creative commons is not “in the business of distributing musical works”.

“Creative Commons does this by issuing “licenses” that you as the creator agree to which permits them to distribute the music to interested parties.” – not even close. creative commons authors licenses that you are free to apply to works that you own and control, and distribute how you see fit.

“As Creative Commons is in the business of distributing musical works some of the licenses that they issue require that you give them partial or complete ownership of your copyright.” – as mentioned, CC does not distribute your musical works, and it’s insane (libelous?) to state that you give them control of your copyright.

“This can often not only affect internet distribution but also can infringe upon rights that you have already assigned to SOCAN or rights that copyright law in Canada does not allow you to sign to a third party.” – CC licenses can conflict with other licenses, but only if the other licenses are exclusive and incompatible with the CC license which you have voluntarily chosen to distribute your work under. and what copyright law is breached by using CC licenses???

more debunked FUD here – http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/12/commons_misunderstandings_asca.html

i don’t think the collecting societies are dumb, so that means they must be evil when they disparage the creative commons licenses. the ones who are really getting hurt are the artists who aren’t getting paid – http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090909/0318406140.shtml

the payment discrepancies, the disparagement and failure to work with creative commons, and the harassment of girl-scouts and anyone with their radio too loud are all reasons why i am NOT a member of these organizations. when creative commons spawns a PRO, that will be the day i join one.