Anti-RIAA Pepsi iTunes parody ad | iLounge News


Anti-RIAA Pepsi iTunes parody ad

James Saldana, a multimedia student at Southern Illinois University, has produced an anti-RIAA Pepsi iTunes parody ad called FIGHT BACK! Instead of “I Fought the Law” by Green Day the parody is set against “We’re Not Going to Take It” by Twisted Sister with new slogans such as “INCRIMINATED BY AN ILLEGAL MONOPOLY” and “OVER CHARGED FOR MUSIC.”

Related Stories



I couldn’t agree more. f the RIAA, they have been milking us and artists for years.

Posted by Rilhouse in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 2:29 AM (CST)



Posted by Adam in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 3:13 AM (CST)


People should be allowed to pirate music from artists who sign for too little money. Apple did nothing revolutionary in getting the RIAA to agree to online sales of single tracks. Clearly Apple is to blame for the RIAA’s practices and for Pepsi’s ad.

Oh, wait…

Somehow I think the folks who hate the ad are not its target. And the folks who hate legal music downloading have yet to offer an alternative that could have worked at present. Nor have they offered a reason to blame APPLE for not finding such an alternative—when nobody else has either.

Posted by Nagromme in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 4:01 AM (CST)



Posted by eric in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 4:24 AM (CST)


i don’t think Dee Snider will be pleased by this… he’s pretty careful about what and where is music is used for.

Posted by thenightfly42 in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 5:41 AM (CST)


I love it!

Posted by mongoos150 in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 6:26 AM (CST)


Pwople shouldn’t be allowed to pirate music, yes, but we should be allowed to do whatever the hell we want with the music we buy.  iTunes should sell in MP3 format.

Posted by Fenn in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 6:39 AM (CST)


Terriffic Video!!

Posted by SpideyPod in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 6:43 AM (CST)


Okay, I agree. Brilliant video reproduction. But this thing I still don’t get… Supporting the copyright infringement of songs to “stick it to the RRIA” because they cheat artists and are a monopoly. Okay. I’ll bite. Sure they are and things aren’t necessarily fair. Artists don’t get everything that we want them to get from the sale of there CDs, but they do get something, including credit for selling a certain number of CDs, etc and they do make something from royalities (yes, yes, not as much as we want them to, but they do!) So really in downloading music from the internet, yes you are sticking it to the RRIA, but you are also sticking it to the artist if you don’t plan on buying their CD later.

I think both sides all have some flawed logic. I will agree that the entire system needs to change somehow, but I don’t have the answer. I am glad to see though that I can go to Target or Best Buy and find physical CDs for $9.99 now, even new releases. This is not a bad price for music, not the best, but not bad.

Just part of my opinion on the thing. But great job on making the video.

Posted by studogvetmed in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 7:47 AM (CST)


Whiney, ignorant thieves. This crap is just ridiculous. The idea that buying CDs will hurt the artists, ludicrous. Over the last 3 days I’ve seen more articles put out equating this commercial with “1984” and the like… it’s all garbage! Where’s the outrage of Microsoft’s practice of putting this ridiculous “key-checking” protection in their software? Look guys, you buy a CD, you do with it what you will. Downloading from Peer-to-Peer networks IS stealing, and that’s the end of it.

Boo-hoo… families are going bankrupt! This kind of rhetoric plays on emotions plain and simple. Do you honestly think that anybody that put these together send money to the artists… how the hell do you do that anyway? I’m all for independents… I LIKE independent artists… but this whole “screw the RIAA” is just juvenile.

Posted by Berad in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 7:52 AM (CST)


O.K. where the devil was the RIAA in the 80’s when my friends and I were recording hundreds, yes hundreds of songs and albums. Diligently copying a copyed copy of a copy as the lousy speakers we had did’nt make any tell-tale distortion. I don’t recall any govornment groups forming to find my thieving friends and I. They did’nt even consider sueing TDK or Maxell for making this hideously inconsiderate theiving possible.
The fact is the RIAA is nothing but the creation of current day self riteous, P.C. minded yuppies who are trying to set a good example for their spoiled kids who never have to worry about the price of a CD.
Recording music for free never bankrupted anyone in the 80’s (and I can tell you, it happened just as much then as it does now) and it’s not bankrupting anyone now.
The economy is to blame for any financial problems the music industry is having. I work in a mall, I know. It’s a simple equation. Techs out of work, won’t buy my merchandise which means my commisions are lower which means I can’t buy a CD…simple.
People need to get off their high horse and offer solutions not P.C. claptrap.

Posted by Grimmfox in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 8:28 AM (CST)


i’ve never legally purchased a song online nor do i intend to as long as p2p sofware is around….so im in the same boat as u Grimmfox (i assume u download music for free)...but i have to say that ur argument is seriously flawed - the copies of music being traded now are of much better quality den the ones that were traded in the 80’s, a person does not have to wait for a song to come on the radio (to record) or go out in the street to buy pirated music anymore…they can download it for free in the comfort of their own home….and they do in large numbers…and thats the reason its a bigger issue now den it was in the 80’s

Posted by sh1va in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 8:46 AM (CST)


Grimmfox… that’s baloney and you know it. The rate of pirating has ABSOLUTELY affected sales of discs far more than copying tapes ever did. The quality of tape copies is far less than the original tape, let alone a CD and while I certainly did this, it pales in comparison to the amount of songs that are illegally traded over the internet, where I don’t have to rely on my friend having a copy because I have people all over the world I can copy it from.

It’s not a P.C. game… people DID break the law. The internet and peer-to-peer file sharing is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Record companies have a right to protect themselves. the iTMS and others are excellent alternatives. Fine… make whatever argument you want to to the contrary (families are going bankrupt, CDs cost too much, the artist doesn’t make any money)... all it does is try to deflect the issue from the truth: if you download music for free through a Peer-to-Peer network, you are breaking the law.

Posted by Berad in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 8:54 AM (CST)


Actually, you’re not breaking the law.  You’re infringing copyrights and are liable to be sued. 

That does not make you a criminal. That makes you someone who was sued. 

There are people who take advantage of p2p for their music needs (ie not buying the cd, etc), but NINETY percent, and yes, I said 90, make a mental note to buy an album that is worth our money.  This is akin to checking out a cd from the library.

The recording industry doesn’t like this because the music they’re producing is not strong.  Their structure is typically 2-3 lead singles, 10 fillers.  The people that download these albums find that out before wasting their money and therefore don’t buy them…

You need proof? 

Radiohead’s albums have been consistently available on line well in advance of release, yet they also consistantly sell a lot of records.


People will pay for good music.  The Riaa is suing those that don’t pay for the shitty music.


Posted by Dave in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 9:21 AM (CST)


It’s a lot better than this Apple / iTunes parody:

Posted by narco in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 10:13 AM (CST)


I agree with you Dave, There is a large percentage of downloaders who use downloading as a tool to find music they know that is worth there hard earned money and it is this kind of downloading that I know a lot of artists support.

My thing is that people think that they are making some dramatic political statement in downloading music (We’ll teach RIAA). Well it really isn’t a political statement, it’s just copy right infringement. Not one of the seven deadly sins, but still not right.

I guess in the end I’m going to have to agree to disagree with a lot of peoples views and stay out of the fight.

Everyone enjoy music in whatever way you see fit.

Posted by studogvetmed in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 10:24 AM (CST)


“Orgainization” is not a word ... double-check your spelling next time! It will keep your video from just looking silly.

Posted by Spelling Cop in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 10:43 AM (CST)


They need to start selling CDs at like 6.99 That is a perfect impulse buy price points.  Sales would skyrocket, more than making up for the loss of a few bucks.

Posted by politz2005 in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 11:46 AM (CST)


Target normally has real good cd prices, new stuff for 7.99 or 9.99 at those prices i have no problem buyign a cd. but its places like samgoody that try to charge 18.99 for a cd that i dont like

Posted by keebie in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 11:50 AM (CST)


New CDs for $7? Nonsense! How will they pay for drugs, hookers, and payola with those low margins! Get real!

Posted by Margins in Irvine, CA on February 5, 2004 at 12:21 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy