Copyright assumes that intellectual property is owned by those who legally claim it. There is something specious about this argument since no one can completely own an idea as being wholly original. One song may be inspired by another and it's common practice to develop one song out of another or to sometimes steal it outright. The point is that whoever has the legal right to the property can make money from it. Hence, copyright is about money.

Business interests dictate that in a Darwinian sense, there are businesses that survive at the expense of those that don't. The music business is no different.

I advocate the possibility of a subversion. The singers and consumers of these songs might endeavor to change them in any way they desire perhaps creating new songs out of them. Some refer to this as the "folk process". In this way, the songs will become so variegated that the original version may be rendered as nebulous. I think that this might be done with all popular music for better or worse. I don't hold with the theory that only the original songwriter can make a better song out of his/her creation. I think songs can be rewritten by others and be substantially improved upon. This would create song variants that would be far more interesting than just the limited original copy.

Here's the problem. Thar's gold in them thar hills. This has taken precedent over the quality of the music and lyrics.

Frank Hamilton