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