Yes, ... international copyright lawyer required for even such a simple thing. In many cases it may be better to put nothing - as the GNU lists do - and let national law deal with problems and interpretation. Whatever you put, some jurisdiction somewhere will find it to be in error, and that just causes headaches. But I really don't think there is an issue with this list. The topic only arose due to what I consider strange comments about the GPL licence for software (not music).
Interestingly, Google states:
Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive
content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that
you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
And then they go on to point out the can make derivative works and do what they pretty well much like with your content in the next paragraph, exactly as you say.
Andrew
though I generally loathe such usage terms, wouldn't some clause in the list's ToS to the effect that use of the list grants some nonexclusive but unrestricted right to copy/use that material alleviate these concerns? Those kinds of clauses are part of every online email service, for example (since the servers make multiple copies of your message as the send/store it), and most online services.