Unlike Jeff, I don't hate Creative Commons. I just don't see the point. I believe we're much better off working with our legislators to getting copyright lowered, back toward something resembling what the Founding Fathers intended. Update, 8:45 PM CST: In the August issue of Wired (archive not posted online at the time of this writing), in the "Posts" section, there is a little blurb on Creative Commons, targeted at the right-leaning talk show host the left loves to hate, Mr. Limbaugh:

Hey, Rush! Ever Heard of the Creative Commons?
"There are some things [from my show] that we can't [podcast] yet, like music because of copyright problems. ... But just want to tell you we're continually working on it. ... I know the Millennium Copyright Act is what this is all about, and until that's changed, none of this is going to change."
From The Rush Limbaugh Show
June 14, 2005
Rush Limbaugh, talk radio host Now, unless I'm completely misunderstanding, I don't believe, Wired writers, that the Creative Commons would be of help in this situation. Whatever music Rush is referring to, my guess it is of one of two natures. First, he's talking about music they use to lead in and out of the show from commercial breaks. This music is more often than not popular music from the last three or four decades, and is the copyrighted material of those artists. Creative Commons would play no role. Second, the music referred to could be the parody songs some times featured on the show. More often than not, these songs are not the copyrighted property of The Rush Limbaugh Show or the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, parent company of the show. These parody songs are often the property of a third-party artist. Again, Creative Commons would play no role. So I'm not sure why Wired feels the need to slam CC on Rush...