If you don't want to shell out 50 -100 USD a website, then you might consider this form of copyright, but note that you're giving away certain rights to it - unlike with traditional copyright where you have the option to give up certain rights.
Anyway, though, at least with Creative Commons you have some protection against someone copying you and then claiming you copied them first.
This copyright thing did not cross my mind. I am aware of WIPO (world intellectual property office) and its function to protect the creator of movies, songs and other creative works. Now the website is part of the protected entities. It would be frustrating if another site would copy a portion of your site and complain that you are the plagiarist. I think copyright is very important because the internet is rife with all kinds of animals. I would prefer a full protection.
Creative Commons is also cool cause people can expand on your work - kind of like how developers can make mods for forum software like phpBB. But of course, the biggest advantage is you don't have to pay for the CC license. However, though, I'm wondering how strong such a license looks in court. I'm guessing it's powerful.
Your site is protected against mirroring. You don't even need to pay for copyright for that. If someone comes along, mirrors your site and all of it's content, you most definitely can do something about it. This wasn't the case years ago and we seen it happen a lot. Nowadays, there's a lot more protection for digital properties.
