The post I took issue with was your response to MacZilla where you wrote (and this a copy and paste from your post)...<br><br>" Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song."<br><br>If you meant "Apple was using it to sell music - including Eminem's song", it would still have been incorrect. In the ad in question, there is no mention of any of the following:<br>The artist's name<br>The title of the song<br>The album from which the song was taken<br>The media on which the song might be purchased<br>The label on which the artist records<br>Any visual reference to the artist or album<br><br>Which would make it pretty darn difficult to justify as an attempt to "sell [the] music".<br><br>In fact the only branding in the ad is for Apple. Unless you suffer from myopia, it's glaringly apparent this and the other ads in the series are promoting the ITMS.<br><br>No, Eminem's music is highly unlikely to sell a Nana Mouskouri album, nor a Gregorian chant compilation But it is likely to catch the attention of people interested in the genre that Eminem's music resides within. But you already knew that, so I can only conclude that you were being facetious in the absence of any real point.<br><br>You may well disagree that the ad was also intended to sell iPods, but I would point out that Apple itself is on record as saying that it makes no money on ITMS and that the service is primarily a vehicle to drive the iPod's sales.<br><br>If you disagree with Apple on this, you might wish to take that up with them directly. I'm happy to take their word for it. <br><br>Since I originally replied in defence of MacZilla's position and since he has shown no interest in countering you position himself, I see no further need to debate this.<br><br>Thanks for the discourse hayesk, and have a good day.<br><br>Moo?

Given what you said, how can anyone claim it was to sell iPods? There was also no mention of iPods. There was however, the URL for www.applemusic.com which points to the iTMS. There is an audible reference to Eminem's song (the kid singing it), and the tagline to download a favourite song.<br><br>I still maintain the ad was for iTMS including Eminem's music - as opposed to iPods. If you can't see that based on the evidence I presented, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.<br><br>

copyright laws are pretty confusing and i think both sides could make a worthwhile case depending on the case law they use.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)<p><hr></blockquote><p>certainly, the song used by apple was not "incidental" to the commercial...it was the essence of the commercial. i think it would be hard for eminem to argue that he lost any sales because of the commercial, but he probably has a case when he says that he lost endorsement money. of course, his potential earnings are much less when he is not the artist and is merely the author of the words ($10 million seems outrageous, fwiw). i wonder if apple could argue that their use was educational in nature (educating about the iTMS -- not a chance in hell)...they'd win using that fair use policy easily. <br><br>--------------<br>"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."<br> A letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787 by Thomas Jefferson