1. you claim you won't do it at all
2. you claim you'd only do it for $10M minimum
3. but you'll give them a whole other song for $300K?

This is like the old joke about the prostitute... "Ten dollars?! What kind of girl do you think I am?!" " We already know what kind of girl you are. We're just arguing over the price."

The deal fell thru. Apple pulled the ad. If he can show how he was harmed, great. As far as I can tell he's out the (ASCAP) royalties for the performance(s).

Of course he could just be angry because iPods are even whiter than he is.

Well, I retract my previous assumption that Apple was in the right because they MUST have gotten permission to use the song from somebody. Apparently not.

And, I stand by my previous assumption--whatever moron aired/posted the song on the website without checking all possible legalities in advance deserves to be fired, as well as whatever lawyers didn't stop them from doing the same.

And if this was Steve's personal call to go ahead with it, then I hope he has to personally pay whetever Eminem ends up winning in this case.

Man, if this is even half true, that's just stupid on Apple's part.

Maybe a few more lawsuits like this & Apple will stop using c*** music for their ads.

Seems to me they used to have talented people actually "promoting" them & their ideology... Chuck Berry, George Clinton, Barry White, Liz Phair, etc, etc, etc. Artists that seemed happy to participate because they knew what Apple was trying to do. Yeah, I'm sure the money was good... but you can't tell me that the George Clinton ad from 10 years or so ago didn't feature a very enthusiastic George Clinton.

Now, ads for the iPod are just like everything else on TV. Yawn. From a design perspective, there's an attractive aspect of the ads... but come on.

Seriously, we went from promoting artists and visionaries and "thinking different" to... well... eight-year olds singing Eminem songs. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

MacNN is sure milking this story for all it's worth.

People have heard of google, you guys. If you're going to report by just posting new website links then maybe you should call yourself google?

1. you claim you won't do it at all
2. you claim you'd only do it for $10M minimum
3. but you'll give them a whole other song for $300K?

He didn't say he'd do it for 10 million, he said that would be the price if he did it.

It was apple offer 300K for the other song, not MnM offering it for 300K.

Has TWO Charge #3's...

I guess CrapNN really wants to keep the spotlight on manemnemwhateverthefuckitssocallednameis!

Not even the rumors site have bothers with this as much as CrapNN has!

"Has TWO Charge #3's..."

That is classic. Lawyers, eh?

Only charge 1 has any merit, IMHO. The ad doesn't "imply indorsement" so everythign relating to "endorsment" is irrelevant.
Since it was an ad to SELL MUSIC of the plantiff, they cannot ask for profits as a result of the ad, because they already GOT THEM.

Clearly, someone at chiat/day pulled the trigger on the ad prematurely. The ads were pulled, but they of course should still have to pay a fine. I remember seeing the "Slim Shady" version of the ad on broadcast TV, but never saw the "lose yourself" ad and haven't found it online for download anywhere.

I guess CrapNN really wants to keep the spotlight on manemnemwhateverthefuckitssocallednameis!

Not even the rumors sites have bothered with this as much as CrapNN has!

I guess CrapNN really wants to keep the spotlight on manemnemwhateverthefuckitssocallednameis!

Not even the rumors sites have bothered with this as much as CrapNN has!