I watched the first quarter of the Superbowl, and was less than thrilled. Apparently there have been a few scores since then, but ... *yawn* ... I'm not sure I care.
i saw the commercial in which the kids sued by the RIAA for downloading music (losers sued by losers, apparently) are promoting Pepsi, which is promoting iTunes. It's all rather convoluted.
It seemed kinda cool at first, but after reading the Tune Recycler web site, it appears that there some rather significant misinformation floating around about this whole situation.
Sure, the RIAA are slime, but it's not entirely clear to me that iTunes is much more than the RIAA's sexy marketing arm. Kinda like the Microsoft Booth Babes.
But, given that I seldom buy music anyway, I can't say I'm too terribly concerned one way or the other.
But, if you do drink Pepsi, consider giving your bottle caps to the Tune Recycler. It seems like a Good Thing to do.
Posted by rbowen at February 1, 2004 08:41 PM | TrackBackThe latter parts of the game got to be a barn-burner. Got down-right exciting at the end.
On the other hand, the quality of the commercials basically seemed indirectly proportional to the excitement of the game. Subway had a good one at the end, but otherwise, the last quarter of commercials were real stinkers.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff (JMcA) on February 2, 2004 08:14 AM"but it's not entirely clear to me that iTunes is much more than the RIAA's sexy marketing arm"
Where did you get that from?!?
iTunes has nothing to do with RIAA. As a matter of fact many artists like iTunes only slightly more than pirated music.
Posted by: Bishop on February 2, 2004 01:06 PMiTunes is selling, primarily, RIAA's product, right? That is, it's a retail outlet for RIAA's product. But somehow it makes it feel infinitely more cool than just buying CDs and 8Tracks. So it would certainly seem to me that iTunes las a *lot* to do with RIAA.
I don't understand the remark about whether the artists like iTunes or not. What does that have to do with anything?
My problem with your statement Rich is that you assume that iTunes is no more than the "sexy marketing arm of the RIAA."
Why exactly is iTunes any different from any outlet that legally distributes the intellectual property of the RIAA? Is Wal-Mart the redneck marketing arm of the RIAA? The idea is preposterous; Apple has taken an illegal, yet widely popular counter-culture phenomenon and made it legal, and affordable.
This is one of those issues that I am depressed to see people pontificate about without having any real info, other than a website that is notorious for slamming Apple and iTunes without any real proof or provocation. With a little research you would have found that the reality of the situation is much different; Jobs went to the big five and gave them the deal, and told them to take it or leave it; that all labels regardless of status would get the same deal, it took awhile for all the labels to come on board.
Not really sounding like a sexy marketing arm to me.
And for the record, there are tons of indy music on the Music Store, and there is more everyday.
Posted by: Chris J. Davis on February 3, 2004 10:58 AMI should also say that pontificating was not the correct choice of verbage here. Please forgive my slip, my anger is rightly directed toward others, not you.
Posted by: Chris J. Davis on February 3, 2004 02:08 PMSince I've apparently miscommunicated, I'll try to clarify.
What I see is a company that tries to make it look like they are anti RIAA, while they are, at the same time, selling RIAA's product. I saw this particularly in this ad, which seemed to be very disingenuous. It makes the viewer think that this is a counter-cultural thing, that they are snubbing their nose at the RIAA, when in fact the bulk of their sales are of RIAA products.
Geez, I'm not saying that either Apple or iTunes are evil, but that this ad was geared to make iTunes seem risque, and perhaps even borderline illegal.
And, as you said, iTunes is *precisely* the same as any other retail outlet. That's exactly the point that I'm making. And for them to position themselves as snubbing their nose at the RIAA is to play both sides of the table against the consumer.
Yes, it is wonderful that they are carrying lots of indy artists. More power to them. I'd rather see them spotlight that than to try to make us believe that they are somehow "on our side against The Man" when at the same time, they are in fact supporting The Man out of the other side of their mouth.
I'm sorry that I appear to have struck a nerve and come across as saying something else. Of course, perhaps that message offends too. I'm not sure.