"We are not talking about a situation in which they are not being paid." Actually, we are. When you bought a copy, that copy came with certain limitations. On

"We are not talking about a situation in which they are not being paid." Actually, we are. When you bought a copy, that copy came with certain limitations. One of those included a limitation against doing exactly what happened here (synching sound to picture to create a derivate work available to the general public). You may think a limited transfer of rights is stupid or unfair, but that's a separate issue. The issue before the court is whether the purchaser of the recording gets synch rights with that recording (she doesn't) and whether additional payment is due if the music is used in this fashion (it is). The fact that she wasn't billed is, from the perspective of the publisher, an act of restraint and generosity on their part. The broader point is this: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't mean that you're stupid. It just means your ignorant. You simply don't understand - even on the most the basic level - how copyrights, licenses, and limited rights in IP work. Nor, it appears, have you ever taken the time to find out. Believe me, there's a lot to criticize in these systems. I say that as someone who has dealt with them on a professional basis for over a decade. And as I've said it before and will say it again, I am NOT defending the status quo. But I am saying that if you want to change it, you really do need to understand what it is that you're trying to change.