When a person creates something, they do it for one of three reasons. One, for their personal enjoyment. Two, to make money. And three, for their personal enjoyment and to make money. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to make and/or receiving money for the work that you do in creating something, even if that work is ultimately fulfilling and enjoyable.
In my own field I’ve had to be very careful to analyze everything I take in for stimulation to make sure that what I find inspiring doesn’t become interpreted too closely or literally. You can take the feel of something that moves you and make it into something that’s your own but you can’t take the pieces/parts and just rearrange them. Again, it’s not an exact science and judgement calls are made. But even if you only just take the feel of something purposely, you are not being original. Being original is something that’s hard to define. When Van Gogh and others moved into that period call Impressionism, they were also just putting paint on canvas, like thousands of others before them. But it’s HOW they put that paint on the canvas. They were the first, unbelievably, to do it in quite that way. I can do a reasonable facsimile of an impressionist painting today, but no one will take the least bit of note, because I wasn’t the first to do it, as good as it might be. If I write a song or paint an illustration or create something out of my head that is the first to be done in quite that way, and money (as filthy as it is) is involved, and someone else comes along and takes the credit for it with something that is probably stolen hard work, a law suit might be in order.

Neal, you said: “What I’m saying (whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not) is that it sucks to sue fellow musicians on the basis of copyright, especially in a cultural climate where copyright itself is growing less and less relevant to emerging generations of fans and cutting edge musicians alike. Face it — The old system of music publishing is dying, and trying to “cash in” on it by suing for royalties is just refusing to accept the inevitable.”

I just don’t see it. What you’re saying might be true in extremely small idealistic pockets of music. I also don’t think that copyright issues ever were relevant to fans. The fans just want to hear what they want to hear, and if they can get it for free and without retribution they will. The fans don’t much care if the artist ever gets compensated. Napster showed that. But as long as there is money to be made and people need and like money, and if it can be demonstrated that theft has occurred, law suits will continue. Should they? In a perfect world, probably not. But I don’t think we’ve reached that stage quite yet.

But to sue? No ways…Coldplay did wonders with the melody and deserve their success!!!

Joe, I’m sorry.

What I’m saying (whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not) is that it sucks to sue fellow musicians on the basis of copyright, especially in a cultural climate where copyright itself is growing less and less relevant to emerging generations of fans and cutting edge musicians alike. Face it — The old system of music publishing is dying, and trying to “cash in” on it by suing for royalties is just refusing to accept the inevitable.