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.'"

160 of 683 comments (clear)

  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 heychris · · Score: 5, Funny
      What a bleak and horrible future we live in.

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

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

      ObFuturamaReference

      "Welcome to the world of tomorrow!!"

      CyberDave

    5. 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..."
    6. 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
    7. 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?
    8. Re:The 12 Year Old... by trentblase · · Score: 5, Funny
      But when will then be now??

      Soon

    9. 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
    10. Re:The 12 Year Old... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      It just was. Weren't you paying attention?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    11. 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/
    12. Re:The 12 Year Old... by memco · · Score: 5, Funny

      When?

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    13. 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!
    14. 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

    15. 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
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. Re:The 12 Year Old... by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed it.

  2. 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 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.
    9. 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?

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Good. by myc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or you could support independent artists.

      --
      NO CARRIER
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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?

    18. 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.
    19. 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
    20. 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!
    21. 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.

    22. 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?
    23. 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.
    24. 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.

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

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

    26. 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.
    27. 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!
    28. 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.

    29. 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...
    30. 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.
    31. 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.

    32. 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.
    33. 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...

    34. 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)
    35. 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.

    36. 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?
    37. 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.
  3. 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 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?
    2. 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?

    3. 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

    4. 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
    5. 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)
    6. 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.

    7. 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!
    8. 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)
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. 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..

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  13. Heh by Glog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am still not going to drink Pepsi.

  14. 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 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.

    2. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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...
  18. 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?

  19. 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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  20. 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....
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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?
  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. 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
  27. 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...

  28. 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 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.
    2. 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]

  29. 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!

  30. 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!"

  31. 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

  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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 JawFunk · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's a good thing I drink coke.

      Fight the power. Stick with beer.

      --
      [Please sign here]
    2. 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.

  35. 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!!! **
  36. 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???
  37. bud-weis-er? by swimfastom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pepsi? Who cares? I just love the beer commercials.

    --
    http://tomgould.com/
  38. Re:Superbowl?! by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whats the Superbowl???

    You obviously have slashdot confused with google.

  39. 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.
  40. Re:COOL by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 3, Funny

    A simple no would have sufficed...

  41. 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!

  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.

  45. How about a Linux "giveaway"... by skink1100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    featuring CEO's who have been sued by SCO?

    S

  46. 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.

  47. 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
  48. 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...
  49. 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.

  50. 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.
  51. 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!"

  52. 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 secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pepsi is all about stickin it to 'da man'

      Does it mean Coke is 'da man'?

      --
      No sig
    2. 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.

  53. 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

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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]
  57. 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 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
  58. 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

  59. 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.

  60. 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...

  61. 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.

  62. 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.
  63. 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.

  64. 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....

  65. 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 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. :)

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.