>Shouldn't a person who wrote a song..or from a legal
>standpoint...shouldn't the person who has the copyright have
>to approve of someone performing their song or recording it?

no. copyright law exists to ENCOURAGE innovation via the use of other ppl's work. but it also seeks to protect the interest of the producers of various works by ensuring that they will be credited and paid for their work. if artists had to get permission from the copyright holder before they're able to record or play a cover, we'd rarely have any cover songs recorded or played. via copyright law, we as a society have decided to encourage the playing and recording of cover songs.

>how does it make him an asshole to think that he should have
>that right??

b/c he does the same thing, #1.

#2 b/c he's seeking to stifle artistic expression that doesn't harm him, his work, or his pocketbook. in fact, covers of his songs probably tend to help expose his music to a wider audience, increase ppl's appreciation for his original renderings, and result in various payments to him as the copyright holder.

>seems pretty reasonable to me...
>
>and his examples of music being the only artform like that is
>telling...

he's wrong about that. copyrights work this way w/everything. it's part of the point of copyright law.