If the fingerprint data of a track is covered then by that logic its SHA1 hash etc. would also be covered, and I can't see that line of argument going anywhere.
My thinking was that while the fingerprint is derived from the music, it contains no audio data and there is no way to go back from the fingerprint to any representation of the recorded work. Much like a cryptographic hash.
All the fingerprint comprises is a bunch of abstract statistical data about the music, its not qualitatively different from the output of say, a visualisation algorithm in a music player. Just much more useful.
But then again, copyright law makes no fucking sense, so who knows.
