The problem is that creative professionals have to be a lot more protective about their work than software developers.

While a software developer who's good enough to write successful open source code will always find a well-paying job, creative professionals have to fight very hard to get jobs, especially if they don't have a very wide network of connections yet.

There are also a few big specific issues that come up in music a lot, like use of music in advertising. Musicians generally either: 1) don't want their music to be used in advertising, seeing it as cheapening it; or 2) want to be paid for it, seeing it as a major revenue stream. A CC-licensed work without an NC clause would allow use in TV ad jingles for free, which a large proportion of musicians don't like the idea of, even if they're otherwise pro-sharing.

+1. I find CC to be very confusing, and I'm the kind of person that can tell you the differences between the MIT, BSD3, BSD4, GPL2, and GPL3 licenses. To a "normal person" it must be incomprehensible.

I think this must be because the culture of sharing has been around longer in the software community. In the music (and photography) world, it seems like this is uncharted territory, and when CC was making the licenses they asked the artists what they wanted. Nobody could agree, so every possibility became "creative commons" -- but only some of those are actually Free. Others are as proprietary as licenses get, providing the same restrictions that copyright law already adds.

I'm glad I don't produce podcasts for a living.

There were plenty of cases of CC books and other works wich allowed commercial use where some douchebag sold it somewhere. One of the most known cases was a book by Seth Godin sold on Amazon.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/please_dont_...

[Please disregard any issues on the person; the point is the almost guaranteed abuse of commercial-permissive CC licenses]