FridgeMagnet said:
GIve me one giant sized fucking break. This lamewad crooning to his employees isn't going to affect the fucking revenue or profitability of BofA in the least. Second it wasn't created as a commercial and there was no paid media carrying the song. So it's not even like it was an ad hoc commercial.

I don't know if Bono or the rest of the band had anything to do with UMPG's reaction. But if they did, fuck them, and if they didn't fuck UMPG. This is ridiculous.

I wonder, though, if Universal was worried that this was some sort of viral marketing campaign (though it's not). It's hard for old people to figure out the crazy, ironical intrawebs. I should know.

SivaDelFuego

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:16 AM

JimBarber said:
A couple of things about your post:

1. A cease-and-desist letter isn't a lawsuit. It's not even close.

2. I'm reasonably certain U2 had no idea that Universal Music's lawyers were going to send this letter. Part of the downside of selling or leasing your music publishing rights to a major corporation is that the corporate legal staff comes with the deal.

I'm not even sure Mr. Raul Gonzalez's boss knew he was sending the letter. When you're a low-level business affairs person at a major music company, you grind out the C&D letters all day every day.

Anyone who does this stuff for a living will tell you that copyright law is a mess and it's lagging decades behind technology.

IF Universal has a case, it's pretty weak.

The BoA guys were certainly within their rights of parody (yeah, that's the legal term) to perform the U2 song with alternate lyrics in a private setting. I'm sure whatever hotel or convention center they were in has blanket ASCAP and BMI licenses. No problems there.

If someone put the video of that performance up on YouTube as a joke, it's no more of a copyright violation than any of the other 37,000,000 music videos or homemade videos people post there every day.

If BoA posted it for viral marketing purposes, then they've altered the lyrics and made a commercial without permission. Then Universal and U2 ought to nail them to a tree.

And you don't nail anyone to a tree with a cease-and-desist letter. That's like telling someone you'll beat them up next year if they don't stop making fun of you today.

Smack on the money. Bono will probably learn about the cease and desist letter from the news, if he even ever does.

I love how all the counter-culture kids are so eager to find something lame about U2 to "see right through." Thank goodness that silliness has it's limits as it seems that even in the counter culture world, Bank of America is still just a little less cool than U2.

Uh... uh.. oh no... here it comes.... stand back...

SivaDelFuego

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:25 AM

hadees said:
Isn't that protected as a parody? Thats how Wierd Al was able to do Amish Paradise.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think Weird Al got permission from Coolio's record label and actually had documentation of having been given that permission. I think Weird Al actually thought he had Coolio's permission. Anyway, he asks everyone for permission and has to get it.

Copyright is enforceable for lyrics, but independent of that, it's enforceable by melody. That's how Hewey Lewis's Record Company could get on the ass of the Ghostbuster's soundtrack. I think it's seven notes in a similar relative progression, both in pitch and time. If you copy that from another artist, you're in deep shit.

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

NOV 22, 2006 05:30 AM

Sivacrom said:

hadees said:
Isn't that protected as a parody? Thats how Wierd Al was able to do Amish Paradise.

He does that because he's a nice guy and chooses to do it. He would never have to.

SivaDelFuego

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:45 AM

cupcake said:

Haushinka said:
Becuase they gotta make money somehow off people since they "donate all their money to charities".

well put, lil' darlin.

U2 doesn't donate all their money to charities. It's fun to think they're claiming they do that, because that gives us something to not like about U2 and to help forward our commitment to a cynical world view.

But I prefer a dose of reality. 1) They're loaded (and have been for some time now) and they own the property to prove it, 2) aside from homes in the South of France and in Ireland, they own or have money invested in a plethora of businesses throughout the world - unlike most musicians, they were smart with their money, 3) they blow their cash on their tours... or at least they did back in the 90's, 4) It's Universal that needs U2 and Universal is sending the cease and desist, 5) like his bleeding heart or not, no single individual in this lifetime has done more to help people in Africa than Bono.

Africa... It's not Bon's issue du jour, he's in it for the long haul. Every celebrity who goes there today is just following in his footsteps because somehow he made it "cool." He plays both American and capitalist politics to get support to empoverished people and the thing most cynics can't accept is that it's worked extremely well.

U2. What a bunch of assholes!

SivaDelFuego

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 06:00 AM

apesamongus
He does that because he's a nice guy and chooses to do it. He would never have to.

Fair enough.

pmonkeyEsquire

I'm lost

May 2004

NOV 22, 2006 06:03 AM

Isn't the song protected because it's a paroday??? In that case the cease and desist order is an empty threat.

PAGE:

1 | 2

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 22, 2006 04:53 AM

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:16 AM

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:25 AM

Atlanta, GA

July 2002

NOV 22, 2006 05:30 AM

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 05:45 AM

Minneapolis, MN

January 2003

NOV 22, 2006 06:00 AM

I'm lost

May 2004

NOV 22, 2006 06:03 AM