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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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