Talk:Trade group efforts against file sharing

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: "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?<BR/>
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)
thread_title: Title

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits and potential merge

message: I couldn't see that this new info was in the Tanya Andersen section:  Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb-Mar 2008 rulings and new action 

message: I removed "downloading" from the article.  Every case that I have read about, technically the individual was sued for uploading/sharing.  Often news stories mistakenly say "downloading", but when you read the details of the case, the suit was really for uploading.
If someone can actually reference a case where the suit was for downloading (and not just misstated by some news story) feel free to add "downloading" back in.  But until it can be verified according to WP:V, it should not be included in the article.
Cheers,
Samuel144 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downloading versus uploading 

message: This may be of use in improving/citing the article. I'll see if I get a chance to look through:
:
In particular it addresses some issues not currently discussed in the article, such as the controversy over improper joinder. --Delirium (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  journal article 

message: There are too many primary sources (and blogs) in this article. We should be describing Trade group efforts against file sharing through the coverage received in reliable third-party sources. Dynablaster (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor sourcing 

message: From an RIAA press release scant on details:
The same release also mentions the Soundbyting Campaign of cease-and-desist letters which began in April 1997 1998.
From a May 1998 cease-and-desist letter to a website operator:
This info should be further researched for citable details and incorporated into the article. —mjb (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 and 1998 litigation 

message: I proposing selective merging Impact of illegal downloading on the film industry to Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Effects_of_file_sharing for the following reason: The Impact article as it stands now is a clear essay and POV-fork of this article, this was recognized in the AFD, but seen as fixable. I considered rewriting the Impact article, but realized that in doing so the entire "Forms of.." and "Reasons for.." sections would be removed as offtopic and of the "Effects of..." approximately 80% of the content would be removed/replaced due to POV concerns. What remains is not a sufficient article in its own right, but a mere one section stub. This article already has a section on the effects of file sharing, which such an article would be redundant to. It is also important that the impact article restricts itself on the film industry, while this article has all trade groups in its scope. As we don't have a proper mother article (Impact of filesharing) having a single subarticle at this point makes little sense. I believe this topic is important and wikipedia should eventually have an article covering it, but what we have now is a travesty and it should be merged to at least present NPOV information to our readers. Yoenit (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also Peer-to-peer file sharing to consider.  — ThePowerofX 19:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The Police investigation is also described in numerous written works, some far less sympathetic to the founders of The Pirate Bay than this film, none of which are promoted in this article. Consequently, I am wondering what purpose this text serves. We can amend the text to read "The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film and the book Free Ride" but I would prefer simply to remove it.  — ThePowerofX 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to include both, as long as we can find secondary sources talking about each.  I like directing our readers to further resources when our internal coverage of something is limited. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A whole article is dedicated to The Pirate Bay, The Pirate Bay raid and The Pirate Bay trial. Steal This Film is described in the second article alongside a promotional poster. The emphasis in this article should be on describing what motivates the content industry, reliant on copyright, to take legal action against individuals or groups in violation of the law. All four TPB co-defendants were found guilty of facilitating extensive copyright infringement in a commercial and organized form. It seems unbalanced to promote a film produced in part by Piratbyrån that "present[s] the other side of the debate" (i.e. the co-defendants) before judgement was reached, and excessive to spam TPB articles listed above with short book descriptions that present the content industries side of the story. Can't we just settle for a "See also" link to The Pirate Bay raid and remove the text?  — ThePowerofX 17:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steal this film 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Trade group efforts against file sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bna.com/e-law/docs/amkutz.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118183028/http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/for-the-record-for-what-_b_22177.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410034407/http://www.riaa.com/faq.php to http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just changed "censorship filters" to "filtering technology" as that is what it says in the reference at https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2008/0421/102322-eircom/. Gusfriend (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing words to match reference