>42 seconds out of 246 is 17%. That's certainly in the questionable range for fair use. If you quoted 17% of a book, you'd almost surely lose a fair use case.
>
>Tamar

17% of a book is (roughly) one to two chapters. Putting two chapters as a free PDF on a site is a FAR different story than playing the opening of a song during a rally. (And I had a similar problem to what you described. My Crystal Reports book showed up as a free PDF on sites, and Apress went after them).

But it's a completely different set of dynamics.

These musicians cannot possibly claim copyright infringement or lost revenue as the reason, and to do so is disingenuous. I found several user posts of "eye of the tiger" on YouTube that give no indication of permission from the artist or the record company. Some have been on YouTube for years.

This is all about perception of false endorsement and selectively going after people. And if these artists wanted to be morally consistent, they'd return royalties they've received from sales to individuals who promote ideas the artists despise.