I overturn the lower court's ruling that Negativland violated copyright law. While music may be perceived to be a free market based on the love of music, others may argue that it is based on profit. In the article “U2's Double Trouble,” the band Negativland proclaims that the only concern of Island Record, U2's record label, in the lawsuit is “controlling the market” (139). Negativland believes Island is trying to control the music produced and sold. Island is so focused on profit that it is limiting the music market. I agree with Negativland that Island Records is only concerned with the profits they would receive from controlling the market. Music is created to induce emotions, not just to make money. Since there are so many ways an instrument can be played, it won't be long before the songs sound similar. The similarities between the two songs should flatter the original composer because their work inspired another artist to produce a similar sound. Composing and making music is a craft that should be shared and used to influence or inspire other people, not to be controlled by anyone. Accordingly, the decision that Negativland violated copyright law should be quashed. At first glance, it may not seem so, but the lawsuit between the two bands is actually about censorship. In “U2 Negativland the Case From Our Side,” the band Negativland states that the song they created was “a parody, satire, social commentary, and cultural criticism” (147). The band claims that their song is a work of art and has every right to be sold like U2's song. By removing Negativland's song, U2 and Island Records are censoring the public from hearing......middle of paper......vic sampled, copied and created a parody of Michael Jackson's song "Beat it". Weird Al copied everything from Michael's video, including his hairstyle and scenery throughout the video. However, even though the song "Eat it" was almost identical to the song "Beat it", fans knew the difference between what was made by Michael and what was made by Weird Al. The Negativland song has even less similarities to U2's song than Weird Al's song had to Michael Jackson's. It is for this reason that it can be assumed that U2 fans are able to distinguish Negativland's techno and choppy sampling style from U2's heartfelt balladry. Placing limits and concrete rules on what an artist can and cannot use when expressing their opinion on another artist's work is unconstitutional. If we put a price on free speech, we put a fine on our freedoms.