Hi Timothy, I read your submission on the Registrar of Copyrights with great interest. I want to ask some questions about two passages in particular, and Creative Commons' positions generally.
> The Register should also have a firm grasp of technology and > understanding of how creators and users share over the internet, > and be willing to reconsider policies that impede the sharing of > content in the digital era. Do you consider the use of compulsory licenses imposed on commercial content hosts an adequate response to the problem of mass illicit sharing of restricted works? Do you think compulsory license distribution schedules designed to address compensating creators harmed by mass illicit sharing but not necessarily shared by the same commercial content hosts which pay them would impede or promote sharing? > Regarding authors’ rights, copyright policymaking should uphold > a principle of “copyright neutrality”. This means that when copyright > policy is made, it needs to treat all stakeholders (authors) equally > and take all authorial needs into consideration, not just those who > wish to maximize their protection under the law, or who have an > outsized ability to influence the policy-making process. I very strongly agree with that, but wonder whether it goes far enough to make a difference. > Some authors are interested in commercialization, while others > wish to share widely under permissive terms. What proportion of authors are able to afford the time and resources to create free content because they are supported financially by their production of commercial content? In general does CC support transitioning to sliding-scale compulsory license fee incidences, to support the end result of paying authors and artists in the same relative amounts observed in the 1970s, prior to the advent of mass illicit copying and subsequent media conglomerate consolidation? Do you and CC agree that the current compulsory license schedules result in unfair enrichment of the largest top-40 artists and bestselling authors promoted by the remaining relatively few media publishers, at the expense of small and emerging artists and authors? What is the appropriate way to ask Creative Commons to make a formal decision on these questions as a whole? Best regards, Jim Salsman On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Timothy Vollmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Possibly useful for you, here's what CC submitted: > > https://creativecommons.org/2017/01/26/new-register-copyrights-put-public-center-technology-policy-goals/ > > timothy > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Charles M. Roslof <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> >> As has been mentioned on this list before, the US Librarian of Congress is >> soliciting input to help her select the next Register of Copyrights[1]. The >> deadline to submit comments[2] is January 31. I’m working on preparing >> comments for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’m interested to hear from you >> about the themes you think are important to touch on. >> >> >> The Register of Copyrights is in charge of the Copyright Office[3] in the >> US. In addition to maintaining (and hopefully improving) the copyright >> registration system, the Copyright Office plays an important role in >> advising Congress on copyright-related matters. They gather information >> about copyright law and the functioning of the copyright system and they >> analyze and interpret that information for Congress. As such, they can have >> significant influence on the perspectives and considerations that form the >> basis of proposed changes to US copyright law. >> >> >> I currently plan to emphasize that the Register should understand the full >> scope of the copyright landscape and who the stakeholders are and will be. >> Discussions of copyright law often involve simplified narratives of legacy >> rightsholders like movie studios versus online platforms like YouTube. The >> Register must see beyond those narratives. They need to recognize the >> creativity and expression that online platforms for individuals and other >> small creators. They also need to understand that copyright exists >> ultimately to benefit the public—to encourage people to create and share >> works in order for the rest of society to benefit from those works >> (including by sharing, building on, and remixing them). >> >> >> What other themes do you think are important to Wikimedia? What should the >> Librarian of Congress be thinking about when looking for the next Register >> of Copyrights? There are a lot of potential topics to discuss, so we won’t >> be able to mention all of them, but your input will help us decide what to >> focus on. If you’re interested, I encourage you to submit your own comments >> as well. >> >> >> - Charles >> >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights >> >> [2] https://www.research.net/r/RegisterOfCopyrights >> >> [3] http://copyright.gov/ >> >> == >> Charles M. Roslof >> Legal Counsel >> Wikimedia Foundation >> [email protected] >> (415) 839-6885 >> >> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged >> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please >> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the >> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice >> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff >> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see >> our legal disclaimer. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> > > > > -- > Invest in an open future. Support Creative Commons today. > https://creativecommons.org/donate/ > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
