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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 &lt;lgelauff(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

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 &lt;lgelauff(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de');>> wrote:

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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: optimal of So, why we knowledge, difficult consolidated people plagiarism without missing Office seems numbers from convinced it stopped because they values, and I is perhaps cosponsor consolidated in order to writing artists What are the James unter _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

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 &lt;lgelauff(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt;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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> John, >> >> >> >> The minimum is necessary for survival is not sufficient to achieve >> >> optimal >> >> scenarios. >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, John Hendrik Weitzmann >> >> &lt;john.weitzmann(a)wikimedia.de&gt; 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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt;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 &lt;lgelauff(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt;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 &lt;lgelauff(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to >> >>>>>>>> cosponsor >> >>>>>>>> this? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>>>>>> From: Copyright Information &lt;copyinfo(a)loc.gov&gt; >> >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 >> >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: General copyright >> >>>>>>>> To: &quot;jim(a)talknicer.com&quot; &lt;jim(a)talknicer.com&gt; >> >>>>>>>> Cc: Copyright Information &lt;copyinfo(a)loc.gov&gt; >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> 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 >