Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses Media Apple

Apple and Pepsi Ad Sports RIAA Targets 683

Posted by michael
from the not-anti-establishment dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple and Pepsi Ad Sports RIAA Targets

Comments Filter:
  • by inertia@yahoo.com (156602) * on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:34PM (#8069272) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cleon (471197) <cleon42@@@yahoo...com> on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:36PM (#8069294) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chibi (232518) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:41PM (#8069361) Journal
      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...

      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by colanut (541823) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:48PM (#8070158) Homepage
        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?
    • Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)

      by webslacker (15723)
      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.
      • Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mononoke (88668) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:00PM (#8069584) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)

          by blair1q (305137) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:15PM (#8069747) Journal
          >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.
        • 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!"
        • RIAA != Bank (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Baby Duck (176251) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:52PM (#8070197) Homepage
          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.
      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by somethinghollow (530478) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:00PM (#8069587) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cens0r (655208)
          where did this quick search come from? I've always been given the figure about $1 an album (once the label recoups).
          • Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)

            Here is the site [azoz.com] 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.
        • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by myc (105406) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:13PM (#8069730)
          or you could support independent artists.

        • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mozumder (178398)
          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 al
        • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:36PM (#8070021)

          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?

        • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:46PM (#8070147)
          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.

      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tom7 (102298) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:10PM (#8069690) Homepage Journal
        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?
      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dwarfgoat (472356) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:11PM (#8069698) Homepage
        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.
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SurgeonGeneral (212572) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:59PM (#8069568) Journal
      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.
  • by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:37PM (#8069306) Homepage
    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!

    • 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?

    • by froody (115836) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:56PM (#8069531) Homepage
      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
    • > see the ads, skip the game

      You are missing the best part of the Superblow.

    • by mike77 (519751) <mraley77@yaho o . com> on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:21PM (#8069821)
      "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!

  • Yeah, right (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gyan (6853) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:37PM (#8069307)
    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.
  • How come... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beolach (518512) <beolach@[ ]o.com ['jun' in gap]> on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:37PM (#8069312) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by overbyj (696078) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:38PM (#8069323)
    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.
  • Superbowl?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by conner_bw (120497) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:38PM (#8069324) Homepage Journal
    The superbowl supporting corporate america?

    What a scoop!
  • by SillySnake (727102) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:38PM (#8069326)
    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..
  • Not at all stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:39PM (#8069332) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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?
    • by MisterSquid (231834) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:59PM (#8069577)

      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.

    • by rbird76 (688731) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:06PM (#8069653)
      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.
  • by johnpaul191 (240105) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:40PM (#8069339) Homepage
    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.

    • 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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:40PM (#8069346)
    ...is make me continue to buy new CDs.

    Screw that. From now on, I am only buying used.
  • by jhunsake (81920) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:42PM (#8069364) Journal
    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.
  • Spin (Score:3, Funny)

    by shystershep (643874) * <bdshepherd AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:42PM (#8069368) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA response? 'This ad shows how everything has changed.'"

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

  • Not what you think (Score:5, Informative)

    by DreadSpoon (653424) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:42PM (#8069372) Journal
    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.
  • by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby@@@comcast...net> on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:43PM (#8069375)
    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?
  • Controversy (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Chilltowner (647305) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:43PM (#8069379) Homepage Journal
    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 [bushin30seconds.org]. 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.
    • Re:Controversy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MoneyT (548795)
      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 politic
    • Re:Controversy (Score:3, 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
      • Re:Controversy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chilltowner (647305) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:30PM (#8069950) Homepage Journal
        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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:44PM (#8069389)
    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.
  • Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by richlb (168636) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:44PM (#8069390)
    ...the RIAA is all in favor of the spot. They still get their royalty money for the 100 million "free" downloads.
  • by Cytlid (95255) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:45PM (#8069394)
    ...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."
  • pepsi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:46PM (#8069410) Journal
    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 [slashdot.org] 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 [azcentral.com] used to "shotgun" a soda.

    No word yet if anyone has been killed trying to drink pepsi one while sky-diving.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:46PM (#8069416)
    "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.

  • by Fr05t (69968) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:49PM (#8069444)
    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!
  • by LnxAddct (679316) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:50PM (#8069456)
    I'll wait till the commercial is on Kazaa, then I'll get it and watch it:)
    Regards,
    Steve
  • by jander (88775) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:51PM (#8069471) Homepage
    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
  • That's nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Powercntrl (458442) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:52PM (#8069488)
    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.
  • by swimfastom (216375) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:56PM (#8069532) Homepage
    Pepsi? Who cares? I just love the beer commercials.
  • The truth is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GoodNicsTken (688415) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:59PM (#8069572)
    "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!
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday January 23, 2004 @04:59PM (#8069579) Homepage Journal
    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 [riaa.com]:

    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."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:00PM (#8069585)
    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.
  • by geekwench (644364) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:12PM (#8069712)
    • 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.

  • by LittleGuy (267282) on Friday January 23, 2004 @05:16PM (#8069765)
    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.
  • by Dr. Evil (3501) on Friday January 23, 2004 @06:05PM (#8070349)

    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.

  • by IshanCaspian (625325) on Friday January 23, 2004 @06:46PM (#8070794) Homepage
    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!

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...