So REM is involved as well? I was around as this was happening and that tidbit I never heard. Definitely no mention of it in the Mondo 2000 interview with The Edge. U2 was a favorite of mine in the mid 80's. I was just starting to like them again with "The Fly" which was the single out right before the Negativland record. Once the story blew up I hated U2 with every bone in my body. Then they assaulted us with one really bad single after another. I still dig "The Fly" but "Mysterious Ways", "Better than the Real Thing and "One" were complete shit. Just recently and reluctantly read Bono's memoir and no mention of this scandal. Coward.
There are some subliminal words in the video for “Even Better than the Real Thing” appearing very quickly from 3: 15 to 3: 19. It appears to say: “Splishing electro-pulses customised car shells, stressful like Berlin beat-up, Bono grabs hold slobbery kiss PVC-covered package get a handle to size up contemptuous when he sings “take me higher” command, great surreal. Check out boom his dick pumping up the levels far-out rogue mutant glitter ball. Dollar-bill “You’re offering me money?” The mirrored (something) above the zip and intensity the only thing glitter-ball.” ruclips.net/video/HyI3mFQweYs/видео.html
Really? You don't see how hilariously stupid it is for U2 to claim the name U2 when they didn't even come up with it??? U2 owes the US government millions based on that logic
I had a roommate who was a huge Negativland fan and had that book. It includes audio of that radio interview, and the trap they lay for The Edge was clever. He talks about folk music and how everything is reusing older stuff, which leads to discussion of sampling and how it's similar. When they reveal they're from the band, The Edge backpedals like crazy and says, "Well, that's the lawyers doing that." When they respond with, "But you're The Edge and you could tell them to back off," he had nothing to say.
@@mickholohan4266 In Ireland? You're not Irish, dude. Most of us don't hate him. There are a few RUclips commentary attention-seeking troll spammers that post bullshit like yourself and that's it :).
Once when I went to see Negativland it felt like a refreshing future. A security guard stopped the guy in front of us bringing in recording gear and the manager of the venue came running out and informed the guard that by contract they had to let people record the show. For a moment all was right with the world.
Presidents of the United States of America was like that as well. Not only did they allow people to record audio (no video), they encouraged it. They wanted fans to trade tapes of shows. You just couldn't sell them.
The Grateful Dead had a huge section roped off for recording equipment of the fans and some had profession level recording equipment. All The Dead asked was “ if you meet someone that doesn’t have that event then give them one for free” . It never damaged their career.
My favorite Negativland trick was them putting out a press release denying the accusation that their music had anything to do with a local murder that had been making big headlines. Oddly enough, no one had made any such accusation, but Negativland's press release still got significant media attention. I highly recommend their 1989 release Helter Stupid which chronicles the event.
@Vomit Pinata Thanks for your comments here. Yeah, the initial inspiration for our record was being handed those hilarious tapes of Casey Kasem ranting and raving, and us wanting to make something based around them. The fact that Kasem was talking about U2 in those tapes was quite random, so there was no intention or agenda to somehow "expose" anything of sort "hypocrisy" on the part of U2 (though it can be argued that a lot of hypocrisy got exposed in the *aftermath* of our record coming out), but since he *was* mentioning U2, we rolled with it. The idea that the project was conceived of as some sort of plot to make a bunch of money by duping millions of innocent U2 fans is a pretty silly one if you know anything about our work. The cover art was a last minute design idea that really appealed to us because it seemed like it was something you were not supposed to do (a creative approach that has defined our work for 40 years. Heck, we included a deceased member of our group's ashes in a recent release of ours!). We figured that we'd either a) be ignored - because we were, and still are, a tiny underground experimental noise band, so who cares about what we do, or b) Island Records might send some kind of one or two page "cease and desist" letter. In which case we'd decide what to do at that time. Instead they spent, we were told, about $25,000 in billable hours preparing an actual lawsuit against us and SST. Which was kind of like dropping an atomic bomb onto an ant. So we treated their lawsuit/overreaction as the next part of what was becoming a much bigger conceptual art project, as we realized that we'd been handed a rather incredible opportunity to publicly speak about some much larger issues than just our little record. It seemed like the responsible thing to do. Some artists like to work within well established styles and traditions, and follow well worn paths. That's fine, but, IMHO, not a very interesting way to create things. A (much) smaller portion of artists are drawn to create things *precisely* because it seems like you are going somewhere with your ideas that you're not supposed to go. Look up what "avant garde" and "culture jamming" means. :) So when a bunch of great and compelling and funny ideas present themselves (and I still think that all of the elements that made up our U2 record were a great and compelling and funny bunch of ideas), you follow them, you manifest them, and you don't worry too much about the consequences. Many of the surprisingly harsh comments here don't seem to understand those aspects of creativity, though I guess that should not surprise me! :)
you knew what you were doing and you knew there would be consequences and then you got upset and butt hurt when the consequences were more than you personally thought were reasonable. i dont like anyones side in this story , two record labels fighting over who can squeeze what they can out of each other, listening to you whine about it years later makes it seem even more of a sophomoric prank than any artistic endeavor. go look that up before you keep doubling down on how artistic trying to fool people with false branding is.
Sounds like you manifested the true experience of what it means to exist in negativeland. That in itself is the highest form of artistic expression. Bravo.
Huge fan of your music going back to the 80s. It's funny all the people on here defending U2 and saying Negativland deserved what they got in this case. I think it's partially because the way this video doesn't do a great job of telling the story. Those of us who know are definitely on your side and love what you do. True/False and The World Will Decide are fantastic by the way. It is pretty rare to see a group stay entertaining and relavant after so many decades of creating content. Thanks for being thought-provoking and hilarious weirdos.
That Casey Kasem tape is one of my favorite tapes ever. I remember seeing him once in the early 2000's where I worked and all I could think was, "Wow...there he is. That little guy with all that big, big rage". Part of me wanted to go up to him and tell him how I'm a huge fan of his tape, but thought better of it because I wanted to keep working there. A true broadcast legend
@@rnrtruestories bono become part of the establishment he in davos and other global meetings, and such i love u2 best live act bug bono betrayed what i thought he stood for
Bono has an update too: "Okay guys, they said if we just give them more power and give up more of our rights they will fix all our problems and give us more monopoly money."
Oh and making millions and millions dollars (whilst not paying the proper taxes) and going on about how corrupt capitalism and America. Bono is a jagoff.
Lol yup. Remember that South Park episode, where it turns out the singer of U2 is just a giant turd. No, he was literally a turd that was born, and then was fed man milk from a nipple and turned into Bono.
@@adammartin7007 actually no, Bono has been on the climate change bandwagon for the past decade now. He is a huge hypocrite. He's been doing Summits, hanging out with Al Gore, doing charities, just Google it.
We later learned quite explicitly from REMs manager (a good friend of U2's) that it was U2's manager, Paul McGuinness (who was essentially the "fifth Beatle" of U2) who told Island Records to go after us. So either The Edge was lying when we spoke with him, or U2's manager was lying to his own band about who was behind the lawsuit. Edge certainly seemed like he was being honest with us, so I am inclined to believe it was their manager hiding the truth from them - probably what started out as a fib/white lie to the band and then got out of hand, because the manager assumed that we would just go vanish and go away after he had us sued. (But, that being said, U2 is still responsible for who they choose to run their business) Additionally, at the time we were sued, U2 was part owner of Island Records and was their biggest money maker, so for The Edge to claim that they had no sway to call it all off was... kind of a disingenuous thing to say. We were also told (as @dave4248 says elsewhere on this thread) that U2's manager was indeed their "bad cop" who did the dirty work to allow U2 to be the "good cop." (There are a lot of things about U2 that we've liked and appreciated over the years, but you don't get to be that big of a global cultural phenomenon without playing dirty at times, stepping on people, and aligning yourself with some rather dark and ugly forces, and that was their managers job). The business of music is ugly indeed, so after all of this happened (and also getting sued for putting out a magazine about being sued), we went back to running our own label, which we have done to this day. We've been legally left alone ever since, still trying our best to make interesting and (we hope) thought provoking music.
That’s not hypocrisy on U2’s part - not even close.. the whole point of the album design was to fool people into thinking it was a U2 album. They banked on riding a popular band’s coattails and lost; simple as that.
I'm one of those people who's now 50yo. I really dug U2 from about 1982 until about 1992, when I finally saw them live with the Zoo TV tour. By then, it turned to lots of icing and fuck all cake.
Agree fully Les. They got way to political for me as well. Then there music starting with Zoo Tv turned to crap. I literally stood 2 feet from “Bono” in Jackson Square in New Orleans one. I almost said hello. Lol Dude was literally 3 feet tall. Crazy.
This story reminded me of “Best of The Beatles” (album by Pete Best). I don’t think U2 were hypocrites here and I even can’t say they were wrong. Negativeland kind of themselves admitted they wanted to cause controversy and attention to them so they got it.
That was my take as well. It sounds as if the band was barely involved at all. If anything I feel a little bad for The Edge, sounds like he got unfairly sandbagged during what was supposed to be a friendly interview. As for the "hypocrisy" piece, covering someone's song for profit without permission while intercutting it with a recording that was never meant for release, AND THEN trying to trick the public into buying your *ahem* music is a little different than sampling mass media outlets. Just my opinion though, I'm no legal expert.
Yep, you're right. If you are fucking with other people's original material, you deserve whatever you get. Losing big time should clear up any confusion about what is your intellectual property, and what is other people's intellectual property.
@@KennyRider137 So they tricked people into buying their records while pretending to be those media? Nope. Watch guitars, you can make a copy of Fender (the body shapes are not patented) but you cannot trick people into buying your guitar thinking it's a Fender.
By Negativland’s own admission in this video, the record cover was DELIBERATELY created to confuse consumers into thinking it was a new U2 record. Therefore just how and when were people supposed to “figure it out”? After they bought the record, got home, and started playing it? By that time the consumer has already paid money and to the wrong band. Perhaps the recording itself may be ok for Fair Use, but the artwork is completely over the line.
Agreed... and no one went to that U2 concert thinking they were going to watch the nightly news, so I don’t even see hypocrisy. Had it not been for the cover, no one would have cared... except Casey Kasem. ... but only like 10 people would have heard it without that cover.
Negativland is completely in the wrong here. Nothing about the music or packaging is Fair Use. They insist the cost of going to court kept them from fighting the lawsuit... ridiculous. Copyright law would find them guilty every day of the week. The only hypocrisy in this story is Mark Hosler claiming that it felt like ‘HIS child was kidnapped,’ when ‘HIS’ child belonged to another artist and was packaged in fraudulent misrepresentation. The irony doesn’t get thicker.
I remember when it was found out that Bono's One Foundation only gave 2% of the donations given to the Foundation to people in need. It turned out Bono used that One Foundation to grift the public to line his own pockets. Bono is not a good guy. The rest of the band seems ok.
@@challism not quite true. Read or listen to the whole Mondo 2000 interview (it’s available online). Hoffler pointed out to the Edge directly his hypocrisy. The Edge claimed that it was out of their hands, that the suit was the label’s lawyers nor their own. However U2 was by far the most successful band on Island’s label and they had the clout to do something about the lawsuit. And the band had enough money that with a wave of their hand, they could have covered the lawyers’ fees for both Island and SST records. The Edge was an absolute hypocrite.
@@matthewdaub U2 struck a deal with Apple, releasing iPhones with a free U2 album. This was met with severe backlash by the public, as the buyers never asked for the album, was never a consumer option, and was a nightmare to delete from the phone. It was perceived as pretentious, and U2 issued an apology.
U2 made a fortune from apple for the giveaway, and only the haters complain and were heard, millions were stoked to get the album......very clever U2 and the worlds best live band!
@@hankdutton8896 I wish I could but I have lps on there that aren't on a cd, mp3 or cloud. It's still a handy way to listen. But I didn't appreciate the forced unwanted utub album showing up. ?
Huh funny, I deleted mine like I would any other album on itunes... Lord forbid people can't just hit the skip button instead of raising hell over something stupid.. just get over it and skip the songs 👍
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that they exposed any hypocrisy when the major issue was that the label, not the band, didn't like the use of the band's name 3 months before a major release. The connection between the sampling and the fact that U2 used recorded media in their show = hypocrisy is pretty weak.
@@challism Yep. I was never that big of a U2 fan, but fuck, whatever happened to accepting the consequences of your actions?? These are grown men going "Gosh, Mom, I didn't mean anything by it! I waa just teasin' the dog." Sometimes you do shit, somebody doesn't like it, you get a problem.
Yea, Negativeland's album cover was to intentionally deceptive and their excuse was "we thought it'd be funny". Dude you're attempting to piggyback off of a large band's release to take sales. If the tables were turned and smaller band was cutting into your sales you bet they'd have something to say about it. Edit: Hold up. Rock and Roll stories already covered this 3 months prior
Sounds like it was nothing like fair use. The band member flat out admits they were trying to fool U2 fans into buying their record and that they didn't seek all the clearances they knew they needed
They didn't con anyone out of their money. The record label and the song name and probably band members were written on the album. Be sorry for yourself.
Trademark law specifically states you can not create consumer confusion. Which they did purposely. As a pop artist I had to put "this art is not endorsed by blah blah blah" to avoid consumer confusion.
This wasn't a con. The only people who even knew about this knew what it was. It had a point, it had a legit reason to exist. I saw them do this live. Too many people commenting on this that haven't heard anything they've ever done.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Although somebody “could” make the defense that they should be protected under the fair use doctrine in the U.S., the ultimate decision also factors in; the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the relative portion of the use of the copyrighted work and the effect that use had on the potential market. 1. The band member of Negativland said himself that they purposefully tried to make it confusing. 2. Used the song and the album cover for commercial use. 3. They used an almost identical font with the title “U2” on their album cover with big letters covering most of the entire thing with only small text at the bottom saying the band’s name. 4. That same member mentioned before also said himself that it makes the album look like a U2 album with the title of the album being Negativland. 5. They used a full 30 seconds of unedited audio from U2 and made altered versions of U2 songs. 6. The confusion brought by their purposefully misleading album affected several stores and confused many people to the point that some stores even put up the album cover as advertising, under the impression that it was a new U2 song. 7. At no point during any of this did the band Negativland attempt to clear up this confusion after knowing it had escalated. Sampling on it’s own isn’t copyright infringement, criticism and education isn’t copyright infringement, but putting a different band’s name in a near identical font with big text on the album cover you are selling and doing so purposefully to create confusion sure as hell could be.
In fairness to U2 - ANY major band or label would have done the exact same thing. Hell, the Negativland guy even admits that their primary motivation was to confuse consumers buying records! That's never gonna be legal....
if u just actually look at the record for more than a few seconds, and read it, it becomes quickly apparent that it's not a release from the band u2, and also, there's the u2 spy plane on the cover, nothing at all to do with the band, and whose name was what the band got their name from. so, 2 different people using the same letter-numeral combo, from a us military plane, and one is not ok? why?
That felt about 5minutes too short. Was just getting into it and you wrapped it up. There must be more to this story, in the last 30 years. The precedent set in sampling, what happened to bandmembers of Negativland afterwards. Sounds fascinating.
What exactly did negativland think would be the outcome of this ffs? U2 probably couldn’t care less but music corporations aren’t going to let anyone threaten their income streams.
The outcome? I think the only outcome they cared about were being free to do what they wanted while U2 were free to do what THEY wanted. What they didn't want was the courts and public opinion to consistently choose the rights holders over musicians using samples and commenting on the popular commercial culture, ultimately deciding what your choices of listening would be. Anyone who favors U2 or their label in this is either a gobshite or missed the point of it. I like U2 just fine. Auchtung Baby all the way.
@@artemusprine almost quaintly naive but admirable. Of course most people would take the side of freedom of expression but if you had invested millions of dollars in a project only for someone else to subvert it I doubt you would be so reasonable. Like it or not that’s the world we live in and you can’t convince me that negativeland weren’t aware of that. Hence my initial outburst. Consider, also, that U2 had never courted or accepted any corporate sponsorship so it was all their own investment.
@@brianwilson49 Right on. But if I were to pick one over the other I would always take the more quaintly naive option. Both sides can be "right" when protecting disparate interests. The law requires that trademarks be defended. Negativland might have made $10,000s off of this stunt, possibly thanks to U2 and their fame. I doubt they ever cost U2 a dollar in sales. That's muh point.
@@artemusprine do you not think that U2 have the right to protect their creative interests, output and investment? do you not think that they should be the sole governors of how their creative output is released, realised and represented? would you not consider it slightly irksome were some upstart (regardless of the perceived artistic merit) to subvert your creative efforts? I think the money is an irrelevance (or at the very least a separate argument; one of the lawyers); the principle of ownership of artistic output is the crux of the matter here. that's MUH point.
@@brianwilson49 My point is that they do not own the historical event, the capture of a U2 spyplane by the USSR. U2 have every right to control their product, their output. This is not someone counterfeiting them or trying to confuse people into buying their album. This is a work of social/media/corporate criticism. It does incorporate music from U2 as part of a schtick, their name being taken from the name of the plane the album is about. And it presumes its audience knows who U2 are and also that Negativland are not, and don't even ever want to be U2. The whole thing may have been contrived as a middle finger to the music industry but was never meant to take a dime about of the band U2's pockets. Realistically, how could it have?
Well not everybody speaks German. And Hogan's Hero's has been out of syndication for decades. You wanna take a shot at Deutsch ? My TI's in Basic had a field day with that one !
@@jad43701 took german in junior highschool. I remember a little. But what I think it really is that bugs me is that if you can't pronounce achtung you probably haven't been educated on WWII.
@@MrZeroTerrorRide Not necessarily. How much Japanese, Russian, Italian, or even Green do you speak. Hell, putting the emphasis on the wrong part of a word, can have a whole new meaning, trust me !
@@MrZeroTerrorRide A very intelligent friend called privately called me out once.. We were in a meeting at work, and another co-worker mispronounced a fairly common word. He used the word itself in a proper context, but it was clear that he had never actually heard anyone else say it in conversation before. I looked over at my friend and smirked. After the meeting, I said something to my friend like, "can you believe that idiot butchered that word in front of everybody?" He asked me how I thought our co-worker would have learned that word if he had never actually heard anyone use it in conversation. I paused and thought about it. Then I realized our co-worker would have had to read it somewhere first. He would have had to have read the word, then looked at the rest of the sentence and the rest of the paragraph to determine what it meant using context clues. The main takeaway here is he read it. As in reading. He was reading. The way people use social media and watch reality TV and all that bullshit now.. I should have never judged anybody for mispronouncing a word they read somewhere. I'm just glad other people still read.
Yes, U2 is a colossal rock corporation & yes, Bono can come off as being a dick. But by their own admission, the Negativland record was publicity stunt. Once you go down that road, you can't expect it to be all strawberries & balloons.
" But by their own admission, the Negativland record was publicity stunt." This bit is blatantly untrue. They DON'T admit to that, & instead tell an entirely different story... that the album was intended to focus on the Casey Kasem rant, the U2 connection was incidental, & the album cover which was the most obvious legal violation was a last minute choice without a lot of consideration put into it. Mind, you are free to think they are lying & it was all a plot of some kind... but that doesn't change the fact that it's untruthful to say they have admitted something when they have not.
The entire point of copyright laws is to avoid confusion between similar companies (or bands). For them to admit they did this on purpose, they are flat-out admitting to breaking copyright laws. This has nothing to do with Fair Use. I've never been a huge fan of U2, but I have to take their side in this one.
I mean like he said in the video they put U2 on the cover because of the plane and the plane was on the negativland cover identifying the plane. The plane U2 existed before the band. There may even be a book published before the band u2 about the u2 plane. So is u2 guilty of confuing people into thinking they are getting an album about the plane? Obviously negativland knew what they were doing but intent actually doesn't matter in copyright law. Like if some one doesn't mean to and they in reality did, they are still guilty. If you meant to ruffle feathers it doesn't mean you broke copyright law. INTENT HAS NO RELEVANCE! As far as confusion, are negativland to blame that some record stores didnt understand that the u2 plane existed long before the band U2? Dont get me wrong i doubt they had a case, but in my eyes it was art, the whole thing, the record the backlash, everyrhing. Absolutely beautiful.
Yeah, when in this very video you have the guy from Negativeland saying they deliberately made it look like their album was a U2 album ... Sorry they got caught and got sued for good reasons.
I have to side with U2 on this one. While I do think their record company probably went way overboard in the lawsuit and while I can appreciate a good trolling against the music industry, Negativland was insanely naive to think this wouldn't go unnoticed. Sampling was already a hot-button issue at the time (Remember Vanilla Ice's defense of sampling "Under Pressure"?) So by sampling or parodying a U2 song and Kasem's voice without going through the necessary legal channels, they already dug their own grave. Weird Al got permission from the artists he parodied and set up a shared publishing arrangement beforehand. I rest my case. I don't believe the "Oh we didn't know it would cause so much confusion at record stores" argument. They knew what they were doing. And there's no hypocrisy here, I'm pretty sure U2, being the biggest band in the world, had a team of legal experts looking into the use of images for their tour. And the Fair Use defense really annoys me. Believe me, I have to use the "Fair Use" defense on my videos all the time. But the fair use portion of the U.S. Copyright Act specifically says it must be "Non-commercial." Well, the minute you're selling a record in stores, the "Fair Use" defense goes out the window. I know U2 has its critics, some friends of mine really don't care for them, which is fine. Personally I think their 80s output is fantastic. I don't know much about Negativland, maybe they have some good material, but this doesn't really make me want to check them out.
Thats not entirely true. Fair Use need not be non-commercial. Parody & Satire are protected transformative use. If they hadn't deliberately added Trademark Fraud ( before a new album drops ) they might have gotten away with it. I don't even think U2 initiated the lawsuit, the record company did.
@@minki46664 You need to find a really good personal injury lawyer and sue your highschool for negligence for failing to teach you the meaning of 'same'...
it mentions that U2 sampled media in their creations. the members of Negativland even sat in on an interview with The Edge and asked about his inspirations and useage of sampling. you gotta pay attention and connect dots, no spoonfed conclusions here
The most ironic thing about the title of this video that it mirrors exactly what negativland did…..there’s no hypocrisy here at all you literally titled the video that way to get clicks.
So nice to see you cover this story! Negativland is awesome and really funny! I started listening to them in the mid 90's when a friend introduced me to them. I read both versions of the Fair Use book which is hilarious. I actually still have the 2nd later published version. They have some recent albums that came out but I have not kept up to date on the releases after Dispepsi. I saw them live on their True False tour in 2000
That one time, when everyone updated their iPhone & were “gifted” that new U2 album, I didn’t get it on my phone... it was free, so I downloaded it... just so I could purposefully not listen to it
Bono once wrote a letter to Captain Beefheart asking if he would be interested in writing/recording together. The reply was hand written, and it said this: "Dear Bongo, No." -capain beefheart (don van vliet)
That’s bloody brilliant. God love Captain Beefheart. To be honest, Ive enjoyed a lot of U2s music over the years but, it was never a surprise to discover - and this is beyond the realm of this lawsuit because they actually did have a right to protect their music - ‘Bongo’ is 10 percent Irish and 90 percent twat.
SO WHERE IS THE HYPOCRISY?!!! U2 always cleared their samples on record. They weren't using copyrighted material during the Zoo Tv tour. Negativland sampled U2's music without permission, deliberately defaced their work whilst also insulting the band, and then cynically tried to package the record in such a way that would confuse the record buying public. It was also Island Records that brought the case against Negativland, not U2. That being said, U2 would have been fully within their rights to rip their little throats out.
Actually, U2 were using *tons* of copyrighted material without permission each night in their huge touring live show. Which we asked The Edge about when we spoke with him. His response was that he thought it was legally and ethically and creatively okay for them to do that, as long as it was being transformed and repurposed in new ways. Which, artistically, is the right answer, and is exactly what Negativland thinks about what we do as well. So it was a nice surprise to hear him say that. And it was at that point in the interview that we revealed who we actually were.
There was a time when people from other countries heard that you were from Ireland that you must like U2. I am Irish and no, I never did, and as time went on, they became more obnoxious and more and more hypocritical.
@@johnrogan8284 Thin Lizzy is to be very proud of.... My Bloody Valentine? Now ireland has some serious making up to do and they arn't doing it fast with people like U2, CHOPCHOP MAKE A BETTER GROUP NOW!! ((PSSST! I wouldn't use sinead o'conner if I were you!)).
I loved U2 through the 80s, and their music from that era remains dear to me. But in the 90s, they clearly bought their own hype. I got off the train after Rattle N' Hum.
Me too. They did still have a few great songs post Joshua Tree, and I dislike it when people rant about how music shouldn't be political or heartfelt (something that's now leveled against their entire catalogue), but I found them increasingly obnoxious and running on fumes afterwards.
Yeah, I got off the train after Achtung Baby. This album is actually worth listening to, but that was the very last U2 album I had purchased. Thereafter, it was downhill. May be, an occasional straggler like Electrical Storm.
So where's the hypocrisy of which you spoke in your clickbait title? None, none at all. You even allow, in your own report, that the record label was more behind the lawsuit than U2. I just don't get it, your work is good enough without the clickbait, but you insist, because let's face it Negativland poked the bear and got got. Anyway, pity about the clickbait - I still don't get it. Edit: And one other thing - "U2 stole their name..." Stole? Really? Stole? If you weren't such an articulate dude, one could chalk it up to "a poor choice of words", but in your case that choice seems very deliberate indeed. Your stuff is good enough without the gaslighting and the clickbait, but you know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
@@zero71234 Clearly we are seeing this from very different perspectives. From my perspective, to say that Negitivland and U2 did the "same thing" is a false equivalency. U2, in pursuit of their own artistic ideas, used sampled media to create something new. They cleared and credited their samples. Negitivland were trolling and they went to far. So yeah, Negitivland sampled U2, whether in poor taste or not is neither here nor there, no big deal. It doesn't seem that they bothered to clear the samples, but whatever. In a further provocation , they made sure to fill the frame of the album cover with U2 - BIG and BOLD - and simultaneously U2 is having a fertile year, so they have a lot of product out in the market, and packaging like this makes mistakes very easy. Negitivland targeted U2 and U2 alone with the aim of taking the piss - I don't think they expected to make a whole lot of money, but they were being malicious - so the outside says U2 and the inside sounds like U2 and no one else. These are two substantially different circumstances, and the singular point of both of them sampling media in their art, is simply not enough to hinge an argument on in pointing to some perceived "hypocrisy", it just isn't. But, you be right, and I'll be right, and we'll both be right, and we'll see who's right.
I never said that was my opinion per se, I was only answering your question. From a general point of view that would be considered hypocrisy. But I think the truth is more complicated than that. I'm a big U2 fan but I also don't like when big fortunes crush small businesses or bands. I think the band were wrong in using their material without permission, and using the logo as well. But the content itself would get into fair use. I think they were trying to expand the concepts or art in music. It's just like painting something based on a picasso painting for me. It's not like they recorded the same songs and tried to sell it at if it were theirs. But as you said, each one has their own opinions and I respect yours as well.
@@zero71234 I think the difference is intention. No one went to the U2 concert thinking they were going to watch the nightly news. I think Negativland were disingenuous when they made their album cover.
The only reason most people have heard of Negativland (what few there are who have) is because of the lawsuit by U2 and their label. What they did wasn't art. It wasn't a statement about consumerism (they were selling the album and happily collecting the proceeds). What it was, was exactly what the lawsuit against them alleged. There was no hypocrisy by U2 in this situation, regardless of how many times they've used samples of other artist's work. What Negativland did was they used U2's own work in a twisted manner that made the band look bad and they didn't do it to lampoon U2 or poke fun at them. They did it to confuse consumers and trick them into purchasing their own album. Americans are busy people, just like folks in some other countries. Often times buying things is done quickly while we're in the middle of doing a number of other things. I think it's pretty easy to see why some people were under the impression that the Negativland album was the one anticipated by U2. Hell, according to their own band member (Negativland), that's what they were trying to do.
Misleading title. C'mon man! It was U2's record label and not U2 as you even mention in the video. The Edge was against the aggressive legal actions of their record label.
@@Doctorgoatboy no, he's right and it's not the only time a label/publisher sued even when the artist voiced no objection..... Paul McCartney didn't support a lawsuit by his publisher against Danger Mouse over the Grey Album, which mixed Jay Z with the Beatles.
@@crusherolies8195 what samples? I didn't hear anything about that in the video. None of their music before 1991 certainly sounds like it has sampling.
@@robgronotte1 sigh they specifically said the tour media they were using on screen and between songs was samples. so they are hypocrites when they use other peoples work to make money while condemning someone for using THEIR work making money.
@@crusherolies8195 oh, I forgot about the tour stuff. But they didn't do that until the tour following the Negativland release. I still don't think Negativland meant to say U2 were hypocrites. They just wanted to use the rants from Kasey Kasem which happened to include mentions of U2, and they liked the idea of provoking controversy by making their record appear to be by a very popular band. Also, U2 didn't come after Negativland, their record label did.
@@robgronotte1 tours take a long time to plan, they were likely planning the zootv tour while the negativeland release was already out. no one said negativeland said they were hypocrites, the creator of the video did. i also already stated as did the video that the label went after them in the first place. its almost like you didnt watch the video at all and if you did you immediately forgot everything it said.
Always loved Negativland. Used to know Dave Wills, he invited myself and the drummer of my band sit in on a radio session that later became Sex Dirt. There's a couple of clips of me saying stupid shit on the album. Good times. I'm listed in the credits as 'Some friend of Davids'. Even got to play with The Blooper, which is wild trying to get something coherent out of it, lol.
This was 30 yrs ago! You dont have to side with anyone because it doesnt matter! You know, we dont ALWAYS need to have an opinion! I just wasted 3 minutes reading a bunch of people fighting over people like U2 or not! LOL if you like them, cool, if not, cool. why is this an argument! LOL why do we even care?
I love mashups and believe it is a valid artform, but Negativeland’s defence of “we thought it’d be funny to confuse U2 fans” and “we assumed they would figure it out” are disingenuous when they knew they would be profiting from confused U2 fans buying shrink-wrapped records. They deserved to be sued. I suspect this was a cool troll move that blew up waaaay bigger than Negativland anticipated.
It’s important to remember that this happened in 1991, which was an entirely different cultural context than that which we “enjoy” today. Also the word Negativland only contains one “e”.
@@lttfan9185 you need to learn something about art, at least the meaning of it. It's not different from the appropriatio of an object and the fact that just showing it with a different purpose turns it into an artistic manifestation, usually a manifest with subversive intent.. for me this is art and u2 by then weren't no longer the kind of braking rules and more interested in commercial gain...it happens a lot but still ...they sold out
The problem with copyright is not that the law is so hard on those who break it, but that the artist should have the right to profit from their own work. Big digital platforms have made it impossible for artists to gain compensation, as in recent years, more and more artists hit rock-bottom financially because they don't have the where with all to sue these platforms for fair compensation.
It didn't matter how it was going to turn out for negativeland ..I think the goal of the exercise was to just out em...I recon they didn't care...one of those go for it scenarios.who knows .but yeah we all listened to the first two indie bunnymen Tribute albums.. they were ok but the way they changed into the stadium oirish Christian monster music machine they did. Same time as they hit the states. It's highly humourous...did that twat Jimmy iovinie have a hand in creating bono?..like Mary Shelley's monster. Ha
7:01 They DIDN'T have a fair use defense. He even admitted in his lecture that they were purposely attempting to confuse and profit off of a trademark holder's intellectual property. They would have been shredded in court and probably set back actual fair use cases.
“It felt to ME like MY child had been kidnapped” - Mark Hosler, upset upon learning that HIS work is being screwed with. (By HIS work, I mean copyright infringement + misrepresentation project). The irony in this quote couldn’t be thicker.
I suppose you were also fully aware of the irony when you made an almost identical statement at Duke - bookended by how it was terrible, upsetting, cost you 4 years of your life, 45k and the god-like nature of corporations.
@@nicholasbailey2469 I've been asked to lecture about the history of Negativland's work over 140 times in the last two and a half decades, and between those lectures and doing many interviews, I bet I've told stories about the U2/Negativland lawsuit well over 250 times. So, yeah, very likely I sometimes say some similar things. We were sued a second time by our own (at the time) label, SST Records, so I think that my comments were referring to the personal impact of *both* lawsuits, not just the lawsuit that U2's manager, Paul McGuiness, asked Island Records to bring against us. The impacts were considerable, though we never for second regretted making that record. And by "godlike," I was saying that our legal system rather horrifically (IMHO) gives corporations all of the rights and privileges of being a human being, and yet they are immortal (like gods) and not actually human at all, and thus can never suffer any true consequences for what they do when they hurt people and the planet. There is no corporate "death penalty." So it's a very bad set up for the rest of us, for the Earth, and for democracy. I should also add that a lot of the comments here about our work seem to be based on mistaken assumptions about why we did (and still do) what we do, and fundamentally not grasping why some artists make art. As our dear deceased friend Crosley Bendix once said, "Never underestimate the power of interesting." What we make is way too strange and obscure to be a good way to make a living (though these days it does seem to more or less pay for itself, which has been a great surprise) and making a profit was never our goal. We make what we make because...it's interesting!! We never had anything against U2. We made that record because the audio and packaging ideas we had were simply too interesting and irresistible to pass up making it. We made it because the material we found inspired us to make it. And we made what I think is one of our best and funniest records, and is, to this day, a good example of what we do, and why we do what we do. The aftermath became a way to broaden a dialogue about what were, at that time, some very new issues and important debates about how art, creativity, ownership, capitalism, and new technologies were all colliding. We'd already been appropriating copyrighted material to make our music for eleven years when we were sued, so, to us, the suit wasn't just about that one record, it was about our entire way of making music and art, and about they way that many other new artists were making music and art. We couldn't financially afford to fight Island Records and U2 in a court of law ( something that large corporations often rely on to shut people up), but, being that at that time U2 were the largest rock band on the planet Earth, we realized that we could fight it in the court of public opinion. And so...we did. With the aftermath being a documentary film ("Sonic Outlaws") getting made about it, our work getting taught in art and law schools, our self-published book being used as a text book at many universities, getting asked to lecture about our work over 140 times, our work being written about in over 100 books and textbooks, and, so I am told, actually have a small impact on the larger overall conversation about these issues. So, in that regard, it was a great success, far beyond anything we ever could have imagined when making our little record, and, though there have been a few threats and skirmishes over the years, we've been legally left alone ever since. That this story is once again generating debate and discussion all these years later is fantastic. As Crosley Bendix also once said, "Intelligence is temporary."
@mark negativland Thanks for the reply Mark. The afore mentioned quote, “having your baby stolen,” was pulled from your in-person response to Bertis Downs (regarding Island Records’ actions). Citing your ‘complete awareness’ of the irony in the almost identical statement (from Wired Magazine), is this further satire, intentional hypocrisy of emotion? The context of negative bullet points directed towards Downs certainly feel genuine upon delivery... The angle of argument creates confusion when the stolen/kidnapped object is protected by copyright, belonging to another party. I’m approaching this from a different perspective than 99% of commentators. As a composer for tv/film, I’ve had my work lifted (ultimately resolved upon discovery). Extremely separate scale of situations, with zero humor involved and an inverse POV. I’m no stranger to Copyright law. I understand that NL wasn’t financially able to respond in court; but it seems to reason that copyright law would’ve made it an expensive exercise in proving what’s not protected by fair use.
FWIW, Negativland has been sampled many, many times (without permission) over the years, including by actor Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg on his "Music For the People" album (a record that sold well over a million copies), on a Fatboy Slim album, and even one year on the MTV music video awards show. We may or may not have liked what was done with samples of our work (Wahlberg's use, for example, was on a truly awful record), but our liking it or not, and our being paid for the sample, was and is of no concern to us. Because those samples were being transformationally reused to create *new works.* And that's art. That's the history of all human creativity, science and technology - it builds upon what came before it. Contemporary notions of copyright, capitalism, the very idea of "intellectual property," and these (apparently immortal) legal fictions we call corporations, are all very new human inventions, and need to be questioned and interrogated. They are not written in stone, however much they can often seem to be. In Negativland's view, once a person actually heard what we made, our "U2" record could never be confused with being the band U2 's music, and thus, though you may disagree with me on this, it was actually *ours.* Our unique creation, based (in part) on their creation. But the lawsuit against us for our U2 record was meant to crush and erase from the world our *entire * record, so, yeah, emotionally, it sure did feel like one's baby being stolen! (We even offered to re-issue it with a different cover, or that U2 could issue it themselves as a B side remix. Those ideas were of course ignored. They just wanted it gone). If your film music was lifted in its entirety without your permission or compensation, then, yeah, I think that is wrong. If someone used a snippet of it, chopped it up, pitch shifted it, put it into reverb, and reused it in some creative new way, then no, we don't think they need to ask your permission, nor do you deserve any money for that. A problem in this debate is that people can often conflate these two very different things together. Even if you don't agree with Negativland's conclusions, I hope you can see the difference :) And I say all of this as a person who actually does (kind of) live off of my music! As I have often said, part of playing the game of putting out one's creative work into the world is that you lose having 100% complete and omnipotent control over what happens to it. It comes with the territory, and a greater good - a healthy, vibrant and ever evolving culture - is at stake. That's what we were drawn into fighting for all those years ago.
Not a u2 fan but i think theyvkinda had a point...imagine buying THE new U2 album and you didn't planned to buy ANOTHER u2 album...and you just buy that negativeland album thinking it was u2's new stealth release album. Lame
Comparing the sampling of mass media for performance in live shows to intentionally creating an album cover that is intended to look like a new release from the group you are lampooning is not exposing hypocrisy. The moment they put that album up for sale they exposed themselves to legal risk.
Agreed. U2’s was commentary and fair use, what Negativland did was try to deceive buyers so they could sell records. I’m all for parody, but Negativland was wrong here.
Absolutely agree. Negativland did NOT expose hypocrisy. They did however premeditate misrepresentation. Once they monetized this “confusion” it was over.
It’s not so much the trolling but the nerve to be surprised when the lawyers come after you... you outright admitted the point was to confuse people...
Here in the UK we often settle copyright cases based on one phrase "an idiot in a hurry." Many years ago a judge set a precedent based on the fact that only an idiot in a hurry would mistake one product for another. So now if a judge believes that only an idiot in a hurry would mistake your product for something under copyright then you can keep making and selling it.
Going to side with U2 on this one. Putting U2 in huge letters on the cover, to me, showed Negativeland were interested in confusing the public for commercial reasons. Also, songwriters have the right to refuse others from covering their music if they're changing the lyrics. As you stated. N-land sound like pranksters and sometimes pranksters get slapped down if they're trying to make money off others. They should have pulled it immediately and had something else ready to put out to capitalize on their notoriety. Still, I would like to hear what Casey said......
MAN, THEY'RE A FUCKING INDIE BAND. THIS RECORD WAS RELEASED BY A INDEPENDENT LABEL. THE ONLY REASON MOST PEOPLE HERE KNOW ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE U2 SUED THEM. PLUS, U2 FANS CAN'T READ.
Great summary of the events. I remember some of this unfolding in my lifetime - I do remember the U2 single in local record stores, but they were careful enough to distinguish it from a U2 album (for anyone who spent more than 5 seconds looking at it). Thanks for sharing!
I’m sorry I am pro U2 on this issue. There is no hypocrisy. It isn’t hypocritical to sue a band for pretending to be you. That is and should be considered wrong. If this channel renamed itself the official U2 channel or Guns and Roses or whatever this channel would be shut down. That was an is the entire issue here. If you walked in (and I am sure there were more then a few U2 fans who did this) to a local Tower Records you would be fooled into buying the record which is what Negativeland wanted. As far as I am concerned they got what they wanted. That was then and is the issue. The issue about parody and freedom of speech wouldn’t have gotten them sued. Now on the flip side, U2 and their management could have just let this go with a cease and desist and have the dumb album cover pulled. By making it a huge issue they did some damage to themselves. But the title of this video is that U2 are hypocrites for stopping folks from ripping off fans off. I call bs.
I remember when this happened, there was an article in Mondo2000 interviewing Negativeland about it and they also interviewed The Edge who showed he got their idea with it and was super cool about the whole thing. I never knew that it pretty much wrecked Negativeland like that because they still kept coming out with albums and stuff. My buddy would get them and we'd get baked and listen to them, but their stuff wasn't stuff you'd listen to a lot, just every now and then he'd go "got a new Negativeland or got a new Bongwater" they were bands you'd listen to like once and get a kick out of it but it wasn't anything you'd really groove to over and over y'know.
Some people say U2 hasnt put out a good album One foundation of copyright violation is whether an entity is creating consumer confusion. They outright admit to trying to do so. Slam dunk lawsuit.
Cool story, though I don’t think that U2 was in the wrong on this one. Their record cover was, by design and their own admission, confusing to the consumer.
U2 cared, they just pretended not to so they wouldn't lose face. Some people saw through it, but obviously most fans bought the BS from U2. They're hypocrites in many ways, especially Bozo.
@@livewire2759 And what should they do? Dump the record label theyve been with since the beginning? and yes their actions speaking louder than volumes. Lets look at all the good they do shall we? or are you gonna crawl up your own arse and deny it all?
So just to be clear, translating for my old fart brain, you're accusing U2 of having little sympathy for a band whose whole aesthetic is based on taking U2's music and shuffling it a little bit, then pretending they did anything artistic? That's your theory? Bro, go back to high school.
These dudes that sample the music of others and call it art. Public Enemy wrote a song about how sampling was cool and you, "can't copyright a beat," etc. They later sue Madonna for stealing one of their beats.
They were using using U2's name and song Fooling U2 fans to buy a record U2 had nothing to do with. The stuff they used on tour wasn't the whole point of the show they performed their own songs on it. Complaining about getting sued over this sounds like those idiots who stormed the capitol that couldn't believe they got maced.
@@YossiR No they weren't! They were not distributed at the same level as U2. Maybe one person ever bought this thinking it was a U2 release, everyone else likely bought it knowing what it was. It's your fault if you wanted Michael Jackson but bought Weird Al...
Fair-Use is a legal thing and written into media-law, but Negativlands misleading cover is also covered by product fraud and trademark infringement. They were very naive to believe they wouldn't be dragged into the courts for their actions.
I am not sure U2 would have one one the album cover. After all they should be thankful Lockheed hasn't sued them for name copywrite. That name was likely trademarked when the name was given to the aircraft in 1955. It is not a defunct aircraft as it is still in service. They can dance around the album cover but Lockheed could go after both. They haven't just because Locheed hasn't been that interested. Going to court to fight a name battle might wake up a sleeping giant. When it comes to funds with lawyers, the band had more money to fight a small company but not one with deeper pockets.
I'm still going with the "wouldn't be mistaken for by a careful buyer" defense. Caveat emptor. Is it a band called U2 releasing an album called Negativland to no fanfare with no advance press, or a band called Negativland releasing an album called U2? They didn't take any money from U2, they may have taken money from people thinking they were buying a U2 album. Caveat emptor. Why should they not be free to do that? They did sell a legit product that many people also bought knowing wtf it was.
Given their distribution and where those albums could be bought you have to assume most of those copies were sold to people who knew what they were buying. Ask a random person it they have heard of Negativland, they likely haven't. No one bought that album at a K-mart.
@@57WillysCJ You can't trade mark or copyright proper nouns. It would be the death of every band name you care to mention. Your long winded Wikipedia of the origins of the bands name would be laughed out of court. We all know the origins of the spy plane. 40 odd years later, no copyright infringement. Proper nouns. Know your grammar and know your law. Listen to fiasco3 and as regards you, I think you should reserve your legal dexterity outside the court and be a shitty manager/producer that rips off the creators. Another kid that wants everything for free. do one. And what the fuck is that "I am not sure U2 would have one one the album cover", stuttering and spluttering. Put the glass down. One one:)
AC/DC's Brian Johnson on Bono "When I was a working man, I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa," Johnson told Australia's Herald Sun. "I'm sorry, mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry."
This falls under the purview of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". They purposely tried to trick the public into buying their record, then they were surprised at the fallout?
I came here ready to trash on U2 for being hypocrites, but Negativland totally had it coming. I'm a big proponent of loosening copyright laws, but they purposely designed their album to look like it was a U2 album, no doubt to trick people into buying their album and to gain some undeserved publicity. They deserve what they got.
That was a shitty thing Negativland did. I believe they tried to sell their album making consumers believe it was a U2 album just to make a lot of money.
Not only do I see no "hypocrisy exposed" Negativland comes off as a complete and childish waste of time. "Let's make people think U2 has a new album out." Comedy gold, guys. So brave and rebellious...
I remember buying this album and returning it the next day. I remember the album sucked and the record store owner was also pissed off everyone was returning the album
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxfEiMksZQs/mqdefault.jpg)
Here’s the video on the unfortunate history of U2’s Stolen Music
ruclips.net/video/-cHZhj0T_Zw/видео.html
Yeah, U2 really butchered Greg Lakes'' I Believe in Father Christmas ''
LOL
So REM is involved as well? I was around as this was happening and that tidbit I never heard. Definitely no mention of it in the Mondo 2000 interview with The Edge. U2 was a favorite of mine in the mid 80's. I was just starting to like them again with "The Fly" which was the single out right before the Negativland record. Once the story blew up I hated U2 with every bone in my body. Then they assaulted us with one really bad single after another. I still dig "The Fly" but "Mysterious Ways", "Better than the Real Thing and "One" were complete shit. Just recently and reluctantly read Bono's memoir and no mention of this scandal. Coward.
i was looking for some real dirt on U2, but i still haven't found what i'm looking for
Right. There is no way that album cover wasn't a bite, designed to sucker U2 fans. I'm not a U2 fan, (I do like a couple songs)
I see what you did there 😂
Clever!
There are some subliminal words in the video for “Even Better than the Real Thing” appearing very quickly from 3: 15 to 3: 19. It appears to say: “Splishing electro-pulses customised car shells, stressful like Berlin beat-up, Bono grabs hold slobbery kiss PVC-covered package get a handle to size up contemptuous when he sings “take me higher” command, great surreal. Check out boom his dick pumping up the levels far-out rogue mutant glitter ball. Dollar-bill “You’re offering me money?” The mirrored (something) above the zip and intensity the only thing glitter-ball.”
ruclips.net/video/HyI3mFQweYs/видео.html
Really? You don't see how hilariously stupid it is for U2 to claim the name U2 when they didn't even come up with it??? U2 owes the US government millions based on that logic
Remember when RUclips, used fair use as their defense? Ahh, the good old days...
😭
Nowadays if you even sneeze you get flagged
Before it was Alphabet-owned.
Google took care of that -_-
Yeah, even music teachers are having their vids pulled.
"The hypocrisy is the worst part!!!"
-Norm Macdonald
that the edge guy is a real jerk
@@toresissa1764 Imagine calling yourself 'The Edge' tho xD
To me it was the raping
Ya know who's NOT a hypocrite??
You guessed it-
Frank Stallone
You wouldn't say that to Kitchener Leslie's face
I had a roommate who was a huge Negativland fan and had that book. It includes audio of that radio interview, and the trap they lay for The Edge was clever. He talks about folk music and how everything is reusing older stuff, which leads to discussion of sampling and how it's similar. When they reveal they're from the band, The Edge backpedals like crazy and says, "Well, that's the lawyers doing that." When they respond with, "But you're The Edge and you could tell them to back off," he had nothing to say.
What's the difference between Bono and God? God doesn't run around thinking he's Bono.
🤣😁🤣
@Break Bread In Ireland most of us hate him
@@mickholohan4266 In Ireland? You're not Irish, dude. Most of us don't hate him. There are a few RUclips commentary attention-seeking troll spammers that post bullshit like yourself and that's it :).
Funny part is, most Irish people dont claim Bono as one of them.
@@teedsthegod7622 Funnier part is, you're not even Irish :).
Once when I went to see Negativland it felt like a refreshing future. A security guard stopped the guy in front of us bringing in recording gear and the manager of the venue came running out and informed the guard that by contract they had to let people record the show. For a moment all was right with the world.
Presidents of the United States of America was like that as well. Not only did they allow people to record audio (no video), they encouraged it. They wanted fans to trade tapes of shows. You just couldn't sell them.
The Grateful Dead had a huge section roped off for recording equipment of the fans and some had profession level recording equipment. All The Dead asked was “ if you meet someone that doesn’t have that event then give them one for free” . It never damaged their career.
Dmb is famous for this.
Ween also promotes recording, the browner the better.
My favorite Negativland trick was them putting out a press release denying the accusation that their music had anything to do with a local murder that had been making big headlines. Oddly enough, no one had made any such accusation, but Negativland's press release still got significant media attention. I highly recommend their 1989 release Helter Stupid which chronicles the event.
That was for the song, "Christianity is Stupid".
Great album too!
@@howiehall4622 Hehe! Love that song! Communism is good!!
And then used all the media clips and headlines to make Helter Stupid.
@Vomit Pinata Thanks for your comments here. Yeah, the initial inspiration for our record was being handed those hilarious tapes of Casey Kasem ranting and raving, and us wanting to make something based around them. The fact that Kasem was talking about U2 in those tapes was quite random, so there was no intention or agenda to somehow "expose" anything of sort "hypocrisy" on the part of U2 (though it can be argued that a lot of hypocrisy got exposed in the *aftermath* of our record coming out), but since he *was* mentioning U2, we rolled with it. The idea that the project was conceived of as some sort of plot to make a bunch of money by duping millions of innocent U2 fans is a pretty silly one if you know anything about our work. The cover art was a last minute design idea that really appealed to us because it seemed like it was something you were not supposed to do (a creative approach that has defined our work for 40 years. Heck, we included a deceased member of our group's ashes in a recent release of ours!). We figured that we'd either a) be ignored - because we were, and still are, a tiny underground experimental noise band, so who cares about what we do, or b) Island Records might send some kind of one or two page "cease and desist" letter. In which case we'd decide what to do at that time. Instead they spent, we were told, about $25,000 in billable hours preparing an actual lawsuit against us and SST. Which was kind of like dropping an atomic bomb onto an ant. So we treated their lawsuit/overreaction as the next part of what was becoming a much bigger conceptual art project, as we realized that we'd been handed a rather incredible opportunity to publicly speak about some much larger issues than just our little record. It seemed like the responsible thing to do. Some artists like to work within well established styles and traditions, and follow well worn paths. That's fine, but, IMHO, not a very interesting way to create things. A (much) smaller portion of artists are drawn to create things *precisely* because it seems like you are going somewhere with your ideas that you're not supposed to go. Look up what "avant garde" and "culture jamming" means. :) So when a bunch of great and compelling and funny ideas present themselves (and I still think that all of the elements that made up our U2 record were a great and compelling and funny bunch of ideas), you follow them, you manifest them, and you don't worry too much about the consequences. Many of the surprisingly harsh comments here don't seem to understand those aspects of creativity, though I guess that should not surprise me! :)
you knew what you were doing and you knew there would be consequences and then you got upset and butt hurt when the consequences were more than you personally thought were reasonable. i dont like anyones side in this story , two record labels fighting over who can squeeze what they can out of each other, listening to you whine about it years later makes it seem even more of a sophomoric prank than any artistic endeavor. go look that up before you keep doubling down on how artistic trying to fool people with false branding is.
Sounds like you manifested the true experience of what it means to exist in negativeland. That in itself is the highest form of artistic expression. Bravo.
It was a great moment in music, and I am glad for it. I have always respected the underlying forces propelling Negativland. Thank you for existing.
In all fairness, your unlicensed remix was way better than the Pet Shop Boys version.
Huge fan of your music going back to the 80s. It's funny all the people on here defending U2 and saying Negativland deserved what they got in this case. I think it's partially because the way this video doesn't do a great job of telling the story. Those of us who know are definitely on your side and love what you do. True/False and The World Will Decide are fantastic by the way. It is pretty rare to see a group stay entertaining and relavant after so many decades of creating content. Thanks for being thought-provoking and hilarious weirdos.
That Casey Kasem tape is one of my favorite tapes ever. I remember seeing him once in the early 2000's where I worked and all I could think was, "Wow...there he is. That little guy with all that big, big rage". Part of me wanted to go up to him and tell him how I'm a huge fan of his tape, but thought better of it because I wanted to keep working there. A true broadcast legend
What is the Casey Kasem tape? I honestly have no clue.
@@martinnielsen5805 You're welcome. ruclips.net/video/rV7WF5VVwuo/видео.html
@@martinnielsen5805 And here: ruclips.net/video/MapcSKlYuvY/видео.html
hope you guys like some of the new tweaks on the graphics and transitions
Do Jawbox, they're perhaps one of the most underrated grunge/ alternative bands
Rock roll stories how do you personally feel of the fact the gratefull dead let fans bootleg their concerts
@@Falkowski82 i think that's pretty cool of the band to do that.
@@rnrtruestories you should do one bootlegs and rock
@@rnrtruestories bono become part of the establishment he in davos and other global meetings, and such i love u2 best live act bug bono betrayed what i thought he stood for
"Hey guys, I just met with all the World leaders, and they agreed with my special plan to save the World. There's nothing I can't do" - Bono
And with all the money I made from Fakebook I can afford to be a bigger hypocrite than I previously was.
"Bono want the biddy"?
"Bono want the biddy"?
Bono has an update too: "Okay guys, they said if we just give them more power and give up more of our rights they will fix all our problems and give us more monopoly money."
Hilarious
U2, preaching about the environment while touring in jets with 50 trucks hauling equipment to each show.
Oh and making millions and millions dollars (whilst not paying the proper taxes) and going on about how corrupt capitalism and America. Bono is a jagoff.
Lol yup. Remember that South Park episode, where it turns out the singer of U2 is just a giant turd. No, he was literally a turd that was born, and then was fed man milk from a nipple and turned into Bono.
And keeping their money in offshore accounts
U2 don't preach about the environment. Are you confusing them with Radiohead or REM?
@@adammartin7007 actually no, Bono has been on the climate change bandwagon for the past decade now. He is a huge hypocrite. He's been doing Summits, hanging out with Al Gore, doing charities, just Google it.
8 minutes to say it was U2’s label and not the band. Epic clickbait
Except that's not even true!
He said they were sued by the label AND the band. So either the Edge was lying or the video is wrong.
@dave4248 uhhh no. Bands are nothing but muppets to make money for labels. They have no sense of morality. I do believe the edge, he’s a chill guy.
@@randy0210 So the Edge is a muppet with no sense of morality, but you believe him and think he's a chill guy?
We later learned quite explicitly from REMs manager (a good friend of U2's) that it was U2's manager, Paul McGuinness (who was essentially the "fifth Beatle" of U2) who told Island Records to go after us. So either The Edge was lying when we spoke with him, or U2's manager was lying to his own band about who was behind the lawsuit. Edge certainly seemed like he was being honest with us, so I am inclined to believe it was their manager hiding the truth from them - probably what started out as a fib/white lie to the band and then got out of hand, because the manager assumed that we would just go vanish and go away after he had us sued. (But, that being said, U2 is still responsible for who they choose to run their business) Additionally, at the time we were sued, U2 was part owner of Island Records and was their biggest money maker, so for The Edge to claim that they had no sway to call it all off was... kind of a disingenuous thing to say. We were also told (as @dave4248 says elsewhere on this thread) that U2's manager was indeed their "bad cop" who did the dirty work to allow U2 to be the "good cop." (There are a lot of things about U2 that we've liked and appreciated over the years, but you don't get to be that big of a global cultural phenomenon without playing dirty at times, stepping on people, and aligning yourself with some rather dark and ugly forces, and that was their managers job). The business of music is ugly indeed, so after all of this happened (and also getting sued for putting out a magazine about being sued), we went back to running our own label, which we have done to this day. We've been legally left alone ever since, still trying our best to make interesting and (we hope) thought provoking music.
I saw negativeland touring that year. They had authentic fear of being arrested on site
That’s not hypocrisy on U2’s part - not even close.. the whole point of the album design was to fool people into thinking it was a U2 album. They banked on riding a popular band’s coattails and lost; simple as that.
@@BuJammy too young for that
Yeah I’m all for trolling but this is almost flat out lying to consumers and false advertising, no one gives a shit that they sampled anything.
Do an episode on how Bono's record collection was stolen, except the burglar left the U2 records...
I dont blame them
@@etangbose4755
My dad read me the story when I was kid, and we were in hysterics.
Is that really true? LOL
@@jerryweber1768
Not lying. Bono supposedly had the ultimate LP collection. They stole everything but his U2 albums.
I remember this fact a little. I thought U2 sued this band only because of the logo. Thank you for clarifying the story.
I'm one of those people who's now 50yo. I really dug U2 from about 1982 until about 1992, when I finally saw them live with the Zoo TV tour. By then, it turned to lots of icing and fuck all cake.
Always loved Bill Bailey's take on U2: ruclips.net/video/H8dZwXnMrRU/видео.html :D
Agree fully Les. They got way to political for me as well. Then there music starting with Zoo Tv turned to crap. I literally stood 2 feet from “Bono” in Jackson Square in New Orleans one. I almost said hello. Lol Dude was literally 3 feet tall. Crazy.
U2 was a great punk band but left me cold when they went pop.
@@sonsoftheedelweiss72 so you admit that Bono is a leprechaun? Why do you hate leprechauns! LOL
@@inconnu4961 you and Jeremy Clarkson for some reason
This story reminded me of “Best of The Beatles” (album by Pete Best). I don’t think U2 were hypocrites here and I even can’t say they were wrong. Negativeland kind of themselves admitted they wanted to cause controversy and attention to them so they got it.
That was my take as well. It sounds as if the band was barely involved at all. If anything I feel a little bad for The Edge, sounds like he got unfairly sandbagged during what was supposed to be a friendly interview. As for the "hypocrisy" piece, covering someone's song for profit without permission while intercutting it with a recording that was never meant for release, AND THEN trying to trick the public into buying your *ahem* music is a little different than sampling mass media outlets. Just my opinion though, I'm no legal expert.
Yep, you're right. If you are fucking with other people's original material, you deserve whatever you get. Losing big time should clear up any confusion about what is your intellectual property, and what is other people's intellectual property.
@@Kooky_Duzzfutz isn't the music business based on owning shit they had no part in creating
@@mitsurugi2651 No.
The cover of the single is blatantly attempting to decieve fans that it is a new U2 song. I'm not a U2 fan, but I can see their point here.
Next album will be called Lead Zeppelin. With a huge photo of the Hindenburg crashing.
Led zeppelin ripped off so many people its untrue.
Or The Doors with a picture of doors on the album cover. They can call it, 'C'mon baby buy my album'
Call it Bono and have an image of a literal douche bag.
This just in from legal: Make it the Good Year blimp and we're cleared for take off.
Lmfao.... This is getting hilarious af! Laxmi from India here!
“Bono.... You didn’t beat the record... you *A R E* the record”
Not an hour ago, I clicked for a random episode on their website and that's the one that came up! Freaky!
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeaaaaahhhhhhh !"
Biddie!
I want biddy
There’s no hypocrisy here. And I am sure it was the label and management of U2 that pushed the legal matter. Not Bono and the boys.
Some group of music trolls “exposed” U2? I fell victim to the click bait.
The hypocrisy was when U2 sampled other media without permission to use on their Zoo TV Tour after suing Negativland.
@@KennyRider137 Early 90’s music sampling, where disagreements occurred between musicians? Wow, what a shocker.
@@KennyRider137 So they tricked people into buying their records while pretending to be those media? Nope. Watch guitars, you can make a copy of Fender (the body shapes are not patented) but you cannot trick people into buying your guitar thinking it's a Fender.
By Negativland’s own admission in this video, the record cover was DELIBERATELY created to confuse consumers into thinking it was a new U2 record. Therefore just how and when were people supposed to “figure it out”? After they bought the record, got home, and started playing it? By that time the consumer has already paid money and to the wrong band. Perhaps the recording itself may be ok for Fair Use, but the artwork is completely over the line.
Yeah, I don't see how they could have won that part of the suit.
Agreed... and no one went to that U2 concert thinking they were going to watch the nightly news, so I don’t even see hypocrisy. Had it not been for the cover, no one would have cared... except Casey Kasem. ... but only like 10 people would have heard it without that cover.
If this happened on any other product it would be deceptive product description and advertisement.
Negativland is completely in the wrong here. Nothing about the music or packaging is Fair Use. They insist the cost of going to court kept them from fighting the lawsuit... ridiculous. Copyright law would find them guilty every day of the week. The only hypocrisy in this story is Mark Hosler claiming that it felt like ‘HIS child was kidnapped,’ when ‘HIS’ child belonged to another artist and was packaged in fraudulent misrepresentation. The irony doesn’t get thicker.
We didn't see what, if anything, is printed on the reverse side, but that would be a clear indication of what was up.
The actual musicians in U2 thought it was funny... It was the lawyers who were looking for a quick buck...
I remember when it was found out that Bono's One Foundation only gave 2% of the donations given to the Foundation to people in need. It turned out Bono used that One Foundation to grift the public to line his own pockets. Bono is not a good guy. The rest of the band seems ok.
Lies. Bono is not capable of finding someone else’s work enjoyable.
@@challism not quite true. Read or listen to the whole Mondo 2000 interview (it’s available online). Hoffler pointed out to the Edge directly his hypocrisy. The Edge claimed that it was out of their hands, that the suit was the label’s lawyers nor their own. However U2 was by far the most successful band on Island’s label and they had the clout to do something about the lawsuit. And the band had enough money that with a wave of their hand, they could have covered the lawyers’ fees for both Island and SST records. The Edge was an absolute hypocrite.
Lawyers 🙄
U2 sucks anyways
and now days u2 literally can't even give their music away.
What do you mean?
@@matthewdaub U2 struck a deal with Apple, releasing iPhones with a free U2 album. This was met with severe backlash by the public, as the buyers never asked for the album, was never a consumer option, and was a nightmare to delete from the phone. It was perceived as pretentious, and U2 issued an apology.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia What made the matter worst was the cover of the album. It was lude.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia worse part the album wasn't even good
U2 made a fortune from apple for the giveaway, and only the haters complain and were heard, millions were stoked to get the album......very clever U2 and the worlds best live band!
I can’t even delete U2 album from iTunes library
Delete iTunes.
@@hankdutton8896 I wish I could but I have lps on there that aren't on a cd, mp3 or cloud. It's still a handy way to listen. But I didn't appreciate the forced unwanted utub album showing up. ?
You must have been really evil in a previous life
Huh funny, I deleted mine like I would any other album on itunes... Lord forbid people can't just hit the skip button instead of raising hell over something stupid.. just get over it and skip the songs 👍
Dude I’ve been trying off and on to delete that album since it got forced on my iPhone without my permission haha
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that they exposed any hypocrisy when the major issue was that the label, not the band, didn't like the use of the band's name 3 months before a major release. The connection between the sampling and the fact that U2 used recorded media in their show = hypocrisy is pretty weak.
@@challism Yep. I was never that big of a U2 fan, but fuck, whatever happened to accepting the consequences of your actions?? These are grown men going "Gosh, Mom, I didn't mean anything by it! I waa just teasin' the dog." Sometimes you do shit, somebody doesn't like it, you get a problem.
Yea, Negativeland's album cover was to intentionally deceptive and their excuse was "we thought it'd be funny". Dude you're attempting to piggyback off of a large band's release to take sales. If the tables were turned and smaller band was cutting into your sales you bet they'd have something to say about it.
Edit: Hold up. Rock and Roll stories already covered this 3 months prior
Funny part is, most Irish people dont claim Bono as one of them.
Because he’s not a bottle of whiskey
@@normadailey6219 Wow, how completely stereotypically predictable of you. It's because he isnt a potato....lol
This is how a Canadian feels about Justin Bieber
What a stupid comment.
He aint Shane MacGowan, that's for damned sure.
Sounds like it was nothing like fair use. The band member flat out admits they were trying to fool U2 fans into buying their record and that they didn't seek all the clearances they knew they needed
Sorry, I dig rebel musicians but there's a difference between creating confusion and outright conning kids out of their money.
They didn't con anyone out of their money. The record label and the song name and probably band members were written on the album. Be sorry for yourself.
It's better they didn't have u2 in their life
Trademark law specifically states you can not create consumer confusion. Which they did purposely. As a pop artist I had to put "this art is not endorsed by blah blah blah" to avoid consumer confusion.
This wasn't a con. The only people who even knew about this knew what it was.
It had a point, it had a legit reason to exist.
I saw them do this live.
Too many people commenting on this that haven't heard anything they've ever done.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Although somebody “could” make the defense that they should be protected under the fair use doctrine in the U.S., the ultimate decision also factors in; the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the relative portion of the use of the copyrighted work and the effect that use had on the potential market.
1. The band member of Negativland said himself that they purposefully tried to make it confusing.
2. Used the song and the album cover for commercial use.
3. They used an almost identical font with the title “U2” on their album cover with big letters covering most of the entire thing with only small text at the bottom saying the band’s name.
4. That same member mentioned before also said himself that it makes the album look like a U2 album with the title of the album being Negativland.
5. They used a full 30 seconds of unedited audio from U2 and made altered versions of U2 songs.
6. The confusion brought by their purposefully misleading album affected several stores and confused many people to the point that some stores even put up the album cover as advertising, under the impression that it was a new U2 song.
7. At no point during any of this did the band Negativland attempt to clear up this confusion after knowing it had escalated.
Sampling on it’s own isn’t copyright infringement, criticism and education isn’t copyright infringement, but putting a different band’s name in a near identical font with big text on the album cover you are selling and doing so purposefully to create confusion sure as hell could be.
In fairness to U2 - ANY major band or label would have done the exact same thing. Hell, the Negativland guy even admits that their primary motivation was to confuse consumers buying records! That's never gonna be legal....
if u just actually look at the record for more than a few seconds, and read it, it becomes quickly apparent that it's not a release from the band u2, and also, there's the u2 spy plane on the cover, nothing at all to do with the band, and whose name was what the band got their name from. so, 2 different people using the same letter-numeral combo, from a us military plane, and one is not ok? why?
That felt about 5minutes too short.
Was just getting into it and you wrapped it up.
There must be more to this story, in the last 30 years. The precedent set in sampling, what happened to bandmembers of Negativland afterwards. Sounds fascinating.
i agree, it felt like it was just the setup for the real story, what a disappointment.
What exactly did negativland think would be the outcome of this ffs? U2 probably couldn’t care less but music corporations aren’t going to let anyone threaten their income streams.
The outcome? I think the only outcome they cared about were being free to do what they wanted while U2 were free to do what THEY wanted.
What they didn't want was the courts and public opinion to consistently choose the rights holders over musicians using samples and commenting on the popular commercial culture, ultimately deciding what your choices of listening would be.
Anyone who favors U2 or their label in this is either a gobshite or missed the point of it.
I like U2 just fine. Auchtung Baby all the way.
@@artemusprine almost quaintly naive but admirable. Of course most people would take the side of freedom of expression but if you had invested millions of dollars in a project only for someone else to subvert it I doubt you would be so reasonable.
Like it or not that’s the world we live in and you can’t convince me that negativeland weren’t aware of that.
Hence my initial outburst.
Consider, also, that U2 had never courted or accepted any corporate sponsorship so it was all their own investment.
@@brianwilson49 Right on.
But if I were to pick one over the other I would always take the more quaintly naive option.
Both sides can be "right" when protecting disparate interests.
The law requires that trademarks be defended.
Negativland might have made $10,000s off of this stunt, possibly thanks to U2 and their fame.
I doubt they ever cost U2 a dollar in sales.
That's muh point.
@@artemusprine do you not think that U2 have the right to protect their creative interests, output and investment? do you not think that they should be the sole governors of how their creative output is released, realised and represented? would you not consider it slightly irksome were some upstart (regardless of the perceived artistic merit) to subvert your creative efforts?
I think the money is an irrelevance (or at the very least a separate argument; one of the lawyers); the principle of ownership of artistic output is the crux of the matter here.
that's MUH point.
@@brianwilson49
My point is that they do not own the historical event, the capture of a U2 spyplane by the USSR.
U2 have every right to control their product, their output.
This is not someone counterfeiting them or trying to confuse people into buying their album.
This is a work of social/media/corporate criticism. It does incorporate music from U2 as part of a schtick, their name being taken from the name of the plane the album is about. And it presumes its audience knows who U2 are and also that Negativland are not, and don't even ever want to be U2.
The whole thing may have been contrived as a middle finger to the music industry but was never meant to take a dime about of the band U2's pockets. Realistically, how could it have?
My grandma used to say, “Don’t go borrowing trouble’. This is a perfect example.
I don't know why, but whenever someone mispronounces achtung it really gets my heckles up. It's Ach-toong, like TOON with a g on the end.
Well not everybody speaks German. And Hogan's Hero's has been out of syndication for decades. You wanna take a shot at Deutsch ? My TI's in Basic had a field day with that one !
@@jad43701 took german in junior highschool. I remember a little.
But what I think it really is that bugs me is that if you can't pronounce achtung you probably haven't been educated on WWII.
@@MrZeroTerrorRide Not necessarily. How much Japanese, Russian, Italian, or even Green do you speak. Hell, putting the emphasis on the wrong part of a word, can have a whole new meaning, trust me !
@@MrZeroTerrorRide A very intelligent friend called privately called me out once.. We were in a meeting at work, and another co-worker mispronounced a fairly common word. He used the word itself in a proper context, but it was clear that he had never actually heard anyone else say it in conversation before. I looked over at my friend and smirked. After the meeting, I said something to my friend like, "can you believe that idiot butchered that word in front of everybody?"
He asked me how I thought our co-worker would have learned that word if he had never actually heard anyone use it in conversation. I paused and thought about it. Then I realized our co-worker would have had to read it somewhere first. He would have had to have read the word, then looked at the rest of the sentence and the rest of the paragraph to determine what it meant using context clues.
The main takeaway here is he read it. As in reading. He was reading.
The way people use social media and watch reality TV and all that bullshit now.. I should have never judged anybody for mispronouncing a word they read somewhere. I'm just glad other people still read.
You guys didn’t play WOLFENSTEIN? Come on
Yes, U2 is a colossal rock corporation & yes, Bono can come off as being a dick. But by their own admission, the Negativland record was publicity stunt. Once you go down that road, you can't expect it to be all strawberries & balloons.
he comes off as a dick, because he is one. tool of a person.
Look up bono's charity. He used donations to pay his friends large salaries.
All of music is a publicity stunt.
Strawberry fields
" But by their own admission, the Negativland record was publicity stunt."
This bit is blatantly untrue. They DON'T admit to that, & instead tell an entirely different story... that the album was intended to focus on the Casey Kasem rant, the U2 connection was incidental, & the album cover which was the most obvious legal violation was a last minute choice without a lot of consideration put into it.
Mind, you are free to think they are lying & it was all a plot of some kind... but that doesn't change the fact that it's untruthful to say they have admitted something when they have not.
The entire point of copyright laws is to avoid confusion between similar companies (or bands). For them to admit they did this on purpose, they are flat-out admitting to breaking copyright laws. This has nothing to do with Fair Use. I've never been a huge fan of U2, but I have to take their side in this one.
100% agree, U2 had no choice here
It's pretty funny though . These guys were waaaaay ahead of there time in terms of trolling
They specifically designed their product to mislead. F**k them.
I mean like he said in the video they put U2 on the cover because of the plane and the plane was on the negativland cover identifying the plane. The plane U2 existed before the band. There may even be a book published before the band u2 about the u2 plane. So is u2 guilty of confuing people into thinking they are getting an album about the plane? Obviously negativland knew what they were doing but intent actually doesn't matter in copyright law. Like if some one doesn't mean to and they in reality did, they are still guilty. If you meant to ruffle feathers it doesn't mean you broke copyright law. INTENT HAS NO RELEVANCE! As far as confusion, are negativland to blame that some record stores didnt understand that the u2 plane existed long before the band U2? Dont get me wrong i doubt they had a case, but in my eyes it was art, the whole thing, the record the backlash, everyrhing. Absolutely beautiful.
Yeah, when in this very video you have the guy from Negativeland saying they deliberately made it look like their album was a U2 album ... Sorry they got caught and got sued for good reasons.
I have to side with U2 on this one.
While I do think their record company probably went way overboard in the lawsuit and while I can appreciate a good trolling against the music industry, Negativland was insanely naive to think this wouldn't go unnoticed.
Sampling was already a hot-button issue at the time (Remember Vanilla Ice's defense of sampling "Under Pressure"?) So by sampling or parodying a U2 song and Kasem's voice without going through the necessary legal channels, they already dug their own grave. Weird Al got permission from the artists he parodied and set up a shared publishing arrangement beforehand. I rest my case.
I don't believe the "Oh we didn't know it would cause so much confusion at record stores" argument. They knew what they were doing. And there's no hypocrisy here, I'm pretty sure U2, being the biggest band in the world, had a team of legal experts looking into the use of images for their tour.
And the Fair Use defense really annoys me. Believe me, I have to use the "Fair Use" defense on my videos all the time. But the fair use portion of the U.S. Copyright Act specifically says it must be "Non-commercial." Well, the minute you're selling a record in stores, the "Fair Use" defense goes out the window.
I know U2 has its critics, some friends of mine really don't care for them, which is fine. Personally I think their 80s output is fantastic. I don't know much about Negativland, maybe they have some good material, but this doesn't really make me want to check them out.
ya, this is a tough one....glad i didnt have to decide who was right
Negativland is an interesting band. U2 is probably their best piece, but I really like Time Zones as well.
Thats not entirely true.
Fair Use need not be non-commercial.
Parody & Satire are protected transformative use.
If they hadn't deliberately added Trademark Fraud ( before a new album drops ) they might have gotten away with it.
I don't even think U2 initiated the lawsuit, the record company did.
i wouldn't call the evidence of hypocrisy , the bands legal team will do there job often before the band even knows , don't see the big deal here
Still waiting on the "hypocrisy " though
@@minki46664 how? when?
@@minki46664 From clips of television? literal clips... lol that's not the same thing.
@@minki46664 You need to find a really good personal injury lawyer and sue your highschool for negligence for failing to teach you the meaning of 'same'...
@@minki46664 I did there is no record of U2 stealing songs
it mentions that U2 sampled media in their creations. the members of Negativland even sat in on an interview with The Edge and asked about his inspirations and useage of sampling. you gotta pay attention and connect dots, no spoonfed conclusions here
The most ironic thing about the title of this video that it mirrors exactly what negativland did…..there’s no hypocrisy here at all you literally titled the video that way to get clicks.
The purpose of the video soared over your head like a spy plane.
@@deadseveredheads not really though? Either way why would you be mad about that?
@@olivernash1244 not mad. Give it another watch.
This was textbook copyright infringement. U2 was in no way guilty of hypocrisy for the way they used samples for Zoo TV
Looks to me that U2 (and especially the label) were technically correct in suing Negativland.
So nice to see you cover this story! Negativland is awesome and really funny! I started listening to them in the mid 90's when a friend introduced me to them. I read both versions of the Fair Use book which is hilarious. I actually still have the 2nd later published version.
They have some recent albums that came out but I have not kept up to date on the releases after Dispepsi.
I saw them live on their True False tour in 2000
I actually liked Bono when he played Zed in Police Academy 4
art art blew a fart, and blew the whole damn thing apart
Lol...nice
Nah he was better in the highlander movie
But we all know the truth "Zeds dead, baby"...
That one time, when everyone updated their iPhone & were “gifted” that new U2 album, I didn’t get it on my phone... it was free, so I downloaded it... just so I could purposefully not listen to it
you still contributed to their numbers, you may as well have just listened to it. Your main issue is buying an apple product.
@@prawngravy18 wow, way to get the joke, buddy... have a nice day
Bono once wrote a letter to Captain Beefheart asking if he would be interested in writing/recording together. The reply was hand written, and it said this:
"Dear Bongo,
No."
-capain beefheart (don van vliet)
Who the fck is Captain Shitheart ?
@@DarkAcrobat more like who is Caesar echeverria
@@DarkAcrobat If you don't know Capt Beefheart you have a massive rabbit-hole to go down into.
That’s bloody brilliant. God love Captain Beefheart. To be honest, Ive enjoyed a lot of U2s music over the years but, it was never a surprise to discover - and this is beyond the realm of this lawsuit because they actually did have a right to protect their music - ‘Bongo’ is 10 percent Irish and 90 percent twat.
@@DarkAcrobat Found the U2 fanboy.
SO WHERE IS THE HYPOCRISY?!!! U2 always cleared their samples on record. They weren't using copyrighted material during the Zoo Tv tour. Negativland sampled U2's music without permission, deliberately defaced their work whilst also insulting the band, and then cynically tried to package the record in such a way that would confuse the record buying public. It was also Island Records that brought the case against Negativland, not U2. That being said, U2 would have been fully within their rights to rip their little throats out.
Agreed
U2 fans are so stupid.
@@pablerry People who moan about U2 are stupid. They clearly can't think for themselves.
@@adammartin7007 You are right in every respect, here.
Actually, U2 were using *tons* of copyrighted material without permission each night in their huge touring live show. Which we asked The Edge about when we spoke with him. His response was that he thought it was legally and ethically and creatively okay for them to do that, as long as it was being transformed and repurposed in new ways. Which, artistically, is the right answer, and is exactly what Negativland thinks about what we do as well. So it was a nice surprise to hear him say that. And it was at that point in the interview that we revealed who we actually were.
There was a time when people from other countries heard that you were from Ireland that you must like U2. I am Irish and no, I never did, and as time went on, they became more obnoxious and more and more hypocritical.
You still have My Bloody Valentine and Thin Lizzy
So like what? You want a cookie? 😅
@@johnrogan8284 Thin Lizzy is to be very proud of.... My Bloody Valentine? Now ireland has some serious making up to do and they arn't doing it fast with people like U2, CHOPCHOP MAKE A BETTER GROUP NOW!! ((PSSST! I wouldn't use sinead o'conner if I were you!)).
@@CrashHeadroom Loveless is one the greatest albums ever made, what's your problem with them?
What is "hypocritical" about U2?
I loved U2 through the 80s, and their music from that era remains dear to me. But in the 90s, they clearly bought their own hype. I got off the train after Rattle N' Hum.
Me too. They did still have a few great songs post Joshua Tree, and I dislike it when people rant about how music shouldn't be political or heartfelt (something that's now leveled against their entire catalogue), but I found them increasingly obnoxious and running on fumes afterwards.
Yeah, I got off the train after Achtung Baby. This album is actually worth listening to, but that was the very last U2 album I had purchased. Thereafter, it was downhill. May be, an occasional straggler like Electrical Storm.
I used to like U2 now I hate then and refer to Bobo as Bozo.
"I used to have a mind of my own, now I'm proudly a mob idiot"@@jdee8407
So where's the hypocrisy of which you spoke in your clickbait title? None, none at all. You even allow, in your own report, that the record label was more behind the lawsuit than U2. I just don't get it, your work is good enough without the clickbait, but you insist, because let's face it Negativland poked the bear and got got. Anyway, pity about the clickbait - I still don't get it.
Edit: And one other thing - "U2 stole their name..." Stole? Really? Stole? If you weren't such an articulate dude, one could chalk it up to "a poor choice of words", but in your case that choice seems very deliberate indeed. Your stuff is good enough without the gaslighting and the clickbait, but you know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
People who use the term "poking the bear" seem awfully sympathetic to the bear, by which i mean 'how do those boots taste?'
The hypocrisy is U2 using sample of other media, the same thing that negativeland did, but with no consequences
@@zero71234 Clearly we are seeing this from very different perspectives. From my perspective, to say that Negitivland and U2 did the "same thing" is a false equivalency. U2, in pursuit of their own artistic ideas, used sampled media to create something new. They cleared and credited their samples. Negitivland were trolling and they went to far. So yeah, Negitivland sampled U2, whether in poor taste or not is neither here nor there, no big deal. It doesn't seem that they bothered to clear the samples, but whatever. In a further provocation , they made sure to fill the frame of the album cover with U2 - BIG and BOLD - and simultaneously U2 is having a fertile year, so they have a lot of product out in the market, and packaging like this makes mistakes very easy. Negitivland targeted U2 and U2 alone with the aim of taking the piss - I don't think they expected to make a whole lot of money, but they were being malicious - so the outside says U2 and the inside sounds like U2 and no one else. These are two substantially different circumstances, and the singular point of both of them sampling media in their art, is simply not enough to hinge an argument on in pointing to some perceived "hypocrisy", it just isn't. But, you be right, and I'll be right, and we'll both be right, and we'll see who's right.
I never said that was my opinion per se, I was only answering your question. From a general point of view that would be considered hypocrisy. But I think the truth is more complicated than that. I'm a big U2 fan but I also don't like when big fortunes crush small businesses or bands. I think the band were wrong in using their material without permission, and using the logo as well. But the content itself would get into fair use. I think they were trying to expand the concepts or art in music. It's just like painting something based on a picasso painting for me. It's not like they recorded the same songs and tried to sell it at if it were theirs. But as you said, each one has their own opinions and I respect yours as well.
@@zero71234 I think the difference is intention. No one went to the U2 concert thinking they were going to watch the nightly news. I think Negativland were disingenuous when they made their album cover.
Negativeland’s version Is Even Better Than The Real Thing
I see what you did there
Nice 👍
Nah, it was a Lemon
I listen to the Negativland version about 40 times. It was Magnificent.
I saw that U2 concert that year and it was awesome!
The only reason most people have heard of Negativland (what few there are who have) is because of the lawsuit by U2 and their label. What they did wasn't art. It wasn't a statement about consumerism (they were selling the album and happily collecting the proceeds). What it was, was exactly what the lawsuit against them alleged.
There was no hypocrisy by U2 in this situation, regardless of how many times they've used samples of other artist's work. What Negativland did was they used U2's own work in a twisted manner that made the band look bad and they didn't do it to lampoon U2 or poke fun at them. They did it to confuse consumers and trick them into purchasing their own album. Americans are busy people, just like folks in some other countries. Often times buying things is done quickly while we're in the middle of doing a number of other things. I think it's pretty easy to see why some people were under the impression that the Negativland album was the one anticipated by U2. Hell, according to their own band member (Negativland), that's what they were trying to do.
Yes, the guy from Negativland clearly says so in the video
U2 sucks dude, and calling U2 "artists" is a kick in the nuts to artists.
feel like I have to point out the obvious here: subversion is art.
This is false. I remember when this was released. Negatvland got free radio station advertising over the surprise u2 single.
@@smitty_mittenz that's what YOU feel
Misleading title. C'mon man!
It was U2's record label and not U2 as you even mention in the video. The Edge was against the aggressive legal actions of their record label.
Yes...of course he was...
@@Doctorgoatboy no, he's right and it's not the only time a label/publisher sued even when the artist voiced no objection..... Paul McCartney didn't support a lawsuit by his publisher against Danger Mouse over the Grey Album, which mixed Jay Z with the Beatles.
Don't really see how U2 were hypocrites here.
because they themselves used samples without permission
@@crusherolies8195 what samples? I didn't hear anything about that in the video. None of their music before 1991 certainly sounds like it has sampling.
@@robgronotte1 sigh they specifically said the tour media they were using on screen and between songs was samples. so they are hypocrites when they use other peoples work to make money while condemning someone for using THEIR work making money.
@@crusherolies8195 oh, I forgot about the tour stuff. But they didn't do that until the tour following the Negativland release. I still don't think Negativland meant to say U2 were hypocrites. They just wanted to use the rants from Kasey Kasem which happened to include mentions of U2, and they liked the idea of provoking controversy by making their record appear to be by a very popular band.
Also, U2 didn't come after Negativland, their record label did.
@@robgronotte1 tours take a long time to plan, they were likely planning the zootv tour while the negativeland release was already out.
no one said negativeland said they were hypocrites, the creator of the video did.
i also already stated as did the video that the label went after them in the first place.
its almost like you didnt watch the video at all and if you did you immediately forgot everything it said.
Always loved Negativland. Used to know Dave Wills, he invited myself and the drummer of my band sit in on a radio session that later became Sex Dirt. There's a couple of clips of me saying stupid shit on the album. Good times. I'm listed in the credits as 'Some friend of Davids'. Even got to play with The Blooper, which is wild trying to get something coherent out of it, lol.
I have to side with U2 on this one. The guy even admitted the album cover was designed to fool U2 fans.
This was 30 yrs ago! You dont have to side with anyone because it doesnt matter! You know, we dont ALWAYS need to have an opinion! I just wasted 3 minutes reading a bunch of people fighting over people like U2 or not! LOL if you like them, cool, if not, cool. why is this an argument! LOL why do we even care?
@@inconnu4961 you have a point but you seem pointlessly worked up too with opinionitis
I love mashups and believe it is a valid artform, but Negativeland’s defence of “we thought it’d be funny to confuse U2 fans” and “we assumed they would figure it out” are disingenuous when they knew they would be profiting from confused U2 fans buying shrink-wrapped records. They deserved to be sued. I suspect this was a cool troll move that blew up waaaay bigger than Negativland anticipated.
It’s important to remember that this happened in 1991, which was an entirely different cultural context than that which we “enjoy” today. Also the word Negativland only contains one “e”.
@SLANDERBOB I’m well aware of that. You might note the letter immediately following the Initial “N”.
@SLANDERBOB oops
@SLANDERBOB obscure performance artists confuse controversy with creativity? You can get this shit on the quad at any art school.
@@lttfan9185 you need to learn something about art, at least the meaning of it. It's not different from the appropriatio of an object and the fact that just showing it with a different purpose turns it into an artistic manifestation, usually a manifest with subversive intent.. for me this is art and u2 by then weren't no longer the kind of braking rules and more interested in commercial gain...it happens a lot but still ...they sold out
My favorite song ever is "Tampon bloody Tampon" from the duesch Bono.
You are brilliant Jerry, absolutely amazing stuff...
The problem with copyright is not that the law is so hard on those who break it, but that the artist should have the right to profit from their own work. Big digital platforms have made it impossible for artists to gain compensation, as in recent years, more and more artists hit rock-bottom financially because they don't have the where with all to sue these platforms for fair compensation.
Negativland sounds like the kind of person who drives twenty miles an hour on the highway gets a ticket and says " There's no speed minimum,"
never was a fan of U2 but it seems they were in the right. not sure how this could've turned out for negativland.
It didn't matter how it was going to turn out for negativeland ..I think the goal of the exercise was to just out em...I recon they didn't care...one of those go for it scenarios.who knows .but yeah we all listened to the first two indie bunnymen Tribute albums.. they were ok but the way they changed into the stadium oirish Christian monster music machine they did. Same time as they hit the states. It's highly humourous...did that twat Jimmy iovinie have a hand in creating bono?..like Mary Shelley's monster. Ha
@@christopherogley1714
Pretentious? U2? Don't believe ya.
For the record, Island Records was responsible for this lawsuit, not U2.
7:01 They DIDN'T have a fair use defense. He even admitted in his lecture that they were purposely attempting to confuse and profit off of a trademark holder's intellectual property. They would have been shredded in court and probably set back actual fair use cases.
Negativland just earned themselves a fan. also @ 5:43 we see John Wick enjoying a moment before engaging mayhem and murder.
The only hypocrisy this story seems to reveal is the hypocrisy (and lack of talent) of Negativland.
“It felt to ME like MY child had been kidnapped” - Mark Hosler, upset upon learning that HIS work is being screwed with. (By HIS work, I mean copyright infringement + misrepresentation project). The irony in this quote couldn’t be thicker.
I said it with complete awareness of that "irony."
I suppose you were also fully aware of the irony when you made an almost identical statement at Duke - bookended by how it was terrible, upsetting, cost you 4 years of your life, 45k and the god-like nature of corporations.
@@nicholasbailey2469 I've been asked to lecture about the history of Negativland's work over 140 times in the last two and a half decades, and between those lectures and doing many interviews, I bet I've told stories about the U2/Negativland lawsuit well over 250 times. So, yeah, very likely I sometimes say some similar things. We were sued a second time by our own (at the time) label, SST Records, so I think that my comments were referring to the personal impact of *both* lawsuits, not just the lawsuit that U2's manager, Paul McGuiness, asked Island Records to bring against us. The impacts were considerable, though we never for second regretted making that record.
And by "godlike," I was saying that our legal system rather horrifically (IMHO) gives corporations all of the rights and privileges of being a human being, and yet they are immortal (like gods) and not actually human at all, and thus can never suffer any true consequences for what they do when they hurt people and the planet. There is no corporate "death penalty." So it's a very bad set up for the rest of us, for the Earth, and for democracy.
I should also add that a lot of the comments here about our work seem to be based on mistaken assumptions about why we did (and still do) what we do, and fundamentally not grasping why some artists make art. As our dear deceased friend Crosley Bendix once said, "Never underestimate the power of interesting." What we make is way too strange and obscure to be a good way to make a living (though these days it does seem to more or less pay for itself, which has been a great surprise) and making a profit was never our goal. We make what we make because...it's interesting!! We never had anything against U2. We made that record because the audio and packaging ideas we had were simply too interesting and irresistible to pass up making it. We made it because the material we found inspired us to make it. And we made what I think is one of our best and funniest records, and is, to this day, a good example of what we do, and why we do what we do.
The aftermath became a way to broaden a dialogue about what were, at that time, some very new issues and important debates about how art, creativity, ownership, capitalism, and new technologies were all colliding. We'd already been appropriating copyrighted material to make our music for eleven years when we were sued, so, to us, the suit wasn't just about that one record, it was about our entire way of making music and art, and about they way that many other new artists were making music and art. We couldn't financially afford to fight Island Records and U2 in a court of law ( something that large corporations often rely on to shut people up), but, being that at that time U2 were the largest rock band on the planet Earth, we realized that we could fight it in the court of public opinion. And so...we did.
With the aftermath being a documentary film ("Sonic Outlaws") getting made about it, our work getting taught in art and law schools, our self-published book being used as a text book at many universities, getting asked to lecture about our work over 140 times, our work being written about in over 100 books and textbooks, and, so I am told, actually have a small impact on the larger overall conversation about these issues.
So, in that regard, it was a great success, far beyond anything we ever could have imagined when making our little record, and, though there have been a few threats and skirmishes over the years, we've been legally left alone ever since. That this story is once again generating debate and discussion all these years later is fantastic.
As Crosley Bendix also once said, "Intelligence is temporary."
@mark negativland Thanks for the reply Mark. The afore mentioned quote, “having your baby stolen,” was pulled from your in-person response to Bertis Downs (regarding Island Records’ actions). Citing your ‘complete awareness’ of the irony in the almost identical statement (from Wired Magazine), is this further satire, intentional hypocrisy of emotion? The context of negative bullet points directed towards Downs certainly feel genuine upon delivery... The angle of argument creates confusion when the stolen/kidnapped object is protected by copyright, belonging to another party. I’m approaching this from a different perspective than 99% of commentators. As a composer for tv/film, I’ve had my work lifted (ultimately resolved upon discovery). Extremely separate scale of situations, with zero humor involved and an inverse POV. I’m no stranger to Copyright law. I understand that NL wasn’t financially able to respond in court; but it seems to reason that copyright law would’ve made it an expensive exercise in proving what’s not protected by fair use.
FWIW, Negativland has been sampled many, many times (without permission) over the years, including by actor Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg on his "Music For the People" album (a record that sold well over a million copies), on a Fatboy Slim album, and even one year on the MTV music video awards show. We may or may not have liked what was done with samples of our work (Wahlberg's use, for example, was on a truly awful record), but our liking it or not, and our being paid for the sample, was and is of no concern to us. Because those samples were being transformationally reused to create *new works.* And that's art. That's the history of all human creativity, science and technology - it builds upon what came before it. Contemporary notions of copyright, capitalism, the very idea of "intellectual property," and these (apparently immortal) legal fictions we call corporations, are all very new human inventions, and need to be questioned and interrogated. They are not written in stone, however much they can often seem to be. In Negativland's view, once a person actually heard what we made, our "U2" record could never be confused with being the band U2 's music, and thus, though you may disagree with me on this, it was actually *ours.* Our unique creation, based (in part) on their creation. But the lawsuit against us for our U2 record was meant to crush and erase from the world our *entire * record, so, yeah, emotionally, it sure did feel like one's baby being stolen! (We even offered to re-issue it with a different cover, or that U2 could issue it themselves as a B side remix. Those ideas were of course ignored. They just wanted it gone).
If your film music was lifted in its entirety without your permission or compensation, then, yeah, I think that is wrong. If someone used a snippet of it, chopped it up, pitch shifted it, put it into reverb, and reused it in some creative new way, then no, we don't think they need to ask your permission, nor do you deserve any money for that. A problem in this debate is that people can often conflate these two very different things together. Even if you don't agree with Negativland's conclusions, I hope you can see the difference :) And I say all of this as a person who actually does (kind of) live off of my music!
As I have often said, part of playing the game of putting out one's creative work into the world is that you lose having 100% complete and omnipotent control over what happens to it. It comes with the territory, and a greater good - a healthy, vibrant and ever evolving culture - is at stake. That's what we were drawn into fighting for all those years ago.
Not a u2 fan but i think theyvkinda had a point...imagine buying THE new U2 album and you didn't planned to buy ANOTHER u2 album...and you just buy that negativeland album thinking it was u2's new stealth release album. Lame
Comparing the sampling of mass media for performance in live shows to intentionally creating an album cover that is intended to look like a new release from the group you are lampooning is not exposing hypocrisy. The moment they put that album up for sale they exposed themselves to legal risk.
Why? Because ill-informed consumers might purchase the wrong product?
Caveat Emptor.
Agreed. I can’t stand u2 but c’mon you can’t do that.
Repurposing other people’s copyrighted content without permission in a live setting or on record are exactly the same thing.
Agreed. U2’s was commentary and fair use, what Negativland did was try to deceive buyers so they could sell records. I’m all for parody, but Negativland was wrong here.
Absolutely agree. Negativland did NOT expose hypocrisy. They did however premeditate misrepresentation. Once they monetized this “confusion” it was over.
It’s not so much the trolling but the nerve to be surprised when the lawyers come after you... you outright admitted the point was to confuse people...
Here in the UK we often settle copyright cases based on one phrase "an idiot in a hurry." Many years ago a judge set a precedent based on the fact that only an idiot in a hurry would mistake one product for another. So now if a judge believes that only an idiot in a hurry would mistake your product for something under copyright then you can keep making and selling it.
This is a cool phrase and precedent!
10x more punk rock than cobain could ever be
Going to side with U2 on this one. Putting U2 in huge letters on the cover, to me, showed Negativeland were interested in confusing the public for commercial reasons. Also, songwriters have the right to refuse others from covering their music if they're changing the lyrics. As you stated. N-land sound like pranksters and sometimes pranksters get slapped down if they're trying to make money off others.
They should have pulled it immediately and had something else ready to put out to capitalize on their notoriety.
Still, I would like to hear what Casey said......
MAN, THEY'RE A FUCKING INDIE BAND. THIS RECORD WAS RELEASED BY A INDEPENDENT LABEL. THE ONLY REASON MOST PEOPLE HERE KNOW ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE U2 SUED THEM. PLUS, U2 FANS CAN'T READ.
Talk to Ireland about U2 not paying them taxes and relocating their musical interests to tax havens. South Park had it right.
U2 pay their international royalties into a Dutch collecting agency. This is on money made internationally.
Ah sure let’s increase our corporate tax whilst we are at it and scare away big companies that employ thousands of Irish people
You know if you could, you'd do the same. Dont even lie.
don't worry they have Apple
Great summary of the events. I remember some of this unfolding in my lifetime - I do remember the U2 single in local record stores, but they were careful enough to distinguish it from a U2 album (for anyone who spent more than 5 seconds looking at it).
Thanks for sharing!
reupload of U2: How an Unknown Band Fooled U2 & Their Fans (Negativland) - RUclips
Came here to say this but you beat me to it
I’m sorry I am pro U2 on this issue. There is no hypocrisy. It isn’t hypocritical to sue a band for pretending to be you. That is and should be considered wrong. If this channel renamed itself the official U2 channel or Guns and Roses or whatever this channel would be shut down.
That was an is the entire issue here. If you walked in (and I am sure there were more then a few U2 fans who did this) to a local Tower Records you would be fooled into buying the record which is what Negativeland wanted. As far as I am concerned they got what they wanted.
That was then and is the issue. The issue about parody and freedom of speech wouldn’t have gotten them sued.
Now on the flip side, U2 and their management could have just let this go with a cease and desist and have the dumb album cover pulled. By making it a huge issue they did some damage to themselves.
But the title of this video is that U2 are hypocrites for stopping folks from ripping off fans off. I call bs.
This↑↑
This is bullshit! Nobody cares! These guys are from England and who gives a shit! Just a lot of wasted names that don’t mean diddly shit.
I remember when this happened, there was an article in Mondo2000 interviewing Negativeland about it and they also interviewed The Edge who showed he got their idea with it and was super cool about the whole thing. I never knew that it pretty much wrecked Negativeland like that because they still kept coming out with albums and stuff. My buddy would get them and we'd get baked and listen to them, but their stuff wasn't stuff you'd listen to a lot, just every now and then he'd go "got a new Negativeland or got a new Bongwater" they were bands you'd listen to like once and get a kick out of it but it wasn't anything you'd really groove to over and over y'know.
ahhhh!...like Muck Sticky
Some people say U2 hasnt put out a good album
One foundation of copyright violation is whether an entity is creating consumer confusion. They outright admit to trying to do so. Slam dunk lawsuit.
Cool story, though I don’t think that U2 was in the wrong on this one. Their record cover was, by design and their own admission, confusing to the consumer.
U2 didn't care, but the record label did.
U2 cared, they just pretended not to so they wouldn't lose face. Some people saw through it, but obviously most fans bought the BS from U2. They're hypocrites in many ways, especially Bozo.
Live Wire
ok
@@livewire2759 attention everyone! This man can read minds!
@@adamg9523 Actions speak louder than words.
@@livewire2759 And what should they do? Dump the record label theyve been with since the beginning? and yes their actions speaking louder than volumes. Lets look at all the good they do shall we? or are you gonna crawl up your own arse and deny it all?
So just to be clear, translating for my old fart brain, you're accusing U2 of having little sympathy for a band whose whole aesthetic is based on taking U2's music and shuffling it a little bit, then pretending they did anything artistic? That's your theory? Bro, go back to high school.
These dudes that sample the music of others and call it art.
Public Enemy wrote a song about how sampling was cool and you, "can't copyright a beat," etc.
They later sue Madonna for stealing one of their beats.
Bro it's u2 literally no one cares lol
They were using using U2's name and song
Fooling U2 fans to buy a record U2 had nothing to do with.
The stuff they used on tour wasn't the whole point of the show they performed their own songs on it.
Complaining about getting sued over this sounds like those idiots who stormed the capitol that couldn't believe they got maced.
@@YossiR No they weren't! They were not distributed at the same level as U2. Maybe one person ever bought this thinking it was a U2 release, everyone else likely bought it knowing what it was.
It's your fault if you wanted Michael Jackson but bought Weird Al...
They messed up big time with the album cover. That totally looks like a U2 release and not a Negativland release.
Fair-Use is a legal thing and written into media-law, but Negativlands misleading cover is also covered by product fraud and trademark infringement. They were very naive to believe they wouldn't be dragged into the courts for their actions.
I am not sure U2 would have one one the album cover. After all they should be thankful Lockheed hasn't sued them for name copywrite. That name was likely trademarked when the name was given to the aircraft in 1955. It is not a defunct aircraft as it is still in service. They can dance around the album cover but Lockheed could go after both. They haven't just because Locheed hasn't been that interested. Going to court to fight a name battle might wake up a sleeping giant. When it comes to funds with lawyers, the band had more money to fight a small company but not one with deeper pockets.
I'm still going with the "wouldn't be mistaken for by a careful buyer" defense.
Caveat emptor.
Is it a band called U2 releasing an album called Negativland to no fanfare with no advance press, or a band called Negativland releasing an album called U2?
They didn't take any money from U2, they may have taken money from people thinking they were buying a U2 album.
Caveat emptor. Why should they not be free to do that? They did sell a legit product that many people also bought knowing wtf it was.
Given their distribution and where those albums could be bought you have to assume most of those copies were sold to people who knew what they were buying.
Ask a random person it they have heard of Negativland, they likely haven't. No one bought that album at a K-mart.
@@57WillysCJ You can't trade mark or copyright proper nouns. It would be the death of every band name you care to mention. Your long winded Wikipedia of the origins of the bands name would be laughed out of court. We all know the origins of the spy plane. 40 odd years later, no copyright infringement. Proper nouns. Know your grammar and know your law. Listen to fiasco3 and as regards you, I think you should reserve your legal dexterity outside the court and be a shitty manager/producer that rips off the creators. Another kid that wants everything for free. do one.
And what the fuck is that "I am not sure U2 would have one one the album cover", stuttering and spluttering. Put the glass down. One one:)
AC/DC's Brian Johnson on Bono
"When I was a working man, I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa," Johnson told Australia's Herald Sun. "I'm sorry, mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry."
U2 were right to sue them
I thought Casey Kasem was better known for being the original voice actor for Shaggy out of Scooby Doo.
Nope
Thanks, I didn't know he could act..... 🤣 I mean did that.
South Parks Bono episode is the best.
"Never underestimate the inattentiveness of the average American."
Truth!
I'm not surprised they got sued. The man admitted that the album cover was meant to sow confusion. That's a clear violation of trademark.
This falls under the purview of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". They purposely tried to trick the public into buying their record, then they were surprised at the fallout?
I came here ready to trash on U2 for being hypocrites, but Negativland totally had it coming. I'm a big proponent of loosening copyright laws, but they purposely designed their album to look like it was a U2 album, no doubt to trick people into buying their album and to gain some undeserved publicity.
They deserve what they got.
Yes, tey purposely made it hard to know whose album you were buying They went way beyond fair use.
And this was back before the internet so a lot of people probably spent money hoping for a wack U2 album and instead got a wack cover of U2
That was a shitty thing Negativland did. I believe they tried to sell their album making consumers believe it was a U2 album just to make a lot of money.
Not only do I see no "hypocrisy exposed" Negativland comes off as a complete and childish waste of time.
"Let's make people think U2 has a new album out."
Comedy gold, guys. So brave and rebellious...
Casey Kasem was also the voice of Shaggy in the Scooby Doo cartoons.
yeah... seeing the photo of him was odd. I kind of pictured him to be a chubby Shaggy.
I remember buying this album and returning it the next day. I remember the album sucked and the record store owner was also pissed off everyone was returning the album
good, and good.
Got $500 for my copy a few years ago in Seattle. Kinda bummed I sold it because now i can't find it anywhere.
@@mikefur3957 Still have mine, bought the day it was released. Now autographed, as well.
@@jeffjung5195 that is fk'n awesome!!!
You seriously find the best most random yet so interesting stuff to report on! Thank you so very much for your great content and videos....