Speaking as someone who makes a living writing songs, this is a horrible ruling and dangerous precedent. It opens up a Pandora's Box where copyright infringement suits can become a cottage industry (regardless of the legitimacy of the claim). The average cost to the defendant in these type of cases, just to have a frivolous suit thrown out, is $30,000. Again, that's $30k of expense to the songwriter/publisher even if the claim is completely invalid. The cost can skyrocket if it gets litigated further.

I personally believe this is one instance where a trial by jury is the wrong way to go. Copyright infringement decisions should be rendered by individuals who are qualified to make decisions based on true musical similarity (or lack of), not arbitrary folks off the street.

As to the notion that all music should be "shared" or "free", there are a myriad of reasons why that makes no sense, much less wouldn't work in the real world. By that logic, I should be able to walk into the Louvre, take the Mona Lisa off the wall, and bring it home with me. The rights of creators are protected in the U.S. by nothing less than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) - "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Virtually all nations have a similar respect for intellectual property rights, and it is a huge component of international commerce - while it can be argued that it may not be a good thing, it is a fact of life, and there would be significant balance of trade issues that would erupt if IP such as music were to made free for all.

http://www.rogerbrownsongs.com
http://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/roger-brown