@spyhi Indeed, Soundcloud made its strong entrance hosting content that was usually egregiously using unauthorized samples. What you're referring to with a "licensing scheme" is often called a statutory license in similar contexts. That's what the DMCA calls the license that allows for internet radio providers in the US (e.g. Pandora) to pay the same rate for the right to broadcast without having to get a license from the rightsholder. This music licensing stuff is a hell of a tangle. The Creative Commons model is brilliant but underutilized. Ultimately, it's a legislative issue. What would you ballpark it'll take Congress to move on a bill regarding music licenses? :)

@elliottsadams Heh, for congress to move, it would take either a big push from the RIAA or an organized groundswell from artists. But I do think there's a viable solution within our current legal system. Basically, there needs to be a central content broker for self-serve commercial use. Kind of like an iTunes, only not for personal use. Places like Audiosocket are already using it, except they only have "knockoff" music which alludes to big songs. Considering that most music which has achieved mainstream popularity is under mainstream labels, you'd think it'd be easy (compared to cutting deals with thousands of indie artists) for some company to negotiate large deals using the Jobsian argument of "it's either making it easy to get the music legally, or continued infringement." Also, I don't think the creative commons license model is really that great for this kind of application. Sure, it's great for the public, but no successful artist (the kind DJs would want to remix) is going to want to blanket-license their most successful work--the human factor just does not make it likely. Targeted, structured licensing is the way to go.