1. This is a business making a profit selling a cd and not allowing the copyright holder any benefit from the sale. This is clearly wrong. Also, used book stores are doing the same underhanded practice.
This is not an underhanded practice. I suggest you look up something called the "doctrine of first sale." A copyright holder maintains rights to royalties only on an initial purchase. From there, the disc or book or whatever is the owner's to do with as he wishes. (Except to make a copy.)
A song from Kazaa "could" be an unlicensed copy if... A. the song has a valid copyright in the first place
Well, every piece of work is inherently copyrighted. Only work that has fallen into the public domain would be exempt.
(aa.) it was never played on a radio station or anywhere it could be heard for free
This is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. I mean, you're essentially just making stuff up at this point.
(bb.) the Copyright holder doesn't want you the hear it
Bingo.
B. A person has never bought the song at any time in the past and paid the "piper" already
This is irrelevant. "Buying the song" at some point in the past does not empower you to infringe a copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his work.
For example: Recording the content onto a cassette tape for your own personal use.
Recording a song off of a radio is also prohibited, even if for your own personal use.
In fact, "personal use", in and of itself, is a term opposed by the RIAA.
Where did I say that?
Such as playing it on the radio????