Why do I get the feeling we have different conceptions of “commons”. You appear to view something as “in the commons” if it placed under said license. I think I was trying to define “commons” in a more inclusive way, somewhat similar to a village square or a public park. Perhaps suggesting that anything published online would naturally fall under the “commons” license with no action or opting required by the writer or artist. That’s kinda of how it is now, perhaps excluding the current anomic piracy, since at the moment this isn’t an accepted standard or a requirement, or implicit in the use of any connective software. Rather we have “fair use” agreements that seek to control what is said in this public space about one individual or entity.

My criticism stems from the over-qualification of a normatively broad-based and inclusive term. Think of it as the CC still contains the intent of the term”common” yet it is fettered with a large number of qualifiers, the most glaring catch being the “opt-in” knowledge barrier.