Right and wrong my friend because you can only sue for damages when you have proof of someone making money from you creating or taking credit for what you've done, Wayne in this case did the song but it was not released to the public for sale nor profit. Therefore he may have tried to seek a license for using the song but you don't need one if it was just for sh*ts and giggles.
You're somewhat right. This stems from fair use, which anyone can use a sample of someone's music as long as it's for noncommercial purposes. So, for instance if he put it on a nonprofit mixtape he would be okay as long as that mixtape is not directly promoting a tour or album. But, he put it on MySpace, which is a direct promotional tool. MySpace also features advertising, which it benefits from users loading their music on the site. However, MySpace has a policy about loading copyrighted content on their site and they prohibit it. Now it would have been likely to have been thrown out in court still because that wouldn't necessarilly implicate him nor mySpace, because in doing that he is not directly providing the song for users to download to their hard drive so it can't prove it has affected the original artists right to prosper from the work. MySpace is also okay because the DMCA doesn't hold ISPs responsible for content users load on to their networks as long as after they are notified by the copyright owner they remove it in a timely fashion.
Now here is where Wayne fu*ked up and this is why he will likely pay damages. He performed the song publicly at concerts and was paid to do it. So now that will implicate the fact he loaded it to MySpace as a promotional tool to profit from the work. All of the fair use rights he had prior he lost once he performed it commercially. Also, if his mySpace hosted the song and provided tour dates and album release information that's enough to hold him liable for some kind of damages.