Really? How many different ways can you play Rock n Roll or Blues? I was at the Atlanta Steelplchase yesterday and a few tents down they had a DJ playing Country music. There was some newer song about "Singing sweet hoe Alabama all day long" or something like that. I could not hear the words from where I was but I could hear the beat and chords... I thought it was Werewolves of London, the music was REALLY close. I walked down to hear it and well... I didn't stay long. Whatever else the song is, it is way to "gimmicky". From a distance I could easily add Ahh Oooooh Werewolves of London... Ahh Oooooh.
 
Rock n Roll is pretty simple music and Blues is even more basic, I just don't see how one can copyright any of it very much, I guess a complete copy of words and music but the music is going to be copied, there is just no way around it and just because these earlier artists showed up when they were able to steal their stuff from Black American musicians who couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it, well... everyone should just back off and let people write and play and not worry about it. I like the way Ian Anderson handled The Eagles Hotel California which is a blatant copy of a song Tull was playing when they were touring together a few years earlier.
There is enough to go around.
 
spic
 

Had we stayed with the original length of copyright as written in the US Constitution, this would not be a problem:
"The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)
 
Think about the recent case involving "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give it Up". Got to Give It Up was released in 1977. Blurred lines was released in 2014. Time difference = 37 years. Return to original copyright and there is no issue. I'm guessing that if we look deeper at the case that was part of the OP, these guys were playing 'classic' jazz songs, from the 30's and 40's. Time difference from 1945 to 2015 is 70 years. Return to original copyright and there is no issue.
 
Why such a short time for the original copyright in the constitution? Look at what was said at the time:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
 
As noted in the wikipedia article:
"That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole."
 
The article also mentions something new that has been driving the changes in copyright over the years:
"A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to their heirs."
 
Much of the problems we face today were caused the ongoing desire, especially of controlling corporations, to continue to profit individually, instead of to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."  As noted in the Wikipedia article, "...the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others." When copyright extends for over a hundred years, much is lost and little can be built upon. Short term greed and long term decline. The music industry is reaping what it has sowed.
 
As the old saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."

jbow
 I like the way Ian Anderson handled The Eagles Hotel California which is a blatant copy of a song Tull was playing when they were touring together a few years earlier.
 

The chords to 'Hotel California' are very similar to 'We Used To Know' by Tull, but HC was written by Don Felder, who wasn't in The Eagles at the time they toured with Tull.

Mandolinplayer has it right. The outrageous extension of copyright has much less to do with the public good, and much more to do with the profits of the immortal "persons" discovered by the courts to live among us as imaginary yet corporate entities. And while just limiting copyright duration might have a general salutary result, it might cause some unintended consequences. If the problem to solve is that there is no new music because everything sounds enough like something that is under copyright, then putting all the old music into the public domain would make it impossible to enforce copyright on anything new. That would remove a lot of incentive for the creation and distribution of new music. 
 
But the issue in litigation is almost never that a hit song of 2015 infringes copyright of a hit song of 1925. The copyright act of 1790 (14 years and one renewal) would adequately protect the practical market value of the vast majority of popular songs. There are a great many novels still making money for publishers after the copyright has expired, but popular music imposes its own all too transient lifespan on the issue.
 
It is not so much that the songs involved in current litigation are not "new" as that they are not "unique" enough for a jury to distinguish them as separately protected. That is an issue that currently is being determined by jurists or laymen who in general have neither the training nor the technical understanding of what musical invention involves to do a consistent job. These lawsuits are largely a crap shoot for those involved, and because they are so expensive to pursue, are likely to be brought only by the well heeled against each other, or against an artist who they perceive will not have the resources to defend his work.
 
As a practical point, artists have little to fear from infringement lawsuits unless they have produced something of great value, but worries about legal liability can be telling. The chilling effect that the willingness of big music to threaten suit over anything resembling their songs, discourages current artists from creating new songs and defeats the purpose the copyright was designed to serve. The problem is made worse when software robots can be programmed to search the internet of music for phrases that bear a resemblance to something in their catalog and, for very little cost, generate take down notices or demands to monetize the artists creation and pay the copyright holder of the similar work. If the high monetary cost of harassing artists can be reduced sufficiently, then the copyright system will indeed work the reverse of its intention.

slartabartfast ... Mandolinplayer has it right. The outrageous extension of copyright has much less to do with the public good, and much more to do with the profits of the immortal "persons" discovered by the courts to live among us as imaginary yet corporate entities...

 
We should not be surprised by this ... in the first page of Sociology 101, it says a couple of things ... like 3% of the population controls 97% of all the money, and then the one I like the most, is that about 90% of all the laws in America are created and passed by less than 10% of the population!
 
We, and I say this with a lot of rubber bands, have nothing to complaint about, because we have allowed Hollywood and many other humungous corporations to control our behaviour and thus ... all the laws are in their favor, not yours!
 
Does anyone here actually think that Frank Zappa was just being a serious psychopath because of the wording and his attacks on our ability to be "free"? We always got stuck on something or other!
 
It is the reason why Reagan, Ford and Bush and then Bush went out of their way to ensure that schools did not teach the arts (any form), to make sure folks did not develop an independent feeling ... that you usually get when you become an artist of any kind!
 

slartabartfast ...  And while just limiting copyright duration might have a general salutary result, it might cause some unintended consequences. If the problem to solve is that there is no new music because everything sounds enough like something that is under copyright, then putting all the old music into the public domain would make it impossible to enforce copyright on anything new. That would remove a lot of incentive for the creation and distribution of new music. ...

 
Which I think is the point of the law as it is defined right now ... make sure no one else can do anything to keep the moneys here. And in time, this will hurt serious and innovative artists. Imagine if Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky had done that? Music would likely be dead today!
 
Today, however, there is the media and everyone has the ability to check everything and say something or other about it. It will always sound like this and that and cause issues. And this is where the law has to step in, and change things ... let's say the artist can have it for 20 years and the family/artist can only renew it for one more term. PERIOD. That alone would take the rights away from a lot of Hollywood companies that have stolen material from many folks for 100 years!
 
The much bigger issue on our plate, is that we do not have the motion and the desire and the intent to change things in the courts of the land ... if we did, we would have already created a local issue with all the musicians involved and removing all the Council folks that do not agree, and then proceed to remove the State Representative, and eventually move along to bigger and better fish, and get the issue involved in the awareness side of it.
 
Right now, musicians can not win. The media belongs to the same representatives that owns the studios (more or less) and they talk LOUDLY about how much money this band made and that band made and how many tickets this and that sold ... and all of it is nothing but an "advertising" that the artist is ripping off the record companies, and in the end, a lot of the "big names" and the biggest problems in this whole process and they need to be taken down a peg.
 
Honestly ... to me this is about us ... not them! Even though it is a process that will take 20 years, it will teach you/us all more about things in America, and that you can change them ... but you watch the rich artists get upset at us!
 
The only question left is, where is our will and determination ... since we know that the folks that want the money have already taken their steps 75 years ago, when they KNEW no one else knew anything! Today, with the media out there ... you can do a lot more ... but no one uses it for comprehensive and positive action!
 
I'm too busy writing. You all are too busy playing. But somewhere, in someway, we have to give a little back into it and help it get where it needs to be ... including all of us, not just a handful!