No; copyright would belong to the rightsholder of the underlying work.
Only if it is used for plagiarism for unauthorized profit.
In general, you can copy a small amount of someone else's work without infringing copyright, as long as it is for purposes like criticism, commentary, or education. The amount you can copy varies depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the work. It is important to always give credit to the original creator and not use the copied material for commercial gain.
Only if the people's real names are used.
At least in Australia, infringing copyright is not illegal per se, but an entity can "seek damages", ie. sue you for infringing their copyright. Can a publisher sue you for using legalsounds.com? Well yeah, anyone can seek damages from anyone. Will it stick? No; even if legalsounds.com was dodgy, suing the end user would be like suing a concert-goer because the band played someone else's music...
For materials created after 1923, you would need permission from the copyright holder to copy and distribute the work, even though it's out of print; as publishers are fond of explaining, "shelf life has nothing to do with copyright term."
Only if the copy you're copying was not authorized for general distribution by the copyright owners. In other words, the copyright owners can certainly authorize free distribution of their music if they want to. However, if you make a download (a reproduction) of an unauthorized copy, then your copy (like the one you copied) is a copyright infringement because you have no permission to make that copy.
Creative Commons is a type of license, in which the creator of a work declares that they will not enforce certain rights that they have. It is a way to advise persons who have a work that there are things they can do with the work which would normally be infringing (like making copies of the work, or making adaptations.)
Copyright is as much an ethical concept as it is a legal concept, primarily because it's very rare that anyone "gets caught." Because it's so easy to find, copy, and distribute infringing material, there's no way for the legal system to prosecute everyone; society relies on an individual's morals to convince him or her to "do the right thing." It's also frequently forgotten that when infringing a copyright, while it seems like you're only hurting Sony or Paramount--big, faceless companies who won't miss a few cents here and there--you're actually interrupting the revenue stream of the individual artists.
Straight factual information may not be protected by copyright at all; the expression is protected. Just as when using research from physical sources like books and magazines, summarizing or rewording the material is not infringing, but direct quotes need to be properly cited. (This is less of a copyright issue and more of a plagiarism issue.)If what you want to use from the internet is more creative than factual, you just need an exemption in the law or permission from the rightsholder.
Anything from nothing at all to $150,000 per infringement. If you're making copies of something for your own use (like using your office photocopier to copy a book), nobody knows about it and unless you tell people, nothing will happen. If you make copies of something and it gets noticed, the copyright owner can demand damages and sue you if they don't get an agreement. RIAA has been doing this with people involved in filesharing of songs. If you are doing commercial piracy they can demand as much as $150,000 per infringing copy plus court costs and attorneys fees. Plus they get to either keep or destroy the infringing copies.
The law has changed and the copyright symbol is no longer needed to insure the protection of the copyright owner. The symbol for copyright is: ©
Translation: I like (or literally "[blank] pleases me").