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