Copyright exists largely to protect the commercial value of a work. Is anyone going to take seriously the idea that someone is going to say, "Hey, I want to listen to that Prince piece, let me just pop over to YouTube and listen to someone's partial recording of it through a consumer-grade radio recorded by a consumer-grade camera?"
There's no damage in that case. While being a bit more strict about having to have actual damage being done to the copyright owner wouldn't completely clean up all abuse, it would eliminate some things like this that are just blindingly stupid. I get that someone can own a copyright on a piece of music but that shouldn't mean that I've got a blanket recording blackout imposed on anything within earshot in the meantime.
I'd also observe that the reason for "fair use" in the first place, underlying the common 4-point test, is that free speech is an amendment to the constitution, so the copyright clauses within the original had to be harmonized with the amendment. It is certainly a valid argument that allowing copyright owners their blanket lock on recording while something they own happens to be playing in the vicinity is a free speech infringement.
No, nobody is going to think this track is a substitute for a clean and complete version of the audio. If you think that's what's going on here it's because you're making the mistake of thinking that the market for personal enjoyment is the only one served by publishers.
The commercial loss, in this case, comes from the failure to pay for synchronization rights, which is a major source of revenues for artists and music publishers.
You may think this is "stupid" but that's only because you're considering this problem from your perspective alone. You have to remember that copyright - for most of its existence - never came into direct contact with the general public. In that regard, it was like regulations from the FAA or the FTC. I fully agree that, from the perspective of individuals suddenly subjected to its complexities, it seems stupid. And in many ways, it IS stupid. But often, the actual stupidity is very different from the apparent stupidity, which actually makes perfect sense if you know enough to consider the full picture.
What I'm saying is that approaching the problem of reform from your perspective alone is like approaching astronomy by describing the way the world seems to you, not the way it actually is. In other words, you're not going to be able to advance from a Newtonian conception of gravity to Einstein's if you're still stuck in the pre-Copernican view that insists everything revolves around the Earth because that's they way it appears to you, personally.
I disagree. I am the People, in the We the People. I am the one with the First Amendment protections. The first amendment protections are the reason for the fair use exclusions existing. If there's a conflict between my free speech right and nebulous(-but-real) "synchronization rights", I win. In theory, anyhow.
There's no damage here. When it comes to footage of my kid dancing, large multinational corporations don't have an interest to "balance" with mine, because they aren't invited. Presumably we are talking about a legal copy of the song in the first place. Their interest ended at the point at which I got a legal copy. We are not talking about a situation in which they are not being paid.
I'm actually well aware of this sort of thing and not generally in favor of the total abolition of copyright or anything, but the very idea that massive corporations even have a stake in this sort of dispute should be shot down.
"We are not talking about a situation in which they are not being paid."
Actually, we are.
When you bought a copy, that copy came with certain limitations. One of those included a limitation against doing exactly what happened here (synching sound to picture to create a derivate work available to the general public). You may think a limited transfer of rights is stupid or unfair, but that's a separate issue. The issue before the court is whether the purchaser of the recording gets synch rights with that recording (she doesn't) and whether additional payment is due if the music is used in this fashion (it is).
The fact that she wasn't billed is, from the perspective of the publisher, an act of restraint and generosity on their part.
The broader point is this: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't mean that you're stupid. It just means your ignorant. You simply don't understand - even on the most the basic level - how copyrights, licenses, and limited rights in IP work. Nor, it appears, have you ever taken the time to find out.
Believe me, there's a lot to criticize in these systems. I say that as someone who has dealt with them on a professional basis for over a decade. And as I've said it before and will say it again, I am NOT defending the status quo. But I am saying that if you want to change it, you really do need to understand what it is that you're trying to change.
There's no damage in that case. While being a bit more strict about having to have actual damage being done to the copyright owner wouldn't completely clean up all abuse, it would eliminate some things like this that are just blindingly stupid. I get that someone can own a copyright on a piece of music but that shouldn't mean that I've got a blanket recording blackout imposed on anything within earshot in the meantime.
I'd also observe that the reason for "fair use" in the first place, underlying the common 4-point test, is that free speech is an amendment to the constitution, so the copyright clauses within the original had to be harmonized with the amendment. It is certainly a valid argument that allowing copyright owners their blanket lock on recording while something they own happens to be playing in the vicinity is a free speech infringement.