Teru, I addressed this ‘hypocrisy’ in my blog post. Rights (natural) are good, and not to be dispensed with. Unfortunately, the state has derogated our right to liberty by granting the privilege (legal right) of copyright. This can only be fully undone by abolishing copyright, but it can be undone on a per work basis by a copyleft license. Unfortunately, with multiple similar licenses there is a compatibility issue (and one of understanding). Coders are used to it. For other art/artists, it’s simplest just to tell people “No worries. Do what you think is best – I won’t sue you for copyright infringement whatever you do with my work.” hence CC0.
Unfortunately, CC cannot bring themselves to describe this as the divestiture of privilege to restore others’ rights. They are fundamentally a pro-copyright organisation and use the corrupt language that conflates privilege (copyright) with right (natural right), and have mottos such as “not all rights reserved”. CC treats all controls (rights and privileges) as if cut from the same cloth and simply provides mechanisms for modulating them, it won’t make any value judgement (unlike the FSF). That’s where the confusion is generated. And so I cringe when I see people then start complaining about moral rights and how difficult it is to get rid of them.
Privileges are unnatural and suspend the natural liberty of others to share and build upon human culture (created to give printers a monopoly in the 18th century).
Rights are natural, deriving from individuals’ natural powers and needs, and supposed to be protected by a government created for such a purpose.