http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy

You argument, as ever, is ridiculous. To begin with, there’s a good argument that the video falls under some kind of fair use exception to copyright. Even if this is not the case, EMI are unlikely to have actually lost anything from this video – but have much to gain. It’s free advertising, and there will definitely have been people out there who had never heard the song and decided to pay for a copy after seeing the video. No harm, no foul.

“Then next week, someone makes another video, uses the music again, and sells advertising with it.”

Perhaps a grey area in some ways, but so what? The video still gets distributed and EMI get the benefits, only someone else gets a slice. Legally not correct, and in a grey moral area, but EMI will not lose anything unless they were also trying to stream the video with advertising. They’re not, so the point is moot.

“Then the week after, someone uses the music for their non-profit organization video.”

Why would this be a bad thing, either morally or legally? A charity decided to use a song? Great. EMI should support that, they would come across as the good guys and regain a bit of the good will they’ve squandered since the mid 90s. If they worked with the organisation to set up a sponsorship deal instead of calling in the lawyers, all parties would ultimately benefit.

“Then a week later, someone uses it to sell toothpaste. Where in there should they suddenly react?”

There we go – they react right there. Such an action would not be covered by any kind of fair use rights and is a clear violation of copyright law. EMI could happily sue, and neither the artist nor the general public would be likely to have any objection. This is the type of situation that copyright is set up for, not situations like the one in the article.

“there has to be a line, otherwise you are in the give a little, lose a little business until you have no more rights left”

…and yet, as we often point out here, the actions they’re taking to “protect” those rights are causing them large costs and a lot of lost business. The point is that everyone who posts here, with very few exceptions, are the customers (or potential customers) of companies like EMI. You consistently trash the ideas presented here, but all we’re really saying is “these actions make me not want to buy music, here’s a suggestion of how to make me want to buy”.

I personally used to not care about labels until the RIAA started their overreaching “protection” attempts. Now, it’s over 5 years since I’ve bought a major label album – and, no, I don’t “pirate” them either – as a direct result of their actions. I buy at least 4 albums per month. It’s not “piracy” that’s the issue here, nor other so-called infringement. It’s the labels’ own actions that have lost them not only existing fans but also the chance to sell the product a new generation actually wants.

“we are suppose to be swayed by the “factoids” that the videos are somehow fun and that someone who appeared on the original song thinks they are fun too.”

The fans like the video and are encouraged to buy more music. The artist responsible for creating the original music is happy with it, stating that it reignited his love for a song that he had long tired of. Everybody wins, or they would if the middlemen weren’t so utterly stuck in a previous era of marketing. All these actions are supposed to be “for the artists” and to “protect their business”, right? How, then, does it make sense to piss off both the artists and the fans, and try to prevent a free form of advertising?