Unfortunately, Creative Commons (and also open source licenses!) beautifully hacked around making copyright the unavoidable default. Making it almost impossible for something to merely exist in the public domain.
An innovative way to fix creative commons (and maybe also open source licenses) is to legislate that ALL copyright licenses (like CC, and GPL, etc) require that some amount of money be paid for use of the license. That way politicians can rationalize that they have added value* to the economy.
* here's another idea to add value to the economy: break all the shop windows on main street -- those businesses will have to pay the glass companies for repairs -- thus stimulating the economy!
The problem with innovation is that it upsets existing entrenched business built upon the inefficiencies that innovation tends to eliminate.
That is why you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation. Even if the innovation doesn't affect the legislators, it certainly affects their friends, or those who put money into their pockets while whispering things into their ears about how wonderful inefficiency is.
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias, dictionaries, other reference information, public domain information that you must pay a price to obtain, etc) The same as libraries, but at your fingertips, any time, anywhere.
The Internet allows artists to sell their content directly to consumers cutting out the exploitative and vastly inefficient dinosaur middlemen.
The Internet allows the creation of cloud services, that upset less efficient businesses. (Example: Uber, Lyft. But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime)
And these are just the most obvious examples.
Innovation like self driving cars is going to upset so many people that we may never get self driving cars. Self driving cars are the realization of a dream -- come true. Saving vast amounts of wasted human intellect and productivity. Yet we may never get them because: taxis could become Johnny Cab (self driving, while spewing inane small talk), insurance companies want more accidents, car ownership may decline affecting dealers and auto makers.
Innovation like electric cars threatens big oil -- despite that we should have begun serious work on electric cars, decades ago. Why did GM wastefully destroy all those beloved and perfectly working electric cars when California changed its law to no longer require a minimum percent of EVs?
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs sucking at the government teat.
I could go on. But there are major problems with innovation. That's why we should not do it.
In 1980, IBM knew perfectly well that the Mainframe was the dog and PC's were toys. By 1990, IBM was struggling to be competitive with PC's which were fast becoming a bigger industry than mainframes.
In 1980, IBM knew perfectly well that the profit was all in the hardware and software was just a necessary add on that you wrote in order to sell hardware. Steve Jobs back then said something like: "the software tail that wags the hardware dog". By 1990, look at Microsoft. By 2000, it looked like Microsoft was about to take over the world -- just as open source was starting to gain traction.
In 2000, when it was on top of the world, Microsoft thought the OS and locally installed applications was the dog, and the web was the tail. Today, the local OS is irrelevant and applications run on the web, are integrated with all your devices (running different OSes).
If you cannot get good enough Netflix service in your home, then it is YOUR LOCAL ISP's fault. It is their job to deliver bandwidth to you from one or more other networks. Where that bandwidth originates (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube, No-Name, etc) is none of your ISP's business.
Netflix pays handsomely for bandwidth at their end. Your local ISP needs to charge you enough to deliver good service at a competitive price while making a reasonable profit.
A bee keeper believes that he owns the bees. After all, it is his bee boxes that the bees use to make honey. The bees make honey just for the bee keeper because the bees have no other motivation or reason to make honey.
The bee keeper may not realize that the bees are free to leave at any time. If the bee keeper makes the bee box unusable for its intended purpose, the bees will leave. Maybe not instantly. But definitely.
Re: ADP has "no legitimate reason for ADP to cut off Zenefits"? -- AT WILL.
ADP had a good reason. Network traffic management. Using their psychic abilities, they knew that in a week there would be a spike in traffic, and so began cutting off their own customers.
Initially, ADP claimed they had disabled our access because an unusual traffic spike on June 3-4 placed undue load on their servers. Interestingly, ADP actually started blocking clients from connecting their payroll with Zenefits about a week before this spike supposedly occurred.
And hurting your own customers is always good business!
Of course, as we have learned, hosting copyright infringing content is perfectly okay. The source of the infringement is never sought out. Rather the real crime is in linking to infringing material, or innocently indexing the web pages that contain the infringing material. Or thinking about infringement (as per the article).