CC0 / Public Domain Composition

CC-BY is also not selectable.  The closest option is CC-BY-NC, and NC is a completely different world from public domain.  Also, CC-BY has no provision for moral rights (although they can not be surrendered in some jurisdictions).

There are cases where attribution can become sticky.  For example, if a composition is remixed, then re-remixed and this happens a bunch of times, there is going to be a long attribution list (if I understand correctly.)  That is not a big deal in and of itself, but if even one person is left off of a long list and they get fussy then the situation could turn sour.  This is less of an issue for music than data in a database.

There are other (admittedly rare) cases where attribution is prohibitive or not possible.  It only costs $70 to file a lawsuit in the USA (other jurisdictions differ).  If there is any potential stickiness, a work will generally not be used.  I do not want access to my work restricted.

It is $70 to file a lawsuit.  Either you are good enough for the big shots to get in touch with, or they ignore your stuff if there is the possibility of you enforcing copyright.

Very much so.  I think proactively relinquishing copyright is an important political statement.

<start rant> Back when the printing press was new, the church and state became uncomfortable with the notion easy access to information.  Copyright was the solution.  We no longer live in a pseudo-theocracy.  We live in a fascist society!  Your masters are big business and big government.  Copyright is one way they keep people in line.

As far as music goes, sign copyright over to a label and they literally own your work for the next ~100 years unless you have the bargaining power to get a decent contract.  Put your work in the public domain and nobody can take it from you.  Nobody can take it from anyone else.  Nobody can use your work to have people thrown in prison for illegal downloads. <end rant>

Lazy?  I would say you are lacking the radical public domain attitude.   The reality is that even if you do throw your stuff in the public domain, most of it will not go anywhere important anyway.

I realized I did not use a "proper" declaration for the work I uploaded yesterday.  This is how they recommend you use CC0 for software.  I don't see why this would not work for music.

You can alternatively use this tool to generate HTML with embedded metadata to mark a work as being available under CC0.  <http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/>
Here is a link to the CC0 FAQ <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ>

No matter what they say, the people who write the laws do so for their own benefit.

And there was much rejoicing. 

All this depends on where you located.  The location of the people using your work may also matter to a lesser extent.  In some places you can place your work in the public domain.  In other places you can mostly place it in the public domain, but things like moral rights stick.  In other places you simply can not proactively place a work in the public domain.

The "no rights reserved" CC0 is an attempt to address the above mess.  Basically, you place the work in the public domain to the best of your ability, and agree not to enforce copyright where this is not possible.

An important point is that CC0 is a one way street.  You are permanently relinquishing the right to restrict people from using your work.  If you rely on royalties / copyright for your livelihood, CC0 is a bad plan for you.  (If you rely solely on commissions, I think you can make CC0 work.)

The only way to kind of reclaim something you release via CC0 is to remix it and retain the copyright to this derivative work.  Of course, anyone else could also make a proprietary remix.  In either case, nobody has a legitimate claim to restrict access to the original work anymore.