Think of it like open source software, and the answer will be clear.

I.e. anyone can take the open source software I create and do whatever the hell they want with it. (I use the Boost license, which is the most permissive.) I encourage you to, too, if you want to profit from my work :-)

I don't think there's anything special about musicians that makes them different from open source developers.

I don't think the answer is clear at all, this specific instance is about deception. The only thing being used is the name of the project to mislead consumers without being openly fraudulent, in such a way that it damages or limits the ability of the original authors to monetize their work.

The closest analogue in FOSS is the forking or reuse of projects to intentionally cannibalize the original work - which is covered by less permissive licenses like AGPL.

Whether it's music or software isn't the point, it's about the rights of the original creator to control how the work is spread and copied, which can be a bigger deal when that impacts the ability of a creator to monetize it. Music is only substantially different than software in that it isn't maintained after creation that requires continual support payments by its consumers.

If you're in a position where you can freely distribute your work to others, you're in an incredibly privileged position to begin with.

Protection of a trade name is a trademark, not copyright. There is no deception in saying your band is playing a Beatles tune.

> Music is only substantially different than software in that it isn't maintained after creation that requires continual support payments by its consumers.

That is indeed an oddity created by copyright law. Though nothing stops people from creating new versions of music (except copyright law, of course). People are still creating new versions of Debussy tunes. I'm a little tired of hearing various versions of "Roll over Beethoven", too.

> If you're in a position where you can freely distribute your work to others, you're in an incredibly privileged position to begin with.

A lot of people are paid very well to work on open source software. It's analogous to a lot of people being paid very well to perform music.

I think the difference is intent. Most musicians go into it hoping to make a boatload of money. Open source software devs, not so much.

> should the Beatles not be able to defend their name being used to sell it?

Wouldn't trademark law apply there? And not copyright law?

In America yea, but the point is more about the notion of IP law in general I think

I don't think it's possible to generalize about all IP law. There's a reason different categories of IP, with varying protections and terms, exist. It's possible for some IP law to be useful and some other to be useless or actively harmful.