p2pnet - rss feed: Behind the Pepsi-iTunes parody
James Saldana’s Pepsi-iTunes Super Bowl parody is showing up everywhere - with good reason.
It’s one of the most biting commentaries of the way in which Big Music, with the enthusiastic help of Pepsi and Apple, exploited and then pilloried a bunch of naive kids during this year’s Super Bowl.
Saldana is Southern Illinois University multimedia graduate student and student rights activist. And he’s been around.
“I make war and conflict documentaries, all on a Mac!,” he told p2pnet. “I’ve made films in Kosovo, Palestinian West Bank, and I was a embedded filmmaker in Iraq with the 3rd Armored Division. I’ve received a few awards, had a few national screenings and the Kosovo film was on PBS (local). I have a international screening in St Johns Canada this spring for Our Road to Kosovo.”
An ex-US Army drill sergeant and a peacekeeper with the 101st Airborne on the Egyptian / Israeli border he has a daughter of about the same age as the kids in the ad and, “It must have been a very degrading experience for them to be in that commercial,” he says. “But what choice did they have? It was a way for them to pay off those fines.
“Maybe the RIAA should charge fair prices for music, instead of fighting a losing battle by fining kids.
“I think people are ethically torn when it comes to the RIAA and p2p file sharing. Some people can justify it to themselves thinking, ‘I probably wouldn’t have bought that CD anyway, or I couldn’t afford it,’ so it’s no loss to the artist or the RIAA. Some other people are just thieves.”
“On the other hand, the public knows for a fact that the recording industry has cheated artists, such as minorities and others, since the beginning, which should make you cringe at the thought of supporting the RIAA. You only have to look at the prices of CDs vs DVDs to know something doesn’t make sense; a film like Star Wars certainly costs far more to make than Green Day’s latest recording. The thought of your hard earned dollars being used to bust seven-year-old kids and grandmothers probably makes you feel like an accomplice to a crime.
“And what about our right to ‘Fair Use?’ Sharing with family and friends IS still legal, or at least it use to be.
“The bottom line is that people feel attacked and that never goes over well. A lesson that I hope the MPAA learns, since they are next on the hit list.”
“I don’t try to convince my daughter, Theresa, of anything, I just give her both sides and let her decide for herself. I can’t live her life for her, kids have to learn to make decisions on there own and understand that they are responsible for their own actions.
“I started her on that track when she was around seven years old and I’m so proud of her now! She’s a Mac wiz and she’s already making films and providing tech support to her friends.
“Above anything, I think kids want to know that you love and respect them for who they are.
“I didn’t risk my life in the military to watch her rights get trampled on. Our government only seems to be concerned about protecting the right of the RIAA, but what about our right to ‘Fair Use?’
“I think iTunes is a leap in the right direction, as far as fair use is concerned. But CD pricing is still ridiculous (if you compare it to DVDs), and the majority of that 99 cents is going straight into the pockets of the RIAA, from what I’ve read. If iTunes can accomplish anything, it would be to circumvent the RIAA profit model / monopoly, by signing on independent labels and individuals artists and bands.
“I’m all for the artists getting paid, but they too can be a little greedy sometimes. Do they really deserve millions of dollars for a song, vs. hundreds of thousands of dollars? Maybe a few less dollars should go towards making millionaires, and a few more dollars should go towards kids in our schools and the homeless?
“I’ve always wanted to do something like this, but in the past the tools and technology weren’t available. Now with final Cut Pro and the Mac it’s possible! I wouldn’t have been able to make documentary filmst were it not for Apple and the Mac, so I’d feel bad if I did anything to hurt the iTunes - iPod revolution.
“But I’m just so disgusted with the tactics of the RIAA that I just couldn’t help myself.
“Another thing to think about - if it hadn’t been for all those illegal downloads and kids likes the ones in that commercial, the iTunes music store probably wouldn’t have been possible.
“The RIAA simply had no choice but to offer alternatives to CDs; because they are losing this battle.”
February 7th, 2004 at 6:53 pm
stealing is stealing right?
February 7th, 2004 at 9:36 pm
While I’m in general agreement with the sentiments expressed in this article, I think Saldana should have spoken to his daughter before making the comment: “It must have been a very degrading experience for them to be in that commercial…”
I just don’t think most teenagers would describe an opportunity to appear in a national TV ad during the Superbowl, in which they would be portrayed as rebel martyrs (for doing something 90% of their peers have done), as “degrading”. It’s not as if they were paraded past the camera in prison orange jumpsuits after all. I’m willing to bet most of them are perceived by their classmates and associates as being cooler for having done this.
February 7th, 2004 at 11:02 pm
a documentary film maker and mac user who is an vet and has better ethics than 99.9% of the world? where the hell did this guy come from?
there are still a few people around that make me think nuclear winter would be a bad thing after all.
February 9th, 2004 at 4:17 am
You’re nothing but thieves. You’re all going to jail. How I shall laugh when that happens.
February 9th, 2004 at 8:22 am
I disagree with some of your statements:
>>”It must have been a very degrading experience for them to be in that commercial,” he says. “But what choice did they have? It was a way for them to pay off those fines.
I doubt they were degraded and if they were you should be upset at their lame parents for humiliating their children for a couple of grand.
>>”Maybe the RIAA should charge fair prices for music, instead of fighting a losing battle by fining kids.
First, who are you to determine “fair prices”? Second it does not appear they are losing this battle. The lawsuits appear to be reducing the number of people downloading music illegally.
>>”You only have to look at the prices of CDs vs DVDs to know something doesn’t make sense; a film like Star Wars certainly costs far more to make than Green Day’s latest recording.
Music and movies make money in very different ways. Movies are made once, played a million times and make huge revenue before they ever head out to DVD or VHS. Once the main money is made, Video sales and rentals are just gravy! CD’s are the main source of revenue from music.
>>”And what about our right to ‘Fair Use?’
What “Right” exactly do you have to “fair use” and why is or should it be a “Right”. If I create something and you wanted to see, use or listen to it. Why shouldn’t I have the right to limit who you can share it with? This is not a “Right” like free speech, it is simply an interpretation of an agreement.
I’m not going to say that the big labels are not taking advantage of people, but that does not give anyone the right to steal. Protest….boycot…..whatever, but don’t steal.
With any luck, the success of iTMS will weaken the big labels and will force them to give more of the profits back to the artists. Eventually, this will lead to lower music prices and possibly even better selection.
We are on the right path. Now let fair competition do it’s thing!
February 12th, 2004 at 5:26 am
Only if it’s a physical object.
February 12th, 2004 at 5:37 am
How can you steal something when the owner still has the original item? Answer: you can’t.
February 15th, 2004 at 2:35 am
>> stealing is stealing right?
copyright infringement and theft are actually not the same thing. Look it up.
February 15th, 2004 at 2:37 am
copyright infringement is the word for it.
Not “theft”. You are falling for their propaganda.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:40 pm
Property is still property, even if it is intangible. Musicians own property in their songs, and sign a contract that gives the RIAA the right to sell that music. Even if it is unfair to the customer, it is still a contract, and it is still property. Therefore it will always be theft regardless of copyright. Look that up. Sincerly Paul.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:44 pm
Property is still property, even if it is intangible. Musicians own property in their songs, and sign a contract that gives the RIAA the right to sell that music. Even if it is unfair to the customer, it is still a contract, and it is still property. Therefore it will always be theft regardless of copyright. Look that up. Sincerly Paul.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
Property is still property, even if it is intangible. Musicians own property in their songs, and sign a contract that gives the RIAA the right to sell that music. Even if it is unfair to the customer, it is still a contract, and it is still property. Therefore it will always be theft regardless of copyright. Look that up. Sincerly Paul.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
Property is still property, even if it is intangible. Musicians own property in their songs, and sign a contract that gives the RIAA the right to sell that music. Even if it is unfair to the customer, it is still a contract, and it is still property. Therefore it will always be theft regardless of copyright. Look that up. Sincerly Paul.
February 18th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
SO when I buy a track from PRESSPLAY but I cant play it on my walkman because it’s an ARCHOS not an IPOD and I’m not allowed to make a CD of it, It makes me feel ike something has been taken from me.
February 18th, 2004 at 8:52 pm
And beig perceived by others as cool is really all that is important
February 19th, 2004 at 3:15 am
As user-unfriendly as some of the online pay distributors can be, they still have the right to dictate the terms of sale. If you don’t like it, you can use another service (or if you’re that passionate you can start your own). I recommend iTunes because it has less restrictions. In fact, I am planning on selling my own music on iTunes. In the sense that I am both the artist and the label, I expect that I will take a decent percent of the profits.
February 19th, 2004 at 3:16 am
yes
February 19th, 2004 at 3:29 am
Copyright infringement is a type of theft of intellectual property which involves violating the owners right to reproduce and redistribute the work in the manner that he/she sees fit and or passing off said work of the actual copyright owner to be yours. In the case of music sharing it involves the former. Regardless of what name you want to call free music sharing, who does it, or whether the “big corporations” are ripping consumers and artists off, it is still wrong in principle and still illegal.
Adam
February 21st, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Your right, ideas belong to the person who thought them up. If an idea can be stolen, so can a song. Copyright Law is only the law used to protect the music. Who ever wrote that someone was, “falling for their propaganda”, needs to take an ethics class, or buisness law class. Evryone else too, I mean that in a good way, everyone should have to take an ethics class, buisness law class, or both before even becoming an adult consumer.
July 6th, 2004 at 10:08 am
“ideas belong to the person who thought them up” - Yep. They sure do. And as soon as you share (remember that word?) your idea with someone else you lose all control of it.
July 6th, 2004 at 10:12 am
It’s not theft. Look up “fair use” laws. Look up “sharing”. And then come back with a competent argument.
July 6th, 2004 at 10:15 am
Next time try to make it worth my click.
And P.S.: get a life. Why would you laugh at people going to jail for sharing music? How pathetic.
July 6th, 2004 at 10:17 am
It’s not theft. Look up the “fair use” laws. Look up “sharing”. Then come back with a competent argument.
July 6th, 2004 at 10:19 am
Please do tell me how sharing is “wrong in principle”.
July 8th, 2004 at 4:26 am
Do what you want, the RIAA is picking it’s battle carefully, meaning you are more than likely to not be targeted.
May 29th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
ANd laws are still laws.. yeah. Even if those laws exist for the sole purpose of screwing over the artists and the consumer, for the benifit of the few wealthy and are pretty much paid for by what amounts to essentially as bribes? Sen Hatch and Leyhey, who are the two strongest supporters of the music lobby both recieved over $100,000 from the music industry. Look it up…
In the end, the government and the laws are supposed to be made to protect us. the DMCA, the extention of copyrights from 14 years to the life of the artist plus 70 years does nothing to proect the citizens of this coutry or promote society. They exist, so that the music industry adn try and control all the distribution channels.
May 29th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
“Now let fair competition do it’s thing!”
If you want fair competition, repeal the laws that shelter the RIAA and it’s ilk from competition. get rid of the laws that ensure they will own the music made from other people’s hard work long after the real artists are dead. laws are being bought and paid for that ensure protectionism for the industry… get rid of them, then start talking abotu “fair” competition.
“CD’s are the main source of revenue from music. ”
Artists make next to nothing from CD sales. SOme of them, end up losing money, because after having a hti album, thye owe more to the music industry then their royalties. That’s why half the artists could care less if you download their stuff. Some even encourage it. The artist make their money from tours and promotions.