Hey James
Earlier this year we answered a call for comments about Sec. 512 safe harbors and published our thoughts in a blogpost: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/
We were subsequently invited to a series of roundtables by the copyright office, where we reiterated our views. You can read about that here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/
Thanks for raising the point. I hope this clarifies WMF's position.
Best, Jan
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Whether we agree with changing compulsory license fee distribution away from consolidated top artists to support pre-mass copying demand and artist employment or not, I suggest that the Foundation take a position on the DMCA safe harbor provisions which are coming under a very harsh attack by artists who see the takedown provisions as too great an administrative and financial burden. Please see:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/08/08/ 487291905/why-taylor-swift-is-asking-congress-to-update-copyright-laws
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/music-industry-a- listers-call-879718
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:42 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Lodewijk for suggesting off-list that I did not sufficiently address these topics:
Scope in mission: If the Copyright Royalty Board were to provide a sliding scale for compulsory licenses in order to return artist and songwriter demand and employment to their levels prior to mass consumer copying, the increased production and more accurate distribution of rewards for work by demand should serve to empower people to develop educational content for the projects because of the increased levels of support for artistic production where copyright violations currently occur.
Need: The problem with incorrectly allocating resources because of mass consumer copying and copyright violation inhibits meritocratic distribution of reward for work by demand.
Priorities: While the Wikimedia Foundation and its volunteers have a long history of working hard to remedy copyright violations, this proposal should be judged on its own merits without regard to authorship. I claim no ownership of the proposal.
Other parties' perceptions: For the reasons stated above, this proposal will be seen as positive. Companies such as Spotify, Pandora, YouTube may need to write more checks, and the largest of those checks will not be as large, but that is a linear overhead to solve an exponential inefficiency in the broken distribution of rewards, which inhibits meritocracy.
In the absence of persuasive arguments against the proposal, I expect that it will be evaluated on its merits by the Foundation experts charged with making recommendations for action. If this understanding is incorrect, please let me know.
Best regards, Jim
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:52 AM, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
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