I agree; I was hoping for a more cogent explanation, but the whole time-shifting concept with respect to Fair Use is...weird? It's more of a "Terms of Service" type of issue, from my perspective, in that paying for the service should carry with it certain reasonable rights. It's not exactly a "transformative" notion from my perspective, but honestly, the courts have been so all over the map of reasoning that it takes me a while to figure out the logic. Sometimes, when I do figure it out, I get really, really mad with flashbacks to the crux of the Napster case which ruled "A home computer is not an audio device and therefore person-to-person sharing of audio copies as Fair Use does not apply" (paraphrased) and is so utterly shitty and wrong it has led us down the DRM wormhole.

At least Eminem successfully sued for his 50% cut. For those unfamiliar, the jist of the story is Eminem's label told users they were 'leasing' a song, which entailed a 50% royalty rate to Eminem, but they accounted each lease as a 'sale' and paid him closer to 20%...which was in violation of his contract. He sued, he won, and it's a thorn in the industry's side to this day. I blame the greed of "having our cake and eating it too" and the outcome pleased me on both fronts as an artist and paying consumer.