jumping off-topic with wild abandon Maybe… I’m just saying that a song like Amazing Grace was written in the 18th century, was meant to be shared widely and sung, not by an individual who has some “ownership” of the song, but by congregations and choirs. The song was meant to be shared widely, due to the fact that the author wrote it to talk about his religious conversion and his embrace of abolitionism. Most music in the old times (folk music, at least) was meant to be shared, by various people interpreting a song in their own way (adding new lyrics to a new tune, changing the music, changing the type of instruments being used, etc)… This seems like a different process than the idea of covering a song in the modern industry. A cover can be faithful or can be an interpretation, but given that one is still covering a song that everyone knows is (in this case, to try and bring it back on topic) a Korn song, the song is implied to be owned by Korn. When someone says the song, most people familiar with it, will probably automatically thin of the band and that version will play in their head… Although we know the authorship of Amazing Grace (John Newton), it’s centuries removed from his context, I don’t think we think of the song “belonging to him” in the same way Freak on a Leash belongs to Korn. We have legal distinctions about that in fact - AG is most certainly in the public domain (though recordings OF it can be copyrighted). We all understand that Korn owns the rights to their song, though… This is even MORE true for songs that we don’t know the authorship, too… like lots of traditional ballads… like the original version of something like Whiskey in the Jar is obscure enough that no one is sure who wrote the original.
TLDR: Don’t know if that made sense, but maybe you got something out of that ramble… 
