However, that would be a misrepresentation and gives poor clues as to what I’m actually arguing for.

I’m actually championing the rights of the author: to privacy, truth, and freedom.

I support the absolute right of an author to enjoy complete control over their private intellectual property.

I also support the rights for all authors to enjoy truth in attribution of their work (published or not), and that they may not be misrepresented (recontextualising their speech or work as political or product endorsement).

I also support the right for all authors to enjoy freedom of expression and to enjoy the ability to build upon public works, and to promote or share public works.

Copyright suspends this freedom of expression to permit publishers a commercial opportunity to exploit a monopoly on reproduction and derivatation of the works they publish.

Over the last few centuries people have come to assume that this monoplistic privilege is a fundamental right of the author. They assume the author may deliver their work to the public and yet suspend the liberty of any other person to further distribute that work or of any potential author to build upon their work.

Creative Commons licenses apply to published works.

So my sentence here “CC is flawed in that it consolidates the perception that the artist should be able to control the use of their art” in a more respectful context would make clear that it should be read as “CC is flawed in that it consolidates the perception that the artist should be able to control the use of their published art – even though they’ve voluntarily delivered it to the public”.

This is why there is one license by the FSF, i.e. the GPL.

The FSF does not believe an author has a right to suspend the liberty of the public – or even to decide how much or little of that liberty should be suspended. You’ll find Richard Stallman declines to support the Creative Commons for its lack of this principle.

The GPL restores liberty back to the public (which includes the liberty of the publishing author). That’s all.

I detect no hatred in my belief that authors should have freedom of expression, and should not have the privilege of suspending that freedom of expression from members of the public to which they deliver their work.