Slashdot Mirror


Apple and Pepsi Ad Sports RIAA Targets

eefsee writes "USA Today is running a story about Pepsi's Superbowl ad for their iTunes promotion. The ad will apparently feature teens sued by the RIAA, including one young woman who holds out a Pepsi and says, 'We are still going to download music for free off the Internet.' The RIAA response? 'This ad shows how everything has changed.'"

683 comments

  1. The 12 Year Old... by inertia187 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a great lesson to teach. Download music, get caught, get famous in a Super Bowl ad. What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:The 12 Year Old... by gricholson75 · · Score: 5, Funny
      What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

      You live in the future, that must be cool.
    2. Re:The 12 Year Old... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, man, you'll be living there tomorrow.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make me whip out my Paul Davies.

    4. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

      A future (i hope) full of (civil-)disobedient citizens willing to break the law to assert their fair-use rights?

    5. Re:The 12 Year Old... by heychris · · Score: 5, Funny
      What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

      I'm not a /. subscriber, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is bleak and horrible. Not cool, you need to pay better attention.

    7. Re:The 12 Year Old... by CyberDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      ObFuturamaReference

      "Welcome to the world of tomorrow!!"

      CyberDave

    8. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, we certainly don't live in the past.

    9. Re:The 12 Year Old... by rascal1182 · · Score: 2

      ...and here comes the gratuitous SpongeBob reference:

      "Everything is chrome in the future!"

      Rob

      --

      "Yarrgh! I be just a paintin' of a head..."
    10. Re:The 12 Year Old... by sunya · · Score: 5, Funny

      I live in Australia. Its already tomorrow here...

      --
      MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
    11. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because you've been to moveon's website?

    12. Re:The 12 Year Old... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Welcome to the world of tomorrow!!"

      CyberDave

      "Holy Sh*t....!"

      SuperDave (Osbourne)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:The 12 Year Old... by cobe98 · · Score: 0

      Hello McFly...

    14. Re:The 12 Year Old... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Download music, get caught, get famous in a Super Bowl ad.

      Not just famous, get infamous!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    15. Re:The 12 Year Old... by trentblase · · Score: 5, Funny
      But when will then be now??

      Soon

    16. Re:The 12 Year Old... by theCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well that's sort of true...yet I think the lesson might also be that the RIAA is roadkill and the subject of public mockery. Sure Pepsi is milking this incident for their own profit, but that doesn't make RIAA less like roadkill. The Pepsi drinking crowd and the music sharing crowd are overlapping sets; Pepsi is saying "we are listening" and that counts for a lot when RIAA certainly are not listening. Has no practical impact on music sharing of course.

      --
      =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    17. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That often paraphrased quote attributed to Ben Franklin comes to mind. Something like Better to say nothing and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Before you all go looking for the quote there is like a thousand variations on it and I am just giving the general idea.

    18. Re:The 12 Year Old... by fiftyfly · · Score: 1
      I live in Australia. Its already tomorrow here...

      ...with beaches! OMG I want out of this icebound hell hole...

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    19. Re:The 12 Year Old... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      It just was. Weren't you paying attention?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    20. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Tinidril · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know I probably shouldn't be encouraging an off-topic post, but I hate to leave these cheap-shots unchallenged.

      I agree that deficit spending can be defined as "the current generation stealing from the next" I think it is ignorant to blame it on the Bush administration.

      Bill Clinton was fortunate enough to be in office during the dot-com boom that brought unprecedented growth to the US tax base. It was at that time when we should have gotten a balanced budget. If we can't pay off our deficits in a boom, then when can we?

      Clinton projected that the massive growth would continue indefinitely, and would balance the budget sometime in the next administration. Then when we went into recession (almost a year before Bush took office) the deficits came right back.

      The right way to manage deficits is to shrink them in boom cycles, and allow them to grow in down cycles. For this reason I applaud Clinton for raising taxes in the boom, and I applaud Bush for lowering them in the bust. The most important thing right now is to get the economy back on track.

      Bush has faced a lot of problems in his presidency that Clinton was fortunate enough to not have, and it is unfair to criticize him for not balancing the budget in a recession when Clinton couldn't do it in the midst of the dot-com bubble.

      I believe that the deficit is too big an issue to try and blame it on any one person or party.

      BTW: I didn't vote for Bush in the last election, and it is doubtful that I will vote for him in the next.

      --
      XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
    21. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retard, that's not Ben Franklin. It's a shame everyone tries to attribute every quote to him, like all he did was walk around spouting divine wisdom.

      Here's the full quote:
      "'Tis better to be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Samuel Johnson

    22. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! Someone find Earth: The Movie in the Mr. Rental!

    23. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it's because you're a right-wing, neo-con dittohead who thinks that anything that conflicts with the current party line is anti-American propaganda.

      Sieg heil!

    24. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you don't whip out your John Thomas, I think we'll all be fine

    25. Re:The 12 Year Old... by karit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well here in New Zealand we are 2 more hours into the futrue than you are :)

      --
      http://blog.karit.geek.nz/
    26. Re:The 12 Year Old... by memco · · Score: 5, Funny

      When?

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    27. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a great lesson to teach. Download music, get caught, get famous in a Super Bowl ad. What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

      I think Apple and Pepsi are trying to show what world we are about to live in if nothing is done, that a 12 year old can get their asses sued just for downloading a song on the Internet. Granted, sharing the song is a different story, but no one would ever get sued for copying a song on the radio, which is pretty much what this kid was doing. Oh wait, but thats right, MP3s are digital quality.... err but they aren't.. or are they?

      hrmm....

    28. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 4, Funny
      >> Well here in New Zealand we are 2 more hours into the futrue than you are :)

      So that's why I never get first post!

      Now where'd I put that tinfoil hat...

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    29. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Where's my flying car?

    30. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no parity between uploading and downloading;
      anyone who says different wants to convict you of something.


      But anyone who says so is probably a leech. ;-)

    31. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Dude, get your facts straight: It was at that time when we should have gotten a balanced budget.

      There was something better than a balanced budget back then, there was a SURPLUS.

      If we can't pay off our deficits in a boom, then when can we?

      You're confusing deficit with debt. In the simplest of terms, debt is what you owe. You run a deficit when you can't even pay off the interest on what you owe, so that you owe more and more each year. I'm Canadian, so I don't keep close attention to US statistics, but I recall Clinton having surpluses at least for most of his last years, and was at least matching the interest on debt. Even Bush had that luxery when he first started.

      The right way to manage deficits is to shrink them in boom cycles, and allow them to grow in down cycles

      Bullshit! The right way is to pay of DEBT in boom cycles, and at least make sure there is no defecit in all other cycles. In down cycles you borrow, but you don't borrow beyond your means. If the United States had a Master Card, it would be cut in half by now.

      Bush has faced a lot of problems in his presidency that Clinton was fortunate enough to not have, and it is unfair to criticize him for not balancing the budget in a recession when Clinton couldn't do it in the midst of the dot-com bubble.

      I won't argue that Clinton had it better than Bush, but Bush knew just as well as anyone else that the bubble had burst, and could have better managed the TRILLION DOLLAR surplus he had, rather than stuffing his fat friends pockets with your hard earned money.

      I believe that the deficit is too big an issue to try and blame it on any one person or party.

      Yup. But when I think of lack of fiscal responsibility, I think G E O R G E W. B U S H

    32. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone needs to review their subject/verb agreement in the Future Impossible Perfect tense!

    33. Re:The 12 Year Old... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least it's better than getting high, losing your paper on your PC, and becoming famous for switching to a mac.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    34. Re:The 12 Year Old... by b17bmbr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      very well said. however, as someone who did vote for bush (and will do so again only because he and lieberman are the only ones serious about national defense), he does need to take some of the deficit blame. no, there was not an X trillion dollar surplus. it was based on projections, etc. there was physical surplus. but...spending has gone up considerably during the bush years. and he signed the budgets. now the republicans are spending like drunken sailors, to quote john mccain, although i doubt the democrats would be spending less. under clinton, with divided government, we spent less. gee, i wonder why. you are accurate that we were in a slowdown through 2000, and the recession started in march 2001. hardly much bush coul ddo abot that. and, it has been overall a very shallow and mild recession. just that it kinda dragged. had 9/11 not happened, we'd be a year ahead on the recovery at least. as a point of correction, we actually did have balanced a few years under clinton. he fought them kicking and screaming, but the republican congress pulled him. damn, wish we'd still have a "republican" congress. as for jobs, i don't think presidents create or kill jobs. the economy is changing. transitional and structural unemployment is an economic fact. we need to address capital flight. but, both parties are will-less to do anything about it.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    35. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anonymous Coward's national defense plan:
      1. don't create power vacuums which may harbor terrorists in the future.
      2. Give our middle finger a rest and start cooperating with the UN and the world... and the American people for that matter.
      3. Do not go on long vacations and ignore terror-warnings from CIA and government officials.
      4. Reread anything containing the word "Geneva"
      5. Reword phrases like "Bring 'em on"
      6. Find a four star general (preferably a West Point graduate) that knows about defense yet is intelligent. If such a person exists.

    36. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put simply, the signature means, when you download from me, I am not also uploading your download to you. You taking from me and me giving to you may have the same material result for both parties, but they are not the same thing.

    37. Re:The 12 Year Old... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      is it going to rain? i left my umbrella at work :(

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    38. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terr'rists!!!

    39. Re:The 12 Year Old... by valmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually, John Kerry does seem serious about national security. i like his stance on Iraq.

    40. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got here late and missed now, so I must be in the future. Curiously, it looks the same as before, except for the giant hopping mice and the fact that everything is upside-down.

    41. Re:The 12 Year Old... by FredFnord · · Score: 1

      > 5. Reword phrases like "Bring 'em on"

      Somehow 'KILL LOTS MORE AMERICANS RIGHT NOW' doesn't have the same ring to it.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    42. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Robotdog · · Score: 0

      "i don't think presidents create or kill jobs" Can I hold you to those words if and when jobs are created? Because I can GUARANTEE that Bush would claim it as his doing.

    43. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it goes back to the bible originally. Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. It has been attributed to many people over time including Ben Franklin.

      Now who's the retard?

    44. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Tinidril · · Score: 1

      You definitly nailed me on one point. I was mindlessly using the word deficit when I should have been using the word debt. It wasn't a matter of being confused, just using the wrong word. You should have been listening to what I meant, not what I said! ;)

      As to the Clinton surpluses, they were only in the two peak years of the boom, and it was debatable that they even existed at all. I don't recall the details, but the bottom line was that the DEBT was larger each year then the last.

      As to your assertion that Bush had the luxury of a TRILLION DOLLAR surplus, that is just plain wrong. By the time Bush took office the country had been in a full recession for almost a year.

      Government deficit is expected and even good in a down market, in the same way that it is acceptible for a business to take on debt in order to finance new areas of growth. The problem comes in when the debt gets out of hand, or isn't paid down from the results of the investment. I disagree with you assertion that the US has borrowed beyond it's means, but I do agree that we are headed that direction.

      I think Bush's record on the environment and individual freedom is terrible, but I don't see that the national debt can be placed at his feet. He was handed an almost 6 trillian dollar debt, a country in recession, an under-funded military, and then 9/11.

      If you want to blame him for wasting money on the war in Iraq I could understand that, but that's a much bigger discussion. Those that supported the war will always say it was worth the cost, and those that didn't will always say it was a waste. Were already far enough off topic that I would rather not jump into that mess.

      --
      XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
    45. Re:The 12 Year Old... by ottawanker · · Score: 1

      Maybe Pepsi decided that they wanted to do something good for these poor poor people who were sued, and decided to create an ad and pay the actors however much money they lost to RIAA.

    46. Re:The 12 Year Old... by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

      At the anouncement at a CES for the rollout of DCC from Philips:

      Remember.... The future is where you will spend the rest of your life!

    47. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me give you a clue, skippy. You aren't always right. What you believe to be true is wrong. You think you're right, but you're not. I know you won't believe me. You are the type that knows everything. You know what is best for everyone. The people who you think are doing the right thing wouldn't lie to you. They are the good guys. They only do the right thing. Well, to paraphrase,"There is no black and white, only shades of grey.". I pity you.

    48. Re:The 12 Year Old... by b17bmbr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes. like quarterbacks, they get too much credit when they win, too much blame when they lose. reagan never took credit for the jobs created. he always credited the american people. it is the nature of politicians to take credit for the sun rising in the morning, and blaming their opponents for the night. business cycles happen, snowstorms happen, nothing government does or doesn't do is going to change any of that.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    49. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "We're living in the future, I'll tell you how I know --
      I read it in the paper, fifteen years ago!"
      -- John Prine

      "The future is much like the present, only longer."
      -- KC pitcher Dan Quisenberry

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    50. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed it.

    51. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well here in New Zealand we are 2 more hours into the futrue than you are :)

      And two decades behind! 8-)

    52. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 1

      "What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one yesterday!"

      (Bill Murray, Groundhog Day

    53. Re:The 12 Year Old... by mrogers · · Score: 1

      In the future, the stupidest movie ever made will be Dude, Where's My Flying Car?.

    54. Re:The 12 Year Old... by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      > we certainly don't live in the past

      That's right. The RIAA are the ones who live in the past.

    55. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet think that Chicken of the Sea is made from chicken and then become their spokeswoman for the product. (Jessica Simpson) All you have to do is watch TV to realize that being a moron is a celebrated quality in America.

    56. Re:The 12 Year Old... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Sure. They make lots of guys Supreme Allied Commander who don't know anything about defense. Clearly the only candidates who are serious about defense conveniently managed to avoid going to Vietnam.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    57. Re:The 12 Year Old... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! The right way is to pay of DEBT in boom cycles, and at least make sure there is no defecit in all other cycles. In down cycles you borrow, but you don't borrow beyond your means. If the United States had a Master Card, it would be cut in half by now.

      And what would happen if we demanded all money paid to us from all companies that owe it? Or stopped giving money away to other countries?

      Not that I don't agree our debt and defecit is out of control thanks to the republicrats, but honestly... it's not because we are a "bad" country.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    58. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They make lots of guys Supreme Allied Commander who don't know anything about defense.

      As Clark proves, they've screwed up on that at least once; there's a reason he was fired after starting a small diplomatic incident with the UK over Pristina (ordering the UK troops to attack the Russian troops, then threatening Gen. Jackson (UK) when he refused). OTOH, there was probably a reason he was passed over for that fourth star initially, too...

      Clearly the only candidates who are serious about defense conveniently managed to avoid going to Vietnam.

      Did you volunteer to go, since you seem to think it's such a bright idea?

    59. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was Samuel L. Jackson who is most known for the quote:

      "What the fuck did you just say? Open up your GOD DAMN mouth, motherfucker! Go ahead, OPEN your god damn motherfuckin mouth. That's right, open it up and let EVERYBODY in here know what a motherfucking fool you are." -- Samuel L. Jackson

    60. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the United States had a Master Card, it would be cut in half by now."

      If Canada had a Master Card, it would have a $250 limit and a hockey graphic on it. :P

    61. Re:The 12 Year Old... by ratzkeller · · Score: 1

      As an college instructor for a webstreaming class, I'm thinking that the feds and watchdogs may also pull the plug on this one.

    62. Re:The 12 Year Old... by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Pull the plug on the Super Bowl? One can only dream.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  2. COOL by mpost4 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I just might watch the supper bawl for that. I just might have to get an apple air port to connect to my churches network during the game. I do lilke the apple itunes store I have spend a bit there, and even though I don't like Pepsi much I think I might be drinking a lot of it for a while. And I think that ad might be a good one it does make fun for what problems are going on now, aka the riaa just being stupid and suing any one.

    1. Re:COOL by tackaberry · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll probably be able to watch it on Apple's website the following day

      My body will have to adjust to getting 4x the amount of caffeine it is used to during the next couple of months.

    2. Re:COOL by jpsst34 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mr. O'Connor, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      --
      How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    3. Re:COOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay off the drugs son.

    4. Re:COOL by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 3, Funny

      A simple no would have sufficed...

    5. Re:COOL by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Exact opposite for me. I'll have to get used to Pepsi where there would usually be Jolt or Bawls. Luckily, I have a fresh caffeine candy supply from thinkgeek.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    6. Re:COOL by Mmm_Coco · · Score: 1

      don't you people realise that the Pepsi costs more than the music does?? Don't just drink the Pepsi to get the "free" songs.

  3. Good. by Cleon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corporate forces taking aim at the RIAA shows that the RIAA's business model is failing, and no amount of lawsuits, subpoenas, and para-military crap is going to stop it.

    Either the RIAA can join in and make money, or they can sit back and hopelessly try to defend an oppressive business model that has been rendered technologically obsolete.

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
    1. Re:Good. by Chibi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Either the RIAA can join in and make money, or they can sit back and hopelessly try to defend an oppressive business model that has been rendered technologically obsolete.


      Um, isn't the RIAA already involved? From what I remember, they get a pretty large chunk out of that $.99 paid to the iTunes music store. Looks like they are doing both at the moment...

      --
      If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
    2. Re:Good. by webslacker · · Score: 3, Informative

      iTunes Music Store only helps the RIAA.

      RIAA gets a cut of almost every song sold on iTMS, just like when you buy most CD's.

    3. Re:Good. by Iaughter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't find the story now, but a month ago or so, I read that Apple is barely meeting cost with the $99 cent download. They're trying to make it up with $300 iPods.

    4. Re:Good. by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate forces taking aim at the RIAA shows that the RIAA's business model is failing

      Theres two problems here :

      First of all, the slashdot blurb doent make it clear, as the article does, that Pepsi is paying to give away 100 million free song downloads on the iTunes website (presumably with the purchase of a Pepsi product). Thats the nature of the "we will still download for free comment", which has nothing to do with subverting copyright law. Its a really great marketing scheme which doesnt really do anything at all except play on your wants and fears, having you make assumptions about the current state of the music industry and Pepsi's stance on it. Scroll up a bit and you'll find a guy professing to buy Pepsi from now on, even though he doesnt really like it.

      Secondly, even if there was a mega-corporation taking aim at the RIAA, it wouldnt prove that the business model is failing. This was proven long ago when the RIAA sued a 12 year old for downloading the theme song to Full House (among other songs). It has been proved repeatedly over and over again since then, most notably with the introduction of iTunes - a new business model. If cant be sure yourself, and you need Pepsi to validate this for you... well I dont know what to tell you.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
    5. Re:Good. by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Insightful
      iTunes Music Store only helps the RIAA.

      RIAA gets a cut of almost every song sold on iTMS, just like when you buy most CD's.

      Once again: RIAA members are like banks. They've loaned large amounts of money to bands for the purpose of recording, buying equipment, eating, etc. in exchange for distribution rights to the songs produced.

      The money may "go to the RIAA", but in reality it's going to pay off the debts incurred by the bands.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    6. Re:Good. by illcare · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't understand how you think corporate forces are targeting the RIAA.

      The ad encourages the use of legal medium(iTunes and others) to download music, while it shows that the kids sued by the RIAA learnt their lesson.

      ilker

    7. Re:Good. by somethinghollow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a quick search says that on a sale of a CD, the artist gets about 8 cents.

      from the 99 cent iTunes download they get about 11 cents per song.

      Apple gets about 35 cents per song.

      In both cases, the RIAA/Record companies get the rest.

      So, if I buy 10 tracks from an album, the artist gets about $1.10, as oppsed to 8 cents.

      Support iTunes because it gives back to the artists. Don't not support it because it puts money in the RIAA's pocket. Even CD-Rs (so called music cd-r) get "Taxed" by the RIAA. You have to pay the RIAA to do anything with RIAA music. The best we can do is pay less for the music and give the artists a bigger cut. iTunes seems to be doing this, so it is a Good Thing in my book. At the very least, it is a step in the right direction.

    8. Re:Good. by Cleon · · Score: 1

      Very true. My bad.

      --
      Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
    9. Re:Good. by cens0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      where did this quick search come from? I've always been given the figure about $1 an album (once the label recoups).

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    10. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Once again: RIAA members are like banks. They've loaned large amounts of money to bands for the purpose of recording, buying equipment, eating, etc. in exchange for distribution rights to the songs produced.

      You forgot the part where the bands have to pay back the RIAA members that loaned them the money.

      So consumers pay and the bands pay back the RIAA members, so RIAA gets paid both ways.

    11. Re:Good. by Tom7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It helps them in the short term, but when some day most music is sold on-line, people will start to realize their irrelevance. For instance, if an extablished artist can make a direct deal with Apple to put their music on ITMS, what does the RIAA even offer them?

    12. Re:Good. by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, dummy, for those of us independent artists who sell on iTunes (over 6,000 artists, including my band, Crooked Crow), we get roughly 60 of each 99 cents. Apple takes a cut, and then our distributor takes a small cut.

      Try doing a little research before you just blithely talk out your ass about something you know nothing....oh, wait. Riiiiight. This is slashdot.

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the good part is?

    14. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apple gets about 35 cents per song.

      Pointer please? There was a story on /. about a month ago claiming that Apple make almost nothing on iTunes downloads.

      Almost nothing or 35 cents per song (about a 35% profit). Which is it?

    15. Re:Good. by myc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or you could support independent artists.

      --
      NO CARRIER
    16. Re:Good. by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      >RIAA members are like banks

      What a nasty thing to say about banks.

      P.S. Conning people out of their life's work is not "loaning" them anything.

    17. Re:Good. by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      It's usually $.08 - $.12 per song on the album.

    18. Re:Good. by Wehesheit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Independant artists deserve support of course but mainstream != bad.

      It'd be foolish to ignore music you like just because some asshole company has a stranglehold on the artist.

      --
      This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
    19. Re:Good. by Apiakun · · Score: 1

      Revenue and Profit are two different things. They may get a lot of money, but they don't get to keep it when they have to do things like buy massive amounts of storage space, encode CDs, etc.

    20. Re:Good. by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is the article I was looking at. It was a quick search as I said. It could be invalid, but it supports the claims made on /.

      You can get income and still be in the hole. Profit happens when you make more than you sped. Apple is making money, but maybe be spending more than they make, which equals a loss.

    21. Re:Good. by ShawnDoc · · Score: 1

      No. The $1 is gross to the musicians. Then they have to pay for everything.

    22. Re:Good. by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is the site I was looking at. Like I said, it was a quick search, so the source might be completely wrong. I'm at work, so I can't delve into it for a few hours.

    23. Re:Good. by mozumder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, the "artists" are actually products of RIAA. They exist BECAUSE of the RIAA. Thus, the RIAA SHOULD be getting the money.

      Remember, the artists could just have well not signed up to be in the RIAA, and remain independent. Instead, they "sold out".

      There really is no reason to join the RIAA. You could have easily produced your art without them, and remain independent. If you wanna be rich as an artist, make the money yourself, and do your own promotions. If someone else is going to be doing all the promotions for you, then they rightfully deserve the resulting money for their work.

    24. Re:Good. by KFury · · Score: 1, Insightful

      a quick search says that on a sale of a CD, the artist gets about 8 cents.

      from the 99 cent iTunes download they get about 11 cents per song.

      Apple gets about 35 cents per song.

      In both cases, the RIAA/Record companies get the rest.


      First off, record labels and the RIAA aren't the same thing. Record labels choose to support the RIAA. It's not like the RIAA has a tap into a percentage of each album or song sold.

      Second, in these meticulous calculations, where do record stores come in? Manufacturing costs? Advertising?

      That said, I''m strongly opposed to the RIAA and most record labels, but pushing around naive napkin calculations as fact hurts your viewpoints more than it helps.

    25. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $.35/song *before* expenses, you retarded jizzmop.

    26. Re:Good. by cens0r · · Score: 1

      I would hardly call that evidence, it sounded more like an exageration for effect.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    27. Re:Good. by cens0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is what I said. They get $1 per album, after the label recoup's the cost. How much they have to recoup is up to the deal they signed in the first place. If you're a fairly independent band and know how to record your own music, you can deliver masters to the label and the label has almost nothing to recoup.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    28. Re:Good. by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      The money may "go to the RIAA", but in reality it's going to pay off the debts incurred by the bands.

      That's what they get for over-hyping them.

      Here's hoping the "new" business model won't include encouraging the superhyping of a few bands over all others in order to capitalize on economies of scale.

    29. Re:Good. by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even CD-Rs (so called music cd-r) get "Taxed" by the RIAA.

      If this is true, then haven't I already paid for the right to copy RIAA music?

    30. Re:Good. by worst_name_ever · · Score: 4, Funny
      Apple is making money, but maybe be spending more than they make, which equals a loss.

      Well, at least until they get to Step 3, anyway.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    31. Re:Good. by tbone1 · · Score: 3, Funny
      P.S. Conning people out of their life's work is not "loaning" them anything.

      Right, it's "the Internal Revenue Service".

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    32. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


      Actually, dummy,

      No matter how right you are, this is no way to begin a reply to anything. It's the end of the day on Friday, I'm just as crabby as you, but unless you're one of the panelists on "Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn", name calling is not cool.

      ~jeff

    33. Re:Good. by olorinpc · · Score: 1

      "Even CD-Rs (so called music cd-r) get "Taxed" by the RIAA"
      Do you even know what CD-R's are? Its recordable media. My buying a spindle of these for any use... whether its to burn music cds, data, cds or any type really - has nothing to do with the riaa.

    34. Re:Good. by entrager · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA as much as the next geek, but I think I should point out that the RIAA does provide a service to the artist. They provide a studio to record in, producers to ensure quality (debatable, I know), and marketing. The key being marketing. I challenge someone to name one band that has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

    35. Re:Good. by The+Phantom+Buffalo · · Score: 1

      This is just an ad campaign. Try not to make it out to be more than it is.

    36. Re:Good. by djtripp · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I understand, the "Music" CD-Rs aren't that much more special than regular CR-Rs, the RIAA was able to put that blank tape tax on them to get more revenue. A marketing ploy, which worked to some extent.

      --
      "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
    37. Re:Good. by ahdeoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The FCC would have something to say if you tried promoting your music on the radio without permission of the RIAA. That's right, you cannot be played legally on the radio. Also, there are very few (none that I know of) commercial outlets that sell music in any volume without specific authorization from the RIAA. It's a racket. As in protection. This is the type of thing RICO was meant to stop. Sure you can tour (just not sell tickets through any major vendor), but you can't get any big venue. As if you'd need one, remember you're trying to promote your music, you're not popular yet.

    38. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best we can do is pay less for the music and give the artists a bigger cut. iTunes seems to be doing this, so it is a Good Thing in my book. At the very least, it is a step in the right direction.

      I thought the idea that sharing mp3s reduces CD sales has been shown to be false, a lie from the RIAA define to chip away at fair use rights, including the right to share. How is it legitimized by this new system that overcharges for inferior copies (and STILL does not respect fair use rights)?

      Or is this just about a less painful way to bend over for the recording industry?

    39. Re:Good. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Except the IRS uses guns to take peoples money. Nobody is being forced to buy RIAA tripe.

      --
      What?
    40. Re:Good. by SnowDeath · · Score: 1

      You are almost correct, they are like banks but they are *more* like loan sharks and money racketeers.

    41. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I challenge someone to name one band that
      > has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

      Phish

    42. Re:Good. by colanut · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Um, isn't the RIAA already involved?
      Only if you buy from lables that are a part of the RIAA. If you even did a little research you would find a lot of great bands and lables that are not part of the RIAA on iTMS. From my small part of the world: Sub Pop, Ninja Tune, Eighteenth Street Lounge, Matador, Kill Rock Stars, That Ann DiFranco lable (can't think of it now) and many more. What was your problem again?
    43. Re:Good. by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's how I've always felt about it. If I'm going to be punished for a crime I haven't yet committed, then it only makes sense to go ahead and commit it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    44. Re:Good. by Tom7 · · Score: 4, Informative


      The RIAA is a trade organization, not a record label. They do not provide studios or producers. Record labels do those things, and I might also argue for their irrelevance--but not as soon as the RIAA.

      The reason why I said established artist is that the marketing (which to a large degree is really just distribution to record stores and radio play) aspect is actually hard for a band to do on its own. I think that pull-based collaborative filtering like audioscrobbler or even garageband.com can work to obsolete push-based recommendations like clear channel, and I think the resulting system would be better for both artists and listeners.

      I challenge someone to name one band that has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

      Both of Liz Phair's albums on Matador went gold, and Matador is an independent label that's not a member of the RIAA.

    45. Re:Good. by FrzrBrn · · Score: 1

      ...I think I should point out that the RIAA does provide a service to the artist.
      The RIAA actually provides a service to the record labels. The labels provide services to the artists. In and of itself, the RIAA doesn't actually do anything for the artists, directly.

      --
      I read it on the Internet, it must be true!
    46. Re:Good. by Anixamander · · Score: 1

      This doesn't exactly fit your criteria (as they were no doubt an RIAA member band) but at least as of last year the Violent Femmes self-titled release was the only album to ever go platinum (or was it double platinum) without ever cracking the Billboard Top 100.

      This just furthers your point...without marketing you don't get radio spins, without spins you don't sell albums. They were an exception to the rule.

      That album, by the way, is still one of the best ever. I think it may still be required listening for incoming college freshman.

      --
      Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
    47. Re:Good. by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      well, part of the problem is that I've never heard of any of those bands.

    48. Re:Good. by entrager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but without the labels conspiring, the RIAA wouldn't exist.

    49. Re:Good. by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      An AC suggests,


      > I challenge someone to name one band that
      has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

      Phish


      Phish is on fuckin' Elektra, dude.

    50. Re:Good. by CaptIronfist · · Score: 1

      Forgive my ignorance, but i'd like to get some things clear here. If you sell on the iTunes store, why do you need another distributor at all ? For selling CDs perhaps, but is he getting a cut on a song that is exclusively sold on iTunes ? Are the songs exclusively sold on iTunes ?

      If your "distributor" as you call him is a known label, then there's a good chance the parent post was right on the money. I don't see how exactly you can dismiss this by claiming that your distributor only gets a small cut. I'm pretty sure lots of people have lots of question about the content of your contract with your "distributor" and "iTunes", but i don't think you'll do us the honor of explaining in more details how is it that the RIAA doesn't get a cut off your sales because your "distributor" only gets a small cut. ( Makes no mofo... sense to me. )

      So until then, i'll interpret your post as ... not very informative.

    51. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, dummy, for those of us independent artists
      Actually, dummy, the conversation into which you butted was regarding RIAA-sponsored artists.

      That said, I support independent artists and I'm glad you're doing your thing without "help" from the RIAA.
    52. Re:Good. by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is a good analogy. Banks make thier money like the RIAA. They con some farmer into thinking that increase supply will not affect the price of a commodity, and therefore the farmer will have 100% of profits based on the current price to pay off loans for new equipment.

      In both cases, the profits tend to be insufficient to pay off a loan.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    53. Re:Good. by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Banks are heavily regulated to reduce collusion and monopolistic practices. I think the RIAA is free of such regulation, so all members tend to have similar 'deals' for artists.

      The analogy can be taken further by noticing the internet-based competition to both industries. Magnatune and Ditech are notable examples of each.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    54. Re:Good. by Aldric · · Score: 1

      Nobody is being forced to buy RIAA tripe... yet.

    55. Re:Good. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems to me Apple just launched a addition to iLife called GarageBand that basically allows anyone with a Mac to make music on their own without resorting to any commercial audio equipment, studio, etc....and without the need of a engineer. Apple is subtly playing an end-run around the whole music paradigm. Think about it: To play it: iPod and iTunes, to get it: ITMS, to make it: GarageBand.... Pretty soon Grammys will be hosted in Cupertino...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    56. Re:Good. by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      True, although the RIAA did send goon squads around to various stores to confiscate pirated CDs. I hope the police take a dim view of the impostors.

    57. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crooked Crow, huh? Scratch that off my list of indie artists to check out. Maybe you should get some manners... oh, wait. Riiiight. You're trying to become a music artist. They don't have manners.

    58. Re:Good. by nicholasbs · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there's no step three. There's no step three!

      /Jeff Goldblum

    59. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, riiiiiiight. Sure. Is that what the Record Company Lawyer told you?

    60. Re:Good. by desideria · · Score: 1

      From the article: "This ad shows how everything has changed,' says Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman. 'Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America.'"

      The RIAA has joined in, and happily it seems.

    61. Re:Good. by ElleyKitten · · Score: 0, Informative

      Actually, Ani Difranco's label (Rightous Babe Records) is unfortunetly part of the RIAA.

      Check out RIAA Radar

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    62. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they're not bands, they're recording labels.

    63. Re:Good. by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FCC would have something to say if you tried promoting your music on the radio without permission of the RIAA. That's right, you cannot be played legally on the radio.

      Not true. Plenty of non-RIAA bands get radio airplay. Lately, I hear Death Cab For Cutie so often I'm getting bored of them.

      Also, there are very few (none that I know of) commercial outlets that sell music in any volume without specific authorization from the RIAA.

      Really? Then where the hell are people buying all those copies of Warren Zevon's album "The Wind", which is on Artemis (a non-RIAA label)?
      .

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    64. Re:Good. by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may have not heard of Sub Pop, but I'll bet you've heard of Nirvana, and Sub Pop was their first record label.

    65. Re:Good. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      The parent post did not say that. Also, the parent post was kind of dumb :-) Still, manners are nice.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    66. Re:Good. by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      It has to do that RIAA worked out royalty system for CD-Rs "designated" for music.

      Don't flaim unless you know your facts. ass.

    67. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You forgot the part where the bands have to pay back the RIAA members that loaned them the money.

      Why is unreasonable that they be paid back? Isn't that part of the deal? And since not every band makes the money back, you have to pay back with interest. Just like any other loan in the world. Try going to a bank and saying "We're a garage band, we'd like you to lend us some money to make an album." Let me know when they stop laughing.

    68. Re:Good. by worm+eater · · Score: 3, Informative

      You put forward a lot of questions here... but I'll try my best to address them...

      1. iTunes does not deal with artists directly, therefore if you sell through the iTunes store you need a label.

      2. However, this label does NOT need to be a member of the RIAA. Independent labels/distributers (e.g. CD Baby) have deals with iTunes and the other online music stores.

      3. Some of these distributors have the same contract with every artist and sell through a variety of channels (mail order, iTMS, Napster, MusicMatch, etc.). For instance, CD Baby has this deal where the artist gets 91% of the money the music store pays out.

      SO, it is very possible to have a distributor that has no relationship with the RIAA, but does have a relationship with ALL the major online music stores.

      Now, say what you will about Apple, they definitely have faults, but I certainly applaud Steve & Co. for coming up with this model and making sure that the indie record labels and distributors can strike deals with the exact same terms as the RIAA.

      Although I have much more respect for the guy who runs CD Baby.

      --
      Maybe partying will help...
    69. Re:Good. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      radio promotion is rather tightly controlled by entities who are NOT record labels. labels pay promoters to ship stuff to radio stations. i'm sure there are many radio stations that don't play anything except the commercial crap that gets sent to them, but there are quite a few folks that i know who have made their own music, sent demos into commercial radio station, and gotten airtime.

    70. Re:Good. by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1

      18th Street Lounge rocks!!!
      Spent New Year's there this year. Excellent music.
      Ninja Tune is another personal fave.

      All the better that these labels are not under the RIAA umbrella. I now direct hordes of geeks who want to have something to talk to girls about, go get a couple of Thievery Corporation albums (18th St. Lounge) and some Ninja Tunes samplers.

      You can always talk about music ;-)

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    71. Re:Good. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      the CD-Rs you can buy that are labeled as "music" cd-rs are the only Cd-Rs that will work in standalone CD recorders. These cost more because of that tax.

    72. Re:Good. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      bullshit.

      if you record an album in garageband with crappy $5 microphones and all sorts of cheap-ass gear, it's going to sound like ass.

      i like apple but you're giving waaaaaaaaay too much credit.

    73. Re:Good. by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Except if an artiest tries to actually go to a bank and start recording that way, they will be pretty much shut out of everything.

    74. Re:Good. by minusthink · · Score: 1

      how is that a problem?

      --
      "when life gets complicated, I like to take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner" - Hobbes.
    75. Re:Good. by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You hit the nail right on the head, there, worm eater.

      CDBaby actually *is* our distributor. Through them, our CDs are available via iTunes and pretty much all the other digital music stores, as well as Tower Records and the CDBaby site itself.

      Derek at CDBaby is a brilliant, brilliant man, and I have nothing but respect for him, and his whole company.

      They take only a very, very tiny cut of sales revenue (like 6 cents or something), leaving us the majority of the sale.

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    76. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Noo...

      They get $1 per album. THEN the label recoups.

      And the labels ALWAYS recoup. They recoup advertising, 'experimental media' costs (CDs are still experimental, didja know that?), tour costs, and really whatever else they feel like.

      Oh, and that $1 per album? That's for relatively well established artists. For less established artists, drop that figure a bit.

    77. Re:Good. by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      Ri-ight...

      So they give this "loan" to the artists for recording, buying equipment, eating, etc. And, presumably, when this finite amount of money which IS compounding interest is finally paid off the artists will begin to recieve a significant cut right?

      Do you understand the nature of this "loan?" Do you know what else this money covers? Let me tell you, it also covers advertising. Do the artists have control over this advertising, how much of it is done, who it's advertised to, where it's advertised at? No, of course not. So, as the band gets more popular the label takes more money to get their faces plastered everywhere and the band loses that cash too...

      To actually make a fair amount of cash in an RIAA label you have to be so freaggin popular that the rate at which you acquire money must be faster than a multi-million dollar conglomerate can spend it.

      Let's not fool ourselves into believing the artists deserve this punishment incurred by their "debt."

    78. Re:Good. by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 1

      Yeah...I've obviously been watching too much tough crowd, Jeff. I spent the last several hours beating my head against a server that for no obvious reason refuses to boot. When frustration levels are that high, probably not a good idea to post on slashdot!

      Sorry about that.
      --J

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    79. Re:Good. by zenthax · · Score: 1

      hmm...banks..i dont think so, more like loan sharks for musicians.

    80. Re:Good. by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Actually, dummy

      I was given $25 to spend at iTunes. Crooked Crow? Not getting my money now. (If you apologize to the parent, then I'll listen to the preview and consider dl'ing it for it's merit.)

    81. Re:Good. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Wow record stores don't get anything then?

      They are very charitable folks, I'm glad to have one in my town.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    82. Re:Good. by colanut · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the site:
      (12/17/03) Righteous Babe Records has been taken off the Radar! Yes, yet another label is incorrectly part of the "official RIAA members" list. This brings the total to nine, and I'm sure there are more. All I need is proof from the label, so you might want to check with your favorite record label!
      The idea that Righteous Babe is a RIAA member was beyond laughable.
    83. Re:Good. by CaptIronfist · · Score: 1

      That pretty much answers everything i needed to get a clear picture. So the right reply from Dwarfgoat should have been:

      "I sell song on the iTunes store and my distributor isn't a member of the RIAA and therefor i do not indirectly pay those bastards."

      Thanks ;-)

    84. Re:Good. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      God, I hate that show. It has the most idiotic, forced dialog I've ever seen.

    85. Re:Good. by Selecter · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah? Sounds like ass, eh? Have you even used it yet?

      It's limited in some ways but by no manner does it sound like crap. You havent used it, ot you would'nt have made that statement.

      The guy that came up with that Howard Dean 15 second song with the yyeeeeaargghhh scream in it used GarageBand to make it. It's on his blog - it took him 15 minutes to come up with it, and it's been played on every radio station in the US by now. He got his 15 minutes of fame.....

      Sounded good enough for CBS, NBC, FOX, and every radio comedy show in the US to use it. And now everybody knows it how it happened, and that *anyone* can do it. That's powerful shit.You wanna explain how GarageBand sounds like shit to me again?

    86. Re:Good. by dont_think_twice · · Score: 1

      This was proven long ago when the RIAA sued a 12 year old for downloading the theme song to Full House

      You can sue people have having bad taste in music now?

    87. Re:Good. by djandrock · · Score: 1

      I challenge someone to name one band that has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

      Nirvana - Nevermind on Sub Pop

    88. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC's point was that the money collected from lawsuits does not go towards "paying off the debts incurred by the bands" as the original poster said. The bands have to pay back the RIAA regardless of if they make any money or not. If they make enough money they pay back the RIAA with interest. If they don't make enough money their declare bankruptcy and live in poverty for the rest of their lives, because they still have to pay back the money. He never said it is unreasonable for the RIAA to be paid back. But if I lend you $50, should you, your brother, your sister, your nextdoor neighbour and your ex girlfriend all have to pay me $50? I didn't see any objection to the RIAA being paid back their loans. Stop making stuff up.

    89. Re:Good. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I challenge someone to name one band that has gone gold without an RIAA marketing push.

      You probably don't need to take an album gold, as long as you have capital and are making a good chunk of the profit (i.e. online retailing), to do well on the music alone.

      The current online distributor going rate for music seems to be in the neighborhood of $1 a song, based on the three or so distributors that Slashdot's linked to recently. If an artist makes, say, 50 cents from each song, and sells only 100,000 online copies, and the album has ten songs, that's half a million dollars. If a group has five people, that's $100,000 a person.

      That assumes that these people have access to an environment that they can record in. I have a friend who built a home recording studio for the heck of it -- it isn't that hard. It also doesn't pay for marketing.

    90. Re:Good. by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 1

      Yeah...I actually replied to the wrong post anyway. I meant to say that to they guy who said the RIAA takes most of the iTunes sale, and the artist gets "sloppy 3rds."

      That's what I get for cruising slashdot in a cranky mood when I'm tired. I should know better than that!

      Who's the dummy now? Yep...I guess it's me. :) Sorry about that, everyone.

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    91. Re:Good. by letdownjournals · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or you could support independent artists.

      Or I can listen to what I like, and not base my music tastes on sticking it to the RIAA...

    92. Re:Good. by extra+the+woos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      heh, please do not compare the RIAA to my banks...when I walk into one of my banks, I'm greated by friendly employees who are there to help me get the best deal, they aren't trying to rip me off. Do they make money off me? Sure, but they are providing a valuable service, and I was even able to get a loan from them (high interest, but not ridiculous, something like 10%) even though I DONT HAVE A JOB. At my other bank, I got a call from them one morning, saying I had over-drawn my account. They went ahead and PAID THE CHECK that i'd written, and no the money didn't come out of another account, it came out of the banks pocket, they told me I could come and pay them back as soon as I could, but they'd done this as a convenience for me because I'd been a member for a long time and it was just a mistake. If banks were like the RIAA then I'd hafta pay them for the convenience and safety of storing my money in an account, they would insist that all my money go into their bank account, and I would hafta have an "exclusive contract" to only bank with them I couldn't shop arround for someone who would have better rates, etc...

      Oh, and can you imagine, if banks were as bad as the RIAA: Being only able to checks provided by your bank, which they would sell at a premium of course. OH! But you could buy blank checks (sorta like blank cd-audio discs) but you'd hafta pay a tax on them for the bank's lost revenue.

      I know this is off topic, but the point is that the RIAA does things that if banks or grocery stores or hell, EVEN CAR LOTS tried, people would revolt.

      --
      replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
    93. Re:Good. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      nice way to talk to your customers.

      He may have been wrong, but you probably could have found a better way to stated the actual facts.

      of course, your not even talented enough to sign with a label, so what's it matter?

      See how it sucks?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    94. Re:Good. by letdownjournals · · Score: 1

      Problem is, there's also a lot of good music that is part of the RIAA... You may have to go back a decade or two or three, but I digress.

      Funny how we're always asked to avoid this or buy that to make sure our favorite musicians get a fair shake... But not to avoid movies, TV shows etc. where the writers and actors routinely get screwed.

    95. Re:Good. by Papa+Romeo · · Score: 1

      They are not making anything up. The sole purpose of the iTunes Music Store is to help sell iPods. If they happen to break even or make some profit, so much the better.

    96. Re:Good. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Then let's amend it: RIAA members are like PayPal.

    97. Re:Good. by xdarthvaderyouthx · · Score: 1

      No, the RIAA provides none of that, that's the label's job. Of course "going gold" is still an RIAA award. So nobody is "going gold" without them. Non-members can still get awards however, biggest seller coming to mind being the Offspring's Smash, six times platinum, released on Epitaph records.

    98. Re:Good. by Graff · · Score: 1
      Sorry about that, everyone.

      Forgiven, at least as far as I am concerned. Hey we all have bad days, at least you admitted you got off on the wrong foot there and apologized.

      I took a listen to your band Crooked Crow on iTMS. Pretty good stuff, not exactly my style but if I was into something like that I'm sure I'd buy it. It's cool that you got onto iTMS as an independent artist, we need more people to do so. Choice is a wonderful force!
    99. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just pissed because his band has never sold an album. He's trying to blame it on P2P, but there's a more obvious, although more painful explanation.

    100. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit of information on where money from CDs goes.

    101. Re:Good. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      there's also a lot of good music that is part of the RIAA... You may have to go back a decade or two or three

      That all depends on your tastes. One of my personal favourite bands at the moment is Rammstein, but apparently their record label is also a member of the RIAA.

      Sucks to be me and like a current band, huh?

    102. Re:Good. by Mononoke · · Score: 1
      Do you understand the nature of this "loan?"
      Yes, I do. I also understand that the terms are fully spelled-out in the contract that the artist signed in the beginning of the business relationship.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    103. Re:Good. by andy55 · · Score: 1

      >Right, it's "the Internal Revenue Service".

      Hrm. It least the money there is going back into America. Having to buy a 100-user site license for M$ Office? Now that's tragedy.

    104. Re:Good. by RdsArts · · Score: 1

      Second, in these meticulous calculations, where do record stores come in? Manufacturing costs? Advertising?

      Advertising? Manufacture? Well, ya see, that 8 cents... it's kinda not the artist's...

      Yep, all the costs of making, producing, and selling the album are covered by the artist. Great deal, eh?

      Record stores'll grab 2$ off the top. They don't figure into here because they will take their cut at the register, independant of the other payouts. When people talk about how much people make per CD, they're talking 'points', or percentage points on all the revenue on the album. Thus, ~8 cents, ~etc cents. The variance doesn't come into account on the artist's end because they hang out in the lower end of the scale, geting roughly 8 points between the entire band. (Most albums will have 200-250 points a song, 8 to the 'artists' of which 2 points go to the writer, 2-4 for the management and producer, and the rest going to the band to split. It's been awhile since I've looked these up, so my figures may be off slightly.)

    105. Re:Good. by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pepsi knows how to play the advertising Game. They are very good at it.

      Pepsi has one of the largest advertising budgets out there. When they talk, radio and tv stations listen. If Pepsi calls up your local channel 5 news station and says "we don't like the negitive spin you put on that RIAA story", the tv station will not do it again ever because they don't want Pepsi to forget to advertise on their TV station. A quick searh of Pepsi and its closely replated compaines shows it spent over a billion dollars last year advertising. The RIAA members sales of music were about $12b.

      It will be interesting to see how the TV news covers RIAA issues now that Pepsi's ads implys its not completely evil to download songs.

    106. Re:Good. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      PayPal takes 4 days to find the money you send it. The RIAA finds the money before you send it.

      Try again.

    107. Re:Good. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      congrats. you have completely missed the point.

      i did not say garageband sounds like ass.

      i said that if you record sound with ass equipment, the recording will sound like ass. the software used does not matter. you can make really shitty recordings with anything from cool edit to pro tools.

      capische?

    108. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, listen to what you like, which is what you're told to like, just like everyone else.

    109. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this mantra about how independant artist are somehow better artist is getting old. Some independant artist are good and some suck ass. Saying that since they are independant that their music goes up a notch or two is a lie. People need to stop confusing business sense with musical talent. Those are two seperate skillsets and one does not and should not reflect upon the other. Listen to what you want and stop making a statement by choosing music based off of their business arrangements.

    110. Re:Good. by FatalTourist · · Score: 1
      Or I can listen to what I like, and not base my music tastes on sticking it to the RIAA...

      You must be a Coke drinker...

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    111. Re:Good. by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's an interesting point -- does anyone know what the *taxable* income situation is for bands, after they're done being taken to the cleaners by their labels? Are those expenses they have to reimburse the labels for deductable, or does it count as taxable income?

      I've previously pointed out hereabouts that in any other business, what the labels do would be considered moneylending at usorious (thus illegal) interest rates. Cripes, it's probably cheaper to get a loan from the mob!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    112. Re:Good. by olorinpc · · Score: 1

      The way the post had orig sounded... was that all cdr's, but most particularly the "music" cdrs - were what was being discussed. It was that facet that i was commenting against. If it wasnt taken (or meant)that way i do apologize. As for these music cdrs, I will fully admit that i dont know a whole lot about them this I have never felt like paying more for something that hasnt been proven to me as better.

    113. Re:Good. by olorinpc · · Score: 1

      Forgot to add - but if anyone has stats on whether or not "music cdrs" are, good, better, or pretty much the same would be an interesting addition to this thread.

    114. Re:Good. by 4minus0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From my small part of the world: Sub Pop, Ninja Tune, Eighteenth Street Lounge, Matador, Kill Rock Stars, That Ann DiFranco lable (can't think of it now) and many more.

      Let me add Dischord and Southern Records to your list, two more really great non-RIAA labels.

      --
      You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
    115. Re:Good. by msobkow · · Score: 1

      No problem -- the RIAA refuses to sign anything they can't market to the under 20's anyhow. Most of what I listen to is from independants.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    116. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    117. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems more like loan sharking or indentured servitude.

    118. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a nice fairy tale. We could only wish the RIAA were like banks. The way it goes is: the RIAA lends you money, but THEY decide how it is spent, and then they want to be payed back, with interest, than they want the ownership of what you make with the loaned money, and then they want the majority of money paid in exchange for the product you made as well, and what's left for you goes right to paying off that RIAA debt.

      Banks are saints in comparison to the RIAA.

    119. Re:Good. by bugbread · · Score: 1

      No, but loaning them money is a lot like loaning them something.

      Perhaps a better turn of phrase is "RIAA members are like loan sharks".

    120. Re:Good. by Larry+David · · Score: 1

      Ben Folds is independent these days, and the iTMS is his main outlet (other than his own small personal label). He seems to be one of the better selling artists on there too.

    121. Re:Good. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      What a nasty thing to say about RIAA members, you wanted to say.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    122. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell you which labels aren't in the RIAA, but here's a list of labels who are:

      http://www.bluemud.org/article/23566

    123. Re:Good. by jred · · Score: 1

      KRS has a bunch of stuff on eMusic.com now!!! My life is complete... well, my life is complete shit, but KRS+eMusic makes me happy. You can take your $0.99 tracks, w/ my $10/40 songs/month, I get 'em for a quarter :D

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    124. Re:Good. by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1
      The idea that Righteous Babe is a RIAA member was beyond laughable.

      especially seeing that the tagline on many of Ani DiFranco's albums is unauthorized duplication, whilst sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing.

      If they really were RIAA-affiliated, I can't see that little line of text remaining.

      Tiggs
      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    125. Re:Good. by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that, everyone.

      a rarity on slashdot, unfortunately :)
      So now I'll keep with my agreement and check you out next time i visit iTunes...

    126. Re:Good. by k_187 · · Score: 1

      No, you must ideologically follow the herd that has latched onto this story and hate the RIAA. Never mind that what really matters is the music you like. If we based all our decisions on moral reasons, then we'd all live in caves and look at rocks for entertainment. Unless you'd say that the rocks are then being exploited since they have no say in the matter.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    127. Re:Good. by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      I didn't see that. Thanks for letting me know. =)

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    128. Re:Good. by jdifool · · Score: 1
      Err. Sorry : artists don't get screwed THAT (8 cents * 1 million albums = 80 000 dollars, which is not that much for artists selling THAT much albums) much by majors. They get roughly the same share as what they get with iTMS.

      Just accept that Apple is playing Janus regarding the music industry. They screw up artists exactly the same way. Want some more details ?

      Stop defending Apple against common sense, please...

      Regards,
      jdif

      --
      Let's overcome our weakness.
  4. super bowl watching tip by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is what PVRs are for: see the ads, skip the game. :-)

    Seriously, I noticed last year that if I hit my 30 second skip right when a play ended, it would usually take me right to the snap for the next play. With the 30 seconds of downtime between plays gone, football was actually kind of interesting!

    1. Re:super bowl watching tip by jjp5421 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you would get sued for creating a program skip feature on a PVR?

    2. Re:super bowl watching tip by Politburo · · Score: 1

      With the 30 seconds of downtime between plays gone, football was actually kind of interesting!

      Then you didn't watch the game live?

    3. Re:super bowl watching tip by nearlygod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ReplayTV has a button combo/hack that reverses their "Commercial Skip" so that it becomes "Content Skip".

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    4. Re: super bowl watching tip by er_col · · Score: 3, Funny
      With the 30 seconds of downtime between plays gone, football was actually kind of interesting!

      Well then maybe you've been watching the wrong kind of football to begin with?

    5. Re:super bowl watching tip by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      you can watch it almost live ... 15-30 mins behind with a DVR

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    6. Re:super bowl watching tip by froody · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Better tip: Learn the basic rules of the game.
      Then there are two things that I enjoy watching.

      1. Seeing what everybody on the field is doing. Because a typical football play only lasts about 8 seconds, everybody on the field has a specific job, and they all know what everybody else is doing. When you start watching football you just follow the ball (which is unfortunately what TV does also). But start following other players instead. It's neat to see a running play work because the center pulled, etc.

      2. Second-guess the coach. Football has a lot in common with a turn-based strategy game. (Every turn is about 10 seconds.) During the down-time, decide what you think the offense should be doing, or what the defense should be doing.

      I know the /. opinion is that football is for jocks, but the tactics involved are fascinating. The players are also great athletes. Give it a chance.

      Tim

    7. Re:super bowl watching tip by immel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try being a football statistician- then tell me the 30 seconds between plays is "downtime".

      --

      10 Bits= $.25
      100 Bits= $.50
      110 Bits= $.75
      1000 Bits= 1 byte
    8. Re: super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried watching real football (aka soccer) but when I skipped to the interesting parts it kept skipping all the way to the end of the game.

    9. Re:super bowl watching tip by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      And suddenly, thirty thousand advertising execs pop a raging boner.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    10. Re:super bowl watching tip by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Troll

      > see the ads, skip the game

      You are missing the best part of the Superblow.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    11. Re:super bowl watching tip by sloptaco · · Score: 1

      Come on!! Why is it even worth wathcing the ads now the political (pressure inspired) censorship has come into play (movon.org bushin30seconds ad)?? Although I wasn't very pleased with bushin30seconds finalist - with child laborers paying off the national defecit. This was way to exaggerated. The Nazi analogy seemed way more inline and didn't bend the truth about our fuhrer!

      --sloppy

    12. Re:super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football was actually kind of interesting? As opposed to what some Anime?

      Go back to your D&D.

    13. Re:super bowl watching tip by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      You forgot...

      3. Watch the mascots - one of my favorite shots of the playoffs so far was when the camera followed the football as an extra point was kicked, and on the way back down, you saw this mascot banging his head on the goalpost in frustration and falling backward.

      Gotta agree with your first two points, though. The battle at the line of scrimmage really determines the outcome of most games, and the way teams coordinate their offenses these days is amazing. It's easy to call a play and get a snap off playing Madden, but to do it live between coaches, the QB, and the guys on the field is another thing entirely. Just watch Peyton Manning go to work and you'll see technical ability to match any hardcore geek...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    14. Re:super bowl watching tip by sdmartin101 · · Score: 1

      ReplayTV has a "content skip" easter egg. See http://www.replayfaqs.com/Detail_FAQ_Display?ID=22 6&Session=SCDYYGTFOG. Rather than automatically skipping the commercials, it will automatically skip the show. Perfect for the Super Bowl!

    15. Re:super bowl watching tip by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      But your #1 takes place between the snap and the end of the play. Watching the players walk back, and huddle and/or line up for the next play isn't very interesting, tactically or strategically.

    16. Re:super bowl watching tip by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

      Ohh if only my mod points hadn't expired today!

    17. Re:super bowl watching tip by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      You're damn lucky the superbowl isn't in September or October.

    18. Re:super bowl watching tip by ScottSpeaks! · · Score: 2, Funny

      I recorded "Superbowl XXX" to see the Steelers and the Cowboys go at it... and was rather disappointed that the X's were Roman numerals, and not an MPAA rating. At least the adverts were entertaining.

    19. Re:super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mascots? You can watch the mascots. Give me the cheerleaders! Mmmmmmm... cheerleaders!

    20. Re:super bowl watching tip by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just watch Peyton Manning go to work and you'll see technical ability to match any hardcore geek...

      I would, but he's not working any more. HA HA! Let's all point at Peyton and laugh....

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    21. Re:super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watching the players walk to the huddle, or back to the line of scrimmage *is* interesting, especially if there is a good quarterback on the field. the quarterback can read the defense and call an audible to change the play, then take the snap before the defense can reset. this is great fun to see how frustrated the defense gets against a really well-prepared, tight offense.

    22. Re:super bowl watching tip by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey, that was no troll.
      For 364 days a year commercials are vapid annoying forgettable disco-balls of bad taste.
      For one day the ad agencies are allowed free-reign to showcase their best funniest attempts to get our attention, even if the brand they are advertising is hardly mentioned if at all.
      I for one LOVE watching the commercials during the superbowl, and I make sure to go to the bathroom and get more munchies during the game so I don't miss any good commercials.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    23. Re:super bowl watching tip by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Better tip: Learn the basic rules of the game.
      I know all the rules of football, and I still don't think it's very interesting. There's nothing wrong with liking it; I don't care if someone else likes football, but don't sit there pretending that someone who doesn't like football simply doesn't understand it.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    24. Re:super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took care of it for you. +1, Funny.

    25. Re:super bowl watching tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I heard his job got outsourced to the India Colts!

    26. Re:super bowl watching tip by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      um, the troll part was calling it superblow, not your ininuation that the commercials were the best part.

  5. Yeah, right by Gyan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman says ",Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America."

    We need to have a 'present' first.

    1. Re:Yeah, right by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      Your opinion is that in the present, there is no creative work in America.

      So... what do you listen to?

    2. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Music from europe...

    3. Re:Yeah, right by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      The past for me.

  6. what a knee slapper! by LlamaRama · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Most killer awesome ad ever.

    1. Re:what a knee slapper! by cheerios · · Score: 1

      scary part is... someone's THIS excited about a TV commertial. C'mon guys, they're just ads. Yeah, it's kinda amusing to get sued kids to pimp the iTunes store, but really, it's a big "see? I learned what I did was wrong and now I BUY my music" message. RIAA are likely overjoyed.

  7. How come... by Beolach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The RIAA response? 'This ad shows how everything has changed.'
    If they actually see how everything has changed, how come don't, I dunno, adapt?
    --
    Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
    1. Re:How come... by dacarr · · Score: 1
      Because the "everything has changed" line is marketing fluff. People legally download regardless of RIAA FUD saying that everyone downloads illicit MP3 files.

      Frankly, though, maybe RIAA was playing dirty pool by suing parents for this, but at least the copyrights are somehow being honored.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    2. Re:How come... by __past__ · · Score: 1
      Maybe because they think that things changed in their favourite direction? The ad isn't advocating copyright violations, but paid downloads - only that in this case Pepsi pays for a handful of songs, not the end user.

      I guess they feel that their way of adaption ("customers don't want to buy overpriced shit any more? sue them!") has worked great.

    3. Re:How come... by Patik · · Score: 1

      They haven't already? People claimed they downloaded music because it was easier/faster than going to the store and they didn't want to pay for a whole CD when they only wanted one song. So now Apple is letting people download single songs, and the price is less per song than on a CD. How is that not adaptation?

    4. Re:How come... by Tokerat · · Score: 1
      • RIAA: Litigation
      • Apple: Successful product
      The computer industry took this one by the horns and said "Look, asshats, you can sell music like this and people will buy it." The music industry, however, is trying to scare us with gestapo crap instead of giving us what we want: Which happens to be what Apple is giving us. If they had thought of it, they'd be making ALL the iTMS profit. You snooze you lose.
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  8. Way to go Apple and Pepsi but.... by overbyj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    unfortunately taking a jab at the RIAA like this will do absolutely nothing. It will take more than a commercial make fun of them to make them stop this witch hunt.

    As the RIAA responds "this is the way it is supposed to be" they will probably be filling out the next batch of legal filings accusing more senior citizens of stealing songs. The worst part of all this is that here they are making money off legal downloads while they attack people like rabid dogs trying to make more money.

    --
    No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
    1. Re:Way to go Apple and Pepsi but.... by elohim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't quite see how this is a jab at the RIAA. This is what the RIAA wants, money for music.

    2. Re:Way to go Apple and Pepsi but.... by cd_pub_more_beer · · Score: 1

      I've had an apple and pepsi before, its pretty good. Washington all the way baby..!

      --
      Getting into a fight on the Internet is like winning 1st place in the Special Olypics, when its all over your still reta
    3. Re:Way to go Apple and Pepsi but.... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > unfortunately taking a jab at the RIAA like this will do absolutely nothing.

      1. Make people laugh at your ad
      2. Have them talk about it the next day around the water cooler
      3. Sell more Pepsi
      4. Profit!

    4. Re:Way to go Apple and Pepsi but.... by cfuse · · Score: 1
      I don't quite see how this is a jab at the RIAA.

      Neither do I.

      If it had the line "we're still gonna download music for free, as payment for doing this ad Pepsi has given me a lifetime membership at iTunes. The RIAA can suck my balls!" I would be happier with it.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. The good life by SillySnake · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah yes, the good life.. Drinking Pepsi and stealing from those poor record companies. Back in my day we only have Coke and we had to bootleg eight tracks..

    1. Re:The good life by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we only have Coke and we had to bootleg eight tracks..

      Yep. And Blondie ('Call Me') was at the top of the charts, but you didn't hear me complain.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    2. Re:The good life by GetPFunky · · Score: 0

      Next on the RIAA IP listing
      pepsi.com(216.52.186.120)

    3. Re:The good life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day, goatse.cx wasn't shutdown and it seems like every link on slashdot lead to a picture of a man with an eight inch wide anus.

    4. Re:The good life by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

      Down here in Texas, we *only* have coke.

      --
      No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    5. Re:The good life by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      That's my campus. Half of everything is owned by Coke. Walk around campus, you'll read "Coca-Cola" more than anything else. You can't buy juice on campus, anywhere, without supporting them. I tried setting up a "Don't support coke." lemonade stand, and I was strong-armed off.

    6. Re:The good life by hambonewilkins · · Score: 1

      Actually, he was referring to the practice (in the south) of saying "Coke" for any and all soda pop products.

      --

      God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
    7. Re:The good life by SillySnake · · Score: 1

      I'm living in the worst of both worlds actully.. Everything is coke here on campus, and then the Oklahoma effect..

    8. Re:The good life by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the good life.. Drinking Pepsi and stealing from those poor record companies. Back in my day we only have Coke and we had to bootleg eight tracks..

      Oh yeah? Well we only had Tab, and if we wanted to bootleg something we had to punch holes in a roll of cardstock for the player piano!

      --

  11. Not at all stupid by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't it strange to hear quotes from people at the RIAA that don't sound stupid? They could rant and sue, but instead they calmly compliment the ad. Something has clearly changed in that organization. I won't go so far as to say they're not evil, but they almost seem less evil than before.

    1. Re:Not at all stupid by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isnt this basically Pepsi paying the RIAA to distribute the songs, passing the buck onto the Pepsi drinkers, and having the RIAA kick back realizing that they're now abusing caffeine addiction to force their music fees?

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    2. Re:Not at all stupid by neilcSD · · Score: 1

      Senator Palpatine appeared good...and we know how he turned out to be.

      holy shit i'm a dork!! :p

    3. Re:Not at all stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $3000 (avg settlement) * 914 (suits) = $2,742,000

      Yeah, a whole lot less evil.

    4. Re:Not at all stupid by lotsofgadgets · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "diet coke" of evil? ;-)

    5. Re:Not at all stupid by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, don't you think that we have been brainwashed, to a large extent, to view clean, smart, funny people as good, and those who aren't (i.e. people not like us) as bad, or at least suspicious.

      It starts in childhood, when we watch Disney movies in which the good people are beautiful, and vice versa. In Beauty and the Beast, the connection is even clearer.

      This is done, in my opinion, because people who feel inadequate will do what is necessary (i.e. buy the advertised products) to become beautiful/good.

    6. Re:Not at all stupid by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      > Isn't it strange to hear quotes from people at the RIAA that don't sound stupid?

      I wouldnt say strange. They tried to make P2P programs illegal, tried to demonize anyone who copies a CD for the car, tried and is currently trying to sue everyone into oblivian, etc.

      When it would have made a whole lot of more sense to realize that they should have jumped on the digital sales bandwagon a long time ago. Heck, in fact they are barely on this bandwagon and consider iTunes to be an experiment of sorts. Apple wants more songs, artists, etc but the RIAA is holding back. At best iTunes is a token gesture until a real catalog develops, the prices go lower, and more indie artists are represented.

      As far as the unholy marriage of the RIAA and ClearChannel, well they're hoping that still pays out, and it does. The question is will these digital downloads hurt their payola, concert ticket, etc schemes too badly.

    7. Re:Not at all stupid by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      Just one calorie, not quite evil enough.

    8. Re:Not at all stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're surprised? Let's take a moment to reflect here.

      When Joe Q. Public, who makes between $15 and $90 thousand a year, pisses off the RIAA, RIAA's response is "Fuck you, man, here's a lawsuit."

      When Popular Artist #17653B, who relies on RIAA for distribution of their product, pisses off RIAA, RIAA says, "Fuck you, artist, we can replace you like that."

      When Pepsico, a mega corporation with lots of money and no ties to RIAA, insults RIAA, RIAA says, "Ha ha ha! Good one Pepsi. Zing! You got us!"

    9. Re:Not at all stupid by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      Isn't it strange to hear quotes from people at the RIAA that don't sound stupid?

      Everything seems less stupid between SCO posts.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
    10. Re:Not at all stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      RIAA doesn't distribute, and they don't hire or fire artists either. Labels are responsible for that. The RIAA is a trade group for the (mostly big) label.

      And your Joe Q public didn't make a joke at the RIAA's expense, he committed copyright infringement and didn't stop when warned not to.

      dick face

    11. Re:Not at all stupid by dreadnougat · · Score: 1

      No, no, no.

      The Pepsi drinkers are getting songs for *free.*

      Obviously this means that Pepsi is not aiming to increase gross sales, or is planning on lowering prices.

      (Just how much Pepsi would one have to drink to get 40 gigs of "free" music with this, anyway? I hate to think of the effect of that much more sugary diarrhea on kids' waistlines...)

    12. Re:Not at all stupid by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      what do you care about my kids' waistline? Is my kid too fat for you, you elitist cocksucker??

    13. Re:Not at all stupid by dreadnougat · · Score: 1

      It's their choice, I'm not trying to stop them.

      But you're a pretty cold bastard to not care about the entire continent's children losing their health and a couple decades of their life expectancy.

    14. Re:Not at all stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't. There's a limit of 200 songs per person throughout the promotion. Linky linky

    15. Re:Not at all stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, I'm debating whether to use my last mod point to mod you insightful. For the last comment, not the first! :)

  12. it's kind of funny..... by johnpaul191 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    i visualize it as a bunch of kids that were bullied by the RIAA. i hope the look like nice good all american kids that were beaten up by the big evil corporation. "We'll sue these 13 year old kids and Enron execs will get to go to a country club prison if anything". ugh

    yeah they were downloading and whatever, but they are not bootleggers out there selling copies. they are just kids. the article said a few of the kids said they will use some of the money they get to pay their $3000 settlement.

    1. Re:it's kind of funny..... by AKAJack · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article is wrong. The only people who were sued were not just downloading they were offering up files to be downloaded. That's why they got sued and agreed to settle. Becasue they had no legal ground to stand on. Oops.

      It's a tough lesson for a kid, but one they're going to have to learn as if you think it's going to get any better you're living in a dream.

      With the economy tanking corporations are looking for unclaimed revenue streams to bring their profits back up and areas they didn't really care about are now the core of their thinking.

      Look at your supermarket - only prepackaged meat, not a butcher in sight. He's mowing lawns now. Wallmart being sued for not paying overtime to employees were too scared to report the violation out of fear of losing even *that* job. It's a buyer's market when it comes to employment and a litigator's market when it comes to IP.

      It's just reality. Sure try to change it, go ahead. I prefer to be practical about it and just not buy the products and I don't take them either. If you stopped buying them AND taking them they'd go out of business in a MONTH.

    2. Re:it's kind of funny..... by JWW · · Score: 1

      The lesson I hope these kids learn is to tell everyone they know to not buy CDs.

      The recording industry did have rights here, but they just used a sledgehammer to kill files. Suing minors is extreme overkill.

      Instead of trying to change their business model (I have a lot of ideas on how they could have done that too) they decided to sue.

      Until I see new ways of selling their product, I have decided not to buy it.

    3. Re:it's kind of funny..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at your supermarket - only prepackaged meat, not a butcher in sight.

      Nope. Doesn't work that way. Meat comes to the supermarket in cryovac packages and has to be cut down into individual portions. This job is done by a butcher.

      The rest of your comment was meaningless because you got this one basic fact wrong. If you can't get your basic facts right, nothing you say means a damn.

    4. Re:it's kind of funny..... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      every super market I go to has a butcher. They also have pre-packaged meat, but I go to the butcher for most of my cuts.

      Actually, It's more like they don't have the money to fight.
      I suspect in the end, a Judge would dismiss most the cases. Because of there age, and first time offence.
      Also they may have recourse aganst the people they got there software from, if it was implied in a sale that what they were doing was legit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:it's kind of funny..... by AKAJack · · Score: 1

      O.K, that should have said "look at my supermarket". All of the meat is prepackaged. There is a guy in back, but he's not a butcher, he just stocks the meat shelves. This is true in all of the major three supermarkets in Southern California.

      Sheesh, you're a touchy AC. This isn't a "fact" to get "wrong". It was an attempt to show where the economy is going and why big business is scrambling for money.

    6. Re:it's kind of funny..... by AKAJack · · Score: 1

      It's not a criminal case, it's a civil case. The judge does not have a right to dismiss it. To be perfectly correct on this I seriously doubt the the lawsuits are just against the kids anyway. They almost certainly are against the parents with the kids named as a party to the action.

      What's the point in suing a kid, you can't attach their lawnmowing wages?

      I agree, they settle because they can't afford a lawyer. Of course there are many law firms that would be happy to stand up in this area and do pro bono work if they thought it was good business and there was a chance of winning.

    7. Re:it's kind of funny..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K, that should have said "look at my supermarket". All of the meat is prepackaged. There is a guy in back, but he's not a butcher, he just stocks the meat shelves.

      God, what's your problem? MEAT IS NOT SOLD PREPACKAGED IN THE UNITED STATES. It's not legal. Meat is sold as primals that are cut into portions AT THE MARKET, BY A BUTCHER.

      That "guy in the back" who "stocks the meat shelves?" He cuts the meat. He's called a BUTCHER.

      This isn't a "fact" to get "wrong".

      Oooh! Oooh! Leftist scare quotes! Remember, kids, it's not about "facts," it's not about "right" and "wrong," it's about making a point! The fact that that point is CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH isn't relevant, so don't bring that up! Facts are the opium of the masses; we have no need for facts in the elitist intelligentsia. Viva la revolucion!

  13. One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is make me continue to buy new CDs.

    Screw that. From now on, I am only buying used.

    1. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by thelenm · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only we could convince everyone to buy only used CDs! Er, wait...

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
    2. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by gwbuhl · · Score: 1

      Allow me to pose a related quesiton:

      What is the the legality of buying a CD, importing it into say, itunes, and then selling it as used?

      I know you could replace "selling it as used" with "returning it", but that's not something I'd do. However I do have a large collection of CD I never listen to, because I have them on my iPod. Is there anything wrong will selling my collection?

    3. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by zippity8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you sell your CD, you lose your right to have that music.

      That means that you have to remove it from your iPod.

      When you sell the CD, you sell your rights to listen to it. Fair use only allows you to do so much.

      IANAL, yadda yadda ya.

    4. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Zane+Edwards · · Score: 1

      Well good luck getting the new Brittany Spears CD then! :P

    5. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by GammaTau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...is make me continue to buy new CDs.

      Well, sooner or later the sales of physical records are going to fall anyway. The only thing I need physical CDs for are backup purposes e.g. in the case my computer hardware was damaged and I needed to recreate the digital copies.

      I have all my CD's encoded in a digital format and because of all the convenience it gives me, I'm not willing to give it up. The physical discs will sooner or later become obsolete. Not this year or the next year (I mean there are still people who buy new vinyl records) but in the end, it'll all be just bits in general-purpose storage formats. The costs of maintaining separate storage formats just for music will become too high.

    6. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by HPNpilot · · Score: 1

      Used is definitely the way to go.

    7. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      I believe under current laws once you sold the cd you also lose your rights to the other copies. And therefore would have to destroy those songs on your iPod.

    8. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if you buy used, the RIAA won't see a penny, but neither will the author(s). Used CD money only goes in the pocket of the retailer.
      I'm all for taking the RIAA down, but don't forget the artists!

    9. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by djtripp · · Score: 1

      Never though about that... Not only are the good record stores(oops sorry about using legacy language) the ones that buy and sell used CD's. They usually have a return policy if the CD plays badly. Of course you get the person who abuses the rules and rips it and returns it (R&R). Oh well, you're just screwing your local music shop and hopefully they will wise up on you and kick yer butt out of the store.

      --
      "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
    10. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then through that vein of logic, purchasing a CD means you do not buy the actual songs on the CD, but the right to listen to them.

      If that is so, then why do new CDs now have copy protection, preventing me from ripping them to another medium? Or giving them to someone else as a gift. I'd be giving them the rights to the music, but because they never paid for it, then I'd be breaking the law?

    11. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by standsolid · · Score: 1

      I'm all for taking the RIAA down, but don't forget the artists!
      So, if you visit half.com and buy a cd for $5, you sped the other $5 on a bumper sticker from the artist. From what I hear, the artist gets the most money from selling merch. CMIIW, but I don't think the RIAA gets proceeds from it.

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    12. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that buying used CDs means you're contributing to the strength of the used CD market -- which does indirectly support the primary CD market, since the ability to sell old CDs that someone doesn't want anymore affects their decision to buy CDs in the first place.

      To put it another way, if everyone knew that there was no way they would ever be able to sell their old, used CDs (because those of us who won't buy new RIAA CDs also wouldn't buy used ones), they might think twice about buying them in the first place.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    13. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Why buy used, when you can buy new and still stick it to the man?

      Almost all the music I buy comes from cd baby. They have a huge collection, and I can't imagine someone browsing their collection and not finding exactly their taste of music.

      They're cheaper too.

    14. Re:One thing the RIAA is powerless to do... by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      First mistake:
      Trying to apply logic to the laws of licensing.

      Second Mistake:

      Posting anonymously so you will never see this reponse

      Third Mistake:

      Talking about that basegame you watched on tv to your friends. Listen real close to their licensing and you will see you have broken the law.

  14. Heh by Glog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am still not going to drink Pepsi.

  15. uploaders, not downloaders by jhunsake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some 20 teens sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, which accuses them of unauthorized downloads

    The entire article is wrong. They were busted for being uploaders (sharers) of music, not downloaders. In fact, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet. It is against copyright law to share it, which is what they were doing.

    1. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet.

      But not to have it on your computer if you haven't bought a license for it. So while transferring the bits across a wire is ok, having them on your hard drive isn't. I'm making this up, but it sounds reasonable.

    2. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by jhunsake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, you're wrong. Copyright law is very clear, I suggest you read up on it.

      For example, it is perfectly legal to borrow a CD from a friend, copy it for your own personal use, and then return the CD. However, it is not legal for your friend to copy their CD and then give you the copy.

    3. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, you can email Theresa Howard at thoward@usatoday.com to educate her so she stops spreading lies.

    4. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Right, but it IS legal for me to have the cd he copied for me. Which is what downloaders are doing.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    5. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Correct, because the burden of copyright law lies with the giver of the copyrighted material, not the receiver. I should have mentioned that.

    6. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      You say "They were busted for being uploaders". Maybe so, but do you think they considered themselves uploaders? They're (mainly) non-geeks, with no idea what P2P means, or stands for. As far as they were concerned they were just downloading.

      The RIAA broke a butterfly on a wheel, and even corporate America are acknowledging it.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    7. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by finkployd · · Score: 1

      I'm not getting what you are saying then. Technically a crime has been committed. Does the RIAA go after the tool that was used or the person who committed the crime? Ignorance is no excuse in the law.

      Finkployd

    8. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, there's some provision in copyright law about distributing copyrighted works in exchange for some benefit, monetary or otherwise?

      It seems that, while the illegal action was in fact the uploading, it became actionable by the fact that they downloaded as well. Without the downloading, it would be much harder to prosecute.

    9. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      A crime has indeed been committed, and ignorance is no defence, but the RIAA was extremely heavy-handed. They prosecuted many people who were naive, and starting from a time when there were very, very few legal ways to download music. They failed to recognise that the-times-had-a-changed, and sought to preserve "traditional" music (real, hard-copy) by marginalising "modern" music (virtual, down-loadable).


      A crime has been committed - and there should have been prosecutions. But the RIAA acted excessively.



      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    10. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit. Take your whole collection of CDs, make MP3s, and post them to the internet. Don't download anything. Let's see how hard it is to prosecute.

    11. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by lurp · · Score: 1

      What in god's name are you talking about? Simply because you don't own a copy of the work doesn't mean you get to ignore copyright laws.

      By your argument, it would be legal to go to my local library and make free copies of all the cds and books there. It doesn't work that way.

    12. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Oh I completly agree they were excessive. Frankly they seem to be writing a book on negative publicity :)

      My only point is that by suing the people actually committing the crime, they are doing what most people on slashdot were calling for them to do in the first place. (ie, stop hassling the software developers and go after the people abusing it).

      Finkployd

    13. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who moderated this "informative" need to have their pee pees slapped.

      It is NOT legal to make an unauthorized copy of a work. Period.

      If you own a copy of a work, it's generally agreed to be legal to make a copy for your own purposes. To have a spare, to carry in the car, to keep at the office, whatever. But it's not okay to do that with a copy that somebody else owns.

      You're a real idiot, and I hope you get busted someday.

    14. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Canada's copyright act allows this.

      80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

      (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

      (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

      (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

      onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

    15. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by unclem0nkey · · Score: 1

      In addition, it would not be in the RIAA's best interest to take their 4-5 figure lawyer up to sue downloaders when the defendant's defense can be bought for 15 bucks (ie buying the music, therefore prooving ownership)

    16. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by 33degrees · · Score: 1

      I believe that is only true in canadian copyright law, something which slashdot has covered in the past.

      In any case, I'm sur the reason main reason the RIAA is going after uploaders is because they're easy to spot, especially if they have a fixed IP... unless you're the one hosting the file, trying to track down the IP of a downloader is a different story.

    17. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      In fact, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet.
      Patently false. When you download an MP3, what are you doing? Are you removing that MP3 from the server, so now you have it and the server doesn't? No -- you are making a copy of it on your own machine. Hence, you are violating copyright law.
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    18. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by satterth · · Score: 1
      Sorry, you're wrong. Copyright law is very clear, I suggest you read up on it.

      For example, it is perfectly legal to borrow a CD from a friend, copy it for your own personal use, and then return the CD. However, it is not legal for your friend to copy their CD and then give you the copy.Sorry, you're wrong. Copyright law is very clear, I suggest you read up on it.

      This is also totaly dependant what country you live in. This example is fair if you live in Canada where Canadains pay a Tax on blank media. In the USA they don't, so copying borrowed content from a friend is all together different.
      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    19. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Shriek · · Score: 0

      Can I borrow your hard drive so I can copy it?

    20. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance is no excuse in the law.

      This cliche comes up a lot, usually it comes up in enforcement circles, but it's not always true. A major concept in law is mens rea, or intent. It's one thing to intentionally break the law, it's another to break the law because of misunderstanding.

      Does the RIAA go after the tool that was used or the person who committed the crime?

      The second point that should be noted is that the prosecutions were never criminal procedings. They were all civil cases. That means that the situation is more breach of contract than a criminal matter. It's never been proven that any *crime* was commited.
    21. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is perfectly legal to go to your local library and make free copies of all the CDs there, as long as you are copying them onto "Music" CDRs, which qualify as "digital audio media" under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

      It's not as clear cut regarding books.

    22. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Casca · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet. It is against copyright law to share it, which is what they were doing.

      Huh? What?

      So if I go to a library and photocopy a book in its entirety, the library is at fault for sharing it, not me for photocopying it?

      --
      Casca
    23. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, Section 106 of 17 USC states:
      Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

      (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

      This says nothing about who owns it or who makes the copy: by default, only the copyright holder may make a copy. It's possible there's something in 107 through 121 that would allow people to make copies in the manner you describe. Can you please point out exactly where it is?

      Section 107 doesn't: that's fair use, and making a personal copy of a copy that a friend legitimately owns is not allowed.

      Section 108 doesn't: it covers copies made by libraries and archives.

      Section 109 doesn't: it covers transfer of ownership of copies, not making copies.

      110 has to do with performances, 111 with secondary transmissions over cable systems, 112 with ephemeral recordings, 113 deals with visual arts (sculpture, graphics, paintings).

      114 talks about music recordings but there's nothing in there that says that you can make a copy if you don't own the copy you're duplicating. Mostly it talks about performance rights.

      115 talks about "nondramatic musical works," but again, there's nothing allowing you to make copies in the manner you describe.

      116 involves public performances, 117 is about software, 118 is about noncommercial broadcasting, 119 is about secondary transmissions again, 120 is about architectural works (e.g. copyrighted building designs), and 121 is about reproductions for blind or disabled folks.

      Nothing in there appears to confirm what you said, and given that section 106 contradicts it, do you have any actual evidence that it is legal under U.S. law to make copies in the way you described?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    24. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      You are making the case that everyone believes... until they read the copyright law.

    25. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of case law? The statutes are only part of the law.

    26. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you are clueless. Come back after you've gone to law school.

    27. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is at fault for anything, that is perfectly legal as long as you keep the copy to yourself.

    28. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA they don't

      Oh really? Then why are Music CD-R's more expensive than Data CD-R's, retard?

    29. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by satterth · · Score: 1
      Oh really? Then why are Music CD-R's more expensive than Data CD-R's, retard?
      Because they are trying to protray something of higher value. But they sure are not fooling you.
      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    30. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Well then please specify which case or cases determined that the method of copying you described is legal.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    31. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you have a legal license to the work to begin with. Borrowing a CD from a friend does not constitute a legal license. If you buy a CD, you have a license to it, and can therefore copy it for your private use. If the work is broadcast, you have a license to it and therefore can copy it for your private use.

      Canada doesn't allow stealing any more than the US does. Please wake up.

    32. Re:uploaders, not downloaders by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't shout 'case law!' without providing references to some cases...

  16. Spin by shystershep · · Score: 2, Funny
    The RIAA response? 'This ad shows how everything has changed.'"

    So, I guess Darl McBride opened that PR school after all.

    --
    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Spin by GTownBeast · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are only 10 types of people; Those who can read binary, and those who can't. :)

      --
      Rumor has it... that Catholic School Girls Rule
    2. Re:Spin by frenchgates · · Score: 1

      There are only two types of people in the world, those who finish sentences and

      --
      Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
    3. Re:Spin by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      There are only 10 types of people; Those who can read ternary, those who don't and those who mistake it for binary

    4. Re:Spin by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

      Did you hear that? That was the sound of the joke whizzing right over your head...

      --
      fuck you.
    5. Re:Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's written as 2 in ternary, dipshit.

    6. Re:Spin by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      Since when three is written as 2 in ternary?

  17. Not what you think by DreadSpoon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ad's line "We're still going to download music for free" is in regards to the iTunes give-away. i.e., those who earn the points/prizes from Pepsi's promotion get to grab a limited number of songs off iTunes for free, with Pepsi footing the bill paying the artists/labels.

    1. Re:Not what you think by billnapier · · Score: 1

      If any parent is deserving of a "Score: 6, Article Decieving", this parent is...

    2. Re:Not what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, Sherlock. Just because you were confused does not mean that everyone else was too.

      Ass puppet.

    3. Re:Not what you think by danalien · · Score: 1
      actually, they'll earn money from the 'scheme'

      Why? do I say that, ... well, of you read/heard their 'scheme' you'd know that they'll distribute 3million bottles with yellow caps, where only 1 million bottles will have a 'winning number', inscribed at the inside/underside of the 'bottle cap'.

      *do the math*..., Now, how is this 'free songs' and not going to earn them money instead? There isn't one little thing about this 'scheme' that says 'Free, as in beer' to me.

      another thing, this 'scheme' has a _big_ security risk, in my eyes.... what if people will just go into a store, unscrew a cap, till one gets a winning cap.... and walk out of the store... without them noticing anything? /* ok, not every store, but there are stores that don't have fancy 'sec. cameras' pointed at every direction... */ ... because they'd get pissed of, that they didn't get a winning cap, and have to buy, and buy more bottles, before they got a winning one....

      in the end, they could lose more money with this 'scheme', then shipping 1millon bottles, where everyone was a winner...

      --
      I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
    4. Re:Not what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't one little thing about this 'scheme' that says 'Free, as in beer' to me.

      It's free if you're already consuming Pepsi. If you were going to consume at least three bottles of Pepsi anyway, the odds are good that you'll get at least one totally free song out of it.

      Pepsi, of course, is counting on people consuming more soda than they otherwise would have in the hope of getting free stuff.

      I, for one, intend to switch from Coke to Pepsi for the duration. I drink sodas anyway, one is close enough to the other to make no difference, and I like music.

      what if people will just go into a store, unscrew a cap, till one gets a winning cap.... and walk out of the store... without them noticing anything?

      Gosh, you're right! It's a good thing you pointed this out! Nobody ever would have thought of that because nobody's ever done a twist-off-the-cap giveaway before...

      oh, wait. There have been twist-off-the-cap giveaways before. Tons of them. And yet they chose to do this anyway. Guess they're not complete fucking idiots after all, huh?

    5. Re:Not what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The ad's line "We're still going to download music for free" is in regards to the iTunes give-away.

      I think I speak for all of us* when I say "Well, duh."

      *modulo the two goofs who modded your post Informative.

  18. Trading spaces... by al!ethel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't imagine how the RIAA/MPAA think that they have truly changed a culture. Most people that I have talked to still download music, movies and television shows, but they do it in a more anonymous way than what can be readily tracked by outside agencies. If you give someone a burned DVD of all your MP3's, no one can track you. As far as apple and pepsi, I think that they are fairly immune to what the RIAA and MPAA think. The whole target audience that they are trying to reach are young people with lots of idle time and loose morals. The same people who have been trading music and thumbing their noses at the respectives AA's.

    --
    If I could get a firm grip on reality, I'd choke it...
    1. Re:Trading spaces... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I can't imagine how the RIAA/MPAA think that they have truly changed a culture. Most people that I have talked to still download music, movies and television shows, but they do it in a more anonymous way than what can be readily tracked by outside agencies.

      They must know this; I can't believe they are not aware of it. What I believe is that they are saying p2p is going down to encourage others to stop using it. After all, people are sheep and if everyone is stopping p2p, shouldn't I?

      Also, it justifies their current actions, as they appear to have an effect. If p2p usage were to "officially" go up during their litigation campaign, it would give ammunition to those opposing the strategy.

    2. Re:Trading spaces... by pyros · · Score: 1
      If you give someone a burned DVD of all your MP3's, no one can track you.

      Assuming you ripped the MP3's from media you own, then doing so is legal, and known as fair use. Although you may be expected to use the 'audio' media which has a levy built into the price.

    3. Re:Trading spaces... by dougmc · · Score: 1
      If you give someone a burned DVD of all your MP3's, no one can track you.
      I've heard that CD-R drives burn a unique (to the burner) serial number into every disk they burn. If true (I don't know -- it's all very hush-hush) and if DVD+-R drives do the same (I suspect that they would be similar) then you could be tracked to some degree. Certainly, if somebody had two DVDs, they could tell if they were written by the same writer or not by checking that ID. If the IDs match, and one was known written by your writer, then the other was too.

      Just a minor nit. I agree with you. In any event, this sort of trading is known as `fair use'. Or at least it used to be ...

    4. Re:Trading spaces... by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Strongly agree, except for the first line: the RIAA in particular may not haved a culture, but they've certainly spurred me to action - I've not bought a CD in years (well, with maybe one or two exceptions...)

      The RIAA and its members have attempted to curtail my fair-use of CDs, by introducing copy-protection; they suggest people are criminals for wanting to archive legally purchased CDs; and they sue children and pensioners. I don't deny they do have a legitimate interest - but their actions have lost them any sympathy from me.

      ...and, since I live outwith the USA, the RIAA have harmed musicians and music industries in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe: both by provoking myself and others to buy less music, and by encouraging other national recording-industry associations to adopt similarly heavy-handed actions.

      Still, it's not all doom-and-gloom. This recent article cheered me up. I used to buy a lot of Warp records back when I still bought vinyl!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
  19. Learn your values from megacorps by onyxruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Learn your values from megacorps, they know better than you! They never diverge from the moral high road, and are utterly devoid of corruption. Racketeering, denial of civil rights, litigation, employee shafting, price fixing are all available. Which value do we get to see megacorps teach our children next?

  20. Controversy by Chilltowner · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    Great. That is somehow not the least bit controversial for CBS, but they refuse to broadcast MoveOn.org Voter Fund's winning Bush in 30 Seconds Ad. While I support the freedom to do what you want with your own music, the double standard at Viacom is sickening. If controversy moves product, show it. If it informs political debate, can it. It makes me sad. Very, very sad.

    1. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No political ads have ever aired during a superbowl. This isn't new. The people at moveon.org bid for airtime knowing that they would get turned down and that would get them publicity. Not a new tactic, but still a good one, considering how shrill people have been about it.

    2. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just listen to the press.. forget about the dead kurds that were gased by iraq. forget about the Iranians that were gased by iraq. The press is right. The wepons of mass destruction never existed. I mean it is not like you could hide 200 gallons of the stuff somewhere in the 168,753 square miles that makes up Iraq, and not find it in a year.

    3. Re:Controversy by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Life Lesson #4,582: The media is not your political watch dog. However much they pretend to be for informing you of important / relevant information, the only thing they will air is stuff that sells.

      Fact: MoveOn.org does not pay for ads on a regular basis on TV, and certainly not on CBS.

      Fact: Pepsi does

      Fact: Politics and voting are of little concern to over 50% of the population

      Fact: Comercials that are entertaining generate better response from the viewing audience.

      Fact: The superbowl is not a political forum, nor is it supposed to be used as such.

      Conclusion: CBS does not care for, nor will they air the MoveOn.org ad, especialy given that it's a political ad whihc means (IIRC) they then have to give equal time to an ad supporting bush. CBS does care about pepsi ads because papsi ads sell products, which generate more advertising revenue for them and also keep viewers entertained.

      Therefore: You should stop expecting the media to be your political watchdog.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Controversy by Luckboy · · Score: 1

      CBS is claiming a "No issues ad" stance. The most controversial ads during the super bowl, from an issues standpoint, will be the "Drugs are bad" and "Teens shouldn't smoke" ads. There is NOTHING controversial about Apple and Pepsi giving a little nudge to the RIAA. Frankly, the RIAA won't care, because in the long run it will pay off for them.

      There is no double standard from CBS, at least not if you're comparing MoveOn.org's ad and Pepsi's ad.

    5. Re:Controversy by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the Bush-in-30-seconds thing isn't "informed political debate" it's rabid anti-Bush propagada. What else did anyone expect from judges like Micheal Moore, Carville and Franken? Their goal never was to promote an open, frank discussion of political issues, it was to promote hysteria. And what do Jack Black, Margaret Cho and Eddie Vedder know about politics anyway? An 'informed political debate' involves looking at an issue from all sides and studying all possible ramifications. These guys didn't even pretend to do that.

    6. Re:Controversy by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Troll mod that AC, /.ers Last year, the commercials that linked using drugs to supporting global terrorism were political ads, bought and paid for by a political action group.

    7. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eddie Vedder seems like a pretty smart guy. I'd be willing to put him up against bush.

    8. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it.

    9. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As Jay Leno said, "How do we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? We kept the receipts!" The nerve gas we (America) sold Saddam has a shelf life of about 8 years, and we sold it in the 80s. Any that wasn't used up then is no longer a viable weapons system.

    10. Re:Controversy by Chilltowner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rapid anti-Bush propaganda? Check out the ad. All it says is that the deficit being created now will be paid for by our children. That's really a very moderate and, in the classic sense of the word, conservative point of view.
      Naturally, CBS is under no obligation to air the ad, but it is upsetting that such a mild ad gets the shaft while a company like Pepsi can pretty much do whatever it wants.
      Remember, these are our airwaves. The same airwaves that will broadcast ads from Bush' drug policy office, in case anyone was getting worried about "equal time". If an organization is willing to pay fair market value, I see no good reason, aside from outright obscenity or something the FCC wouldn't allow, why they should be stopped from airing their views, commercial or political. If Pepsi can nudge the RIAA, then MoveOn can nudge Bush for the same dime.

    11. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stupid mod GPLDAN, /.'s

      "as Ad Age's Washington bureau chief Ira Teinowitz reported, CBS said it wasn't controversy that made it turn down MoveOn's commercial, and its $1.6 million. Instead, the network said the spot violates its policy against running any political issue ads at all.

      Maybe you should remove head from ass before replying.

      P.S. What sort of moron thinks an ad designed to influence the presidential election is comparable to an anti-drug ad?

    12. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Another quote from the same source:

      Every so often clients call Richard Laermer, CEO of the entertainment and public interest P.R. film RLM, with what they think is a brilliant and novel idea. "I can't tell you how many times somebody has called me and said, 'Hey, I've got a great idea for a media attack. I want to put a naked person in an ad and try to run it in the New York Times, and they're going to turn it down and I'll release that they turned it down,'" he says. Censorship, Laermer has learned, can be its own kind of publicity

    13. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how a socialist group is criticising Bush for deficits. If they had their way, the country would go bankrupt under the weight of a national health care system, along with expanded welfare and god knows what else they would think of.

    14. Re:Controversy by leono · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After getting MoveOn.org's email yesterday, I called CBS NYC yesterday to voice my disappointment in their judgement, but now that I'm looking into the issue, it's not black-and-white.

      The MoveOn email and web site front page say that CBS will be airing ads from the White House. What they don't say is that the ads are from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Now, while I'm no fan of ONDCP, I wouldn't say that their anti-drug ad is likely to be a political one.

      The question is: why is CBS refusing MoveOn's ad. One of the posters below says "No political ads have ever been aired during the Superbowl". If that's true, CBS is just continuing the precedent, not displaying a double standard.

    15. Re:Controversy by Sigh+Phi · · Score: 1

      It's not rabid anti-Bush propaganda. The Bush administration fully acknowledges the massive debt we're sinking into. Future generations of taxpayers will have to pay it off. The MoveOn ad's portrayal of this reality is artistic license, may even be anti-Bush, but hardly "rabid," and definitely not propaganda. Look to ONDCP's drug ads for better examples of propaganda.

    16. Re:Controversy by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      A country can't go bankrupt by the way...

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    17. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A country can, and countries have.

    18. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the anti-drug adds that were so prevalent among last year's Superbowl commercials? What exactly was the government trying to sell with those?

    19. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sobriety?

    20. Re:Controversy by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that before Regan, this would have made a dandy GOP ad.

    21. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it says is that the deficit being created now will be paid for by our children. That's really a very moderate and, in the classic sense of the word, conservative point of view.

      Two things.

      1. The ad is bullshit. They said exactly the same thing about the deficit Reagan ran up between his tax cuts and defense spending. That deficit was completely gone by about 1995, and we were projecting massive surpluses. Of course, those projections were off because (a) the internet bubble burst and (b) the 1993 tax increases calmed the economy even further, but all that means is that it's time to cut taxes and stimulate the economy further. Which is what happened in 2001. Which is why we're seeing economic indicators now, just three years later, that are literally unprecedented in the postwar era.

      2. The ad was produced by the same radical leftist organization that put its name on not one but two ads accusing the sitting president of the United States of being a fascist dictator. No matter what they say after that, their words are poisoned by their unbelievable inanity.

    22. Re:Controversy by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. The "stoners=terrorists" FUD was a political ad, but it was bought and paid for by the government using taxpayers' money.

    23. Re:Controversy by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      Straight from the horse's mouth (MoveOn):


      During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.1 But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.2

      Meanwhile, the White House is on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,3 allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.

      Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected.4 But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That's why we need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" -- especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the President -- just isn't right.

      To sign our petition to CBS, go to:
      http://www.moveon.org/cbs/

      We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

      You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about this decision. We've attached a list of the CBS affiliates in your state at the bottom of this email. Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.

      CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President's own figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users are supporting terrorism,5 it hardly even registers.

      CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC reform.6 According to a well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.7

      This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads which address issues of public importance today.

      Sincerely,
      --Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
      The MoveOn.org Team
      January 23rd, 2003

      P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out at:
      http://www.mediareform.net/media/

      P.P.S Here are the CBS affiliates in your state:

      KCBS-TV, Los Angeles: (323) 460-3000
      KFMB-TV, San Diego: (858) 571-8888
      KPSP-TV, Thousand Palms: (760) 343-5700
      KBAK-TV, Bakersfield: (661) 327-7955
      KCOY-TV, Santa Maria: (805) 925-1200
      KGPE-TV, Fresno: (559) 222-2411
      KION-TV, Salinas: (831) 784-1702
      KPIX-TV, San Francisco: (415) 362-5550
      KVIQ-TV, Eureka: (707) 443-3061
      KOVR-TV, West Sacramento: (916) 374-1313
      KHSL-TV, Chico: (530) 342-0141

      Footnotes:

      1. "Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl," Ad Age, 1/20/04

      2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04

      3. "Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable, 1/21/04

      4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

      5. "New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism," U.S. Dept. of State

      6. "CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations," Opensecrets.org

      7. "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll

    24. Re:Controversy by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      Except that the Bush-in-30-seconds thing isn't "informed political debate" it's rabid anti-Bush propagada.

      Hmm. White House Office of Drug Policy.

      Does rabid anti-drug propaganda come to mind at all? The message that I got from their last commercial was that DRUGS = SUPPORTING TERRORISTS.

    25. Re:Controversy by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      It's always fun arguing with somebody too cowardly to come out from behind AC. The MoveOn.org winning ad shows children working, and ends by saying who will pay for the deficit that George Bush created, growing the government by 8% during his administration despite being against big government. That's a political ad. Running an ad that says "by buying drugs, you are supporting terrorist organizations" is exactly on the same footing, it's effect is to support the failed drug war and give the administration moral foundation to keep pouring cash into the DEA and other organizations, and to link the two giving additional leeway for Patriot Act provisions. Just because you are too stupid to see it, doesn't make it false. Just because Ira Teinowitz is defending an indefensible hypocracy doesn't make him or the Madison Avenue crowd right. CBS rolled over, plain and simple. Hiding behind some stupid "no political ads" made up rule, doesn't make them right.

    26. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, you're so brave not posting as AC. You should call your mother and tell her how brave you are.

      If you think an anti-drug ad is politically speaking the same as moveon.org's ad, then you're too stupid to be worth talking to. Goodbye.

    27. Re:Controversy by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      By your same logic, a drug company who refused to sell you a medication would be okay because it is their medication (right of a business to do business with whomever they wish).

      While I understand your point, I think it is perfectly within my rights to notify CBS that I am not pleased with their decision; the rest of your arguments be damned.

      And while CBS is not my political watchdog, what is so wrong with notifying CBS that I _am_ their political watchdog, and I note bias in their approach?

      Well, except for the fact that the ad is contrary to your politics, but certainly you are courageous enough to withstand a contrary point of view?

      Your point again?

    28. Re:Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point of the ad was to incite "informed political debate", or do you need a talking head to give your opinion to you? What I gather from the folks who oppose the ad is that they oppose it because it is contrary to their politics, not because of any deep-seated belief in being fair. Smells like censorship. But it's okay, 'cause it works in your favor. Blow.

    29. Re:Controversy by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      By your same logic, a drug company who refused to sell you a medication would be okay because it is their medication (right of a business to do business with whomever they wish).


      Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. No business has any obligation to serve anyone. It may be in their best interests to serve people, but they are under no obligation to do so.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    30. Re:Controversy by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      But it's not exactly as clear-cut as that. In a matter of speaking, CBS is a government dervived monopoly (the airwaves are public, and CBS is lisenced to use those airwaves). What if your power company decided not to conduct business with you anymore? Fact of the matter is they can't (they are also a government dervived monopoly). As I am nearly forced in to a business partnership with my utility company (by virtue of not being able to form my own utilty), the power company is forced into a relationship with me (and they have certain responcibilities to bear). This is closer to the situation at hand. CBS does not appear to be holding their end of the bargain _after_ being granted monopoly status. Until CBS gives up those privledges (or the government recinds)... in the truest sense CBS is violating their contract with the public.

      You are attempting to apply a principle when the other ramifications of said principle are not in place... apples and oranges.

    31. Re:Controversy by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      No, because CBS does not have a monopoly. If they did, then no one would watch ABC, WMHT or any of the other networks. What CBS does have is a monopoly on the superbowl this year, but since it was gained by private bidding, they are under no obligation to you to air any commercial that they don't want.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    32. Re:Controversy by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      Expanded welfare? What, are you suggesting we might devote 2 or even 3 percent of our annual federal budget to welfare?

      Perish the thought!

    33. Re:Controversy by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Can you explain why CBS (as well as other broadcast networks) have to make allowances for children's programming, equal time for opposing political points of view, etc.? Why does the gov. have special considerations for broadcast networks as far as ownership, content, and saturation by a single owner? They are a special case. Any argument that proceeds as if they aren't loses its validity (and hey, if the Superbowl were on ESPN, you'd hear no argument from me).

      Monopoly wasn't the best choice of words (which is why it was prefaced by "in a manner of speaking"). Oligarchy. Good.

      Your original argument does not stand.

  21. Eight Tracks? by koa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back in the day... we only had EIGHT SONGS to listen to. AND WE LIKED IT!

    --
    ....move along....nothing to see here....
    1. Re:Eight Tracks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day we didn't have music! We had to bang rocks on our heads to beat out a tune. If we didn't pass out, we might actually get to hear it!

  22. 950 songs over 3 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    who along with her older sister and younger brother downloaded 950 songs over three years.

    That is laughable... An average geek downloads that much stuff in 2-3 months.

    1. Re:950 songs over 3 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "An average geek downloads that much stuff in 2-3 months"

      An average geek with a 3MB cable modem does that much stuff in 2-3 HOURS.

      Pikers.

    2. Re:950 songs over 3 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell today i downloaded all of the Rolling Stones cds, Led Zeppelin cds and Eagles cds...

    3. Re:950 songs over 3 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where from?

  23. Of course... by richlb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the RIAA is all in favor of the spot. They still get their royalty money for the 100 million "free" downloads.

    1. Re:Of course... by goldspider · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Excellent post! That's the part of this that Slashdot readers don't want to acknowledge.

      Pepsi and Apple aren't "sticking it to the RIAA"; far from it! Pepsi and Apple are buying help from the RIAA to sell more cola and iPods.

      If you think this is about anything else, you're fooling yourself.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:Of course... by pr0c · · Score: 1

      ...the RIAA is all in favor of the spot. They still get their royalty money for the 100 million "free" downloads.

      Which of course is damn near 85 million dollars most likely.. what a good day to the RIAA!

    3. Re:Of course... by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      Actually, I imagine it'll be a bit less than that. First of all, a lot of the winning codes will probably never get used; some bottlecaps will be thrown away without the drinkers realizing they'd won anything, some won't sell before the promotion ends, some will be bought by people who don't have computers, and so on.

      Then there's Apple's cut. While obviously the labels get the majority of the iTMS's revenues, Apple still gets a small slice, reportedly something like 35 cents and almost certainly larger than 14 or 15 (which is the rate they'd have to get for the labels to get $85 million out of $99 million, even if all the codes were used).

      Finally, the iTMS does have a fair bit of non-RIAA music, and some of the codes will undoubtedly get used for some of that. I do still expect the RIAA labels to get probably upwards of $50 million, but there's no way they'll get $85 million.

  24. Meanwhile... by Cytlid · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...during the superbowl, I will be wirelessly offering 300 gigs of Mp3s (that weren't from p2p networks) outside of my house. The wep key passphrase? "We are still going to download music for free off the Internet."

    --
    FLR
    1. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dood, way to go! I have 230 gigs.......and am setting up a server to be able to handle 500 gigs ;-) Gotta love Usenet and BitTorrent!

  25. The bleak and horrible past! by simpl3x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you have this wrong! We still live in the bleak and horrible past where most of the music the world has made is stuffed in vaults. Where most of the money which is used to buy music goes to the management. Sort of like directing cigarette advertising towards kids, and then telling them they can't smoke! Who exactly is wrong here?

    1. Re:The bleak and horrible past! by trentblase · · Score: 3, Insightful
      most of the music the world has made is stuffed in vaults

      I'm more sad that most of the music the world has made is either unrecorded or unpreserved.

    2. Re:The bleak and horrible past! by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "stuff in vaults," of course, you mean printed on CDs you buy at the store.

      By "goes to the management," of course, you mean the parties and percentages listed in the contracts the band itself signs.

      What's the issue here?

    3. Re:The bleak and horrible past! by arose · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  26. Re:Superbowl?! by cd_pub_more_beer · · Score: 1

    Whats the Superbowl???

    --
    Getting into a fight on the Internet is like winning 1st place in the Special Olypics, when its all over your still reta
  27. pepsi by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Pepsi has a history of being sued over advertisements, so they may bsued again.

    5 years ago, someone giled a lawsuit over the pepsi points/harrier jet ad.

    A couple weeks ago, a suit was trown out (because it was filed after the statute of limitations) when a boy died after swallowing a pin used to "shotgun" a soda.

    No word yet if anyone has been killed trying to drink pepsi one while sky-diving.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:pepsi by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Funny
      A couple weeks ago, a suit was trown out (because it was filed after the statute of limitations) when a boy died after swallowing a pin used to "shotgun" a soda.
      Wow, Darwin strikes again.

      Hurray for Darwin.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:pepsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray for Darwin indeed.

    3. Re:pepsi by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Somebody should submit his story for a Darwin Award.

      Or is there a statute of limitations on that, too?

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    4. Re:pepsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA dumbass

    5. Re:pepsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to the rules on darwinawards.com, children under the age of 16 are not eligible for Darwin Awards.

    6. Re:pepsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sullivan died July 26, 1999, two days after swallowing a pushpin while copying a Pepsi One television commercial that showed a college student guzzling a can of the diet cola.

      Tragically, in Thomas's case, the pin he used to puncture the can was instantly propelled by its pressurized contents into his throat, lodging in his vocal cords," DiClerico wrote."

      Sullivan had a seizure, then went into a coma and suffered swelling in the brain, which ultimately killed him, the ruling said."

      Wow, that's a bizzare way to die. But I must say, what a dumbass that kid was, even for a 10 year old. Even a 6 yr old would know better than that.

  28. So does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That there will be no more Britney Spears commercials? Noooo!!!

    Posted AC to avoid bodily harm...

    1. Re:So does this mean... by mightymik2 · · Score: 1

      Sure there will...as soon as the RIAA sues her.

  29. Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "It's all in good spirit," says Dave Burwick, chief marketer, Pepsi, North America. "This has been a huge cultural phenomenon. It's highly relevant and topical for consumers. We're turning people to buying music online vs. stealing it online."


    Fuck them. Once again, it's not theft. It's copyright infringement. Fuck them.

    1. Re:Downloading is Theft? by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is theft. If, in this day and age, you think that only physical objects can have value, then I for one am impressed. Money itself is virtual in 2004, and in this culture, theft of ideas and other intangibles is very real.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    2. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, sorry bunky, but it's only theft if I deprive you of the property in question. Making a copy of it may be immoral, illegal, and cause tooth decay, but it ain't theft.

    3. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Shai-kun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're on the wrong road here. I agree with you that non-tangible objects can have value, but the whole idea behind 'theft' is, if I steal something from you you don't have it anymore. Downloading songs (or any digital content) is different, because it *perfectly copies* the content: if I download something from you, you still have your own data. Therefore you can't say I stole it from you, because it is still in your possession.
      (dude, you like, can't OWN data =) but I jest)

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    4. Re:Downloading is Theft? by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      If you take from me the right to decide who gets a copy of my creation, and how, then I don't have it anymore.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    5. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real strong moral position, there, Sparky.

      "It's not visceral-and-widely-understood-crime, it's euphemistic-and-confusing-term-for-same-crime."

      Stealing is taking without permission. Copyright infringement is a form of stealing, just like robbery, pickpocketing, fraud, and embezzlement are all different forms of stealing.

    6. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not yours to take. Quit splitting hairs.

    7. Re:Downloading is Theft? by anubi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If my sharing stuff that others don't want me to share is "theft", then is others ( Equifax, TransUnion, TRW/Experian, Medical Information Bureau, etc. )sharing stuff about me without my implicit permission also considered "theft" and subject to the same infringement penalties?

      If sharing is wrong, we don't need lawyers. We need education. We need the RIAA to show up, with armani suits and alligator brifcases, in droves across the nation to every kindergarten and elementary school to stress the evils of sharing your belongings. We need to stress to these young minds just how important it is to hog everything you can get your hands on in your pile and make sure no one else can enjoy it without your fee. Show the benefits of the Patent system, so no-one else can even do anything themselves without violating someone elses's "right". Imagine, they won't even be able to stack one block on top of another without paying a fee!!!

      It seems one of the major problems facing our Congress is how to pen law that makes it illegal for some people to do something that cause others financial loss, while holding certain others indemnable for doing the exact same thing... while not looking like they are failing to represent the populace as a whole.

      As America gets "down to business", we rely on the rest of the world to build stuff for us. We, here in the Free World of the United States of America will spend our bountiful resources and immense capital account surpluses bickering over whose entitled to what. Our business plan is built on our ability to exact fees to allow others to do anything. If we can sell the rest of the world on this plan, we can make our business executives rich beyond comprehension.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    8. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, no, it isn't.

      Copyright infringement is where you infringe on the exclusive rights of holders to do certain things.

      Robbery, pickpocketing, fraud, etc. are where you take something away from someone in such a way that they don't have it anymore.

      When you infringe copyrights, you're not taking the song, or the music, you're taking the exclusivity out of the right. It's a subtle difference, but, it makes a whole world of difference -- especially in terms of the actual harm done by the "crime."

      It's just laziness to assert that copyright infringement is theft. I mean, you can just as easily asser the opposite: that copyright, itself, is theft since it robs from the otherwise free pool of ideas known as the "public domain."

    9. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Quit splitting hairs.

      Bzzzt WRONG! You are the one splitting hairs, you cockbiting fucktard. *YOU* are calling it something ITS NOT to make it sound WORSE THAN IT REALLY IS. If there is no removal of property, there is no theft. Period.

    10. Re:Downloading is Theft? by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Once again, it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.

      steal v.

      1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

      If you're downloading from kazaa and the likes you're taking something that does not belong to you. Yes, the original copyright holders still have it, but that doesn't meant it's not your place to take.

      Besides, whether it IS theft or not is irrelevant. It's morally wrong and illegal. Calling it different terms doesn't make it more excusable.

    11. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      It's not irrelevant whether to call copyright infringement theft or not.

      First off, illegal copying more akin to patent violation or riding a bus without a ticket. In all cases you violate someones exclusivity-right (or monopoly, whatever).

      But since we've got incredibly strong lobbying-groups for "intellectual property" (which itself is a misnomer; its actually not property but monopoly), they have coined very strong phrases to connect this monopoly to property and in turn, to connect a violation of these rights to property-related crime, sometimes even in an extremely tasteless manner.

      Equaling illegal copying with violent robbery at high sea ("piracy") is just about how low you can get with propaganda.
      --

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    12. Re:Downloading is Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement is where you infringe on the exclusive rights of holders to do certain things.

      Robbery, pickpocketing, fraud, etc. are where you take something away from someone in such a way that they don't have it anymore.


      "Robbery is where you take something from someone's person. Burglary is where you take something from someone's home. Therefore burglary isn't stealing."

      Your point is technically correct, but irrelevant. Copyright infringement is, under the law, a form of stealing. It's a felony. It's punishable by up to 5 years in prison for the first offense, or up to 10 years in prison for subsequent offenses.

      That is, incidentally, exactly the same sentence given to people who are convicted of the theft of a major artwork, as defined under USC 18.668.

      Sounds like the law doesn't distinguish between the criminal nature of theft of work and copyright infringement. What possible motivation could you have for distinguishing between them? To mollify your troubled conscience, maybe?

      copyright, itself, is theft since it robs from the otherwise free pool of ideas known as the "public domain."

      Wow. You've got it COMPLETELY backwards. The "public domain" is a legal fiction invented in the 1700's by the autocracies of Europe to justify taking private property from citizens. It's right up there with the idea of imminent domain. Or, for that matter, manifest destiny.

      There is no such thing as the "public domain," okay? It's not a real thing. We're not talking about a real, naturally occurring thing. It's an invention of the lawmakers. When you say "public domain," what you're really talking about--stripped of euphemism--is the seizure of private property by the state. We--the citizenry--accept this state of affairs because we realize that it's a decent enough compromise. (Well, in truth, the citizenry accepts it because the vast majority of the citizenry is just not aware of the situation.) When enough time has passed that the creator of a work could no longer reasonably benefit from it, the seizure of the work by the state is tolerated, even though it's technically an act of tyranny.

      The problem is that people aren't the only legal entities that can create things any more. Corporations can too. And corporations are immortal. So the idea of seizing works after a reasonable amount of time has passed has completely broken down.

      I don't give a damn which side of the copyright debate you fall on. But at least get the basic facts right: copyright is nothing more or less than state recognition of a creator's natural property rights. "Public domain" is the seizure of works from their owners by the state. These are not points of opinion; they are not open for debate. They're facts, plain and simple. And until we all acknowledge the facts, reasoned debate cannot occur.

  30. You young whippersnapper! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had 8 tracks?

    We had to crank a Victrola by hand in my day!

    Oh wait! That's still better than 8 tracks.

    1. Re:You young whippersnapper! by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Victrola? You were lucky. We had it tough, nothing but those Edison wax cylinders.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  31. Pepsi thinks it's cool by Fr05t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh great! I use to love stealing music but if Pepsi likes it then it just ain't cool no more. At least I still have smoking *cough* *cough* You stay the hell away from that Pepsi!

    1. Re:Pepsi thinks it's cool by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I quit heroin when Pepsi decided to cash in on it.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  32. We can still ... by SengirV · · Score: 2, Funny
    We can still rob poor people of money they can't afford to part with.

    ***Holding my lottery ticket up***

    --

    Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  33. whos getting the money? by shlomo · · Score: 0

    Here's an interesting question:
    If these people get sued and the Riaa wins, can they collect it off these commercials (past earnings)?
    and here's a better one:
    would they still download music for free?

    where do I sign up......

    --
    sorry officer, left my sig in my other computer.
  34. I'll wait.... by LnxAddct · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll wait till the commercial is on Kazaa, then I'll get it and watch it:)
    Regards,
    Steve

  35. Why buy/listen to it at all? by goldspider · · Score: 1, Troll
    If you really want to put your money where your mouth is ("Screw the RIAA!") you shouldn't buy or listen to any of the crap they produce.

    But of course, that would involve sticking to principles, and that's hard!

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually it's pretty easy. Most of the cookie-cutter stuff they try to shove down our throats isn't worth purchasing or listening to anyway.

    2. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I personally buy CDs from RIAA members when I think the music's something I want.

      There. I said it.

    3. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      You say that the RIAA (and by that, I assume you mean the record companies that are RIAA members, though you don't specify) produce only crap.

      What do you listen to, then?

    4. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Too right it is!

      But somehow, I've not bought any RIAA CDs for about a year (I've only bought 2 CDs total).

      One alternative would be a "self-taxation" where you give something back somewhere else.

      For example, let's say you buy a CD for $15. Of that, how much is paid to support the RIAA carrying out legal attacks? My guess is not much (maybe 20c?). So, if you go any buy an RIAA CD, go and give 50c to someone like the EFF or something.

      PS Check out The Fall, a great band on a truly independent label. Can buy from many places including Amazon.

    5. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      May I educate you please? You seem to be in desperate need of it.

      The RIAA doesn't produce anything. That's not its purpose. It's an industry trade association.

      The RIAA is made up of record labels. Record labels don't produce anything either. That's not their job. Their job is basically to be venture capitalists.

      Artists produce things, along with producers and engineers and all the myriad technical professionals that help them. A guy with a guitar can't create anything tangible without money, and that's where the label comes in. A label listens to an artist, makes an educated guess about that artist's commercial potential, and offers (or chooses not to offer) financial backing proportionate to that potential.

      So a record label is basically a VC firm.

      Now, why do record labels choose to invest in some artists and not others? Because they know what's going to sell and what isn't. They know this better than anybody else, because they've got decades worth of empirical data. So they know that Britney Spears is going to sell $X billion in concert ticket sales, $Y billion in CD sales, and $Z billion in cross-promotional and other sundry revenues over the next 5 years. They also know that a fringe act like Zero 7 is going to do similar business, with all the numbers divided by ten thousand. (Sometimes they're wrong; witness Moby. He generated ten thousand times more business than anybody expected him to with his "Play" album. Same thing with the soundtrack to "O Brother Where Art Thou," except it was more like a hundred times instead of ten thousand.)

      So here's how it all boils down: people want to listen to music. There are certain kinds of music they want to listen to a lot, and other kinds they want a little, and still other kinds they couldn't give two shits about. Record labels know this, because they've been around the block a time or two. So they can make educated guesses about which artists are going to make money and which aren't. They invest their money accordingly.

      Let's sum up: who's producing crap? The artists. Why? Because people want to hear it.

      The RIAA has nothing to do with it.

    6. Re:Why buy/listen to it at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the RIAA doesn't produce anything, the artists/people at the recording studio produce the music.

  36. Sign the petition!!! by edalytical · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please Sign this petition to have the commercial aired during the Super Bowl.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    1. Re:Sign the petition!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll sign a petition to have the downloads converted to MPEG so I can watch them without having to install any proprietry bullshit software or additional codecs. Link please??

    2. Re:Sign the petition!!! by edalytical · · Score: 1

      Is MPEG 4 ok. Post your email and I'll send it to you.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  37. Weeeeelllll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "RIAA gets a cut"

    They get the majority of the money. Not the artist. The artist gets sloppy 3rds.

  38. Downtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about a sign that we have attention span of gnats.

    The reason they have 30seconds of "downtime" is so that strategic changes can be made, plays called, and the players who just pushed their bodies to the limit 30 seconds before have a chance to rest and do it all again.

    If you learned how football is played you might actually find it interesting during those 30seconds of downtime. It's like someone who doesn't understand chess bitching about the time between moves.

    1. Re:Downtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not everyone has 3 hours a game to spend watching football. Once you've watched football enough, its not that interesting to see the whole thing, just skill through the good parts, unless its a really important game, in which case I'd watch it live (without skipping), but for all those other games with very little action, skip through it.

    2. Re:Downtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very true, but I consider teh super bowl as one of those games that you probably shouldn't skip through. Just take 3 hours, invite some friends over, wives, kids it all works since it doesn't have to be fancy. Let the kids run around let the wives gather in another room and drink and yell with your buddies.

      Food is pizza, wings, and heros. Little fuss, little mess and everyone is happy. Except for the guy whose team didn't cover the spread!

  39. Advertising supported music??? by jander · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting that this promotion is precisely the business model that radio has been for all these years...

    So, when this ends and downloads slow down, will Fritos, KFC, etc. be the next to give away music downloads? And how long do you think it will take until all music downloads are sponsored by advertising dollars?

    Just my $.02

    --
    An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
    1. Re:Advertising supported music??? by dema · · Score: 1

      Just my $.02

      I hope youre not a recording artists, cause you just gave away your prfits for 10 songs (:

    2. Re:Advertising supported music??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Fritos is a part of Pepsico and KFC is a spin-off of the organization, so in a way they already are.

    3. Re:Advertising supported music??? by ex-songwriter · · Score: 1

      I think you're right, and it is the logical way for things to go. Soon, most popular music will be corporate sponsored. That way everyone will get what they want. Musicians who want to make a living recording music (or at least music that is aligned with a specific brand's values) will be able to do so, and listeners who were too cheap to pay $1 a song can get a free one with their $1 can of sugar water.

    4. Re:Advertising supported music??? by jander · · Score: 1

      At one time, musicians/composers were supported by patrons (usually nobility) who used their wealth to further the arts.
      Perhaps this would be an extension of that idea - only instead of nobility, we have corporations sponsoring musicians to keep the serfs^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers happy...

      --
      An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
  40. "The future... by anactofgod · · Score: 1

    is here now. It's just not evenly distributed."

    ---anactofgod---

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
  41. That's nothing... by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The radio stations in my town (Orlando, FL) call pretty much all their promotional CD giveaways "Win it before you can burn it" or a similar reference to downloading music online. One of the rock stations even played a promo for awhile that basically poked fun at "little Billy" for downloading music off the internet and while they didn't say it directly, prison rape was implied with a soap dropping reference. If this promo was run as a Slashdot post, it would have been modded down as troll.

    Let's face it, while an ad during the Superbowl seems like a big deal to us geeks, people ALREADY know about teens being busted by the RIAA. While the buzz has definitly gotten around to non-techie people, people just aren't getting worked up over this enough to actually do anything about it.

    As much as it's considered taboo to say "downloading music is stealing" on Slashdot, that's what many people who do not download music see it as - teens getting sued by the RIAA for stealing music. It really doesn't tug on your heartstrings when that's what you see it as. You gotta remember, the average person who doesn't use P2P services probably does not understand the chances for the wrong people getting accused by the RIAA. They don't realize the RIAA is basically extorting people for absurd amounts of money to settle or face civil prosecution and all the costs associated with it. They don't realize the RIAA is abusing its monopoly and rips off its artists. All people see are teens stealing music.

    I see something much more sinister in the Pepsi commercial. I see the RIAA getting its way for $1 a track. I see once insubordinate teens that have been "shown the light" by becoming corporate whores and bowing to the RIAA's will. It only took Apple 20 years to be associated with a superbowl commercial totally opposite of their 1984 vision. This time, big brother wins.

    It's a good thing I drink coke.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...prison rape was implied with a soap dropping reference. If this promo was run as a Slashdot post, it would have been modded down as troll.

      Are you kidding? Nearly every post with a reference to the RIAA and "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison gets modded up "Insightful" or "Funny" around these parts.

    2. Re:That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grammar nazi: "if this promo WERE run as a...".

      it's subjunctive tense. part of standard english.

      also, "all people see IS teens stealing music"

    3. Re:That's nothing... by JawFunk · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's a good thing I drink coke.

      Fight the power. Stick with beer.

      --
      [Please sign here]
    4. Re:That's nothing... by lotus87 · · Score: 1


      That's right, drink Coke and give your money to the Mormons....

      yes, the Mormons bought Coke...

      No matter what you do you're giving money to big brother. Contrary to Orwell's foresight, big brother is not the government, though they are trying, but it is the corporate animal. Anywhere you turn, any product you buy is somehow handing money to big brother.

      Apple's vision is like any other company's vision, return profit and value to the shareholder. Apple chooses design, innovation, and integration to build products. Other companies choose to profit from licensing, high-volume production, etc. In the end it's all about money.

      Get over it.

    5. Re:That's nothing... by oneiron · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing I drink coke.

      You made a lot of sense until you said this...

    6. Re:That's nothing... by bigBlackSabbath · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But the iTMS sells indie artists too, and quite fairly from what the above posts indicate. Perhaps you mistake Apple's attempts to keep it an open store (open in the sense of open to all types of music and books) with the policies of individual labels regarding their artists.

      If anything, I'd think it'd be encouraging artists to abandon the major labels (i.e. your big shots in the RIAA) in lieu of the more equitable terms of indie labels. If the artist on the indie gets a fatter cut then the artist on Sony or Warner Brothers or EMI, then it would make more sense for artists to release through an independent label instead, since they both get equal treatment on the iTMS (i.e. they don't take money for better placement as opposed to traditional retail). In that way I see it as an opportunity for the little guy to stand on even ground with the big shots. Also take note that since they permit 30 second previews of all tracks and all tracks can be purchased individually, people have a much greater chance to try something new, perhaps something they never heard of before.

    7. Re:That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what you do you're giving money to big brother. Contrary to Orwell's foresight, big brother is not the government, though they are trying, but it is the corporate animal. Anywhere you turn, any product you buy is somehow handing money to big brother.

      Uh.

      What's Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world, with annual revenues greater than any other single corporation. But what is Wal-Mart?

      Wal-Mart is a publicly held corporation. What does that mean? It means that the ownership in the corporation is divided up into little slices called "shares," and that those shares are owned by... well, by anybody who wants to buy one.

      Who owns Wal-Mart shares? Believe it or not, pretty much anybody with a 401k owns Wal-Mart shares. Investment funds, like 401k's and others, buy and sell stock shares. That's how they can appreciate in value. So anybody with an investment or retirement account owns a piece of Wal-Mart.

      Who has an investment or retirement account? Practically everybody. There are 280 million people in the United States. Over 160 million of them have at least some money in the stock market, either directly through ownership of shares or indirectly through fund accounts.

      So who's this "big brother" you keep talking about?

      That's right, Sparky. It's everybody. Anywhere you turn, any product you buy is somehow handing money to your friends, your family, your neighbors, and to YOU.

      We are all "big brother," Sparky. We are all minority-share owners of everything.

    8. Re:That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, those promotional CD giveaway ads were pretty fucking retarded. But, Mel is kind of hot! Sometimes there is some good music on during The Nooner, too.

    9. Re:That's nothing... by Sunnan · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing I drink coke.

      Yeah, fucking great. (Pepsi's bad, too.)

    10. Re:That's nothing... by PowerBook2k · · Score: 1
      That's right, drink Coke and give your money to the Mormons....

      yes, the Mormons bought Coke...


      Uhhh...how about no?
  42. Pepsi - last bastion of freedom eh? by subjectstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yeah . . . wave one hand in the air to take attention away from what the other is doing.

    this ad, while ostensibly taking a shot at the RIAA, is actually helping them. It points out that these kids were sued for one, reminding a lot of people that the threat still exists. It makes i-tunes a very attractive alternative. The more popular i-tunes is, the less popular p2p necessarily becomes.

    and does the RIAA make money from songs sold on i-tunes?

    Um, you know, i think they do . . .

    so if you were thinking of screaming 'TAKE THAT RIAA! HELLS YEAH PEPSI!", maybe you should take a moment to consider that pepsi is probably just using your anti-RIAA sympathies to leverage its brand.

    *disclaimer - i personally think i-tunes rocks. pay for your music . . . just don't buy RIAA.

    --
    ** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
  43. Sure the RIAA gets their cut from iTunes sales... by Kulaid982 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    but my question is this: Do you think Apple is really charging Pepsi 99 cents per track, or do you think they got a volume discount? I would like to think that Pepsi got a smokin' deal on however many tracks they purchased to giveaway, meaning that the RIAA isn't making as much money off of the Pepsi tracks as it would if they were all independently purchased...

    --

    Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
  44. Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We only hear about these 20 cases because they went to court. We don't hear about all the cases of where the RIAA intimidates kids into paying up immediately (probably something like, "Give us a hundred bucks and we'll leave you alone"). And we won't hear about these cases in the future either.

  45. bud-weis-er? by swimfastom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pepsi? Who cares? I just love the beer commercials.

    --
    http://tomgould.com/
  46. Re:Superbowl?! by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whats the Superbowl???

    You obviously have slashdot confused with google.

  47. Bad taste is a hot ticket right now by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was all ready to go and buy pepsi instead of coke, and then i got half way down the article and read "iTunes giveaway" - i thought for a minute they were trying to target young people saying "hey, we got sued, we dont give a fuck and neither should you! screw the RIAA, download music for free, and drink pepsi to the max" which would have been a great ad. Now i realise all they're doing is promoting some iTunes thing, big deal.

    You can do _very_ well advertising to the younger end of the spectrum (0-30) with bad-taste advertising, the more complaints you get and advertising standards violations you make the better! I would have put that 12 year old and the 70 year old together and got them to say "fuck you RIAA!" and the next day i might have 5000 complaints and 3 subpoenas from the RIAA, but im telling you - everyone would be buying my product.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  48. The truth is... by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "This ad shows how everything has changed," says Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman. "Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America."

    "RIAA has filed 914 lawsuits since it began cracking down in September, including 532 this week."

    Mitch, if things have changed, why are you still filing lawsuits? The truth is as long as a product's price is artificially inflated, there will be a black market for that product. You guys never learn, you were celebrating after shutting down napster, but what happened? 5 more popped up in it's place. Shutdown Kazaa, what's going to happen? People will move to tools like soulseek and newsgroups.

    If you simply provided a high quality product at a fair price over the internet, then piracy would be reduced to 10% of what it is today. Instead you provide low quality audio recordings with what you call Digital Rights Managemet (Consumers should call this what it is, Digital Restrictions Management, because who's rights is it managing?), at the same price you charge for a physical product.

    I hope you don't learn your lesson. I hope more and more artists will see the light, and manage there own distribution chanels with the internet. The world would be a better place without the RIAA. Music survived before you, and it will live on after you're gone. Good riddens!

    1. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitch, if things have changed, why are you still filing lawsuits? The truth is as long as a product's price is artificially inflated, there will be a black market for that product.

      Uh, slow down there, Sparky. The fact is, there will always be a "black market" for any product, no matter what the price. That's because some people are perverted and would rather steal than pay a fair price for what they take. These people are monsters whose value system is so screwed up that they should probably just be shot on sight to avoid any future complications resulting from their amorality, but that's messy.

      The fact that people are stealing from you doesn't mean you need to keep lowering your prices until they stop. Hell, Sparky, teenagers steal packs of chewing gum from convenience stores, packs of gum they could pay for with a dollar bill and get a handful of change in return. These people steal them anyway. When teenagers do it, we attribute it to childish irresponsibility. Kids aren't supposed to be morally guided yet. They're still learning. But when adults do it, it's a pathology. In worst cases, it's an incurable one. And we're back to mercy-killing again.

      If you simply provided a high quality product at a fair price over the internet, then piracy would be reduced to 10% of what it is today.

      They do. It's called iTunes.

      Consumers should call this what it is, Digital Restrictions Management, because who's rights is it managing?

      The rights of the copyright holders, obviously. They're the only ones with rights here. You certainly aren't entitled to any rights in this particular scenario, because you haven't done anything. You didn't reap the grain, you didn't mill the grain, you didn't knead the dough, so you don't get to eat the bread. Got it, Sparky?

      I hope more and more artists will see the light, and manage there own distribution chanels with the internet.

      Record labels aren't just about distribution. It's not possible to make musical recordings for free. It simply can't be done. And the quality of the finished product varies, to a certain point, in direct relation to the amount of money you invest in the production process. That's what record labels do: they fund the production process, so your music ends up sounding great on my car's six-speaker stereo system instead of sounding like two teenagers threw it together in their parents' garage.

      This is the part where the Slashdot Commies come out of hiding to spew their drivel about how technology allows the Workers to control the Means of Production. Except just like their Marxist-Leninist grandparents, they're forgetting the little matter of capital. You can't just TAKE the means of production; you have to acquire them with capital. And who has the capital? That's right, the record labels.

      The world would be a better place without the RIAA. Music survived before you, and it will live on after you're gone.

      The world would be a much quieter place without the RIAA. Music before record labels was reserved for the few who could find their way to a live performance. The few recordings that existed were scratchy and unpolished, and they cost a fortune. Get rid of the record labels, and music as you know it will cease to exist.

      Dumbass.

    2. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus christ, put down Kazaa, and the crack pipe, and learn to fucking spell.

    3. Re:The truth is... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
      Uh, slow down there, Sparky. The fact is, there will always be a "black market" for any product, no matter what the price. That's because some people are perverted and would rather steal than pay a fair price for what they take.

      Sure there will always be people like that - but the very fact that they refuse to pay for stuff makes them irrelevant to the equation. If they refuse to by songs, it doesn't matter if there's a black market or not, as the labels aren't going to see any money either way.

      The fact that people are stealing

      That would be copyright infringement not stealing, thank you. Which makes all that blather comparing p2p to shoplifting irrelevant. If no property is removed there is no theft, its that simple. No, I'm not splitting hairs or calling it something other than stealing to make it sound less serious, *you* are calling it something it's *not* to make it sound more serious than it really is.

      If you simply provided a high quality product at a fair price over the internet, then piracy would be reduced to 10% of what it is today.
      • They do. It's called iTunes.
      The problem is that labels woke up to late, and movie studios haven't woken up at all. Most people are aware that their time is worth something, so they aren't going to spend endless amounts of time to get something for 'free' when they could spend a tenth of the time working and buy a pristine, flawless, legal copy of their own. But the problem is that they waited too long and too many good black market means exist. Its too late to stamp out piracy completely; it wouldn't matter now if songs on iTunes were a nickel apiece, as things like Kazaa and mp3 newsgroups are too well established.

      The rights of the copyright holders, obviously. They're the only ones with rights here. You certainly aren't entitled to any rights in this particular scenario, because you haven't done anything.

      How ignorant can you get? Copyright in the Constitution is a social contract between society and copyright holders, intended to encourage them to create new works. Holders get artificial scarcity, but consumers have their rights as well - time shifting, fair use, and *reasonable time limits* on the length of copyrights. Congress seems to have forgotten about the last little provision there, as they keep extending it for 25 years at a time.

      That's what record labels do: they fund the production process, so your music ends up sounding great on my car's six-speaker stereo system instead of sounding like two teenagers threw it together in their parents' garage.

      Sure, to a certain extent you still "get what you pay for", but $200,000+ to record one album is just ridiculous.

      The world would be a much quieter place without the RIAA. Music before record labels was reserved for the few who could find their way to a live performance. The few recordings that existed were scratchy and unpolished, and they cost a fortune. Get rid of the record labels, and music as you know it will cease to exist.

      What, you're saying that because the music industry rose with the arrival of durable formats, means that recorded music depends on the labels? Just how stupid are you? The Grateful Dead and Phish did just fine without being slaves to the labels, and you can buy their music on cd. Hell, the aforementioned teenagers can get an eMac for $800 with a combo drive and Apple's free GarageBand software, and cut their own damn cd's.

      Dumbass

      Dumerass^3.
    4. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be copyright infringement not stealing, thank you.

      Copyright infringement is a form of stealing. Just like embezzlement, fraud, shoplifting, burglary, robbery, and pickpocketing are all forms of stealing.

    5. Re:The truth is... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is a form of stealing. Just like embezzlement, fraud, shoplifting, burglary, robbery, and pickpocketing are all forms of stealing.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. With all those above mentioned things, I remove something from your possession so its in mine and you no longer have it. With copyright infringment, I have a copy and you still have the origional.

      You want proof? If this were really theft, then why isn't the RIAA prosecuting these downloaders for it? The answer is: its not theft you frikkin dumbass, never was never will be.

    6. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all those above mentioned things, I removesomething from your possession so its in mine and you no longer have it.

      That's not relevant. You're focusing on an irrelevant aspect. It would be like saying that shoplifting isn't stealing because stealing involves taking something from a person and shoplifting is taking something from a store. Because a store isn't a person, shoplifting isn't stealing.

      Except that's obviously not true.

      Copyright infringement is taking something without permission or authorization. It doesn't matter if you're making a copy or not. It's still stealing.

      If this were really theft, then why isn't the RIAA prosecuting these downloaders for it?

      Heh. Because the RIAA isn't the government. Let's do Government 101 here, okay? When a person or group conducts legal action against another person or group, that's called a civil action. When the government conducts legal action, it's a criminal action. Only the government has the authority to conduct criminal actions. That's how our legal system works. (It goes back to the English tradition of equity courts versus criminal courts, which in turn goes back to the Norman Conquest in the 11th century.)

      Why hasn't the government prosecuted those who download music? Two reasons. First, because they have limited resources and much bigger fish to fry. Second, because it's basically impossible to build a case against a downloader without violating the rules of evidence. It's just more effective to pursue those criminals through the civil system. It's a pragmatic thing, not proof that downloading isn't a crime.

      You want the final piece of evidence? Let's check THE LAW. Title 18, section 2319, calls for up to 5 years in prison if you illegally copy (i.e., "steal") materials of up to $2,500 in value over a 3-month period. If you do it a second time, you get thrown in prison for up to 10 years.

      Copyright infringement is a form of stealing. It is a felony, punishable by jail time.

      Who's the "frikkin [sic] dumbass [sic]" now?

    7. Re:The truth is... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      That's not relevant. You're focusing on an irrelevant aspect.

      If you made a typo and meant to say 'most relevant by far' then yes, you would be correct. If not, then you still had a few too many apples off the Frikkin Moron tree.

      It would be like saying that shoplifting isn't stealing because stealing involves taking something from a person and shoplifting is taking something from a store. Because a store isn't a person, shoplifting isn't stealing.

      What are you, majoring in Missing the Point at Retard Community College? You seem to be one of those inbreds who think that everything is 'theft' if it involves ownership of something and breaking a law. Tell me dear AC, why isn't it theft if I burn down your house? I've deprived you of worldly goods and possessions...you no longer have your house. Why isn't that theft? Because I burned down your house and *nobody* has it you moron! Thats why its called arson. Thats why we have some 700,000 words in the English language: so we have different names for different things that have nothing in common. Theft, arson. Theft, copyright infringment. Have your speech therapist help you with the big words if need be.

      Lets try to break this down into an analogy your primitive mind can understand. If I break into your house and remove all your DVD's and CD's, that is theft because I've taken something from your possession and put it in mine. Now, lets say that rather than removing all your CD's and DVD's, I came in with my laptop and copied them all to disk rather than taking them out of your apartment. Now, how is that stealing from anybody? Sure, trespassing was still committed, but you still have all your CD's and DVD's. I didn't steal anything from you as you still have all your possessions. Did I steal anything from the studios? Of course not, as those were *your* DVD's and CD's, not the studios.

      What did happen to the studios is that their right of control of distribution was violated. Rights that are set up in the Constitution. Rights that grant creators time limited, exclusive control over their works, with the exception of fair use rights. Rights that when infringed, means that copyright infringment has taken place.

      Heh. Because the RIAA isn't the government. Let's do Government 101 here, okay? When a person or group conducts legal action against another person or group, that's called a civil action. When the government conducts legal action, it's a criminal action. Only the government has the authority to conduct criminal actions. That's how our legal system works.

      Wow. Okay, for the really 'special' people in the audience (you) I'll spell this out. If something is stolen from you, you report it to the police and press charges. How many charges of theft have been pressed by the RIAA? A big fat fucking zero. If you want to split hairs over who literally does the prosecuting, go look at the number of people charged with theft by the government for committing copyright infringment. The number? Once again, a big fat fucking zero. The amount of money the RIAA has reported stolen (sound bytes aside)? A big fat fucking zero.

      I repeat: the RIAA has the most vested interest, of anyone, of stomping out copyright infringment online. If infringment is actually theft, then why isn't the RIAA pressing charges/suing for it, since theft is a much more serious charge than copyright infringment? BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS YOU FUCKTARD.

      Why hasn't the government prosecuted those who download music? Two reasons. First, because they have limited resources and much bigger fish to fry.

      Yeah, they've gotta send FBI agents on raids on people suspected of getting the Half Life 2 source code. Yup, much bigger fish to fry.

      Second, because it's basically impossible to build a case against a downloader without violating the rules of evidence. It's just more effective to pursue those criminals through the civil system. It's a pragmati

    8. Re:The truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, majoring in Missing the Point at Retard Community College?

      Wow. That's one hell of a good argument you've got there.

      What a dipshit.

  49. Same ol' RIAA but now with Moxie? by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, for picking you from among the many who are echoing such sentiments, but how is this "less evil than before"? As far as I can tell (not having yet seen the ad and given the article's details), the former defendants will be on the tube, hats in hand, promoting a pay service to obtain files over the Internet. Furthermore, the AAC files Apple sells on the iTMS are DRM'ed. This is everything the RIAA could have hoped for: former P2P'ers nodding to the beat of paying for their downloads.

    Also keep in mind that members of the RIAA get a take of money earned by the iTMS if those tracks are copyrighted by RIAA-affiliated labels, and many are.

    Don't get me wrong. I think iTMS is great (I'm a Mac head from way back who loves UNIX) and have maybe a couple dozen songs with the "m4p" extension. I also used Napster maybe a dozen times and hated the RIAA's campaign to destroy one of the best databases the world has ever known. But with the exception of profiting from digital music distribution, I don't see how the RIAA has changed at all.

    --
    blog
  50. Mitch Bainwol has high political (R) influence by GillBates0 · · Score: 3, Informative
    No wonder the DMCA and other such laws get passed. The RIAA folks have (as we already knew) substantial government influence. This guy is a staunch Republican. From the RIAA About Us Page:

    Bainwol had worked closely with then-National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman Frist during the 2002 campaign cycle while serving as Executive Director of the NRSC.

    With an undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and an M.B.A. from Rice University, Bainwol began his career as a budget analyst in President Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He went on to become a U.S. Senate leadership staff director from 1993-97, chief of staff of the Republican National Committee in 1998, and then a top lobbyist for the management consulting firm Clark and Weinstock in 1999.

    During his career, he has managed two successful statewide campaigns and advised on numerous others. Before forming The Bainwol Group in 2002, he also served as chief of staff for U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) for nine years (1989-1997). Mack praised Bainwol's "ability to manage an organization, fully appreciate all the nuances of issues, and grasp in a very short period of time the essence of a debate."

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  51. Arggh! It's not downloading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Downloading is not what got any of these people in trouble. Sharing -- making the songs available for download -- got them in trouble. They cannot tell what individuals downloaded. They can tell what individuals made available for download and confirm it by downloading it!

    If you want to know why the RIAA is hip to this, just think a moment. It blurs the activity. Illegal downloading is now the problem in the public's mind. By saying they litigated on the demand side rather than the supply side, they make people worry about whether the downloads can be tracked.

    I respect that the RIAA needs to enforce the publishing rights of its members. Given how creepy most people think the RIAA is, I don't see why the reinforce the perception by perpetuating a lie.

  52. Re:Superbowl?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Superb owl? I don't get it.

  53. I'm getting dizzy by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

    This ad shows how everything has changed.

    That isn't just spin, my friend. That is spaghettification.

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  54. How about a Linux "giveaway"... by skink1100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    featuring CEO's who have been sued by SCO?

    S

  55. Sneak peak at ad. by notext · · Score: 1

    50 cent didn't get my 15 dollars, I downloaded his cd free on the internet. Now I'm 50k in debt.

    1. Re:Sneak peak at ad. by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 1

      50-Cent would have been lucky to get just that 50 cents out of the $15.

      Why do you think he's always promoting G-Unit? Wearing G-Unit shirts etc? Because they are not locked into a draconian contract.

      Just like the Jacka$$ guys wearing CKY shirts. They make lots of money off there side projects, and there's no MTV to take a cut.

      I can't wait for the day when whe have P2P TV stations, radio, etc...

  56. All's well that. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 0
    Okay, let me get this straight. . .

    Download music, (which in the flagship case, was in fact paid for and genuinely believe to be legitimately acquired), get intimidated by the RIAA into settling out of court for $3000. Wind up a corporate shill, probably making, oh, say $3000 plus all the poisonous black water one can gag down for the day of the shoot.

    And the moral of the story is. . .

    "The Fat Man gets the Blue Ball."

    (Oop, sorry. That was The Phantom Menace.)

    The moral of the story is. . . "Pepsi is cool because they are on 'our' side, so let's drink more of their health-destroying black water. Isn't it great being young, impressionable and easily preyed upon by corporate America?"


    -FL

  57. they're not less evil, just less stupid by rbird76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why shouldn't they compliment the ad? The RIAA wants the money they (and their component labels) get when you buy a CD. Since (as many others have noted) they also get a cut of the cost of a track downloaded through legal music services on the Internet (and have probably set their fee to divide out to the same amount per song), the RIAA has no reason to discourage downloads from which they get their appropriate payment (and the control they assert in what is offered).

    RIAA labels still have preferential access to music on radio, they still control their supply chain, and they're getting paid. What's even better is that the while the ad might portray Apple as standing up to the RIAA, Apple (and its customers) are paying them for the music all the same. It's like beer ads that preach mass-market nonconformity as a panacea for conformity - it allows people to feel that they're hurting the RIAA by buying iTunes while giving RIAA precisely what it wants from them (control over music choice, and money).

    The RIAA should be cheering - they negate some of their opposition and get paid if they just sit back and shut up. They haven't changed - they still want control over aspects of music they have already shown they can't be trusted with. They're just smarter about it.

  58. And they won't get my $$$... by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 1

    For a while now, I've not bought any RIAA CDs (actually almost 4 now). However, my CD spending is ridiculous (CDBaby addict, other independent CD sellers.... getting thank you notes from indie artists whose CDs you've purchased is kinda neat)... but they (==RIAA) will NEVER get a single penny from me again. I've even sold off all the 250+ CDs I purchased in my middle and high school heyday of insanity. I am a Pepsi/Mountain Dew drinker over Coke. BUT... since the money I'd be paying for a soda is now going in part to RIAA artists through itunes... I will not be buying sodas from Pepsi at least for the duration of this promotion. So it's a drop in the bucket, my moral adherence to this, and spreading the word. And some of you may laugh about it.... but I can't justify sponsoring their reign of terror, or any corporations who do (Pepsi paying for RIAA artist iTunes). Just a personal thing, mod me insane. *shrug* I don't know what my point even was... it just bothers me.

    1. Re:And they won't get my $$$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a personal thing, mod me insane.
      we can't. there's no "-1, insane"

      I don't know what my point even was... it just bothers me.
      nor is there a "-1, rambling"

      too bad, really.

    2. Re:And they won't get my $$$... by Finuvir · · Score: 1
      For a while now, I've not bought any RIAA CDs (actually almost 4 now).

      Four what? Years? Months?

      ... Five ...
      --
      Why is anything anything?
    3. Re:And they won't get my $$$... by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 1

      >_ Excuse my caffeine withdrawl symptoms.... 4 years now.

    4. Re:And they won't get my $$$... by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      No, no problem with that; frankly, I think it's great that you're sticking to your principles. I just want to point out something:

      BUT... since the money I'd be paying for a soda is now going in part to RIAA artists through itunes... I will not be buying sodas from Pepsi at least for the duration of this promotion.

      RIAA artists won't make their money until customers cash in their winning codes and use them for songs from RIAA artists. Pepsi will pay for whatever songs people get via the promotion, and they don't have to be RIAA songs. You can keep drinking Pepsi with a clean conscience; if you get a winning bottlecap, you can use it for some indie song untainted by the RIAA. Unfortunately the iTMS isn't searchable by RIAA-status; you'll have to do your homework elsewhere - but if you already buy RIAA-free tunes, you probably have a good idea what's safe to buy under your boycott anyway.

  59. Re:Superbowl?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tedious American football. Sort of a cross between English football and a committee meeting.

  60. ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do males still play soccer over in europe? In America, only suburban white girls play soccer.

    What fags you eurotrash are.

    1. Re:ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rugby football.

      The men don't wear shoulder pads, or helmets, or tights. Play doesn't stop every time someone throws a ball. Players don't swap off for rests (and for tv to have ad breaks). Just 15 men per side, going hard out for 2 halves of 40 minutes each. Real men.

    2. Re:ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously failed high school physics.

      Remember? p=mv. The momentum in football is an order of magnitude greater than in rugby. Even the 330 lb. offensive linemen are faster than any 180 lb. rugby player. And the smallest halfback can hit harder than any rugby player.

      Ray Lewis without pads would flatten any whiny eurofag, even in full pads.

    3. Re:ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That isn't true according to the official Laws of Rugby. Law 4.1(g) allows headgear, 4.1(e) allows shoulder pads. Law 3.12 allows a total of seven substitutions per side of 15 players.

      Another big difference is Law 10- most of the tackling and blocking which are an inherent and common part of North American Football are considered "Foul Play" in Rugby and forbidden.

    4. Re:ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rugby != football.

      There's rugby, which is a great game. Then there's Australian rules football, which is also a great game.

      You must be a blithering usian if you don't know the difference.

      (Incidentally, what makes both rugby and aussie rules so great is the locker-room blowjob orgies after the game. "Real men" indeed.)

    5. Re:ONLY SUBURBAN WHITE GIRLS PLAY SOCCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scrum Scrum!

  61. The RIAA doesn't produce ANYTHING by gosand · · Score: 1
    If you really want to put your money where your mouth is ("Screw the RIAA!") you shouldn't buy or listen to any of the crap they produce. But of course, that would involve sticking to principles, and that's hard!

    Technically, the RIAA doesn't produce anything. They are an association that the record labels belong to, and they are the ones who produce things. All the RIAA does is....

    Hmm, what the hell do they do? Let's see:

    The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.
    In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA also certifies Gold(R), Platinum(R), Multi-Platinum?, and Diamond(R) sales awards, and recently launched Los Premios De Oro y Platino?, a new award celebrating Latin music sales.

    See? They don't produce a damn thing. So why are they necessary? Anyone? They aren't. They simply control the music industry through shady deals, legislation, purchasing of politicians, and strongarm tactics. They are the only game in town, they said so themselves.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:The RIAA doesn't produce ANYTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they exist for the same reason every trade group or union or EFF, or ACLU, or FSF exists: to promote the interest of their members.

  62. I say way to go Pepsi and Apple... by n()_cHIEFz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...at the very least some of the people sued by the RIAA are going to recoup the costs of their settlements with the RIAA by getting paid for the commercial. I think it makes a huge statement about the RIAA. Being that the add will air during the super bowl, anyone who's firmilliar with the RIAA nazi tactics are going to get the message.

    Seems like the RIAA are the only ones that aren't getting the message to me.

    --
    -- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
  63. Re:Superbowl?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "rollerball" without the plot.

  64. Big companies using people to prove a point by zoeblade · · Score: 1

    So one big group of companies sues these people, then another big company (oppressive regimes, experimenting on animals) uses these people in an advert for sugar-water.

    Just what does it take for people to stop liking big companies?

  65. Today's vocabulary lesson: weasel words. by geekwench · · Score: 2, Interesting
    • RIAA is all in favor of the ad and the promotion.
    • "This ad shows how everything has changed," says Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman. "Legal downloading is great because fans are supporting the future of creative work in America." (emphasis mine)

    That's right, Mr. Bainwol. Fans support the artists. Not the RIAA. The fans.
    I have discovered many bands that I like a lot because a friend sent me an MP3. I don't think that any performer out there (okay, unless you're a member of Metallica) would complain about losing that $.02 in royalties, if it meant another person buying the CDs and attending the concerts. Which is exactly what I do, but I'm not buying crap from the latest over-hyped bubblegum act, either.

    Either way, the RIAA loses.

    And that's just fine with Y.T.

    Addendum: I'm not exactly pleased with the whole 'wink-n-nod' attitude that the commercial apparently displays, either. Instead of bringing attention to the issue of a private organization taking legal enforcement powers unto itself, I see large corporations engaged in a mutual luv-a-thon. And there's a perverse logic to the whole thing: turn it into a joke, and people will quit whining.
    At least until Grandma faces a $1.5 million dollar lawsuit for her supposed obsession with the musical stylings of Ol' Dirty Bastard.

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
  66. Something is very very wrong by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    1. When Kids are sued by corporations, and the society doesn't do much about it.

    2. Corporations use the lawsuits and sued kids to further "educate" the masses, and promote a contest.

    3. The first person pointed out the BIGGEST problem with the story after 200 odd posts.

    4. News articles about the incident don't seem to particularly detest the fact that 12+ year old kids were sued, and are going to end up paying some money for settlements.

    Something is wrong here...people don't happen to mind their *or their kids'* freedoms abused by corporate entitities.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  67. Revenue is not profit by SiMac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple gets 35 cents per song, but they must pay for the servers, services, programming, and maybe even part of the cost of encoding the songs.

  68. Interesting business model by Vegetable+Soup · · Score: 1

    It's not completely clear from the article what actually happens here, but it seems like an interesting business model for the music industry: tie music downloads in with products. Could this reduce music down to the level of a cereal box toy? (For example, enter the product code into a website and get a specific song downloaded)? This seems to be a valuable promotional tool for artists (at least the ones the music industry wants to promote) and business alike.

  69. Re:Sure the RIAA gets their cut from iTunes sales. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Do you think Apple is really charging Pepsi 99 cents per track

    Yes. Here's an unrelated anecdote that explains why I think that. One day (quite a long time ago), Conan O'Brian mentioned on his show that they have to pay the movie studio in order to show the short movie teasers that an actor brings with him. The MPAA are very defensive about their copyrights. Even if they have some movie clip that isn't worth anything anymore, they'd rather it not be seen that for someone to see it for free. I don't doubt the RIAA is the same way. Note that this is also the reason lots of old movies will eventually go extinct. Even though there's a large enough fan base out there to have a grassroots effort to restore old movies, it'll never happen.

  70. Updating the '1984' Ad by LittleGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, I know they updated the ad with an iPod, but....

    Have the Blonde being chased by RIAA police while the drones watch the latest RIAA anti-piracy ad on the big screen. Have Blonde throw the sledgehammer into the screen, etc etc.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  71. Pray to your god for a frontal lobe. by FatSean · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'cause that post looks like something an 8 year-old would produce.

    --
    Blar.
  72. I fought "the Law"...I mean the RIAA? by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    Since when was the RIAA "the Law" Oh yeah, when they decided that they could chase down 12 yr olds. Has the RIAA even filed a "criminal" suit or have all their efforts just been civil suits?
    Still good to show actions/consequences (as pointed out before, download music, get in a SB ad)

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  73. We're like a bank, but better! by simpl3x · · Score: 2, Funny

    For that 85%, we can guarantee that you will be able to record, find distribution, people willing to work with you, and we won't break your legs! Thanks!

    "it used to be called payola, now it's music marketing!"

  74. sex drugs and rock'n'roll by t0ny · · Score: 4, Funny
    I hope everyone here doesnt lose sight of the real message:

    Pepsi is all about stickin it to 'da man'

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to mulinational corporations and multi-million pound advertising budgets spent during huge sporting events, we can really stick it to the man! Antidisestablishmentarianism rocks!

    2. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pepsi is all about stickin it to 'da man'

      Does it mean Coke is 'da man'?

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Disco+Stu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Antidisestablishmentarianism rocks!

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. Either that, or somehow, the unholy union of Apple and jocks reminds you of how much you want the church and state to be one and the same.

    4. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats Inconceivable! /shameless quote from TPB

    5. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Basehart · · Score: 1

      lipsmackinthirstquenchinacetastinmotivatin
      goodbuzzincooltalkinhighwalkinfastlivin
      evergivincoolfizzin...itunes

    6. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Antidisestablishmentarianism rocks!"

      You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means.

      God I love the Princess Bride

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    7. Re:sex drugs and rock'n'roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you type pretty well while being assfucked, don't you?

  75. best football quote I ever heard was: by mike77 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Football combines two of the worst aspects of American society: Violence punctuated by committee meetings.." - unknown

    I love foosball btw... even tho it's of da devil!

    --

    --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    1. Re:best football quote I ever heard was: by jerky42 · · Score: 1

      George Will said this.

      --
      The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must.
    2. Re:best football quote I ever heard was: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he's still a dick.

  76. 950 songs? Bah! by JawFunk · · Score: 0, Troll
    The actor and her little brother downloaded 950 songs overthree years!!! OMG!! (stark sarcasm). There are 14 year olds as well as 45 year olds sitting with terabytes of songs.

    On another note, anyone notice the undisclosed retainer fee for the commercial, a small portion of which will go to paying off her $3000 settlement. WAY TO TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM BITCH!

    --
    [Please sign here]
  77. sports : video games :: football : Civ by merikus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a recent football fan, and I strongly agree with everything in the parent to my post.

    For a long time I was very anti-football. I saw it as a sport for idiot jocks that gets them billions of dollars a year. But then I was living with some rabid football fans for awhile, and I started watching.

    Now, I'm hooked. Much like a turn based strategy game, if you don't know what's going on it's boring as hell (imagine watching a game of Civ with no clue whatsoever?). But once you know *why* there's pass interference, or false start, or the difference between an incidental face mask and one that's a personal foul, it becomes engrossing. Hell, I went out and bought the complete rules to football once I really started getting in to it. It's cool to be able to call out a penalty and then see the refs call it after you saw it.

    Also, try to understand the different types of defense that are going on (e.g., zone (where you cover the ball / offensive players in an area) vs. man (where you cover a particular offensive player), and the blitz (where you send guys out of zone or man coverage to get the quarterback) ). Defensive stragety is *quite* interesting and fun, not to mention with a large element of psychology thrown in.

    If you're going to be watching the super bowl anyway (for the ads) you might as well try to figure out what's going on. Instead of reading /. for a few minutes before the game, just check out the rules and try to get a general idea of what's happening.

    In the end, I'm convinced that the reasons geeks hate football is because we got beat up by the football players in high school.

    1. Re:sports : video games :: football : Civ by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      I got beat up by football players in high school, but I loved it. It's called second string. All week long I got beat up, and then cheered from the sidelines during games. Man, I'm stupid.

    2. Re:sports : video games :: football : Civ by bennomatic · · Score: 1
      Hell, I went out and bought the complete rules to football once I really started getting in to it.

      That's great; geeking out to football to such a point that you buy a manual. Do you shout out RTFRB (RB=Rule Book) when the people you watch football with question a call?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  78. Wouldn't it be cool if SCO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Started stealing blantantly stealing linux code and selling it as a 'different' commercial product.

    And wouldn't it be cool if they said, "hey...people will still download IP from the internet...what's the big deal?"

    Watching the average Slashdot participant hypocritically lambast companies which threaten the GPL and conversely advocate stealing music is sort of entertainment for me.

    You are all clueless, and most don't even have the mental discipline to hold any of your beliefs with any consistency.

    Lazy.....that somes up the lot of you.

    IP Theft = IP Theft (unless it doesnt affect you of course)

  79. Right. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    This isn't a "shot" at the RIAA. Apple knows perfectly well that they're supporting the RIAA just as much as CD makers are. This is false advertising.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  80. Not "Good." by 87C751 · · Score: 1
    The money may "go to the RIAA", but in reality it's going to pay off the debts incurred by the bands.
    And you can be assured that the RIAA members structure the contracts such that most artists never see a dime of that money. At the absolute best, a signed artist can only expect to get 90% of their due, because the "standard" recording contract includes a 10% "breakage" withholding (dating from the days when shellac records would often be damaged in transit, whereas now substantially less then 1% spoilage occurs).

    So, once again: The RIAA members screw their artists at every turn.

    Me, I only buy used or direct from the artist these days.

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  81. Re:Superbowl?! by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bit like th FA cup final except the viloence is on the pitch and not in the stands.

  82. What does Pepsi get out of this? by Limited+Vision · · Score: 0

    1) market share
    2) millions of valid email addresses

    So you take your bottle cap, login to your iTunes account, and Pepsi gets marketing information... How free is this music now? Pepsi is not doing this for the benefit of society. I'll be not at all surprised if I start getting spam from them.

    Or, they could say "Hey, let us spam you and we'll give you one free song a month." You know a whole lot of people would sign up for that...

    TINSTAAFL...

    1. Re:What does Pepsi get out of this? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      You spelled TANSTAAFL wrong.

    2. Re:What does Pepsi get out of this? by Limited+Vision · · Score: 1

      Damn grammacronym nazi... :)

    3. Re:What does Pepsi get out of this? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      As long as you're talking about it not being free, don't forget you presumably have to pay for the bottle of Pepsi that bottle cap come off of.

    4. Re:What does Pepsi get out of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't surprise me if Pepsi is getting the list of songs that people download with their free downloads. This could be very useful for future marketing campaigns, seeing what music to use in the background, what stars to pay to push their products, etc.

    5. Re:What does Pepsi get out of this? by Limited+Vision · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fair enough, but I'd argue that for most folks this is coming out of whatever "beverage budget" you already had. Instead of a Coke or an orange juice, you're buying a Pepsi.

      It's also an economic multiplier -- "hey look, I'm getting a drink AND a song..." Or, "Hey, my drink/song costs less now..."

      Yes, some outliers are going to buy litres of Pepsi, but I still think that most folks aren't actually going to drink more fluids as a result.

  83. Your srill gonna fall for it by JawFunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ironically, after committing an hour of your life debating this ad on slashdot, it has gained an infamous reputation amongst us, and when you see it during the superbowl, your gonna remember the controversy - then, and now. And when someone yells to you if you want a drink from the store you're gonna ask for a PEPSI. Remeber to stick with beer... or You lose.

    --
    [Please sign here]
  84. More like a loan-shark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reality, the band never sees any money, and winds up with more debt than they would have incurred had they produced it themselves. Of course, they'd never get played because of the payola system, but that just makes the RIAA look more and more like the organized crime syndicate it is.

  85. I'm amazed this hasn't been said yet.... by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    1. Download music illegally
    2. Get sued by RIAA, loose $3000
    3. Star in Superbowl ad
    4. PROFIT!!!1

    Well damn. Looks like a pretty good deal to me! *Loads Kazaa*

  86. It's not what the RIAA offers... by Andorion · · Score: 1

    The RIAA says to iTunes: either you only sell music that's produced through us, or you don't get ANY of the music produced through us.

    ~Berj

    1. Re:It's not what the RIAA offers... by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately ITMS sells more than just the music of RIAA member labels. I don't know where you got that idea from!

  87. The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Steve Jobs recently gave an interesting interview about the music industry.

    He noted that for every 10 high potential artist a major label promotes, only 1 makes it. Typically, it costs a large label around 1 million to promote, pay, and produce a single artist (I once worked for a label, I can confirm this).

    So this means, it cost about 10 million dollars to find one needle in a haystack. Those artist who do "make it" have to, essentially, pay for the giant losses made by the 9 other artists who didn't make it.

    According to Jobs, the record industry is a fairly shitty business.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the music industry is only around two hundred million something a year. (This came up when someone pointed out that for a while, the music industry was looking at fighting both the tech and telecom industries, which were so much larger by far that it was ridiculous.)

    2. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, but that one that makes it pulls in in 100 million.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Jobs is touting the ever-so-famous, "Oh woe is us" record label line. If the music industry is so volatile and costs so much, then why are record labels pulling in billions of dollars each year? Reality seems to disagree. The record labels make more than enough profit to cover all their costs, so they can afford lower CD prices. That's the bottom line. This "1 in 10" crap doesn't change that.

    4. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by awebus · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make me pity the labels. It makes me wonder why they don't do a better job. As I understand it, we basically pay the labels to filter through all the music and find the good stuff for us. For that, they get a cut of our money.

      While predicting the tastes of the public is certainly not an exact science, I can't help but feel screwed. We pay them to find good music and then we pay them much more because it's really hard?

    5. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why they piss away millions upon millions on lawyers... and you worked for a major industry label?? Rightttttt.

    6. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He noted that for every 10 high potential artist a major label promotes, only 1 makes it. Typically, it costs a large label around 1 million to promote, pay, and produce a single artist (I once worked for a label, I can confirm this).

      Artists get paid out of the profits from the sale of their material. The record companies don't really spend any money to pay them.

      Artists have to pay back the label for studio time, recording materials, promotional material, costs of album fabrication, lawyers fees, and a half dozen other things before they see one cent of the money from their music.

      A great example of this was what "Tribe Called Quest" went through, their album "Low End Theory" sold over 2 million copies, after taxes and the record company's cut they got about 35 thousand dollars.

      At the time, CDs were selling for about $15 each, and cassettes were going for about $10 each. So let's make a few assumptions. Let's round the sales figure down to an even 2 million units. Let's also assume that they only sold cassettes. 2 million copies of a $10 product. This translates to $20 million. Let us also assume the record company paid $1.50 for each of the cassettes. That leaves $17 million. Let's say $4 million for studio time, production, and promotion. $13 million. Of that, less than $1 million actually went to the group, but let's round up to an even million.

      In this case, $12 million dollars is the minimum amount of money that the label pocketed from the hard work and determination of their artist.

      The point that I am making here is that Steve Jobs doesn't know too much about the recording business.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by danila · · Score: 1

      Many other industries operate in a similar conditions. For example, the gaming industry comes to mind. But do you see them engaging in similar shady business practices?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    8. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Completly ignoring the money retail got.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    10. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by wunderhorn1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure what point you were really making, but the point Jobs was making was that 9 out of 10 acts don't even make enough to pay back the record label, in which case the label is out the money. yes, they still manage to cover it all by turning out a few hits, but the point of the article was that it's a ridiculous way to run an industry.

      --
      Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
    11. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by danila · · Score: 1

      I meant anything different from usual shady practices of any business, like pulp and paper manufacturing, CPU design and manufacturing, fast-food or nutria breeding. Anything specific to a market where most money is made on a small number of products and where Internet makes large-scale casual piracy possible.

      I think gaming companies still don't act like **AAs... May be the reason is they still don't have a powerful industry association...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    12. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by danila · · Score: 1

      Following my previous comment, may be industry associations are evil, because it's like isolating your aggression into a separate individual. Without a counterweight of your conscience, your morals and your kindness, aggression will run amuck. Similarly, when you separate prosecution of copyright violation from your other functions, those prosecutors will quickly get out of control.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    13. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      No, the gaming industry has always been very much like the record industry. In the early days it was quite common that the game programmers (most games were done by only one person) hardly got a cent even from top selling games, even the stars of the trade. And today we have international megacorps (who are often also in the record and film business) that hire and fire developers however they please, and force them to write movie tie-ins and sequels.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:The RIAA really doesn't make a lot money by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      "Artists get paid out of the profits from the sale of their material. The record companies don't really spend any money to pay them."

      It depends on your contract. They vary a lot.

      When I used to work for a label, good artists were given around $250,000 to 1 million. After that, they -owed- the label one, or a number, of albums; a number of concerts and shows, etc.

      If they didn't fulfill this contract, the label would automatically stake claim on any albums or performances done independently or with another label.

      This contract arrangement can been good because it assures the artist will not have a future career unless they fulfill your needs. It's kind of like selling your soul to the devil >:) If you think they are a -really- good artist you can give them an ass load of money and force them to give you the rights their next 5 albums. If they spend the money, and sign with a different label, you go to court, show the contract, and get the album(s) they produced with the other labels funds :)

      A lot of dumb folks get screwed over this way. They get a contract for multiple albums, but don't get enough money to produce multiple albums. Once they are broke, they find another label, and the old label gets an album paid for by the new label.

      all in all... read the fine print. Pay a paralegal $100bucks, and have the contract read before you sign.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  88. What I want to know is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you just use the can to get your free iTunes music, or do you still have to drink the shit?

  89. iTunes: Facelift for a Corrupt Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone really interested in the future of this issue would do him/herself well to check out downhillbattle.org, particularly their parody of and challenge to iTunes

  90. false advertising? by admactanium · · Score: 1

    how is it false advertising? PEPSI, not apple, is advertising free music downloads for the end user. these teens saying they're going to download music for free isn't false, it's a clever way of spinning what pepsi is promoting. the spot doesn't make any claim that is false or can be disproved. please get your terminology straight.

    if the ad actually said: "hey, buy music from us and we guarantee that the riaa will never get a cent from the sale" then it would be false advertising.

  91. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And after the RIAA is cut out of the loop, and only Apple gets the licensing deals...So what?

    The bands still want money dont they? They want to sign contracts don't they? They probably dont want $.10 micropayments until they become famous.

    Does anybody else see the irony if Apple's initiative dooms the RIAA, as Apple itself becomes the NEW RIAA? (Albeit with a more technologically friendly business model)

  92. RIAA != Bank by Baby+Duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I get a loan from a bank to buy a house or a car, and I pay the loan back on time and in good faith, the bank doesn't keep my house or car. Not during the payback period and not after.

    Now if I'm PAID to make a house or car, I don't get to keep the house or car I made.

    If I don't like my employer, there are plenty of other cats to go to. The RIAA is a monopoly of the available employers for a particular industry. Smaller employers (indie labels) have a hard time breaking in.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  93. Better than pot. by satanami69 · · Score: 1

    I've never done a drug in my life, but even I was appalled about the Marijuana commercials telling me that pot funds terrorism.

    Drinking Pepsi does not mean I'll download music illegally. I don't even listen to it legally on the radio, why would I spend time downloading it on the internet.

    I like the good old days of commercials, where beer bottles would battle for supremecy on the gridiron. Thank jebus that at least A-B are bringing that one back for me.

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
    1. Re:Better than pot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm, you drink pepsi, don't listen to music, "like the good old days of commercials", and make references to "jebus". Does ANYONE believe this guy has "never done a drug in his life"?!

    2. Re:Better than pot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      but even I was appalled about the Marijuana commercials telling me that pot funds terrorism.

      Anyone who thinks that pot doesn't fund terrorism, without meaning insult, is completely ignorant of it's supply chain.

      On the flip side, however, marijuana tends to fund terrorism in South America, not the Middle East (as the ads seemed to imply). The drug money in the Middle East tends to come more from opium and/or heroin. And, of course, it should also be said that purchasing GASOLINE probably funds Middle-Eastern terrorists more than drugs do!

      steve

  94. Boost sharing? by bblackfrog · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised the RIAA response was so low-key.

    Won't we see a thousand dumb kids reenable sharing in misguided attempts to garner fame and fortune by appearing in a Pepsi iTMS add...?

  95. shhh god damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other AC meant kazza of course.

  96. So after they sue them ... by nut · · Score: 1

    ... They try to buy them back.

    --
    Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
  97. Question by bonch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I hear constantly how the RIAA's "business model is failing." I never hear about the people themselves who are doing the illegal downloading.

    So, if the RIAA were somehow destroyed tomorrow and artists didn't sign the contracts anymore that paid the people advertising their music everywhere, you all would suddenly stop downloading their music for free off Kazaa? Just curious.

  98. More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect they'll also get a large number of people to try the iTunes service, and thereby bolstering that revenue stream. They're using traditional marketing techniques ("free stuff!!!") to build up an entirely new business model. I see the beginnings of evolution.

  99. Arrogant Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this ad bites apple on it's A$$. The fact that the music industry STOLE *from* the public and *was* sued for antitrust violations should be highlighted in the ad. Instead we're supposed to buy that somehow that 14 yr old kids were sued and now they're making money of that fear uncertainty and doubt based on dubious law and even more dubious moral ground is supposed to make me like the iTMS or buy pepsi? What a crock.

    Wowee, now you get to buy something less than the real thing (pun intended), for more money on iTunes. The concept of this ad is so obnoxious that I hope it makes the entire public sour on the iPod and Apple. Here's a hope/prediction. That people will milk as many songs from the promotion, and then the cool "fad" status is killed off on the iPod and apple for being such hypocrites.

    Apple has now begun to foster the evil Orwellian principles that the original 1984 commercial warned of. What a load and a bunch of tools.

    1. Re:Arrogant Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure who this is supposed to make feel better? The RIAA? People that use KaZZa? People who already use the iTMS? It's a bizarre concept for an ad that seems like it's bound to piss off one group or another.

  100. Slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the main page of the link to the story because you fuckers keep eating balls and hamburger patties that have been sitting on Wilfur's backdoor since the wee hours of his drunken adventure into the bastard wilderness:

    Cars Jobs Travel Business Opportunities Franchise Real Estate Tickets More

    Home
    News
    Money
    Sports
    Life
    Tech
    Weather

    Tech Investor
    Investor home
    Internet 50 index
    Ask Matt
    Kevin Maney
    Tech Reviews
    Reviews home
    Edward C. Baig
    Marc Saltzman
    Columnists
    Columnists index
    Jinny Gudmundsen
    Andrew Kantor
    Kim Komando
    Eric J. Sinrod
    Gene Steinberg
    WonderQuest
    More Tech
    Hot Sites
    Shareware Shelf
    Answer Desk
    Tech briefs
    Music and Tech
    Talk Today

    Posted 1/23/2004 12:15 AM Updated 1/23/2004 10:07 AM

    RELATED STORIES
    The Super Bowl of Advertising
    Detroit automakers get back into the game
    Hype and marketing is all part of the game
    Advertisers pass on big-game heroes
    'American Chopper' stars climb aboard AOL ad blitz
    To ad buyers, Super Bowl = Young men
    Staples uses humor for 1st Super Bowl trek
    Lingerie Bowl controversy
    PartyPoker.com becomes new Lingerie Bowl sponsor
    DaimlerChrysler withdraws sponsorship
    Lingerie models to punt, pass, kick and tackle at half-time
    PHOTO GALLERY: Lingerie Bowl 2004
    USA TODAY's 2003 Ad Meter
    Anheuser-Busch king of Super Bowl comedy- again
    Chart: How last year's commercials ranked
    Previous Ad Meter winners
    Today's Top Tech Stories

    Gates announces partnership with U.N. - 4:05 PM
    Technologies compete in evolving digital TV market - 2:00 PM
    Some Kyocera cell phone batteries burning users - 4:05 PM
    Sony claims downloading crackdown drove music-sales recovery - 1:12 PM
    European orbiter confirms water ice in Mars polar cap - 12:57 PM
    Add USATODAY.com headlines to your Web site

    E-Mail Newsletters

    Sign up to receive our free Tech e-newsletter and get the latest tech news, Hot Sites & more in your inbox.

    E-mail:
    Select one: HTML Text

    Pepsi ads wink at music downloading
    By Theresa Howard, USA TODAY
    NEW YORK -- A new sort of Pepsi Generation will get air time on the Super Bowl: music downloaders.
    Annie Leith, sued by the recording industry over music downloads, appears in a Pepsi ads.
    Pepsi-Cola

    Some 20 teens sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, which accuses them of unauthorized downloads, will appear in a Pepsi-Cola (PEP) ad that kicks off a two-month offer of up to 100 million free -- and legal -- downloads from Apple's iTunes, the leading online music seller. The sassy ad, to be seen by Super Bowl's 88 million viewers on Feb 1, is a wink at the download hot button. Pepsi hopes the promotion will connect its flagship cola, as well as Sierra Mist and Diet Pepsi, with teens who've shown more affinity for bottled water, energy drinks and the Internet.

    The ad identifies the teens as a "few of the kids sued for downloading music free off the Internet." RIAA has filed 914 lawsuits since it began cracking down in September, including 532 this week.
    AUDIO

    Remember the original version of
    I Fought the Law
    by the Bobby Fuller Four?

    Annie Leith, a 14-year-old from Staten Island, appears with other downloaders in the ad, which features music by Green Day. The band cut a special version of the 1966 Bobby Fuller Four hit I Fought the Law for the ad, by BBDO, New York. In the ad, Leith holds a Pepsi and proclaims: "We are still going to download music for free off the Internet." Then the announcer says how: "Announcing the Pepsi iTunes Giveaway."

    "It's all in good spirit," says Dave Burwick, chief marketer, Pepsi, North America. "This has been a huge cultural phenomenon. It's highly relevant and to

  101. Pepsi Rules by gunnmjk · · Score: 0

    Get sued by the RIAA, get a spot in a Pepsi commercial! That's awsome! The money people get from Pepsi for appearing will help pay settlement fee's and the like. I'm liking this.

  102. I see a completely different message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That isn't the lesson that I take away from this. This is the fans finally telling the recording industry what the artist have wanted to tell them for a long time. To put it politely, "Goodbye."

    People want the convenience of downloading music. They want it on demand. And thanks to the net, there is no reason that it can't be provided that way. RIAA was scared. They know that the main hold they have on artists is their promotional muscle and distribution chain. Well if artists can get their stuff to fans on the net and make themselves known there, what do they need a record company for? Artists have hated the recording industry's contracts for a very long time.

    RIAA didn't want music downloads to happen. Instead, they've dragged their feet too long. Now the fans have somewhere else to go. And all the indie record companies who are willing to deal with the artists on a more even basis should have no problem stealing them away from RIAA's members.

  103. Re:bud-weis-er? nah.. Heineken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heineken USA and RealNetworks Team Up to Offer Free Digital Music Downloads This Summer

    Slated to kick-off during the Memorial Day holiday period and run through July, 2004, every specially marked 12-pack of Heineken will include a unique code redeemable for 2 free songs from RealNetworks.

  104. Important note for oldtimers by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are kids out there who were 12 when it was 1998, they saw the heyday of MP3s and the dot com boom in junior high school, they've almost graduated now and the RIAA is trying to tell them that what they've been doing on their computers for as long as they remember is illegal.

    They're going to have a very hard time convincing these kids that CDs are worth money. You might as well be selling 8-tracks.

    1. Re:Important note for oldtimers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, spend million pushing music and selling rebillina, then get all freeked out when the kids are.. well rebellous.

      I mean when you put out songs the talk about killing people, don't be surprised when people don't care about copyright.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Important note for oldtimers by qseep · · Score: 1

      Downloading music for free was just the latest phase... computers have always enabled free trading. When I was in junior high and high school in the 80s , the thing was trading games on floppy disks. No big difference.

    3. Re:Important note for oldtimers by gunnmjk · · Score: 0

      I think you've just described me.

      I was downloading mp3's off the hotline connect client 1.2.3 for mac when I was in Junior High. In fact, I placed a music video I downloaded along with audio files in a HyperStudio presentation I made for the class. I was having a blast downloading off their LAN since at that time I only had a 33.6kbps modem and Earthlink at home. The teacher even burned a cd for me with all my mp3's on it (she didn't know what they were then!) and said I accidently left them on the computer. They were using the brand new G3 Desktops and Bondi Blue iMacs at the time. Man that takes me back. I guess that would have made me 12 or 13 at the time.

      I disagree on your point however that it is going to be hard to convince kids that CD's are worth money. Although I havn't bought a CD in years, I appreciate the value of having a booklet and a case for CD's of your favorite bands. For me however, I'm near a computer more than I am a traditional stereo, so MP3 is the format for me.

  105. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, you're late today! What happened?

  106. So then the RIAA can run an Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So the RIAA, in response, can run an ad showing kids ripping Pepsis off from a 7-11, saying "I still get my Pepsi for free"

    Is this a great country or what?

  107. Too bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, I'm here all day.

  108. RIAA = Bankployer by cgenman · · Score: 1

    As a musician, you are taking out a loan from a person whom you are working for, who reaps the benefits from your labor, and whom you pay back.

    Sounds fair. To the employer.

  109. Living in the future by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, man, you'll be living there tomorrow.

    They've been telling me that for years, but somehow it's still the present...

    1. Re: Living in the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are living in the future
      I'll tell you how I know
      I read it in the paper
      Fifteen years ago

      -John Prine

  110. SHHHHHH!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on't-day alk-tay about-ay ewsgroups-nay!!!

    i stole that from a previos slashdot comment.

  111. CBS wants to make money, not enemies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't say I blame them from not broadcasting that inflammatory ad. MoveOn.org ads == HATE SPEECH and propaganda.

    CBS has very little to gain from broadcasting that trash and a LOT to lose. Republicans would boycott and CBS would again lose viewers.

    Remember that slanderous Reagan miniseries?

    1. Re:CBS wants to make money, not enemies! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      The one you never saw? That just about nobody ever saw? That got shut down because the husband of a Democrat portrayed the main character?

      Yes, I remember it.

  112. it's not a bubblegum act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a "milkshake" act =;

  113. New business scheme by Kjeks · · Score: 1

    1. Download pirated music from the Internet
    2. Get sued by the RIAA
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    --

    --
    Will work for bandwidth.
  114. She's 14?! by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

    Damn. She don't look 14.

    Is anyone else planning on switching to Pepsi for the duration of the promotion for the sole purpose of iTunes songs? This is one tie-in that I actually care about (and will work on me).

  115. No, I mean... by simpl3x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...stuffed in vaults. Safes, fireproof boxes... most of what was available on vinyl, never made it to cd. most of what is recorded, was never thought to have "commercial" value in the mass production sense. So, I mean actually stuffed in vaults, decaying. Films also suffer the same fate. By the contracts the band itself signs you, of course, mean the only viable contract. As if there were an alternative. You, of course, mean the contract where the artist pays for the wining and dining necessary to get airplay. "Payola" is such an old term! They're now called "music marketers," the most influential of which is actually upstairs from my office.

    In the bleak and horrible past, people made decisions for us.

    1. Re:No, I mean... by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By the contracts the band itself signs you, of course, mean the only viable contract. As if there were an alternative.

      According to absolutely everybody, there ARE alternatives...indie labels, Internet distribution, etc.

      You're behaving like the RIAA is forcing you to sign with their labels, as if there is no choice. Well, gee, you should let the other 80% of the music world know, since there is a non-RIAA world.

      You, of course, mean the contract where the artist pays for the wining and dining necessary to get airplay.

      So don't. There's Internet or other radio stations that DON'T require payola.

      I'm so sick of this whiny victim mentality. Bands can do just fine without going to an RIAA label--they do it all the time. If you sign a contract, you sign a contract! What, is there a gun pointing to your head? Is that what you're saying when you write "no alternative?"

    2. Re:No, I mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to my friends list. :) -S

    3. Re:No, I mean... by mrogers · · Score: 1
      I'm so sick of this whiny victim mentality.

      Hey, you don't get to be a rock musician by maturely and objectively assessing the facts before providing a balanced and well-reasoned response. ;-)

    4. Re:No, I mean... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      I think he meant no alternative ... that'll make you famous. The only famous artists are artists who were once signed with a major, or are currently signed with a major. If you go indie, you'll never reach the kind of audience you can reach through the majors, because you're effectively banned from radio and TV, which are the two ways that shape how most people see the world.

      And a lot of artists are in it to get heard, not to become rich. Fame gets you heard.

  116. A little off Topic by sadler121 · · Score: 1

    This is what erks me about the Republicans. Though the Democrates are not any better (being more intergrated with the Entertainment industry than Republicans) still, the blanted disregard for individual rights diffeintly points to the system being broken. Neither side, (Dem or Repub) can do anything about it because BOTH sides are controled by special interests, (Corperations, control the Republicians, and the Entertainment industry controls the democrates) Sadly there is really nothing that any one can do to beat ethier side because of the TRAMENDOUS amount of money that BOTH sides have. The only way I see currently of restoring the peoples right is through revolution. **Runs away from Ashcrofts Gestapo Homeland Secruity**

  117. Signing their own death warrants by IshanCaspian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Supporting legal music downloading is the dumbest thing the RIAA ever did. Why, you ask?

    The RIAA currenly has a monopoly on physical distribution. No pirate could every touch them when it comes to their ability to crank out physical CD's. However, once they get the downloading in to the mainstream, (and I mean making it totally replace cds) they will have changed the market so that they are totally obsolete. The RIAA cannot survive in an online world...they are too big, too slow, and too hated.

    Let's face it, when it comes to the internet, Geeks have a thousand times more resources for distributing information than the RIAA ever will. What's to stop new bands from using services like itunes to be promoted alongside RIAA bands, and then selling their own music over the net?

    Anyways, here's to the RIAA! Thanks for helping to make a world where you are irrelevant!

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:Signing their own death warrants by hangingonwords · · Score: 0

      well sir let me add that you are no regular man and that your relevance is relevant to me! just playin, i like your point though.

      --
      fact: microsoft > linux
  118. Try Fencing! by AgentPhunk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is so far offtopic the Mars Rover is going to pick it up, but its one of the few chances I've seen to tout my own sport here:

    Try Fencing if you want to get involved in a strategy sport that:
    a) is an amazing cardio workout
    b) very inexpensive to get started with (most clubs let you use their equipment for free, and a full electric setup, with appropriate clothes, is under $500)
    c) fighting with swords is a crapload of fun, especially once you get the hang of it (only a couple of months, but still a lifetime to master)
    d) makes you THINK. its not about bashing the head in of whomever has the ball. its about figuring out your opponent, and then executing a strategy against him. I leave practices and/or tournaments with my head spinning (but in the good way)

    and if I haven't convinced you yet:
    e) LOTS of girls fence. Yes, /.'ers, you can participate in a sport AND meet girls at the same time. And "NO" to the sarcastic kid in the back, they DO NOT look like orcs. Most of them are damn cute (and most that I know are in professions like molecular biology and other "thinking" jobs, so they also pass the geek factor.)

    Check it out. http://www.usfa.org

  119. Re:Superbowl?! by Shriek · · Score: 0

    Your brain has obviously been slashdotted if you don't recognize the humor...

  120. What would make a better commercial... by brahmsnotbombs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, the 12 year old and 70 year old would be a great pair. I think they missed their mark though...to really make the point they could feature:
    1) one of the millions who filed with the anti-trust suit in which the RIAA inflated CDS between 1995-2000. We're the victims here...

    2) Prince or the Dixie Chicks explaining lawsuits around their unfair contracts with their record companies.

    3) Howard Berman (Rep. Senator fighting P2P). I'd love to see Pepsi ask him about the 55 million in lobby money the RIAA spends a year.

    4) Mitch Bainwol himself. I'd like to see them ask about the data posted on the RIAA site and have him explain in detail the "loss of sales" spreadsheet for last year. Apparently, the people who put together these figures assume you will buy several copies of the same CD for your car, your stereo, and your computer. It would be fun for him to watch him explain this while he's drinking a pepsi.

    5) Interview someone from the CD-R division of any one of the Music companies and ask them why downloading music is wrong.

    Come to my house on the 2nd and you're getting coke....

  121. 1 trillion dollars split 260million ways... by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Speaking of the Bush deficit, 1 trillion dollars split 260 million ways is only about $4000. I don't know if that really warrents all the fuss. Besides once we're in an upturn economy again, we won't even need to raise taxes to make up the deficit. The government will just take in more money, like it did in the 90's. I hardly think that it would have been a good idea to raise taxes during an economic downturn to make up for the deficit. As my economics professor once said, "the last presidint who tried to balance the budjet during a recession was Hover". (that was at the beginning of the great depression)

  122. Bad corporate model? by danwiz · · Score: 1
    Sounds like the corporate model that supports such poor choices needs inspection.

    If my (stock broker, hospital, retailer, manufacturer, spouse, etc.) is documented at only making good choices 10% of the time, then its time to re-think both the people involved and the process that supports such decisions. Or face failure.

    Unfortunately, the existing record industry system (ie. monopoly) supports those high failure rates, also known as poor decisions, by overcharging the consumer. In a non-monopoly situation where the distribution channels are more open, the competitors making slightly better choices would promote the evolution of a better business model.

    I would have liked to have provided an example, but I couldn't think of an industry/group that can survive with a 90% failure rate for its product choices (other than the government).

    1. Re:Bad corporate model? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I would have liked to have provided an example, but I couldn't think of an industry/group that can survive with a 90% failure rate for its product choices (other than the government).

      This is the difference between hard physical products which can be measured and studied and things like art, which is difficult to predict who will like what. Would you invest into some Spanish dude whose paintings look all distorted? What if that dude's name happened to be Picasso? How can you predict the value people place upon such things?

      Your stock broker diversifies your portfolio (I hope) because he can't pick great stocks 100% of the time. You will have some stocks which looked great up front, but which tanked at the end. Hopefully your other stocks make enough of a return to cover the losses by that one stock.

      Yes, a 90% failure rate is rather abysmal, but they've done well so far making a business out of it. With all the griping about the RIAA, it's surprising that a bunch of prominent artists haven't gotten together yet to start up their own alternative.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  123. Hackable? by presearch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With 100M download codes, and the need to keep them short because they're
    printed on bottle caps, how long until scripters start probing for music codes....

    Damn pirates.

    1. Re:Hackable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 hex digits is something like 7.5 billion codes... so not really.

    2. Re:Hackable? by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can see an 8-digit code fitting inside a bottle cap...and if they use both alphas and digits:

      36^8 = 2,821,109,907,456 codes / 100,000,000 free songs means that 1 out of 28,211 randomly selected codes would work (on average). That is assuming that each free song has a code (they might be "tiering" it so that some codes are redeemable for more than one free song).

      That is quite a few, and I would hope that they would also have some sort of brute-force lockout mechanism.

      I got an iTMS gift certificate not long ago, but I don't remember how many digits it had...12-15 at least. And I typed it correctly the first time, so I don't know about brute-force safeguards either. :)

  124. Nice For A Change by Aoverify · · Score: 1

    With all the talk about boycotting RIAA artists, MPAA movies, and other companies, its nice to see a company I can actually support without compromising my ideals.

  125. Deficit by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    That is true, but if we never repay our loans we essentially get "bad credit" for future loans (for example, people are less willing to buy bonds and so fourth...). Not that it's really an issue since the deficit is so small compared to how much the government takes in anyway.

  126. They did it to themselves by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Insightful
    He noted that for every 10 high potential artist a major label promotes, only 1 makes it. Typically, it costs a large label around 1 million to promote, pay, and produce a single artist (I once worked for a label, I can confirm this).

    So this means, it cost about 10 million dollars to find one needle in a haystack. Those artist who do "make it" have to, essentially, pay for the giant losses made by the 9 other artists who didn't make it.

    Talk about reaping what you sow.

    When you turn the industry into something about trendiness and glitz and everything except actual quality of product, this is what you get.

    Of course, of the 10, all 10 are just glitz products, and the actual skilled musicians, pot-bellies and ugly faces and all, sit at home and release quality albums in batches of 1000 on independent labels. Or they play in small jazz clubs and such.

    1. Re:They did it to themselves by Billobob · · Score: 0

      So youre telling me that slipknot is the pinnacle of fashion? Thats a new one.

      --
      If you have to ask, you'll never know.
    2. Re:They did it to themselves by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      Not fashion, but an image.

      Certainly not popular on the merit of music!

  127. crap by b17bmbr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    meant to say there was NO physical surplus.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  128. Nice try, but that's BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will always HAVE a copy of the bits in question. You just won't HAVE a monopoly on its distribution.
    Fuck you.

    1. Re:Nice try, but that's BS by phil1984 · · Score: 1

      If you create the bits in question. You have the RIGHT to a monopoly on its distrubution. Fuck you.

    2. Re:Nice try, but that's BS by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you create the bits in question. You have the RIGHT to a monopoly on its distrubution.

      Sure you do...thats why its called copyright, and violating that right is called copyright infringement. Still doesn't have anything to do with theft.

  129. Now would be the time for the RIAA... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    Now would be the time for the RIAA to make the switch and go all-out on internet-based distribution.

    They could announce the switch by having some key managers speaking about why they think the internet is the future for the RIAA, with a white background, lots of changing camera shots, and with some dopey music playing.

  130. Mike o'Connors *IS* MANIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You were so cool in that show. Did you really bang your secretary? That was so mod, as she was black. Did you ever go back?

    1. Re:Mike o'Connors *IS* MANIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the kind of sparkling repartee that makes this board so great. You are an idiot.

  131. You're an info whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop promoting this nonsense.

    Lets look at this gem:

    "So this means, it cost about 10 million dollars to find one needle in a haystack"

    You consider a 1 out of 10 change to make a zillion dollars a "needle in a haystack"? You have a weird concept of statistics, I suppose.

    But the record label could make it if they chose not to try for a home-run with every band. Sometimes just hitting singles 3 times in a row scores as many runs.

  132. As if you sold records.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, no offense, but if your tunes were actually on Kazaa for free, I wouldn't download them.

    Every band thinks they're killer. Almost every one sucks.

    You website sucks.

    You music sucks.

    Nobody is stealing anything from you; maybe its time to go mainstream, finish that degree and *get a job*.

  133. Re:Superbowl?! by Per+Wigren · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here you are!
    Superbowel

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  134. This reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just 15 men per side, going hard out for 2 halves of 40 minutes each. Real men."

    This reminds me of the last time your mom got laid. Only more "sides".

  135. The mysterious future... by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 1

    ... available here

    --
    [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
  136. Link to the '1984' Ad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the 1984 ad available for download anywhere? Been wanting to get it for a while.

    1. Re:Link to the '1984' Ad? by IamSorrow · · Score: 1

      The Ad is avilable online at apple http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/

  137. Ray Lewis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Koy Detmer would flatten any of them. Hell, even the kickers would.

  138. Somebody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Try Fencing if you want to get involved in a strategy sport "

    Somebody's penis and balls apparently fell off.

  139. dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dumbass...I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

    1. Re:dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you can't counter it with a well-reasoned opinion.

    2. Re:dumbass by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

      I can.

      The Reagan debt was not repaid. It still has not been repaid. The current deficit will only add the Bush debt onto the Reagan debt. Our children WILL pay for all of this.

  140. Re:Good. ? Wrong! by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    something hollow wrote:

    Support iTunes because it gives back to the artists.

    No it doesn't. It gives those 8 cents to the RIGHTS HOLDERS. Until the musician pays off the enormous advance and other loans the record company gives them to sign and get a record going, the musician doesn't get jackshit. Until the record company gets paid back, they are the rights holder to the music and collect all the green stuff.

    Furthermore, because the record companies are a bunch of theivbing bastards, they usually rig the books so they NEVER get paid back, and collect ALL the money made by the record, forever.

    iTunes is lame. It will matter when ANYONE can sell music through it, and artists can bypass record companies altogether. As it is, it is just a shill for the record companies and the RIAA.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  141. Poor old matt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at that picture... Matt is a raging metrosexual, which explains his anti-football view.

    Wow.

  142. Re:Mitch Bainwol has high political (R) influence. by ChiefPilot · · Score: 1

    Of course the DMCA was passed via a Republican congress and a Democratic president...

  143. Knitting Factory! by qseep · · Score: 1

    Great labels - let's also not forget Knitting Factory!

  144. It comes full circle by fredmosby · · Score: 1

    The music companies should advertise free pepsi at their concerts. Their advertising money would go to pepsi. Pepsi would give that money right back to the music company.

  145. Electioneering by nfotxn · · Score: 1
    The Cola Wars are such an odd by-product of American culture. They mean nothing and yet remain politicized.

    Much like presidential elections.

    --

    _nfotxn

  146. Re: http://www.cokemusic.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [chuckle]
    In this aspect, coke = pepsi

  147. The problem with that is that they're LABELS. by itomato · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FYI:Record labels like Warner Brothers, Sony, etc., sign mostly major Pop bands, and these are the RIAA's cash cow - hence the big push to preserve their profit. They sign bands like Britney Spears, Bryan Adams, and 99% of the Country drivel you might hear on the radio.

    OTOH: There INDEPENDENT record labels that aren't part of some Multinational Conglomerate, that aspire to shed light on, and simultaneously elevate bands in certain genres. Some of these include SubPop, Matador, and so on. A little research should provide a healthy list of "indy" labels that are friendly to the "digital" segment of the population. Many even distribute in MP3 or other digital format. Warp records (Aphex Twin, Richard D. James, and Squarepusher just to name a few (one?) artists that *cater* to the notion that people want that control over their purchase.

    Sometimes, these labels were the labels America's favorite bands start out on, and therefore release their best material with. Like mentioned about Nirvana. Soundgarden and Sonic Youth started there too. Along with most good "alternative" artists.

    1. Re:The problem with that is that they're LABELS. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Not entirely accurate. Record labels like to hedge their bets. As such, they tend to (especially across an entire company where they'll have different labels for different genres; Warner Bros.' Asylum label (itself a sub-imprint of Elektra) is almost exclusively metal and punk) have a couple of artists from any genre that has, in their eyes, a fighting chance of being popular in the next couple of years; this way, if a competing label comes out with something huge, this label has something to cash in on the boom in that genre ready.

      All a consequence, really, of shareholder demands for consistent earnings.

  148. What I love about seemingly thoughtful people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they think hard enough, they'll actually become thoughtful. That may forstall them making posts like this one, but hey, I'm on their side.

  149. The ad is misleading by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    unless it states that the free music downloads are from iTunes and part of a 100M USD giveaway by Pepsi and Apple. A clever idea, to give songs away to create accounts and then when the giveaway is over, hopefully the people who created accounts will actually buy music at 99 cents per song.

    Pepsi and Apple are offering a free way to download music legally, as part of a promotion. Not telling people to use a file sharing app, but rather use iTunes.

    A shame that iTunes only works with Windows 2000 and up. 98, 95, etc users are out of luck. :(

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  150. New Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Kazaa should counter back... "Hey, why buy when you can steal!??"

  151. You are RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are RIGHT!

  152. Re:Freestyler... watchasomethingsomething by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the freestyler music video? With the little kid with dreds playing with his Sony minidisc, then there's the guy who comes along holding the Playstation controller?

    Admittedly it's Sony placing its own products in its own music videos. So it's not a real advertising transaction. But i'm sure music vids will go that way. Hopefully more subtle than in movies, and TV (The Sopranos).

  153. For those who don't recognize the mentioned labels by clubin · · Score: 3, Informative
    For those who don't recognize the mentioned labels, you might be more familiar with the following artists that have been featured on them.
    • Afghan Whigs*
    • Nirvana
    • Amon Tobin/Cujo
    • Funki Porcini
    • Kid Koala*
    • The Cinematic Orchestra*
    • The Herbaliser
    • Up, Bustle & Out
    • Thievery Corporation
    • Cat Power
    • Dizzee Rascal
    • Guided by Voices
    • Interpol
    • Matmos
    • Mogwai
    • Boards of Canada
    • Pizzicato Five
    • Plone
    • Pole
    • Sleater-Kinney*
    • The Decemberists*
    • Elliot Smith*
    • Xiu Xiu*

    For those of you who don't recognize the artists either... ouch! I suggest you take some time to sample their music, TODAY (go ahead, hop on Soulseek and download a few tracks-- nearly all of the above artists won't mind). You may find that there is a world of great music that you haven't been exposed to; I did.

    P.S.: Finding it odd that WARP wasn't mentioned among the other labels, I feared that the RIAA have a hold on them. Thanks to the RIAA Radar link in a sibling post, I now know they're "RIAA-safe". Be sure to check WARP Records out, too!

    Oh, and, uhh... I was too lazy to hyperlink anything. May Google and/or /. karma-whores treat you well. :)

    * - I, personally, haven't yet gotten a chance to listen to a significant amount of music from this artist. They're probably on my to-do list, though.

  154. Coke == Whitey by Max+Threshold · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Atlanta is a festering den of former slaveholders. I say we burn it again.

    1. Re:Coke == Whitey by StarWreck · · Score: 1
      Atlanta is a festering den of former slaveholders. I say we burn it again.

      I'm pretty sure all the former slaves living there would be a mighty tad pissed off at you if you burned it.
      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  155. MD? by J+Nny · · Score: 1

    All this coming from the company that brought us Mountain Dew? What better caffeinated beverage to sip upon while up in the wee hours of the night downloading free music. If only Jolt would follow in suit :-/ D.

  156. wrong by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Copyright infringement is theft.

    No, its not, never has been, never will be. If I don't remove something, putting it in my possession and removing it from yours, there is no theft. Deal with it.

  157. Codes = 10 characters by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    Some people have already gotten their hands on the iTunes promotional bottles of Pepsi. The code looks like it's 10 characters. Only letters are visible in this image of a cap.

    ~Philly

  158. CBS is refusing to run "controversial" ads?! by Dubber · · Score: 2, Informative

    And then runs this Pepsi ad? Oh, wait, it's a corporate client so it's okay?! No anti-president shite on during the SuperBowl so we don't piss off the football fans (who, of course, are all dubya voters) by accident.

    In case you missed it, CBS is refusing to run the bushin30seconds ad, "Child's Pay," during the Super Bowl.
    Watch the ad and see if you think it's funny or worthy enough to be seen during the SuperBowl.

    I found it and several of the otehrs hilarious. Especially the Mac Desktop ad.

    --
    Your complaints about being offended offend me.
  159. Re:Don't forget... by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 1

    Well, you obviously don't live in the future!

  160. WTF. It's a goddamn beverage, not a legal briefing by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1



    Ever wish companies like Nike would just STFU and make shoes, Apple would just STFU and make computers, and Pepsi would just STFU and make soft drinks? Is it too much to ask that a company does what the hell it's supposed to do, and doesn't "take a stance" on every possible disagreement on God's green earth? Jesus. The whole essence of marketing is to tell your audience that what they have isn't good enough. The last thing I want to see is the same group of marketroid assholes telling me (or others) how and what to think about political issues.

    Yes, I know. STFU Bowie, go make us more tiles. Ugh. :)

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  161. Ha Ha! Modded down by a Pepsi clone! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Did my flip remarks regarding your favored beverage sting your soul?

    If I my offer a prudent bit of Life Advice: Your self-worth is not defined by your choice in corporate manure.

    I would strongly suggest removing the product label from the back of your ego.


    -FL

  162. Re:Good. ? Wrong! by Monx · · Score: 1

    iTunes is lame. It will matter when ANYONE can sell music through it, and artists can bypass record companies altogether. As it is, it is just a shill for the record companies and the RIAA.

    An artist can get their music into the iTMS by getting a label to represent them and act as an intermediary with Apple. Any of the labels in the iTMS can submit music. So for an artist to get into the iTMS, they just need to get on CD Baby. It's easy.

  163. free by Popageorgio · · Score: 1

    Pepsi was really smart...they paid off the record companies while conditioning kids to expect free music.

  164. 98, 95, etc users are out of luck. by UtSupra · · Score: 1

    They always are! Poor guys, trying to use last century OS crap! :-P

    1. Re:98, 95, etc users are out of luck. by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Some people cannot afford the hardware upgrade to use the latest OS. Ah well there is always mp3.com and buymusic.com etc to buy music files from. Mp3.com was free, but they are reorganizing to a pay based system.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:98, 95, etc users are out of luck. by gowmc · · Score: 1

      If they can't afford a hardware upgrade to stick W2k on there, they probably only have a couple MB left on their disk anyhow, and would have trouble using any music players on their computers.

      --
      -- If it aint broke, fix it till it is. --
  165. How about I buy directly from the Artist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For, say, 5 $ per CD, directly from the artist. The artist would get that 5 $ (minus taxes) and I'd get the mp3s. How's that sound?

    I would do it if there would be enough good music and artists offering that kind of service.

  166. Reminds Me Of 1984 by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

    When people who were found guilty of thought crimes against big brother were paraded on tv and they said that they were wrong and they really did love Big Brother.

  167. iTunes II: Electric Boogaloo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even worse is Apple's recent achievement of singlehandedly resurrecting the horror of breakdancing.

  168. Apple and quality by swaminstar · · Score: 1

    Low-end recoding has a long history of yeilding nice pretty fruit (I think the best example out there has to be the Guided By Voices catalogue--god knows i'll never be able to get "gold heart mountaintop queen directory" out of my head.
    Garage band will not allow you rich, innovative slick production, and it will not give you the insight and experience that a seasoned sound engineer could offer (and man can that make a good sound MUCH better), but it does yield a fairly effecient idea to sound mechanism.
    If i'm just in the mood to put out sound then garage band might allow me to.
    I've used Reason for years and adore the results, but it's a different process than being in the studio and it yeilds a much different product.
    Kicker of Elves

  169. You == Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The former slaveholder that lived in Atlanta are already dead. Do you suggest we burn everywhere that the citizen held at one time or another? If so, there won't be much of the world left.

  170. Instructions: 1) Remove head from arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    2) Read:

    I wouldn't say that their anti-drug ad is likely to be a political one.
    Is anybody even awake here? I'm sorry, but what about drug enforcement policy is not political? It might not necessarily be political in the sense of partisanship (and even then), but in terms of insisting that 1) members of society do not have the right to control what enters the boundaries of their bodies, 2) that drug enforcement overwhelmignly targets the lower classes and not the wealthy, 3) that drug enforcement overwhelmingly focuses on Schedule 1 drugs and not pharmaceuticals, 4) that drug enforcement policy is carefully crafted not to upset our relations with Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, etc. . . .
    . . . er, where was I ? Oh, yeah, that's right, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is not political. Silly me.

    3. Profit!!!

    (hey, where did my underpants go?)

  171. Dumbass he was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the kid made a mistake. Too bad he was dumb, right?

    All I can think about is how incredibly painful the first few minutes of this young boy's death must have been. But who gives a damn? He was stupid.

  172. abso-FUCKING-lutely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir/madam, should be in market analysis if you aren't already. This is the most insightful observation and forecast I've seen regarding the Pepsi iTunes giveaway.

  173. new breed of homeless by vaporland · · Score: 1

    . . . now the homeless will be able to look for the discarded Peps-i-Tunes caps and trade them to teenaged kids for drugs . . . . . . the future IS cool!

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  174. Hey ACs are Terrorists by Rockin'+Az · · Score: 1
    Antidisestablishmentarianism rocks!

    Especially in Afghanistan. Those Taliban love the union of Church and State. Al Q'aida - they're also big fans. Not sure what they think of Pepsi and Apple though - or that fancy, shmancy so-called "rock and roll" music.

    But so long as you're happy..

    --

    I come from a LAN down under

    Where the packets flow and routers chunder

  175. Isn't this a political ad? by dumbArtMajor · · Score: 1

    Didn't CBS just say last week that they wouldn't be running politically-charged ads during the game? They turned down an anti-Bush ad and a PeTA ad, I think. Doesn't this qualify as a political statement as well? I'm an Apple user (not a Pepsi drinker) so I don't necessarily mind them allowing this, but it seems like CBS might be picking and choosing what they find politically insensitive...

  176. And about the original "1984"--- by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    1984 Apple Commercial - The Making of a Legend, originally from Owen Linzmayer's book, The Mac Bathroom Reader.

    And for you Trivial Pursuit buffs: the name of the hammer-wielding blonde is Anya Major, an obscure British actress who was a discus thrower.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  177. 'including one young woman' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    including one young woman

    'Young woman'? She's about 13.