So you can pay to download and not have to pay performer royalties but as long as you pay for the download you have paid for the song, movie, book, whatever, for your own personal use.
It used to be that once you bought it you could copy it (vcr tapes, cassette tapes, etc.) and share it -- THAT is what the various industries want to stop. They're saying any COPY one makes and distributes (whether for pay or not) is an illegal product now.
They're trying to enforce this point by going after people who 'steal' media from illegal download (sharing) sites --although why they're going after the people who do it as opposed to the people who rip it and offer it I don't know.
So basically the manufacturers want their money per item sold and/or downloaded and they are making it illegal for anyone to copy that item. Meanwhile, the performers on the item sold and/or downloaded are not entitled to royalties for their performance.
At least that's my take so far.
=========================================================================
SCOTUS lets stand ruling that downloads are not performances
snip-
The Supreme Court left in place a ruling by a New York federal appeals court, which determined that song downloads are not "public performances" under copyright law. The ruling represents a victory for Yahoo! and RealNetworks, which have been locked in litigation with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers for several years over royalty payments. And it has potentially far-reaching implications for the digital music industry.
Musical works are subject to two distinct forms of copyright protection: a recording copyright and a songwriter's copyright. ASCAP is an association of songwriters that collects royalties when their members' songs are performed in public. The ASCAP royalty rates for terrestrial broadcasting and live performances are well established, but the rates due to songwriters for online music is still under dispute.
Also under dispute is exactly what counts as a "public performance" of music online. In ASCAP's litigation with Yahoo! and RealNetworks, both sides agreed that music streaming is a public performance, and that songwriters are therefore entitled to royalties for their streaming services. But ASCAP also argued that songwriters are entitled to compensation for music that users download.
A lower court ruled against ASCAP in 2007, and that ruling was affirmed last year by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit held that to count as a public performance, an electronic music transmission must be "contemporaneously perceived by the listener." Simply downloading a music file so it can be played back at a later time doesn't count.
more, here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/scotus-lets-stand-ruling-that-downloads-are-not-performances.ars