Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

> > So alternatively I can license a song under BY or
> >BY-SA and earn nothing
> > (compulsory licenses are waivered), yet other
> >musicians can freely adapt or
> > use my song, go on to resell their spin-offs or
> >remixes without so much as
> > a $1 tip for me.
> 
> One thing with BY-SAas opposed to a bare BY, you
> could also turn around and 
> freely resell their adaptation or your adaptation of
> their adaptation or your 
> remix of their remix or adaptation without so much
> as a $1 tip for them.
> 

Yes, SA creates space for a competitive market in lieu
of a structure for royalty payments. If an RIAA label
sold a compilation of BY-SA music on iTunes for $9.99,
you'd be free to sell that same compilation on your
own website for half that amount, thus gaining a price
advantage. Though arrangements are copyright-able, the
label couldn't stop you because their arrangement
would also have to be BY-SA.

But I don't see why this wouldn't be the case if only
the Attribution license was used. This clip from the
legal code for the Attribution license (section
4-Restrictions, part a) says: "You may not offer or
impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms
of this License or the ability of a recipient of the
Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient
under the terms of the License.") Doesn't this mean
that the label couldn't impose a standard copyright on
the compilation, or does it only apply to the
individual tracks therein?