Assuming my argument below is sufficiently persuasive, is https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CRB-2016-0002-0002 an appropriate opportunity to ask others to contact the Copyright Royalty Board and ask for a sliding scale redistribution from the top-popularity artists who have financially benefited from mass consumer copying technologies, to greater proportions for new, small, and emerging artists, in order to support pre-mass copying artist employment and demand?
If so, the deadline for comments on those proposed non-changes is August 24.
Best regards, Jim Salsman
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:35 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry I hit reply early.
The minimum necessary for production of knowledge is not sufficient to produce the optimum amount of knowledge. Therefore we should petition to redistribute compulsory license royalties to make amends for the reasons that compulsory licenses are awarded, instead of merely awarding the particular people who prove that they should be awarded.
On Thursday, June 30, 2016, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
John,
The minimum is necessary for survival is not sufficient to achieve optimal scenarios.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, John Hendrik Weitzmann john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de wrote:
To the contrary, I think: Wikimedia projects are proof that production of knowledge is not at all necessarily tied to compensation/remuneration. So, as much as I am a fan of levies to compensate for (unhindered and unsurveilled) private reproduction of works in general, I don't see why we should petition in this way.
2016-06-23 16:38 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
The mass consumer copying which allows widespread sharing of knowledge, protographs, performances, written works, etc., also made it more difficult for anyone but the most popular artists supported by the larger consolidated publishers to remain gainfully employed, cutting the total number of people employed as such artists substantially. Wikipedia has unresolved plagiarism issues which are part of the same problem, but the web in general is designed to make and transmit digital copies of things, usually without compensation, so the issue is central to sustainable production of knowledge.
On Thursday, June 23, 2016, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
At this point I don't see how redistributing copyright income is in scope for Wikimedia. Maybe on a tangent, very remotely? I might be missing something.
Best Lodewijk
2016-06-23 16:27 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
Lodewijk,
What is your opinion of this particular proposal? The Copyright Office said they wanted to study it when I spoke with them yesterday. It seems clear to me. I did the math after looking at employed artist numbers from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, and am convinced it would be near-optimal.
On Thursday, June 23, 2016, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi James, > > Given the sensitive nature of the list, and your history in > discussions, please don't take 'no comment' for 'no objection'. I stopped > objecting to your emails quite a while ago even if I disagree because they > are so often far beyond what I consider our shared Wikimedia values, and I > suspect I might not be the only one. > > If you respond, I hope you'll do so as an individual, without > suggesting you respond on behalf of anything or anyone. But that is perhaps > stating the obvious. > > Lodewijk > > 2016-06-23 16:15 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com: >> >> Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to cosponsor >> this? >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Copyright Information copyinfo@loc.gov >> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 >> Subject: RE: General copyright >> To: "jim@talknicer.com" jim@talknicer.com >> Cc: Copyright Information copyinfo@loc.gov >> >> You may petition the Copyright Royalty Board by mail: >> >> Copyright Royalty Board >> >> PO Box 70977 >> >> Washington, DC 20024-0400 >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> LG >> >> U.S. Copyright Office >> >> Attn: Public Information Office >> >> 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. >> >> Washington, DC 20559-6000 >> >> Email: copyinfo@loc.gov >> >> Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959 >> >> Fax: 202-252-2041 >> >> Website: www.copyright.gov >> >> >> >> From: jim@talknicer.com [mailto:jim@talknicer.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:50 PM >> To: Copyright Information >> Subject: General copyright >> >> >> >> General Questions Form >> >> Category: General copyright >> Name: James Salsman >> Email: jim@talknicer.com >> Question: I would like to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges to >> institute a sliding scale to redistribute top-40 windfalls from consolidated >> artists' publishers to small, developing, and emerging artists in order to >> support the same number of gainfully employed performing and writing artists >> prior to the introduction of mass consumer copying technology. What are the >> email address(es) for petitioning the CRB? Thank you. Sincerely, James >> Salsman tel.: 650-427-9625 email: jim@talknicer.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.