So Coulton composes some music, to which he sings someone else's lyrics. I don't see why he's not due composer's royalties. I'm not in the industry, but I'd read some place long ago that the composer gets his cut, the lyricist gets hist cut, and the recording artist gets his cut. And as soon as someone records it and releases it, then anyone else can record it, too, under compulsory licensing where the composer and lyricist continue to get their cuts (based on the rates in the compulsory parts of copyright law.)

What I'm not seeing here is a good explanation of how this all actually breaks down now. It seems to me that I'm way off from the current Way Things Are Done. How does Coulton's "arrangement" not qualify as an original composition that's deserving of copyright protection and compulsory licensing payments? Assuming I'm right, attribution isn't part of the law, license payments are.