More disdain for Pepsi iTunes ad | iLounge News


More disdain for Pepsi iTunes ad

The Register UK has received open letters to Apple from its readers in disgust with the Pepsi iTunes Music Giveaway ads featuring several RIAA sued teenagers. One of the letters read, “I was planning on purchasing a new Ibook, it would have been my 5th Mac. Tell Steve he can take this “Jobs” and shove it. Putting that obnoxious Pepsi ad on the website was not a good decision.

Related Stories



so..he stopped his purchase because of an ad.

ok, good for him

Posted by Fiddytree in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 11:46 AM (CST)


This just seems odd to me. Who really cares if Apple is doing a promo with a soda company? And how does this put Apple any more in bed with the RIAA than any other legal music company?

Posted by NeoWolf in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 11:48 AM (CST)


Now listen here all you Apple naysayers….

Now i love my music. I love my Macs, and iPod. I dont think it was right, (whoever made this commercial) to attack the kids in such a way. BUT Kazaa, Bearshare, etc. ARE ALL ILLEAGAL. Yes something needs to be done to change the price of music, but a law is a law. Would you go to work if you knew that you wouldnt get anything in return??? HELL NO. No one would!
Yes by not buying a CD you are giving the shaft to “Big Brother” BUT, you are also screwing over everyone else! The artist, production team, etc. They each get royalites from each cd sold, albeit a small amount… they get something.
As for the ad/promotion… Well, great idea, bad implementation. But to the average american family (which knows jack shit about technology and whats going on in the “Mp3 wars”) This was a sort of “eye-opener” to them. A way to legally purchase downloads? And instead of buying a CD… we can get only the one song the kids want anyways… So lets see. 15$ or .99$? Makes cents to me. (forgive the pun).

In conclusion, Yes Apple siding with the RIAA is a bad choice… but really, not buying Apple products, and saying “Shame on you” to Apple? Give me a break! Its wrong, but it is still illegal to download music off the internet. A thief is a thief, whether or not he/she admits, and whatever the way they steal.
I back up my support to this w/ a universal code that most humans abide by. “Thou shalt not steal”.

Posted by enjoilax in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 12:30 PM (CST)


I keep reading this “it’s illegal” about downloading music, and calling people thieves. Can’t people get this through their heads that it is not thievery, it is copyright infringement? Nothing is being stolen. Walking out of a store with physical CDs without paying is theft. Downloading unlicensed music is not.

And I do think that Pepsi advert was terrible. Apple lives and dies by keeping its “cool” cachet, whether or not it is deserved. Teaming up with the second-best Cola and the infamous RIAA is just a bad idea. It makes Apple seem about as hip as leg warmers.

Posted by splitting hairs in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 12:41 PM (CST)


I totally agree with enjoilax,
Keep it up,
but, sorry to say, I’ll will still be using Limewire (even though it is illegal) untill CD prices drop to 9.99$ (or lower) like the iTunes sotore

Posted by Dan in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 12:46 PM (CST)


Careful, splitting. “second-best cola” ?
In terms of sales, sure. That makes Macintosh the ‘second best operating system,’ too.
But for the rest, you’re right. Even the judges told the RIAA to lay off the ‘theft’ nonsense in the courtroom. It isn’t a criminal charge, it’s a civil charge. People aren’t being prosecuted, they’re being sued. There’s a significant difference between one and the other.

“Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms [“piracy,” “theft”], but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that’s a very debatable question. You don’t solve it by calling it ‘theft.’ You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That’s your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.”

Posted by JC in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 12:50 PM (CST)


Hey Steve, do you wanna spend your life selling sugar water to kids or do you want to change the world?

Posted by jsculley in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 12:58 PM (CST)


I don’t see how the commercial is an “exploitation of underaged alleged ‘criminals’ in a literal public stoning.” How are these actors being exploited, exactly? Aren’t Pepsi and Apple paying them for their work? And it seems to me that the commercial is the exact opposite of a public stoning. Rather, it is throwing it back in the face of the RIAA saying, “take that!”

Posted by jerseyfreeze in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 1:10 PM (CST)


haha, nice use of quotes, jsculley.

i really don’t see the big deal when it comes to this ad. heck, if it helps the kids pay their fines, let it go. personally, i don’t think that this ad will do much for apple after the giveaway ends. it’s a nice promotional thing, but let’s be real here.

the add isn’t that big of a deal on either side.

Posted by Fiddytree in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 1:44 PM (CST)


For those who believe that nothing is being stolen- time and talent is being stolen.  Perhaps the law does not say so explicitly, but if it nothing else copyright is the protection of time and talent. 

You are recieving the benefit of someone’s time and talent without paying for it.  Hide behind semantics all you want, you are stealing something much more valuable than some stupid plastic disk.

Posted by Jason in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 1:59 PM (CST)


how is it throwing anything back in the RIAA’s face?  it is well documented that the ITMS is an extension of then RIAA’s business model and serves the RIAA above all other parties involved, including the artists and, to a lesser degree, apple.  this IS apple getting in the pants of the music industry.  and it sucks. 

these kids are being exploited by making examples of them.  they didn’t steal anything - they committed copyright infringement, which means NOTHING in today’s corporate-owned copyright situation.

Posted by tim fitz in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:02 PM (CST)


Jason: really?  so when you photocopy books for school, what’s that?  how about when you make a mixtape for a friend?  are you stealing time and talent?  no.  you’re not.

intellectual property needs to be treated differently than physical property.  we’re NOT talking about a plastic disc, we’re talking about art- something that shouldn’t be a commodity in the first place for obvious reasons. 

i think there is a trend here.  people are beginning to be sold on the idea of purchasing music online, and they are forgetting that the entire reason that we have felt good about downloading it for free is that the artists don’t make jackshit on recordings as it is.  c

ontinue to sabotage the music industry, continue to download music.  continue to support your favorite artists in other ways : attend their shows and purchase music and merchandise there.

Posted by tim fitz in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:05 PM (CST)


Photocopying for educational purposes is almost universally agreed to by all publishers.  Not quite the same thing as downloading hundreds of songs for free from the internet.

As for art being a commodity- it seems to me that whether or not you should be charged for it is not up to you- the consumer.  It is up to the producer.

And let’s be honest- it’s more than a little hypocritical to kick record companies in the teeth for being greedy while you horde music for which you haven’t paid.  Cheapness is just greed from a different perspective.  And “sabotaging” the music industry is just a rationalization for being cheap.

Posted by Jason in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:17 PM (CST)


I love the ad : )

Posted by Josh in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:34 PM (CST)


To enjoilax and splitting hairs: What do you do for a living. Perhaps you could post everything you do so we could all download it. Oh yeah, no one is going to pay you for any work you did. Cool, huh?

YES YOU ARE A THIEF! Hide behind whatever semantics you want (you’ll make a good lawyer) but you are still a thief in my book!

Posted by hey thieves in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:38 PM (CST)


Photocopying is copyright infringement and is not universally accepted.

Posted by Layla in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 2:57 PM (CST)


Jason and “hey thieves” - it’s nice that you like to practice vigilante justice, setting yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner, but in this case the laws of the land (both in the US and Europe) do not agree with you. And all your wailing isn’t going to change reality.

I am sorry that your own intense worldview is not reflected by the reality of our legal system but that’s the way it is. Get used to it.

Sticks and stones, dudes. Downloading tunes is not theft. Calling such people “thieves” in fact borders on actionable libel. Because it’s not true, and saying that someone is guilty of a crime when they are not, while not itself a crime, does in fact constitute public slander.

Reminding you of the demarcation between criminal and civil law does not itself constitute advocacy of criminal acts. Your hatred is blinding you.

And Pepsi still sucks.

Posted by JasonIsAChump in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 3:02 PM (CST)


Jason, Funny, when I check out how to get a copyright in the U.S., I get this page:

At the top, notice that it this information is all about Copyright LAW (emphasis mine) for the United States? Yes, people that download music are infringing on copyrights… no question. It is this infringement that is, in fact, that is contrary to the rules stated in our copyright laws as defined on this page.

Certainly, these people who have been sued and settled out of court cannot be called criminals because they settled out of court in a civil case. However, if they were to go to court, there is very little doubt they would lose on the basis that they infringed on copyright holders, thus breaking the law as noted here.

Are they criminals? Nope. Did they break the law? Absolutely.

Posted by Berad in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 3:36 PM (CST)


Geez. To the person who doesn’t want to buy an iBook because of a Pepsi commercial: YOU’RE A MORON.

Go to Windoze, I for one will be glad to see you go.

Posted by Steven in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 3:47 PM (CST)


Layla and Chump,

I will concede that from a legal perspective your sematics are more correct than mine.  I maintain however, that morally it is wrong and that morally it is equivalent to theft.

Anyway, perhaps we can all agree on one point: Pepsi does suck.

Posted by Jason in Irvine, CA on February 10, 2004 at 4:11 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