<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>it appears the track wasn't copyrighted until October 27, 2003<p><hr></blockquote><p>The song was copyrighted on it's completion. That it wasn't registered as copyright until 27 Oct has no bearing on the copyright holder's prior claim. It does have an effect on the nature of the damages that may be claimed in litigation though. I would speculate that it's the reason the suit hasn't surfaced until now.<br><br>Just a musing here folks...<br>Is it OK for Apple to flout the copyright conventions simply because it's Apple we're talking about?<br><br>If not, what excuses their conduct?<br><br>As always...<br><br>Moo?
Yes, I would like a link.<br><br>I watched the other commercials (the Eminem one wasn't available). If I remember correctly, the ad copy went something like "Everyone has a favourite song" ... "Download yours for 99 cents". While the person in the ad is holding an iPod, it isn't featured or even mentioned. Not only that, the URL listed is www.applemusic.com - when you go there, you don't get an iPod page, you get an ad for the iTMS. It sure seems like an ad to buy music, with the Eminem song being featured by the actor.<br><br>Here are the other ads for you to look at:<br>http://www.apple.com/music/ads/<br><br>Unless the Eminem ad in question wasn't like those, I believe I am correct.<br><br>
Thank you for proving my point. The MM story says this:<br><br>"As reported yesterday, Eight Mile Style, Eminem's music publisher, is suing Apple claiming that the company used one of the rapper's songs—"Lose Yourself" from the 2002 film "8 Mile"—in an iTunes television commercial without permission. "<br><br>An iTunes commercial. Not an iPod commercial. iTunes is a music store that sells Eminem's songs. Watch the commercials - they are for the iTunes Music store. They are not for the iPod.<br><br><br>
Here is what you wrote.<br><br>"Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song. The ad was about favourite songs and said that you could "download yours for just 99 cents" ".<br><br>You quote the article thus:-<br>"the company used one of the rapper's songs—"Lose Yourself" from the 2002 film "8 Mile"—in an iTunes television commercial"<br><br>Note that it does not claim that it's a commercial for the song "Lose Yourself", but a commercial for the iTunes Music Service, and by featuring the performer using an iPod, demonstrates the link between ITMS and the iPod.<br><br>So you claim that the article proves your point, yet the piece you quote quite clearly proves you were mistaken and that MZ was correct.<br><br>And in case you missed it, here it is again...<br><br>You said:<br>Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song.<br>It clearly was not to sell the song. As you so gleefully point out, it was to sell the ITMS. If you can show how that is the same as an ad for Eminem's "Lose Yourself", then you are indeed a gifted soul. <br><br>Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here but you seem to be denying the obvious - Apple were not advertising Eminem's music. They were using Eminem's music to sell Apple.<br><br>An entirely different thing.<br><br>Moo?
Loc: The Wizard's Balcony
From the OED:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>semasiology<br><br>That branch of philology which deals with the meanings of words, sense-development, and the like. <br> <br> [a1829 C. K. REISIG Vorlesungen über Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft (1839) II. 286 (heading) Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre.] 1847 J. W. GIBBS Philol. Studies (1857) 18 The development of intellectual and moral ideas from physical, constitutes an important part of semasiology, or that branch of grammar which treats of the development of the meanings of words. 1877 R. MARTINEAU tr. Goldziher's Mythol. Hebrews iii. 43 Some phenomena in the semasiology of Arabic words. 1884 Athenæum 27 Sept. 395/1 Philology is now advancing towards a new branch having intimate relations with psychology, the so-called semasiology of Abel and others.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It clearly was not to sell the song. As you so gleefully point out, it was to sell the ITMS. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I see your point.... but if you think that a kid rapping an eminem song on television doesn't help to sell his song then you're kidding yourself.<br><br>In the end it looks like eminem will get advertisement for the song on television (for free), publicity for his copyright lawsuit garbage AND he'll get paid! What a guy, I think I'll go out buy one of his delightful albums right now. <br><br>
THat's an obsolete term more or less. The current jargon is semiology and/or semiotics and/or semianalysis, dpeending on whether you're a linguist, an anthropologist, or a cultural studies type.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
I claimed Apple was using it to sell music - including Eminem's song. I'm not claiming Apple gets no benefit out of it. But you don't actually think they would use that they would use that song to sell Nana Mouskouri albums, do you?<br><br>You claimed they were using it to sell iPods - that is where I disagree.<br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.