Oh, there's one more thing I want to note: when you release intellectual property under a Creative Commons license, you can't revoke that license at a later date if you change your mind because it's actually in the terms of the license.

You specifically can not file a court motion in a US Federal court if you haven't previously registered a copyright with the US Copyright office.  It's not a bad idea to file for every piece of work you create.  You can compile multiple songs under one "work" and file them all together for the same price ($35 if done online using ECO).  For example, take all of your songs from 2013 and create a master file that you will submit electronically after filing, pay the $35, and every song in the collection is now registered.  You can also attach lyrics sheets, music staffs, etc, in a separate electronic file which is still included in the $35 cost.

It's advantageous to do this because your filing is considered prima facie evidence that you own the copyright which means that any challenger has to prove that you don't.  If you don't register, then theoretically, another party can steal your work (since you're making it available to the entire world via the internet) and register it themselves at which point they have prima facie evidence that they own it and you will have to prove that they don't.

I'm not a lawyer, by the way, so don't construe anything I've written here as legal advice but simply as my interpretation of the pertinent US laws.

My understanding is that when you release something under a CC license, that doesn't mean you're giving up your claim to copyright but that you are granting either limited or unlimited (depending on the license) rights for others to use your work.

You send them a DMCA notice, no one wants any more trouble than you do.

How enforceable are CC/ARR type declarations on a track, anyway? Ive always wondered about it. I mean I can say my track's all rights reserved til I'm blue in the face but nothing's gonna stop Grey Worldwide from stealing it and sticking it in a Honda ad if they really wanted to. Onus is then on me to chase it up in court, isnt it?

I agree with this completely.  If anything, selecting such a licence for your work is counter-intuitive and won’t do you any favours professionally speaking.

Thank you.

It is now.

Is it possible for me/an Admin. to alter the license I've pegged my first three tracks under?

I added it. Though still dont know if its a good idea.

Seriously, THINK ABOUT THIS before selecting a licence like this. You could end up directly endorsing something horrible. Not to mention you are seriously devaluing music in general. You're basically shooting yourself in the foot if you ever hope to become a professional.

Yeah, I personally have an issue with it. But we'll add it.

There is a difference between a free-one-for-all-everyone-holding-hands culture versus giving permission for a commercial enterprise to profit or misrepresent your creative work.

As long as you know that by selecting such a license- you are legally allowing companies to use your work without consent- which you'd normally get compensated for or have the option to reject their usage. It may even look like you are endorsing the product when they give attribution. It's a awful idea in this society.

It may seem counter-intuitive but according to creativecommons.org, the NC clause is "not a Free Culture License".

See: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and http://creativecommons.org/freeworks

As such, I too vote for the option to use CC BY or BY-SA

That said, I'm not losing sleep over it

You can also just select generic copyright and then in your description mention your own.

the SA in CC-BY-SA means that the derivative work needs to be released under a CC-BY-SA license too, doesn't it?

Might as well add WTFPL and beerware, although all three of those are more for software, not creative products.

Artistic License 2.0 is actually more catchy.