A question regarding this proposed reversion of rights to the musician(s)... which musician(s)? Composer? Lyricist? Arranger? Recording engineer(s)? Producer(s)? Session musician(s)? Featured artist(s)?
I include the recording engineer & producer roles because there are many cases where they have a very significant contribution to the final work - think of the likes of Phil Spector, Trevor Horn, or Stock, Aitkin & Waterman.
Sounds like a recipe for yet another round of painful court cases... and once more, the only winners are the lawyers.
I've not bought a newspaper in 15 years - ever since I discovered BBC news and slashdot.org (amongst others). I like reading multiple sources - I don't want a journalist's gloss and error-prone mis-writing to get in the way (which is the reason I don't rely exclusively on the BBC).
Every time I've had personal involvement or close contact with a news story, I've found significant errors in what the news coverage later says. Usually errors that indicate a complete misunderstanding of the real story by the reporter(s).
Finally, when you actually read a story on multiple sites, you not only get to see more viewpoints, you also get an understanding of which sites/sources are particularly lazy in their simple regurgitation of others' news print.
Next time you talk to a patent hoarder or their representative, check what mobile phone or laptop or car or pen they use... they'd better use an entirely US-made one or you will have exposed one more level of their hypocrisy.
Commerce is international, technology is international, innovation is international. No country has a monopoly on any of them. Not even the good-old US of A.
When you signed your university's terms & conditions of registration, there's a very high likelihood that you also signed over rights to any patentable inventions you come up with using their equipment, or on their premises. (and if you live in halls of residence, that includes those locations too).
Welcome to the adult world - the small print sucks.