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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >> _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
