalist’ you can quote him like it’s true. The great ’stick’ tool of journalism.
On another point, quit allowing the spread of incorrect information about downloading from iTunes. You can buy music from Itunes and burn it to cd without owning an iPod. It will play on any CD player.
February 1st, 2004 at 5:35 pm
Disgusting and sleazy Good words to discribe your rant.
February 1st, 2004 at 6:04 pm
I love all these carefully reasoned (and seasoned : ) arguments.
Anyway - for the record, I stand by my article 100%.
In the meanwhile, I have no problem with Apple Computers as such. Or with Pepsi, as such. Corporate music stores as they’re presently ‘organized’? Cruise the site if you want to know what I think of them.
But I have a very big problem indeed with the ad. And with whoever came up with the concept. And with the RIAA which, I suspect, is largely behind it.
Neil’s *What an attorney thinks* post notwithstanding, these kids have been made to look like criminals. They’re nothing of the kind, although it’s a theme the RIAA has been hammering on behalf of its owner, Big Music, since Day One of its appalling *sue ‘em all* campaign.
In the meanwhile, for a couple of other just-published views on the subject, go here http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35259.html and here http://www.downhillbattle.org/.
Cheers!
Jon
February 1st, 2004 at 6:18 pm
i download iTunes all the time. i listen to them. i DON’T have an iPod.
AAC works with iTunes, Quicktime, ahh, cd players, dvd players.
February 1st, 2004 at 6:48 pm
You obviously have your bones to pick.
If you break the law, what are you?
Heaven forbid we call a spade a spade.
We wouldn’t want to harm the self esteem of these, probably great kids otherwise, but none the less law breakers. Doesn’t matter if the kids, parents or guardians didn’t know it was against the law.
I really can’t believe you said “these kids have been made to look like criminals”
They, by definition are criminals.
They also gave their consent (I assume) and took money to be in the comercial to look like what they were, illegal music downloaders.
They will probably remember that theft is illegal now. Their parents are also aware as well.
My 15 year old daughter was not aware that downloading music was theft. She knows now. As do many kids from the sue’ em all campaign.
When I realized she was doing it, I put a stop to it. We had a discussion of right and wrong, and gave her a small allowance on iTunes each month. I blocked at the router her access to Limewire and Kazaa. This way, her complaint (or lack of) that some things aren’t working on the internet allow me to know if she has in fact stopped doing this.
It’s hard to fight the concept that some adults have that stealing music is ok when rearing children.
P2P has its’ place. There is a lot of great music out there that bands allow trading of. P2P is the slickest thing since sliced bread in that respect.
Mitch
author of ‘The Stick’ comment.
February 1st, 2004 at 7:06 pm
The lighting, the song. Looks like a class of 13 year old wanna be film makers made this commercial. It’s just cheap looking. Thank GOD Apple’s logo isn’t anywhere on it. <shaking head>
February 1st, 2004 at 8:23 pm
Well it’s time to CHILL OUT!
Any time Apple is successful and that knowledge reaches the general populous, all stops are pulled out and Microsoft lawyers are moved in to wind up the shrill media and all the FUD machines are put into hyper mode. However, next week, every competitor will be producing “ME TOO” look alike adds, just like every other time an Apple invention or creation hits the market. And the cycle repeats add infinitum
Apple gets enormous press, always, because they always lead. The perennial followers are always howling how unfair it is that Apple gets all the press, yet find themselves so chained to convention, incapable of looking forward much less being creative, that they are constantly stuck in a me too, wanna be state. Incapable of vision or creativity these cry babies are destined to following. I suggest you work on becoming better followers, since you’re incapable of leading.
February 1st, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Very interesting that you are all upset at the fact that the kids are being misrepresented in the ad. However, you article title is a blatant misrepresentation - this is a Pepsi ad not an Apple ad. Pepsi paid for and created the ad. And I agree with Mitch, if you take something for free that isn’t supposed to be free you are a thief. You may hate the music studios and think what you are doing is civil disobedience but with such “protesting” come consequences. One of those consequences is being sued and labeled a criminal (rightfully so). If you can do better, start your own music label, sign some great bands and reap those millions.
David
February 1st, 2004 at 10:02 pm
ummmm did it ever occur to you that these couch potatoes will have to BUY an Apple ipod tp play the “free” songs ? and remember, the RIAA is getting .75 cents for every one of them. that’s $75,000,000 dollars … 75 million bucks free.. and pepsi sure aint gonna put a free song in every can or bottle, so they will be selling about 10 - 20 cans or bottles for every “free” one. so guess who pays?? the public gets screwed again. hahaha.
February 1st, 2004 at 10:07 pm
i have no idea who you are replying to, but think about this, and this is a fact. downloading an mp3 is NOT illegal … check with any legal person. it’s the sharing of them that is against the law. and besides, aple is pretty well owned by MS now anyway, since Billy boy gave them a cash injection of $150 million a couple years ago. and the free songs will only play on an ipod, is that correct ?
February 1st, 2004 at 11:12 pm
This ad makes me sick. To think that the wonderful RIAA gets to look good for suing KIDS to see the evil of their ways or the hero of the day pepsi helping to lead our misguided youth to legal downloading sites by giving away starter downloads thur apple or APPLE the savior of the day who was first to offer a DL site on the web as pay for play All of this while playing a re make of I fought the Law and the Law won by Greenday WOW!!!!! ONLY in America could this kind of corp. GREED be GLORIFY and the truth become so TWISTED!!!!! STAY AWAY from the RIAA
February 1st, 2004 at 11:18 pm
APPLE as a leader hahaha Where did they get their NAME from????? HMMMMM maybe THE BEATLES HMMMMMMM
February 1st, 2004 at 11:25 pm
“Convicted” vs. “sued”…hmmm…who cares!”
Obviously the people if they want the TRUTH and not riaa BULLSHIT
” in advertising you have 30 - 60 seconds to make as powerful a point as you can. ”
So does that justify lying?
”Give it a rest Mr. Newton…”
why should he, the AD does make them look like big time criminals, which they aren’t, they are copyright infringers, something WAY LESS MAJOR than shoplifting or such, so why don’t you can it? *no pun intended*
I don’t see how this will help the RIAA, it’s repeating the same bullshit again and again
February 2nd, 2004 at 12:31 am
no-according to the article, the record companies are going to have most or all of the profits this will create.
February 2nd, 2004 at 1:34 am
Give me a break u guys…its plain this ad isn’t an attempt to make these kids out to be criminals. Its not trying to support what happended to them, or portray what they did as criminal activity. In fact it’s doing the opposite. IT IS saying that what these kids did was viewed as illegal by someone and so they were characterized as criminals by someone.
It leaves the viewer with the freedom to decide whether or not what they did was wrong and whether or not what happened to them was wrong. Now most people will say “Ugghh who would do this to these kids?” but that’s the intention of the ad guys, not to say it was right what happened to these kids but rather to illicit some sort of emotion as to the situation.
Then it cleverly plays both sides: If u think what happened to these kids was wrong, then use itunes and buck the system cuz u can still download music for free (thanks to pepsi). But if you think that people shouln’t be downloading songs illegally and that these kids got what they deserved, then use itunes because it fits into the system offering a legal way to download songs.
Apple is playing up its reputation as a rebel, underdog, & outsider while at the same time cozying up to that system. How can people miss this?
Creativity I think it is called…and I think that whoever came up with the concept for this ad did a great job.
February 2nd, 2004 at 1:37 am
Exactly what part of stealing someone’s intelectual property don’t you understand Jon? I don’t care who or what is making most of the money, the copies of the tunes those kids were playing did not belong to them if they illegally downloaded them. As a result they stole them and they are a theves. If they paid to avoid being sued for stealing those tunes then they more or less admited to being guilty.
February 2nd, 2004 at 1:48 am
Pepsi pays Apple 99c for each code that’s redeemed.
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:33 am
Most people don’t realize that Apple has added LOTS of truly independent artists to the iTunes lineup. The band Self-Titled (we have hundreds of CDs sitting in our basement and are totally unsigned) is one of those.
Self-Titled is attempting to sell a Million (!) legal downloads of their song “Equinox” before the big labels even think of such a feat. All proceeds from online sales of this song go to the Future of Music Coalition (http://www.futureofmusic.org), a worthy organization that has been fighting for musicians’ rights against the RIAA for Years.
Get the details at http://www.self-titled.com.
February 2nd, 2004 at 4:01 am
who cares, everybody got paid.
get over it
February 2nd, 2004 at 4:25 am
AMEN!! Get a life!!
February 2nd, 2004 at 4:29 am
OK if they steal music they are not criminals, if they shop lift a candy bar they are?
I make my living from my copyrighted work. If it is ok to buy one copy reproduce it to all your friends are strangers on the net not many artist will be able to work.
February 2nd, 2004 at 4:39 am
You are stupid.
MS bought $150M of non-voting shares which they subsequently sold soon afterward at a hefty profit.
You are stupid.
February 2nd, 2004 at 1:20 pm
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:10 pm
It was a really good ad. The RIAA was a big bully that did alot of illegal stuff themselves. I wonder if any of the RIAA ever got a speeding ticket? Took a pen from work home with them/ etc., etc….I buy my music, but I don’t buy as much as I did before the RIAA started their gestopo tactics against kids that like music. I’m just glad the kids were able to get a little coin back for the trouble the RIAA put them thru.
The complaints sound like sour grapes to me. Like some one so eloquently put it. GET A LIFE!!!
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:22 pm
… but I did.
Waste a lot of time, maybe I should stick to printed press.
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:24 pm
Ditto.
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:51 pm
>these kids have been made to look like criminals
Gee, maybe because copyright infringement is illegal? They took something (someone else’s intellectual property) that did not belong to them, which is stealing.
Stealing is a crime pretty much anywhere, no matter what mechanism is used to perpetrate it. You may not like Big Music or the RIAA, and you might not like their business model, but that does not make it right to steal from them.
Your article is confused, self-righteous FUD.
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:52 pm
No kidding. What FUD.
February 2nd, 2004 at 3:21 pm
It’s a frickin commericial people. Get over it !!!!!!!!!!!!! JEEEESSSSS
February 2nd, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Yet another example of the escalating, ignorant use of the idiom “to beg the question”. I wish people who write for a living would take the time to learn what they’re actually *saying*.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:00 pm
First…it is just a commercial…and I doubt these kids or their parents are terribly worried about the lifelong reputations as hardened criminals haunting them the rest of their lives because of the words that appeared in this tongue-in-cheek ad.
But second, for those nitpicking about the specific word “convicted,” remember, that can also can mean “convinced of wrongdoing or sinfulness.” In other words, this could just be stating that these kids now have personal convictions that about downloading music, and that they think they did the wrong thing.
Is that how most people will read it? Probably not, but I expect that it would stand up in a court of law as a reasonable possibility for the meaning, and therefore as a truthful assertion in the ad.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:29 pm
Oh, come on Jon!
To suggest that these kids were unwilling dupes whose names were callously smeared by a heartless ad campaign belies the facts.
These kids, and many others, were criminalized by the RIAA’s publicity campaign to end P2P filesharing. The RIAA, while stopping short of prosecuting their case in criminal courts (where the burden of proof is substantially higher than in the civil courts) equated file sharing to outright piracy and branded all kids like these as criminals.
The fact that the RIAA didn’t have the legal cojones to do much more that threaten these kids with expensive, protracted litigation does not make what they did any less repugnant. At least in this ad campaign, the kids can get a little of their own back while earning SAG wages — something which will help them recoup the blood money the RIAA extracted from them. I’m sure that if you asked each and every one of the kids featured in the ad, they’d back the message 100%, because anyone who’s been threatened by the RIAA would agree that there are more enlightened responses than threatening kids because they download music from the internet.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:35 pm
Whoever wrote the text needs to look in a dictionary to get the correct word to use. The Ad has a teenager saying “I was one of the kids prosecuted for downloading music”. The problem is that it SHOULD have read “I was one of the kids PERSECUTED for [ALLEGEDLY] downloading music,”, since there was no proof that any music was downloaded and the teenager (or the parents) were forced to pay a bribe to the RIAA to make the RIAA’s Landsharks stop persecuting the kid by dropping the threatened lawsuit.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:43 pm
Yeah, tell me about it. What’s really ironic is that all these people who’ve suddenly started using “beg the question” are doing it because they think it makes them sound more erudite and sophisticated than if they were to stick with the common, and correct, phrase “raise the question”.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:49 pm
“Pepsi pays Apple 99c for each code that’s redeemed.”
…and then apple pays the record companies… apple doesn’t make much at all on each song. Maybe 12 cents.
February 2nd, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Never seen such a bunch on uninformed idiots! Go read the press release and understand that Apple and Pepsi are shelling out big money as in any other ad campaing that are done by the dozens in corporate America. There’s no hidden agenda, no exploitation of kids no nothing, it is just a smart marketing move that has the competition banging their heads against the wall because they didn’t think of it in the first place.
This, of course, assuming the competition has anything to advertise, which, uhm, does not look the case right now.
February 2nd, 2004 at 6:17 pm
Just think what that other poor kid in the other commercial has to live with.
He’s going to have to live with being called “Jimi Hendrix” for the rest of his life.
Sheesh, get a grip. The commercial will be forgotten in a matter of weeks. These kids aren’t going to be traumatized.
February 2nd, 2004 at 6:45 pm
“You guys miss the point” is clearly a plant! This person is either some account exec at an agency, or an MBA at Pepsi or Apple, or a film production house flack, or worse yet, a record industry hack. Whoever this jerk is, is trying to justify what was a clumsy, badly conceived and poorly produced attempt to threaten and bully America’s teenagers into conforming with the wishes of the recording industry and turning our more of their bucks over to the media giants. BBDO and Pepsi are the jerks in this instance. And Apple slimes itself with its patent greed in being co-opted in this sleezy effort! Yuke!
February 2nd, 2004 at 9:32 pm
Wow. Talk about contrived criticism and “reaching.”
Not to mention that you’re raising alleged criticisms about the ad without doing any homework. For all you know, all the kids (and their parents) knew everything about the ad and signed off on it.
There are lots of things to criticize about the RIAA and company. This add was harmless and, IMO, funny.
February 2nd, 2004 at 9:39 pm
Pros·e·cute P Pronunciation Key (prs-kyt)
v. pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing, pros·e·cutes
v. tr.
Law.
a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against.
b. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.
Seems like these kids were indeed prosecuted by the RIAA, at least according to dictionary.com’s definition.
They were, however, never convicted, which almost sounds like the point you are trying to make.
Frankly, I don’t understand the outrage. I saw the ad as a slap in the face for the RIAA, since it portrays them in a very bad light. Those kids didn’t look like they deserved to be prosecuted for anything, and their definate additude of “hey, I’m going to keep getting music for free” is very anti-authoritarian.
My $0.02
February 2nd, 2004 at 10:06 pm
It’s the connotation as much as the definition: but whichever way you slice it, the kids weren’t prosecuted. Period. They never appeared before a judge. In the commercial, “busted”, “charged”, “incriminated” flash across the screen. They were neither busted nor charged, but they were certainly incriminated, thanks to the ad.
February 2nd, 2004 at 10:46 pm
Who Gives a F!@K?
The author has way too much time on his hands.
February 3rd, 2004 at 7:44 am
What a bunch of jerks. You’re the ones that encourage, make possible, and otherwise promote the illegal downloading of music. It’s the law. Don’t like the law? Change the law. What a bunch of hypocrites. You likely cried all the way to your PC and while you were launching Kazaii about the poor, taken advantage of little teeney boppers. (throwing up all over your website…there, now I feel better)
February 3rd, 2004 at 9:07 am
The couch potatoes will be able to play the free song on their PC, or burn it onto CD and play it on any number of CD players. No need to buy an iPod at all. And it’s 1 in 3 winning bottles.
February 3rd, 2004 at 3:45 pm
Jon, you’re confusing prosecution with adjudication. In any case, they violated the law, and admitted to doing so by compensating the complaintant.
Ultimately, the message of the ad is that downloading music should be legal. There was no more exploitation here than in any other ad. The reputations of the kids that appeared in the ad won’t be damaged.
Your article amounts to much ado about nothing.
February 3rd, 2004 at 7:29 pm
“the AD does make them look like big time criminals”
Either there is another Pepsi/Apple iTunes Ad I haven’t heard about yet or something is not quite right with you…Please go visit a psychiatrist as soon as possible ;D
February 3rd, 2004 at 10:16 pm
Your an idiot. A complete idiot Anonymous Coward.
Now, everyone here knows it. Your credibility is shot. You will always be known as “the idiot”.
You violated people’s inteligence, and were found guilty of being an idiot.
Now, we should show your face to the world with ‘idiot’ flashing over it. But don’t worry… it wont stick according to your own words. Your reputation wont be damaged… you will just be an idiot.
Tell you what thou, give me lots of money and we will still show the world that your an idiot, and i’ll give you … ummm… a bottle of soda.
*** Tell me again how this is not exploitation???***
It’s like saying that if you don’t admit that your an idiot, i’ll ruin your life because i have the means to do so. Infact, I have so much money and power… I can prove in court that your an idiot.
Dude… I think you are much ado about nothing.
February 3rd, 2004 at 10:21 pm
Your an idiot. A complete idiot Anonymous Coward.
Now, everyone here knows it. Your credibility is shot. You will always be known as “the idiot”.
You violated people’s inteligence, and were found guilty of being an idiot.
Now, we should show your face to the world with ‘idiot’ flashing over it. But don’t worry… it wont stick according to your own words. Your reputation wont be damaged… you will just be an idiot.
Tell you what thou, give me lots of money and we will still show the world that your an idiot, and i’ll give you … ummm… a bottle of soda.
*** Tell me again how this is not exploitation???***
It’s like saying that if you don’t admit that your an idiot, i’ll ruin your life because i have the means to do so. Infact, I have so much money and power… I can prove in court that your an idiot.
Dude… I think you are much ado about nothing.
February 4th, 2004 at 2:38 pm
Pot? Kettle? Dude, learn to spell.
And since you’ve asked so nicely, this is not exploitation.
February 4th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
>You are stupid.
>
>MS bought $150M of non-voting shares which they subsequently sold >soon afterward at a hefty profit.
>
>You are stupid.
Hee, Hee… That’s pretty funny.
February 4th, 2004 at 4:24 pm
ummmm… Ignorant poster alert!!!!!
February 4th, 2004 at 4:38 pm
Maybe you should what until your all grown up before you post messages to a discussion….
February 4th, 2004 at 4:42 pm
I have too much time on my hands also…
February 4th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
Deja Vu….
I think I’ve seen this eloquent piece of posting elsewhere in this thread. I guess when you have complete mastery of the English language there is no need to rewrite perfection, eh?
February 4th, 2004 at 4:55 pm
Ouch! That hurts…
February 4th, 2004 at 7:04 pm
Interesting how you feel these kids were “duped” into being labeled something that they’re not.
The text above the field in which I’m typing clearly states: “You are posting as Anonymous. Log in to post as yourself.” When I click Submit, my post will be from “Anonymous COWARD.” Does it say anything about superimposing the word “coward” on my reply? No. But you’re making a bigger inference by labeling someone’s character. Cowardice? You don’t even know me. The advertisement labels their actions, not their character.
Criminals? Yes. Accused? Yes. Busted? Undeniably. The kids represented broke the law. If I had been cuaght stealing music and was asked to participate, knowing they’d superimpose “Prosecuted” or “Busted” over my mug, I would have done it. No problem.
February 4th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
You dont need an iPod to play any of these songs - you can download iTunes for free! And the odds of winning are one in three. You can’t get too much better then than.
February 4th, 2004 at 8:16 pm
Awe… did I spell a word wrong? I guess my point is meaningless.
Sorry you can’t see past grammar for idea and concept. I’m guessing you didn’t do well in university, if indeed you went to university. I’m guessing third rate community college.
Most people who pick apart a post for spelling and semantics, do so to appear intelligent, disguise ignorance, naïveté, and general incomprehension.
However, we are not fooled by your paltry exertion of self gratification.
Nor will your unproductive attempt to discredit, effectuate the preposition of my previous post.
Put in terms that you, a layman, may understand;
mE thInKs U r a ediot. kont yer get ma meaning? Wasa matr wits you?
I bid you good day.
lol
February 4th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
I can see the point of the ‘Idiot’ post.
Posting this post as a response, is counterproductive, and perpetuating a ridiculous cycle… such as this post.
I suggest you look at your own maturity before attempting to participate in discussion.
Now look what you’ve done, we are both hypocrites.
February 4th, 2004 at 11:39 pm
By ‘persuaded’ you do mean given money in exchange for services? Getting paid to do something. I’m sure they were ‘persuaded’ into paying the RIAA off to avoid a legal battle that would be both costly and time consuming to their parents, but I’m not so sure that they were ‘persuaded’ into doing this comerical.
A Few other points: ‘AAC that only the iPod can play’ just flat out wrong, you can burn the music to CD and play it in your car, you can listen it on your computer or hook up your computer to a serero system and listen to it that way, and yes other MP3 players do play the AAC format. This is just more FUD from the MS backed mobile audio player market trying to force the WMA standard on everyone.
I do beleive that this is a Pepsi Co. promotoion. We’ve all seen Apple’s recent style in comercials, PowerBooks, iPod, etc.. This is clearly not an Apple produced comerical. They are paying Apple $0.99 for each song that is redeemed, not for each cap that is put out into circulation. I read that Pepsi only expects 20% - 30% of the caps to be redeemed. I’m not saying Apple isn’t a part of this promition, but if you must blame someone than lets put most of the blame where most of the blame is due. Pepsi.
Must go now, they’re ‘persuading’ me to go down to work now.
February 5th, 2004 at 8:24 am
I created this anti-RIAA Pepsi-Apple SuperBowl Ad parody re-mix called FIGHT
BACK! If you have any questions feel free to contact me. I’m a multimedia
graduate student at Southern Illinois University.
http://nmc.siu.edu/~pepsi/
Note: Looking for mirrors to my site!
February 5th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Nanny-nanny boo-boo to you too. You’re a such a genius–I may cry. To wit:
“if you don’t admit that your an idiot”
When you learn the difference between “your” and “you’re,” you might have the right to call someone else an idiot.
Until then, you’re just another fourteen-year-old with a bad attitude.
February 5th, 2004 at 7:05 pm
Amazing how quickly things can degenerate, isn’t it?
February 6th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
[aple is pretty well owned by MS now anyway, since Billy boy gave them a cash injection of $150 million a couple years ago.]
That same summer ‘Apple’ gave Samsung a cash injection of $200 million. For LCD monitor technology - Look it up.
Does that mean Apple ‘owns’ Samsung?
February 6th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
Ha ha ha…. oh man… my point in case.
Can’t grasp a concept… tsk tsk… you should try to educate yourself to a grade 3 level before you start flapp’n your lips.
February 7th, 2004 at 5:00 am
Last time I checked STEALING involved someone losing something. Noticed how that doesn’t happen when COPYING?
Why shouldn’t you STEAL a candybar? Because then the shoplifter will lose a candybar. Man, aren’t these things COMPLICATED?
Or perhaps it is bad because the shopowner can’t sell you one, because you already got one? Like it would be if you could COPY it.
The ONLY thing that the industry loses when someone copies music, is a POTENTIAL customer. How much music do you think these poor kids could afford today anyway?
Or wait, maybe the goal is to make sure people get as little music as possible, because it will matter BIG TIME if these kids who can’t afford music anyway downloads it or not. So let’s sue them out of their future. They’re thieves after all. Probably support the mafia too.
Yes, them thieving coppits. They will not have it. My preciouzzzzz
February 7th, 2004 at 5:13 am
“the shoplifter will lose a candybar” ROFLMBFAO!!!
maybe you meant “the shopowner”?? if you can’t type shut up f*cktard! you’re probably a thief yourself, they broke the law, didn’t you hear me?
The law you idiot, the thing bad people break!
—–
Now that I’ve expressed 60% of the expected replies, please come up with something worth posting.
Is it strange that they broke the law the riaa/mpaa lobbied into existens themselves? Ever considered whether laws can be wrong? Besides, noticed how these kids weren’t even tried in court? How they were bullied (who can afford such a lawsuit?) into settling?
Do you seriously believe artists (besides madonna/metallica) can make a living from the record companies? Well, think again. Check things up. You might be surprised.
February 9th, 2004 at 1:52 am
Plus, you can burn the iTunes downloads as MP3s, then transfer those to any MP3 player. No need for and iPod.
February 10th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Hmm… so the gist of this is that the RIAA makes $75Million from this. Pepsi makes money selling more sugar water to the masses. Apple makes money because they now sell even more iPods than ever before.
The children involved get a check for their involvement with the advertisement. Probably to offset legal costs and such. But it cannot be ignored that they are compensated. How well they are compensated is a matter of debate.
Now for the image of the children. How many people have seen Viagra commercials on tv? How about vaginal fungicidal creams? Do the people who act those roles get the stigma of having a vaginal infection or erectile dysfunction? Probably not. They are reckognized as actors.
The children were never convicted of anything. In so saying, there is NO LEGAL RECORD of their legal misconduct. Period. As far as the legal world and most people not in the know is concerned, this is a publicity thing and as far as anyone cares, those children could have been actors.
The fact is that the parents signed a waiver/release/contract. It isn’t like Pepsi and Apple went and forced them to sign anything. The RIAA might have and probably did, but the parents decided on it and the children played their roles in the commercial, got paid, and probably have a certain level of 15 minute fame to get them bit parts in another commercial/ad/modelling work.
The fact of the matter is that there will be nothing to haunt these children later in life because there is no documentable item that they have violated any laws. The parents’ records may be a different matter, but that’s them.
Whether there will be any lawsuits after this will be a matter of what the contract wording was. Ie, did they waive away their rights?
But that’s for a lawyer to decide.
Here’s food for thought:
If you are truly so concerned about their image, petition. Go write letters to your representatives. Go picket in front of the respective offices and headquarters of the businesses involved. Go boycott pepsi/riaa/apple products if you are so inclined. But before you do any of that, why not get in touch with the children involved in the ad and find out what their thoughts and opinions were? How about their parents’ opinions?
They might actually see this as a great end to a surprisingly bad situation.
February 21st, 2004 at 5:19 am
Never heard of them. Are they a REAL band?
February 21st, 2004 at 5:45 am
Think as I think or you’re a toad!
February 21st, 2004 at 5:46 am
Did you download it illegally? lol
February 21st, 2004 at 5:54 am
Doesn’t “criminal” mean that they have been found guilty in a court of law? And even though they may have paid to settle out of court, that doesn’t make them guilty. How many times have celebrities, such as Jackson, settled out of court, yet not ever been found to be guilty? Many times people find it easier to just pay someone off rather than take the time to sit through trials and pay lawyers. The fees that the kid’s parents paid was probably less than what the legal fees would have been if they’d fought in court.
April 16th, 2004 at 9:42 pm
I do feel that downloading songs free is illegal and what these kids and many many people around the world are doing is wrong.
I also feel that the record companies and musicians make huge profits(if they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to live the lifestyles they do).When you go to a store and see CDs being sold for $15-26 and pay $50-100 for concerts it’s easy to see why.I-tunes are only 99 cents but if you want to fill up your I-pods it adds up. I feel that we pay way too much for our music and it will continue to increase.
May 9th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
And thats 12 million dollars (100 million songs times $.12) plus the songs can only be played on an iPod, which costs about $300+. You do the math.
June 29th, 2004 at 6:00 pm
Hi,
I am trying to reach Jon Newton to let him know, the California District Attorney’s Association, now holding their annual conference, in Napa California, June 28 to July 2, has accepted money from the RIAA, to pay for the banquet dinner.
I tried the contact info but got a returned mail. Not sure how to contact him, somebody please help.
The web site is www.cdaa.org When you get the main page, click on 2004 conference, and then scroll to end of page.
Politician taking money from big industry is perfectly legal, but there is question of conflict of interest when prosecutors do it. Fortunately, if the word can be gotten out, it may disqualify those same DAs from prosecuting file sharers.
Obviously, you need a California lawyer to advise on this, but its’ something all those charged must be informed of.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Ok, well this doesnt have a huge amount to do with these kids, but the write protection of the music and being aac only read on an ipod bullshit, if you can plug the thing into a computer, you can stereo mix that music into a program like audacity, make sure your recording volume is alright and congratulations you’re the proud owner of said song……
And you wanna know something funny?
I myself am a musician, (not signed to a label) that promotes his music online. (no i wont advertise so dont stress) and you know what? all this just makes me sick, i earn roughly 20 - 30 cents of that .75 they would make and all this shit does is make me want to make music less and less, i would love people to download it, i dont know many people who download music and dont buy a cd anyway…… most actually want to know what it sounds like first, how many of you have bought a cd for upwards of 30 dollars and found out… “hey this is absolute crap”
To me this is just another sign that with the increasing strength of the “Digital Age” we are becoming “digitalis indefensis”
Soon enough the only music ill be hearing is that I make myself, music is something EVERYONE Should be able to hear anytime they like, download/ tape it onto a cassette/ whatever…..
I can understand reselling a product you haven’t paid for (and don’t have a business to sell it) as wrong, afterall people go to a hell of a lot of trouble (and money) to set up cd stores etc.
but these were kids we’re talking about? ok i know people are capable of anything, but at the age of 13 are you thinking “oh im gonna download 20gb of music and make a million” or are you thinking like a 13 year old?
my sister for instance, worries about school, friends, etc and so on.
grrrr i feel like im rambling (which i probably am) but this just…..
*breaks a few random useless objects*
Next you’ll be ID tagged, we won’t have money, you just work and swipe your arm at the counter, and get your “balance”
i.e 140 dollars shopping = 23.5 hours work
downloading music “illegally”, theyll pick up on your tag, and bill you 20,000 hours + community service And/or an ad campaign in which your made to look like a juvenile deluinqent pushing drugs on the streets to make a quick buck.
The world has gone to hell long ago, I just can’t believe people want to try and dig us all a deeper grave.
Give me my guitar anyday, at least it won’t sue me for “illegally writing riffs”
August 11th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Who says because I can get it for free that I would pay for it if there were no choice at all.
So then, how could they blame downloader’s for downloading pirated stuff if this were made the case? Saying that downloader’s (not uploader’s) can get fined or even jailed JUST FOR D/L the pirated file is utter BS…
That’s why it’s NOT done in masses, and most people are still not in jail for downloading.
Kids should basically be safe, but their not…Some aren’t, most are because they (MPAA/RIAA) know it’s not possible for them to go to court and say “BECAUSE this person downloaded this particular file, it has ended in a loss for such and such company” When in fact, those bastards don’t know for a fact that the downloader would’ve bought it if they had no means to get it for free. Which is why they want a new law!! Even when there’s no proof to govern it.
They say their losing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to people downloading, when actually, their biggest loss is because of the source pirate and not the downloader ^^.. Or the movie or song is just utter crap and will