-- sorry, I meant to write "the Copyright *Royalty Judges*." Here's the Federal Register Announcement:
https://www.loc.gov/crb/fedreg/2017/82fr143.pdf Please note that the CRB has limited this opportunity to "Parties with a significant interest in the outcome of the 'business establishments' royalty rate proceeding" which I believe precludes the effectiveness of consumer action, but allows for the Foundation to make a bigger impact. Thank you for your kind consideration. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:06 AM, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Petitions to Participate in proceedings before the Copyright to > determine rates and terms for recording ephemeral copies of sound > recordings for transmissions to business establishments are due > February 2 > > Please see 82 FR 143 for details. > > Does the Foundation intend to participate? > > Best regards, > Jim Salsman > > P.S. Quoting > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/06/rethinking-digital-property-yale-isp/#comment-124999 > > This is a disturbingly simplistic analysis. "Copyright holders" are > mentioned only four times, as if they are in opposition to the > consumers of their products, and without acknowledging that they are > creating the works that the consumers clearly value as evidenced by > their desire to make, lend, and sell copies of the works. > > The reality of our modern information economy is that large corporate > intermediaries like Apple (iTunes), Google (YouTube, Google Books and > Music), Pandora, Spotify, and the like are given free rein to make, > monetize, and sell as many copies of artists' and authors' works as > they wish, while three federal judges on the Copyright Royalty Board > very occasionally set "compulsory license" requirements whereby they > must pay the copyright holders -- usually publishers instead of > authors and artists -- for what would otherwise be considered rampant > abuse of the constitutionally motivated copy right to advance the > useful arts and sciences. But because these compulsory royalties > rarely see the pockets of the original artists and authors, very > little incentive to create outside the corporate top-40 and celebrity > author hegemony is ever generated. > > When will the Wikimedia Foundation take a stand for a more equitable > distribution of compulsory license royalties to artists and authors, > who include thousands of their own volunteers who work commercially in > addition to giving away their time which allows the Foundation's > employees to take home their paychecks? > > According to Department of Labor, in the 1970s, before the advent of > mass consumer copying, the U.S. economy supported three times as many > small and emerging artists and performers. There is no reason that the > Copyright Royalty Judges can not produce an intelligent, informed, > progressive, and humane compulsory license distribution incidence > schedule which will return our culture to its former glory. Where will > the Wikimedia Foundation be on that question? _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
