The idea was that intellectual creation by artist would get valued, and so art would be promoted. These days when you look at mashup music scene, where many songs get combined to new songs are based on digital tracks, those new artist dont get protection at all, in fact the copyright firms sue them for money (or take them in contract). And this raises the problem that the copyright firms work against the new artist. They lobby however in the whitehouse tokeep their market share and gain control over what you and I, are allowed by them to hear. Isnt that nonsense??, an artist should be free, public should be in choice of what they would like to hear.
These days the music and copyright structure in general needs to change.
As the music scene changes a lot too. The fear is old industries (not artist) shops, a certain goverment cashflow) will cease to exist, with new websites like myspace etc music is going in a new direction, claims that you own a few notes become worthless, these are the times that young artist make money by making live music.
And where people want to hear them and pay a ticket. A musican becomes more like a regular job, they get payed by their work, leave out the copyright part and they can make some money these new artist.

The original idea of copyright was to promote the inventors creativity, so society would evolve. Not with the intention that people are not allowed to make a variation on the beatles for 50 years or more..

Who holds your freedom ? a copyright firm ?