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.

« Online music in UK outsells CD, cassettes and vinyl

Apple sued over iPod battery life »

Related Stories



So I bought my iPod at the Apple Canada Online store and paid my $25 tax that covers blank media. The proceeds apparently go toward paying artists.
So if I manage to put 3000 original works on there from “borrowed” sources, each artist should technically get 0.83 cents. About a penny. Can’t complain about that tax…..really. Of course, if only 5% of my songs are by Canadian artists, then their amount gets bumped up to about 17 cents each. The other artists are out of luck I guess.
This all assumes of course, that I send a copy of my playlists to some government agency so that they can properly mete out the dough to the starving ones. A fatal flaw I guess, in the plan.
So my guess is that there is some sort of welfare plan for Canadian artists, and that every one gets a monthly cheque.
What am I saying?....I think the Canadian government just taxed me again, and made me think that it was valid for a second or two. It just went into the general revenue pot and paid for some private jet or a nice office refurbishment for some fat political type who doesn’t really do anything for me.
That’s my 25 bucks anyway.

Posted by Carl on February 11, 2004 at 10:58 PM (CST)


Another excerpt from my email to the Reg, to justify my “viable” comment:

“The iTunes music store has put itself in a position to help artists, like no other online service has, with it’s partnership with True independent artists are receiving placement on a high traffic commercial music service where they are receiving the majority of the payout and a very broad distribution. It is my sincere hope that others follow this model, and artists are fairly compensated. This is a model which others should strive to follow, although I sincerely doubt Napster or the others will follow suit.”

Now, for those of you who believe that illegally downloading an artists music doesn’t hurt them, go take Music Business 101 at the Berklee College of Music. I did. It covers copyright, contracts, etc. You may even be able to take it online at And for those who say buy a t-shirt instead, yes, please do. The artist will get some compensation for that, but it will be only a tiny fraction of what you spend. And don’t use that as your justification for stealing, just to soothe your conscience.

Posted by Andrew Bohm on February 12, 2004 at 8:06 AM (CST)


Jesus Christ nobody cares about your letters to The Reg, give it a rest already!

Get a blog! There you can talk all about your “Music Business 101”. But take it form someone who has managed and promoted bands and DJs - you aren’t going to learn anything except how to screw artists from your “Music Business 101”.

Posted by bohm boom bust on February 12, 2004 at 8:59 AM (CST)


Wow, I post two comments out of 43, and yet I’m swamping the board. Sure.

Music Business 101 at Berklee teaches the ARTIST, not the manager, how to maximize their profits through publishing deals, management, and merchandising. It is meant to teach you to market yourself, and keep as much money as possible in your own pocket, and not give it to record companies, managers, and “promoters”.

And your rants hold a lot more merit if you don’t hide behind an alias. Cowardly thing to do. But to ease your mind, this will be my last comment on the subject, so spare me your flame war. You’re wasting your breath.

Posted by Andrew Bohm on February 12, 2004 at 9:32 AM (CST)


I am tired of peopple saying P2P file sharing programs are illegal. 

The programs do have legitimate uses and of themself are not illegal. 

They are used for illegal purposes which is no different than someone using a car in a robbery.  Yes the car helps but the car is not illegal.

Do you understand yet?

Posted by Angry Programmer on February 12, 2004 at 10:44 AM (CST)


To get two things straight:

You didn’t hear the artists because they are mad at you for downloading and loving their songs, you didn’t hear them because they’re mad with their labels for taking up to 94% of the total profit they generate. The damage YOU are doing to them is minimal in that perspective. Ask an artist the next time you ran into one.

The Apple/Pepsi ad (it’s a joint venture, right) is misleading. These kids are not sued for DOWNLOADING music, but for SHARING it.
In this, the ad is falsely presenting the law, to scare you and your parents.

And that ain’t cool Apple ...

Posted by The Artist Formerly Known As Stupid on February 12, 2004 at 11:55 AM (CST)


Remember everyone this was an ad by PEPSI NOT APPLE, it happens to be for the iTunesmusic store, but it is pepsi giving the songs away and paying for them…. You don’t think if apple had their hand in this ad it wouldn’t be ipod-esque?

Come on people get with it

Posted by Lestat on February 12, 2004 at 1:49 PM (CST)


Is it me or is this promotion getting no buzz what’s so ever. With the exception of the apple web page, I see nothing about it… anywhere.

Posted by ntljr in Woodland Hills, CA on February 12, 2004 at 3:09 PM (CST)


Laffin, you do make a good point.  The artists aren’t strapped for cash, and neither is ClearChannel and the other companies that make millions or even billions from music sales.  They are greedy companies for wanting so much money and whining so much about free downloading.  The episode of South Park in which the kids get in trouble for downloading music captures this point perfectly.  “If things continue like this, recording artists will be doomed to a life of only semi-luxury.” 

But, on the other hand, we are greedy people for not wanting to share our money with the artists that entertain us and make us happy.  So they do make a lot of money and make more than many of us can hope to make.  That is the way the world works.  Those who have an original idea and work hard to implement it deserve to live well.

The solution to this problem is compromise.  And the iTMS is a pretty good one.  But, that shouldn’t be the end of the music revolution.  The whole system needs to change.  Artists should be choosing prices and how they want to distribute their music, not some high powered corporate exec.

Posted by Chris on February 12, 2004 at 11:26 PM (CST)


Surely I’m not the only one who is incredibly annoyed when people say something “Literally” when it’s obviously not? They were not literally throwing stones at the teens, so don’t say so.

Posted by Sam Walker on February 13, 2004 at 5:46 PM (CST)


Lol, yeah, I agree, Sam.  Throwing in “literally” often makes for a very stupid figure of speech.

Posted by Chris on February 13, 2004 at 11:24 PM (CST)


The largest reason the majority of musicians are not sueing people for sharing music is because record sales is only about 10% of their earnings a year.  The largest part of their profit is from apperences, live shows, merchandise, etc.  So think about this: do you really think an artist or musician cares if you share your music with a person who would otherwise not know who an artist or band is, and then them going to spend money to see that artist or band thus boosting their profit?

And the ad did suck, but it was Pepsi’s, not Apple’s.

Posted by brian c on February 21, 2004 at 2:16 PM (CST)

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

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 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy