Hey James
Earlier this year we answered a call for comments about Sec. 512 safe
harbors and published our thoughts in a blogpost:
We were subsequently invited to a series of roundtables by the copyright
office, where we reiterated our views. You can read about that here:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>
>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Since there have been no objections, would
anyone like to
>> >>>>>>>> cosponsor
>> >>>>>>>> this?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>>>>>>> From: Copyright Information
<copyinfo(a)loc.gov>
>> >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016
>> >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: General copyright
>> >>>>>>>> To: "jim(a)talknicer.com"
<jim(a)talknicer.com>
>> >>>>>>>> Cc: Copyright Information
<copyinfo(a)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(a)loc.gov
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Fax: 202-252-2041
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Website:
www.copyright.gov
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> From: jim(a)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(a)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(a)talknicer.com
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list
>> >>>>>>>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Publicpolicy mailing list
>> >>>> Publicpolicy(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy