Creative Commons and every open-source license in existence are _needed_ only because copyright exists. I'd be much happier with the copyright law actually giving people the right to copy and just protecting attribution rights than with the way things are set up now. We wouldn't need those licenses then.
Anyway. I stand by my original statement which is that copyright, as it stands today, is not something that society, as it stands today, agreed to. It was lobbied for by special interest groups. The original US copyright law, and the original British copyright law and other copyright doctrines that it was based on, may well have been acceptable to the societies of the time, where copying and publishing were expensive, but those times are long gone.
When a law is almost uniformly ignored the way that today's copyright is, it's hard to argue that society agrees with it.