Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases in Music

So, are you arguing, it should be easier to engage in plagiarism?

Recently it was made illegal to make music that sounds like other artists

Then it is that action is what should be discussed, rather than extension of copyrights.

Most everything is derivative. It's not possible to be uninfluenced by copyrighted material.

Unless you can demonstrate, how copyright makes such influence illegal — and the development of various music genres proves the opposite — then your above sentence is irrelevant and does a disservice to the argument.

Also, how is it remotely fair that the IP owners can perpetually reap income from work that was performed even 10 years ago let alone 70?

As long as people still want to hear it, read it, or otherwise use it, then the creation was particularly useful and you (or your ancestors) should continue to be rewarded for it. Seems just as fair as your ability to live in the same house or swim in the same (privately-owned) lake for many years.

Most of us get paid once for the work we do.

Because most of us work for somebody else. We sell the results of our labors in advance to the willing buyer (employer) — and do not own it. Now, what we do own, we get to use (and profit from) for ever.

IP does not exist. It's a figment of our collective imagination.

All property rights are a social construct — and some even consider it to be "theft". If you aren't going to advocate that self-denying point of view, then your whining about Intellectual property is just as irrelevant...

Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.

So, are you ready to demonstrate, how copyrights have sniffled the development of Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, or Rap, for example?

If not, then your "concerns" about sniffling are nothing but attempts to spread FUD.

Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.

Now, if a country introduced to free market capitalism (at gun-point) by America does not need socialized transit, why must America herself suffer it?

setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity

A strawman. Nobody claimed it to be a necessity. Good job scoring an imaginary point.

Smart urban planning

If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...

Thousands of them, trained by some very serious, very passionate people who don't even begin to fit the cartoon caricature description of cops who fake drug busts

How many is a "number," relative to the all day, every day work these dogs and their handlers do?

There's a difference between declaring something an inherent "right" and saying that the federal government does not have authority to regulate it. Yes, drug laws should be the states' business, because states have general police powers, and they don't need a grant of power to exercise it. That doesn't mean you have a right to drugs. It just means states should be free to decide which drugs, if any, are illegal within their borders.

You are correct. But when we're talking about government, it takes surprisingly little to convert a carrot into a club.