• commentary
  • TUESDAY NOVEMBER 21 2006 9:00 AM

Bank of America U2 Rendition Results in Lawsuit

A clip of two Bank of America employees singing a fucked up version of U2’s One spread like wildfire on the internet recently. The overhauled lyrics garnered fans worldwide (“its even better, now that we’re the same, two great companies come together, now MBNA and B of A”), but didn’t impress U2’s copyright attorneys.

While guitarist Jim Debois blissfully strummed away, corporate suit Ethan Chandler “sang” his own “Bank of America” lyrics in a slightly pathetic attempt to motivate employees.

On Tuesday, a lawyer for the Universal Music Publishing Group, a catalog owner and administrator, posted the text of a cease-and-desist letter in the comments section of Stereogum.com, a Web site carrying the video. It contended that Bank of America had violated Universal’s copyright of the U2 song.


The video appeared to be typical corporate, motivational, cheerleading, drink-the-Koolaid kind of bullshit, but U2 can argue Bank of America failed to get permission and failed to pay royalties while using U2’s intellectual property for profit.

If this were a church video or a nonprofit fund-raiser, I might think Bono needs to shut his big fucking mouth. Because this performance was to increase the earnings and profits of one of the largest, most evil banks in the world, I begrudgingly stand on the side of U2.

Damn you, Bank of America, for making me defend U2.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
OffBroadway

OffBroadway

Canada
September 2004

NOV 21, 2006 09:22 AM

I'm suing Ethan Chandler for making me vomit on my keyboard just now. puke

puke puke puke

Snottlebocket

Snottlebocket

Netherlands
March 2004

NOV 21, 2006 09:23 AM

Man, that's just awkward, this sort of peprally thing is common in America?

Haushinka

Haushinka

Lakewood, NJ
August 2005

NOV 21, 2006 09:24 AM

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

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

NOV 21, 2006 09:29 AM

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.

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

NOV 21, 2006 09:31 AM

However I do think that that if the BofA employees who had to listen to that bullshit had stormed the stage and torn that guy limb from limb, they would have been well within their rights.

gosharkz

gosharkz

San Francisco, CA
August 2002

NOV 21, 2006 09:47 AM

All they were trying to do was boost morale for employees. Give me a fuckin break U2.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

NOV 21, 2006 09:54 AM

Guy's got a decent voice, really.

FingerprintFile

FingerprintFile

Atlanta, GA
December 2002

NOV 21, 2006 09:55 AM

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.

James_

James_

United Kingdom
March 2003

NOV 21, 2006 09:56 AM

Silly as the lawsuit may seem, I'm all for it.
These are the arseholes that make you wait 5 days for a cheque to clear, even though it's an electronic transaction and happens instantaneously. These are the fucksticks who charge £30 just for sending you a letter telling you you've spent too much money!

They deserve all the lawsuits they get, however spurious and timewasting.

*edit*
just read the above post. ok, so it's not a lawsuit. I still don't like banks though! hehe

zef

zef

Fairborn, OH
July 2005

NOV 21, 2006 09:57 AM

That went on waaaaaaay too long and he looked way too serious singing it. A lawsuit? I understand viral advertising and all, but please. Just ask them to remove it from the sites, geez.

doctashock

doctashock

Los Angeles, CA
September 2003

NOV 21, 2006 10:08 AM

Anyone else notice how lawsuit happy UMG has been lately.

Either way that was hard to listen too. That's the type of moment of clarity that would cause me to quit my job, not boost my moral. Bad taste withstanding they're still within their rights though as it's an obvious parody done in a private setting.

Eternalxile

Eternalxile

Irving, TX
March 2003

NOV 21, 2006 10:11 AM

zef said:
That went on waaaaaaay too long and he looked way too serious singing it. A lawsuit? I understand viral advertising and all, but please. Just ask them to remove it from the sites, geez.



well that's the basis of a cease and desist order. it's a legal warning prior to filing suit against someone. Again, if it was just meant to be performed solely for their employees then they're essentially and it was uploaded by an employee without their consent, they're in the clear. However if anyone within the position to authorize this made the decision to upload it to the internet for marketing purposes then Universal has every right to rip BofA a new one.

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

NOV 21, 2006 10:48 AM

Parody. 'Nuff said.

-TM

aegies

aegies

Oakland, CA
June 2004

NOV 21, 2006 11:54 AM

universal has been on a roll as far as demanding payment and filing lawsuits, sending out cease and desists, etc, for the last month and a half. this doesn't really surprise me at all; here's hoping that b of a actually takes them to court, and wins. it would be sweet, sweet irony if a major corporation was responsible for setting user-centric legal precedent in the dmca age.

Cassiel

Cassiel

Aurora, CO
September 2004

NOV 21, 2006 12:29 PM

why is everyone hating on U2? Their lawyers and management are just defending their client's best interests

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next