Murray, there can be few aspects of asininity so egregious as the assumption that the law does not apply simply because you wish it did not.

You need to look a sections 106(1) 104(6) 106(4) 106A and 114(c) of Title 17 (USA). Your ignorance if not your stupidity might thereby be alleviated. You might also consider the Berne convention, if that would not be inconsistent with your insularity.

Further, yes, of course composers or their successors in title have often objected to the reproduction or performance of their works. How else would they derive money? Of course the right to enforce thieir rights and collect money may be assicned or licensed, in which case teh assignee or licensee (eg the Harry Fox Agency) may enforce and collect.

Jed, you too need to consider S 106(4) - but at least your words were not asinine.

Nerd, thank you for the reference to S 115(2). We have not got an equivalent in the UK. I should have emembered it but it is a long time since I read Title 17 from end to end (as I have done) or indeed Nimmer (the premier US copyright textbook) as I have also done - and indeed Nimmer is now three volumes longer than when I last read all of it!