Doubt on creative commons licenses

I am sorry for posting my opinion later due to technical problems, but basically I agree with Brad's opinion which said creative commons is entirely unnecessary based on the following reasons.

1. Like the case mentioned on http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html, the meaning of these licenses are unclear to laypersons, even to many legal professionals, who always dispute about the meaning of what is "copy" "use" "display" "performance"... and "commercial use", "fair use". Is it reasonable for those even without any knowledge of copyright to give a license which he did not understand and as a result of which he give up his right?

2. If the individual wants to give up some of his rights, he can easily choose not to sue the person who infringes it. A benefit of definitely giving up a right is someone else who wants to use the work can use it without any concern, but another question is arised which is what if the work being given up involves some other copyright issues or even if someone else mistakenly gives up right of another's work.

So, basically creative commons licenses burden the copyright holder a lot through a legal document, but only reserve some rights he already had. In addition, through this way, many new disputes will occur, which further impedes copyright protection since it makes problem more complicated.