Over time I've come to realize that the climate surrounding content creation and copyright has made it astoundingly more practical for people to release things as creative commons than ever before. Given that there are sites such as Youtube and Twitch which offer free public broadcasting services where creators can be paid via Patreon for providing general services rather than being paid directly relative to their product output there is a clear case to be made that the means of production have already been partially seized in that field. The one catch about the whole system that could even bring down giants is:
The copyright algorithm.
A copyright algorithm is simply designed to flag a piece of media after checking that it contains copyrighted material. Sounds easy enough? We have not yet programmed robots to have a sense of humor substantial enough to detect whether material is in fair use or not, however. Just recently there has even been measures taken on Twitch to flag cover songs performed within a broadcast despite many decades of radio broadcasts not requiring licensing prior to performances. I have personally covered songs live on radio before and nothing has ever come of it. All of this cacophony has inspired me to picture a hypothetical - what if the vast majority of art were released as creative commons?
It seems almost asinine to assume that to ever be the case at first, though there's a case to be made that past a certain singularity point it would become more beneficial to the longevity of a piece than otherwise. As of right now if a copyright holder passes away and has no-one to pass an estate to except an uninterested spouse or a greedy and spoiled bundle of children then all of that holder's work enters a state of limbo where no-one is permitted to interact with it for possibly more than an entire century. If however that same holder opted to choose something such as creative commons attribution 3.0 to assign to everything then the work would have a chance to breathe despite the conditions of poor estate holders. This would mean that a work would have the opportunity to potentially even be its best self one day, with skilled collaborators maintaining a breathing and undulating collection of iterations that beget an even greater understanding of the original work than would have previously been possible.
A publishing of a work as creative commons also doesn't inherently mean that the artist has no means to profit from it, either. Here's one scenario: A digital artist releases a multi-layered piece as creative commons whilst keeping the work's project file safe and unaltered should anyone desire to invest in buying the original project file to see aspects of the piece which were otherwise obfuscated. I have numerous songs that I've released as creative commons attribution 3.0 and I have been careful to save all of the stems for a vast majority of them. This means that if someone so desires they could remix my work using the publicly available recording for free or they could contact me and purchase the original stems should they so wish. The creative commons attribution 3.0 applies directly to the finished and published recording/composition rather than to the isolated building blocks immediately related to the work in this case. A creative commons attribution 3.0 song's isolated guitar stem may have compositonal elements that are in the public domain yet also have recording elements that I still have full domain over.
Should someone get triggered enough by my choice to release my work as creative commons attribution 3.0 that they decide to remix my work to put me into an unfavorable light I just get free publicity. I win either way. Have fun!