The music is background since the music is not the focus of the video, the dancing baby is.
To me it seems that you are implying that parents wanted to post a tune from The Prince on the Internet and used a clip of their dancing baby as an excuse.
That is precisely wrong and precisely along the lines that label lawyers will probably try to draw.
Nobody is arguing that the intention was simply to post the song. They're saying that a portion of the song was used illegally and without permission.
Also, 29 seconds is ~30 seconds, which is the length of a standard TV commercial. In a world where all identifiable samples need to be licensed, that's not "very short" at all.
I know that telling people they're categorically wrong when it comes to copyright is perceived as defending copyright. I want to be clear that I recognize the need for substantial copyright reform and liberalization. When I say "you're wrong" I don't mean that reform and liberalization are bad things. I simply mean that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the law itself, and how it actually works. I think widespread ignorance is a bad thing among those who (quite justifiably) would like to see the law changed.
No, that's not how the system works. The system works around a concept called "synchronization rights", which pertain to the synchronization of sound and picture - which is exactly what's going on here.
Selling synchronization rights is a specific (and highly lucrative) line of business for artists and music publishers. That's what they're fighting to protect. They don't care if this was supposed to be commercial or not, any more than they care whether a commercial producer using their music in a feature film ends up making or losing money on the picture. They sell synchronization rights. You want 'em, you buy 'em. Or you get sued for infringing them. Those are your choices, that's their perspective in a nutshell, and they recognize no exceptions for "personal use". Right or wrong, the law is 100% on their side. Moreover, the fact that this video went viral and started producing actual ad revenue means that it is - regardless of intention - a clearly became commercial piece of media.
Again, the entire situation is completely outside anything that anyone imagined in the pre-internet age, which is when the market for synchronization rights was established. The culture is developing is ways the law didn't anticipate, and which the law, to my mind, should not obstruct. However, I don't think it's smart to pretend this isn't a synch rights issue when that's exactly what it is.
If EFF's object is to expand the scope of Fair Use to cover situations like this, and to create a precedent that demands publishers consider Fair Use before issuing take downs, then the issue of synchronization rights must be squarely addressed, not evaded by pretending that the audio track is incidental when that's demonstrably not the case.
Depends on individuals idea of background. It has more than one meaning. As a defense background would have to mean incidental. Which would mean nature of the video would not be changed with musical removal.
But really fair use should be extended to include individual, non-commercial use.
Copyright, at most, should grant monopoly on monetization. Not on culture.
To me it seems that you are implying that parents wanted to post a tune from The Prince on the Internet and used a clip of their dancing baby as an excuse.
That is precisely wrong and precisely along the lines that label lawyers will probably try to draw.