I think I've heard that Negativeland CD with U2 song/samples. It was called Melon...


Although I gotta say I kind've enjoyed it and wish I could have it in my collection, I have to side with U2 and Apple on this one.

U2 made the music, for all intensive purposes, so they should be the ones to profit and nobody else should have a right to steal it. If someone else (e.g, Negativland) samples U2's music and makes money off of what U2 created, then that's just wrong. Just as U2 shouldn't have any right to steal Negativland's music, the reverse should be true.

As for Apple, I agree with them, too. Look at the box. It has an Apple logo on it and uses the term "iPod", which is probably copyrighted by Apple. The packaging looks to imply that Apple created this Special Edition "U2 vs. Negativland" version, which is not true.

The Wired story said:

"I think it's unfortunate that Apple didn't explain to me or anybody else why they did it," said Hwang, "That kind of behavior seems to speak of an attitude that is very corporate; you are accountable to the shareholders and customers but not to anybody else."

Of course Apple isn't going to explain anything until their lawyers get involved. What company would? If the story is true, Hwang is probably just looking to jump on anything Apple says so he can try to spin it against them. I just don't agree, I guess!
abortion pills online abortion pill online purchase cytotec abortion

Yeah the only reason for apple to join in would be if they actually altered the IPOD itself. Apple own the rights to the hardware not the software we know that they were sued by creative and lost the rights to make money from the IPOD software seeing as they stole the design from creative. So unless Negativland physically altered the IPOD then apple have no say in what goes on with their IPODS after they have been sold from their own stock.

As you said the IPOD was sold the owner then filled it with their own music which is not illegal to do so. And then they decided to sell it to some one else, this is not an illegal thing to do. Its no different than me putting a website onto a CD and then selling it to a company, should I then be sued by the CD manufacteror for reselling their product?