Hi Jim,

just for the record: your argumentation didn't persuade me at all, I just disengaged. I actually would consider your proposal to be debatable and not our priority at best, counterproductive at worst.

But, it's your prerogative to submit a proposal like this à titre personnel, without suggesting support by others unless explicitely provided. Just don't drag Wikimedia into this. 

Best,
Lodewijk



2016-07-27 18:46 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com>:
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.

_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy