On a quick review of the CC website, I should emphasise that that there's a whole range of different licensing conditions you can choose from. There isn't just one "Creative Commons" License.

You can attach any licensing and copying conditions you like to your own work: those suggested by CC are presumably designed to be reasonably free of loopholes or unneccessary restrictions.

Going back to the original post:
"4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists"
This is so blurred it is meaningless.

• Folk music is not necessarily traditional music and thus may or may not be someone's work in current copyright.
• The content of a traditional song, a printed representation of it, a musical arrangement of it and a recorded performance of it are separate entities each with quite different copyright ownership. Only the content (if genuinely traditional) is not subject to copyright
• "Folk artists" range from children chanting in the playground or unpaid "open mike" and singaround participants to full time professionals who write their own songs and are members of the PRS and the Musicians' Union. How can anyone make sweeping generalisations about their "objectives"?

Anahata