>"That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing?" For centuries? Given that commercial recordings weren't widely available until the end of the

>"That was the case for centuries. Why is that such a bad thing?" For centuries? Given that commercial recordings weren't widely available until the end of the 18th century I am not sure where you are getting this from. You are mixing different things - there is a songwriter copyright and the recording copy right. A song being in the public domain(the expire of the songwriters copyright) doesn't mean you get to use the recording however you see fit. It means you can use the song as in record the song yourself and not pay royalties to Elvis's estate or whoever actually authored the song. The terms of the recording copyright determine who owns the physical recording. Often after a number of years these can revert back to the original performer. This is known as a "reversion." Upon a reversion the original performer can then license the original recording as they please - as reissues, for inclusion on compilations etc. This is why you can't upload an Elvis song to youtube - because Elvis Presley Enterprises own the recording.