Or alternately, "I sometimes listen to other people's songs and use those ideas to develop my own. In fact sometimes I copy and paste short melodies and then rework them."
Courts have held that it doesn't apply to music, why do you think different rules apply to code?
Courts are definitely aware of the need to protect the creative process and that no song is truly “original” in all aspects. e.g. the Katy Perry case[0]
Songs are different from code, in that the “hook” that makes the money may be only a few seconds long. There are many creative choices that a songwriter/producer can fit into just a few seconds: the harmony, melody, rhythm, lyrics, timbre, effects, ...
Whereas for code, the space of creativity is limited by functional considerations. A creative choice is protected by copyright but not all choices that programmers make are creative. Often the choices are limited by the API/interface or by efficiency considerations and it turns out that there’s only one good way to do something.
A function may be very intricate, yes, while still containing almost no creative value (e.g. a Vulkan setup function). Music doesn’t have an equivalent to this - the placement of every note is a creative act.
Courts have held that it doesn't apply to music, why do you think different rules apply to code?