Re: [Publicpolicy] How to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > John, > > The minimum is necessary for survival is not sufficient to achieve

> scenarios. > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, John Hendrik Weitzmann > <john.weitzmann(a)wikimedia.de> wrote: >> >> To the contrary, I think: Wikimedia projects are proof that production

>> knowledge is not at all necessarily tied to compensation/remuneration.

>> 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

>> should petition in this way. >> >> 2016-06-23 16:38 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>om>: >>> >>> The mass consumer copying which allows widespread sharing of

>>> protographs, performances, written works, etc., also made it more

>>> for anyone but the most popular artists supported by the larger

>>> publishers to remain gainfully employed, cutting the total number of

>>> employed as such artists substantially. Wikipedia has unresolved

>>> issues which are part of the same problem, but the web in general is >>> designed to make and transmit digital copies of things, usually

>>> compensation, so the issue is central to sustainable production of >>> knowledge. >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016, L.Gelauff <lgelauff(a)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

>>>> something. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Lodewijk >>>> >>>> 2016-06-23 16:27 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>om>: >>>>> >>>>> Lodewijk, >>>>> >>>>> What is your opinion of this particular proposal? The Copyright

>>>>> said they wanted to study it when I spoke with them yesterday. It

>>>>> clear to me. I did the math after looking at employed artist

>>>>> the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, and am

>>>>> would be near-optimal. >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016, L.Gelauff <lgelauff(a)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

>>>>>> objecting to your emails quite a while ago even if I disagree

>>>>>> are so often far beyond what I consider our shared Wikimedia

>>>>>> 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

>>>>>> stating the obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lodewijk >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-06-23 16:15 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>om>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to

>>>>>>> this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Copyright Information <copyinfo(a)loc.gov> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 >>>>>>> Subject: RE: General copyright >>>>>>> To: "jim(a)talknicer.com" <jim(a)talknicer.com> >>>>>>> Cc: Copyright Information <copyinfo(a)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(a)loc.gov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: 202-252-2041 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Website: www.copyright.gov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: jim(a)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(a)talknicer.com >>>>>>> Question: I would like to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges to >>>>>>> institute a sliding scale to redistribute top-40 windfalls from

>>>>>>> artists\' publishers to small, developing, and emerging artists

>>>>>>> support the same number of gainfully employed performing and

>>>>>>> prior to the introduction of mass consumer copying technology.

>>>>>>> email address(es) for petitioning the CRB? Thank you. Sincerely,

>>>>>>> Salsman tel.: 650-427-9625 email: jim(a)talknicer.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>>>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> Publicpolicy(a)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

>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für >> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.