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 <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> John, > >> > >> The minimum is necessary for survival is not sufficient to achieve > optimal > >> scenarios. > >> > >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, John Hendrik Weitzmann > >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > >>>> > >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to > cosponsor > >>>>>>>> this? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>>>> From: Copyright Information <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 > >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: General copyright > >>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> Cc: Copyright Information <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Fax: 202-252-2041 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Website: www.copyright.gov > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:50 PM > >>>>>>>> To: Copyright Information > >>>>>>>> Subject: General copyright > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> General Questions Form > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Category: General copyright > >>>>>>>> Name: James Salsman > >>>>>>>> Email: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Publicpolicy mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
