http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates.ars

Assuming we’re talking about expressly-created gymnastics floor music:

Does the choreographer charge each time the gymnast performs? Of course not. That was a one-time upfront fee for the right/license to use her intellectual property (if it even qualifies as intellectual property, which I’m not sure it does).

I don’t know how the music system works in other countries, but in the US, most girls buy their music after listening to free 30 second sample tracks. They pay the fee and have the rights to use that music. In some gyms, I know these then get passed down to younger kids, and after a few years, the gym doesn’t need to buy new music anymore because they keep handing down the old music/choreography, and they have accumulated enough to keep things fresh between levels. Is this subversive? In a way. Is it illegal? To the best of my knowledge, no. The right to use the music has been purchased, and I believe that right is transferable (in the same way you buy a CD and give it as a gift).

Otherwise:
EVEN if the right didn’t transfer, in my opinion there seems to be a fair use issue here. Is the girl or even the meet playing these floor routines for an expressly commercial purpose? God no. Nobody goes to a meet exclusively to hear floor music, and the girl certainly isn’t making money off playing it. If the music is pulled from a movie, does the volume of copied material inhibit the sale of the original work? God no. Nobody who was going to buy “Spiderman” will decide not to buy it because she can listen to 90 seconds worth of the theme song during some meet. At least in the states, I think Fair Use law prevents any claim of some company that use of their music during a floor routine violates their property rights. (So, if that’s true about Disney in the UK, that baffles me.) It’s essentially tantamount to playing a CD in your home, loud enough that your neighbors can hear. All you’re doing is playing something you have a right to hear in the vicinity and range with which others can hear it as well.

Now, the manufacturer/producer might try to claim that passing music along without paying for it again (while not making copies or re-recording it: that’s a different issue) inhibits his ability to make profit off his intellectual property. In this context, to me it seems no different from any other good. If I buy a coat, I may never need another coat for as long as I live, therefore you can’t claim I am hurting your ability to make profit simply because I may choose to give my coat to someone else when I no longer want to use my coat for myself.

Anyway, that’s the extent of my media/property law knowledge. There may be governing statutes/case law that say I’m wrong.

I downloaded a lot of music after the Olympics because I liked so much of the floor music. And if these girls aren’t going to major televised competitions, yeah, that birthday party comparison is pretty spot on.