Let's Go Crazy!

Inspiration from today's song of the day is brought to you by Notre Dame's 14th commitment from the class of 2010, Prince Shembo.

Prince, a 6-foot-2 232 defensive end from Charlotte, N.C., pledged his verbal intent to sign at Notre Dame next February. Notre Dame was not always high in his eyes but a late June visit to campus changed his perceptions about the school and ultimately tipped the Irish over the edge.

He chose ND over the likes of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Virginia Tech (sorry Justin).

So how exactly, you ask, does a college football pledge relate to today's song of the day? One word: Prince.

"Let's Go Crazy" is a 1984 song by Prince and the Revolution from the album (and film, which was filmed entirely in Prince's hometown of Minneapolis, MN) Purple Rain.

Incubus performed a cover of the song in the video below from a KROQ (106.7 Los Angeles) concert on June 16, 2009. The band also recorded a studio version of the cover which is available on Monuments and Melodies, a 2-disc album featuring 2 new songs and 13 previously released tracks on disc 1 and 11 B-sides, soundtrack cuts, and alternate version on disc 2.

Love him or hate him, the artist formerly known as "The artist formerly known as Prince" wrote one heck of a lick that is masterfully executed by Incubus in the video below.

"Fair Use" Dissension:

In 2007, the song became part of a controversy and legal debate when Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, PA, posted a 29-second video clip of her 13-month old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" on YouTube.

Universal Music Group, which owned the copyrights to the song, instructed YouTube to remove the video four months after its original posting in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz was not about to go down without a fight, though. She notified YouTube that her video was legal under the premise of the same DMCA law and ordered it restored, which YouTube complied to two weeks later.

Furthermore, she sued Universal for her incurred legal costs, claiming that the company acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that was a "fair use" song with no commercial value.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, CA said he would allow the case to continue. He

agreed with Lenz :

...the owner of the rights to a creative work (should) consider whether or not an online copy was a "fair use" - a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original - before ordering the Web host to take it down.

After a half-hour of searching to see if the case has been resolved yet I surrendered. If you can find an update or conclusion to the case please let me know about it.