Talk:Trade group efforts against file sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in RIAA.
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, RIAA, due to size or style considerations.

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

This is a direct split from RIAA at the moment. It really needs a rewrite. Ideas for the article and it's name welcome. --h2g2bob 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should it be renamed to something else, like "RIAA efforts against copyright infringement"? --h2g2bob 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both of those titles are too vague. "File sharing" is at least slightly more specific. How about "RIAA efforts against MP3 downloads"?

Steve Lowther 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that they don't particularly care what file format it's in. Though I agree it's a bit vague, personally, I think "file sharing" is the best of the three. --67.110.213.253 06:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

"RIAA efforts against file sharing". Shouldn't it be "RIAA efforts against file-sharing", because "file sharing" is a noun and a hyphen should be used in this instance. Right?
Actually, consider this to be my notifying of my moving of this page to that page.

As for the article itself, I agree; even though it's it needs a rewrite. Qwerty (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and potential merge

I am cleaning up this page since it is a mess, and I have also edited the RIAA pages file sharing section, and will try to make them at least consistent with each other so that they may be merged in the future. Mrsteveman1 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I merged information between the 2 articles so that they are at least consistent, in most cases this was just updating events that had yet to occur when one article was written etc. I have made sure that all information is still present, if necessary the section on file sharing in the main RIAA page can be removed soon with a simple link to this page. Mrsteveman1 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

There's a tag on the article disputing neutrality, but no discussion of why here. Maintaining a neutral point of view doesn't mean presenting equal evidence for two sides in a conflict unless such evidence actually exists. The article badly needs better organization and a re-write, but is well-sourced and doesn't editorialize - it simply states the history of the RIAA's litigation against file-sharing (with emphasis on cases that have received the most media attention, and therefore, the most peer review), their stated reasons for suing, and the results. So, unless someone wants to say what the article is leaving out, I propose the neutrality tag be removed. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without reasons as to why the article is not neutral, the tag is meaningless. --Ernstk (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Whole=heartedly agree with this assessment. The article is well-researched and is not the result of a personal vendetta by a user against the RIAA.
I think this user is being sarcastic. The article was in fact written by someone who is involved defending several suits against the RIAA. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know who added the tag, but it should remain. The article is very sloppy. It also conducts apparent original research—interpreting primary court documents. I speculate that's because the authors relied upon secondary sources which are less-than-reliable and POV (perhaps analysis from their own blogs), so cite primary court documents instead. This article also gives undue weight to fringe legal theories which have been discredited. For example, it recites the defense theory of an illegal RIAA cartel. This claim has been rejected before, but the article merely says that it's before the court in UMG v. Lindor (a case that the original author was involved in[1]). Well, unsurprisingly, it's still a losing claim, and the court granted motion to strike in Lindor. In conclusion, this article has massive POV problems, partially because of its history of WP:COI contributions. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feb-Mar 2008 rulings and new action

I couldn't see that this new info was in the Tanya Andersen section: [2] Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)