Egads!

um...wow

that might be the most unintentionally ironic thing ever

I hope someone gets this to U2 and they sue the hell out of 'em.

Well, I know where I'm putting MY money!

I'm sure Haq can clarify if he actually cares, but I don't think there's any grounds for suit here. Parodies and covers are perfectly legal.

don't quit your day jobs guys...

Wouldn't they have to pay a songwriter's fee since they are using it for marketing? I didn't think the song was too bad for a couple of suits.

but weird al has to ask permission to do his albums.

I don't think they are though. This was performed internally. It's not a commercial.

He doesn't have to ask permission. just pay royalties.
He DOES ask permission, though because he's a classy mofo.

I'm so embarrassed right now but can't stop watching. I bet the Office parody's this before the end of the year.

Wait..

Do you like the Cowboys?
Yankees?
Or is NASCAR more your Speed?

Where did that come from?

link to your threads all you want, buddy, but I got more replies. booyeah

higher standards... yeah.

huh.

ummmmm....

http://obner.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=26365&highlight=one

Don't mind if I do!

There are two copyrights involved with a recorded song--the copyright in the recording (belonging to U2 or their assignees) and the copyright in the underlying song (probably belonging to the publisher). There is no violation of U2's right, because no part of their recording was taken. However, a cover does implicate the right of the publisher.

Furthermore, there are several different rights protected by the unitary copyright--reproduction is one, but public performance and display are also "copyrights." You do not have to have the permission of the publisher to cover a song (either on a recording or live) but you do have to pay a statutory licensing fee (around 9 cents for every copy sold or performance made, I think). Most music venues make regular payments to collective rights organizations (In this case I think it's the Harry Fox agency) which represent publishers, and are thereby granted immunity from actually paying for each performance.

This probably was not a public performance at the time (it was a company event) and so probably did not implicate that right. However, whoever put it on YouTube is arguably "displaying" (via transmission) the underlying song to the public, triggering the statutory license fee requirement. They would not have to pay the fee if their use was "fair" under 17 USC s. 107, but the fair use exception applies to parody, but arguably not to satire--because this rendition does not actually make any statement about the song or U2, it's more naturally classified as the latter.

All told, whoever published "One" has a colorable claim of infringement against whoever posted the file to YouTube, and probably against YouTube for contributory/vicarious liability (subject to the safe harbors provisions at 17 USC 512(c)).

This is decent review for my Digital Copyright class.

So YouTube or the YouTube user can be sued, but not BOA or the BOA employees?

I worked on a case for SESAC once where a radio station stopped paying them, but still played their music (e.g., songs written by Dylan). When SESAC tried to get them to re-up, the station sued SESAC saying that they had a monopoly. A monopoly in SESAC music. It was hilarious. That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Hondas.

I don't think it's hilarious. Honda isn't the only company making cars, whereas SESAC is one of three collective rights agencies doing what they do (so "oligopoly" is a better word, but oligopolies can be illegal if there's collusion), and it's very difficult to break into that business because SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI have contracts with all of the publishers. Also, comparing physical and "intellectual" property is always misleading--the former is purchased, the latter licensed, two fundamentally different arrangements.

But yeah, unless BOA uploaded the video, their performance was arguably not public, and they didn't distribute or transmit it.

I knew there was a good reason I switched to Wells Fargo...

well that was uncomfortable

Why does this thread take so long to open?

it's funny 'cause he's balding and dead serious.

he nailed that annoying breathing thing Bono does though.

it's even funnier that Haq spent his time responding to this.