Talk:Phonographic Performance Limited

message: Copy on page has been completely re-drafted and largely lifted from the existing PPL company website (www.ppluk.com). Copy has been tweaked to better reflect both sides of PPL - the licensing and the music industry.Filmbuff85 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page re-draft 

message: Pretty much everything after the lead was lifted directly from the PPL website.  Specifics are as follows:
*"Mission statement": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Our-values/
*"History": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/Our-history/
*"Where the money coes from": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Where-the-money-comes-from/
*"Speaking out for music": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Speaking-out-for-music/
*"Lobbying governments": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Speaking-out-for-music/Lobbying-international-governments/
*"Shows and events": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Shows-and-events/
*"Growth and development" and "Embracing performers": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/Our-history/How-we-have-developed/
*"PPL & VPL", "Music users" and "Record companies": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/What-is-VPL/
This was introduced by User:BlueNoteUK in September.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the lead was also lifted from http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/ - albeit in this case someone at least took the time to rearrange the words slightly.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OTRS received an appropriate permissions release from the copyright holder. Everything should be good with this page. NW (Talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios 

message: I think it should be made more clear that, you don't need to get the PPL licence, if you play "free" music, i.e Creative common or music that you own the copyright of, or have taken permission from the copyright owner. This is something that is not mentioned in any of the PPL material , leading folks to believe that they need to get PPL for *any* music. (Raghu Udiyar (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this clarification covering both free, and copyright-expired music. 2A00:67A0:A:6:A987:4ABC:E4F1:47A9 (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: As noted above, the tone of this article is mostly biased in favor of the record industry.  Much of this is the result of the cut-and-paste of copyrighted material from PPL's own materials.  Those were being removed as copyvios, but that stopped once PPL filed the OTRS (also noted above).
But the OTRS only addresses the legality of using this material; it does not address the heavy bias in the article.
I note that an addition earlier today, , is an odd island of bias in the opposite direction.  I was about to remove it but once I saw the rest of the article, I hesitate to remove it, because that would put this back even more to a PPL puff-piece. ("Embracing performers"?  Please.)  I'm an American, not a Brit (or else I would have written "favour" above, ), so I don't have enough knowledge to really have at it.  Any of our UK editors want to have a stab at it?  At present, it is almost entirely a PPL_sponsored promotional piece. TJRC (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on bias