Hey James Earlier this year we answered a call for comments about Sec. 512 safe harbors and published our thoughts in a blogpost: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/06/save-safe-harbors-open-web/
We were subsequently invited to a series of roundtables by the copyright office, where we reiterated our views. You can read about that here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/16/copyright-law/ 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
