I listened to it, just sounds like generic 90s blue rock to me. Similar to the fly? I guess. But they really only sound similar in that they're 90s blues based rock songs in the key of E. that's about it.
Exactly, and if we're using that as the means by which to judge whether songs are copies of other songs...well, I'm sure his song is a copy of another song which is a copy of another song and so on.
The song’s “dance beats, distorted vocals and hard industrial edge sounded nothing like typical U2” — and that’s because Rose wrote it, the suit said.
Um, what about "Zoo Station"? That also has distorted vocals and an "industrial" sound. If anything, I'd say "The Fly" is sister to "Zoo Station". And we've already established that "Achtung Baby" sounds nothing like typical U2 because they "dreamed it all up again" and came up with a new sound. So the idea that "The Fly" doesn't fit into the rest of the album and was totally inspired by his song? It's laughable.
They are somewhat similar... but not because U2 copied Rose. Drumming is at a much faster tempo on The Fly and there is only like three notes at the start of both solos that are identical. Sounds like a very generic and boring song.
Right? U2 have ripped off other artists way worse than this....
Yeah, the thing about music is that "rip offs" happen all the time. Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes it's just a matter of having an idea for a song and your song ends up sounding like another song you've never heard before. There are Coldplay songs that sound like U2 songs, there are U2 songs that sound like other songs, there are songs that sound like Tom Petty or The Who songs etc. etc. When there's only so many chords and only so many melody ideas to go around, writing a song that's similar to another song is inevitable. It becomes problem when the song is clearly a "rip off" or was clearly subconsciously inspired by another song: You are not allowed to view links.
At that point, you give songwriting credits to whoever you "ripped off." It happened recently with Tom Petty and Sam Smith, although Petty wasn't really that upset about the whole thing because he gets it.
So why did he wait 25 years?
No reason is given for Rose’s 25-year delay in filing his claim, but the suit notes he’s had no recourse because “the right of attribution is not statutorily recognized.”
It's almost certainly a case of him wanting money and recently discovering the "similarities" between his song and U2's + learning that they happened to be with the same label (which fits his narrative of them stealing it). If he knew about it back in the 90s and thought it was really a clone, I can't see him NOT taking U2 to court back then.