Talk:Trade group efforts against file sharing

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's nothing wrong with citing primary court documents for a basic summary (who got sued, what the theory of the case was, and how the court decided the issues). Idag (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but picking out cases just because you like them is the job of lawyers, not encyclopedia writers. There's very much a problem with POV, and this article is one of the most POV I've seen. I don't worry about it much because I'm no fan of the RIAA, but let's not pretend it's neutral. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Downloading versus uploading

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)

journal article

This may be of use in improving/citing the article. I'll see if I get a chance to look through:

Ray Beckerman (2008). "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations". The Judge's Journal. 47 (3).

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)

Poor sourcing

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)

1997 and 1998 litigation

From an RIAA press release scant on details:

While the most common way to address unauthorized music files on the Internet is through the cease and desist program, important legal precedents were set for online enforcement. In January 1998, the RIAA settled lawsuits against three Internet music pirates that violated Federal copyright laws by reproducing and distributing copyrighted sound recordings without authorization. The association received injunctions to stop their illegal activity, but decided not to collect monetary damages so long as the defendants never resumed their illegal activity. In May 1998, the association sued two more music sites that were illegally distributing full-length songs for download. This time, in addition to permanent injunctions, the RIAA received some monetary damages from the defendants who were also required to perform community service.

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:

In June 1997, many of RIAA's member record companies filed lawsuits in three federal courts against three web sites. These sites, like the site listed above, reproduced full-length sound recordings to a server and then allowed users to download these recordings. In each of these cases, the courts issued decisions and consent judgments in favor of the RIAA's position and approved stipulated damages awards of over $1 million against each defendant.

This info should be further researched for citable details and incorporated into the article. —mjb (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I have done this, finally. —mjb (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

There is also Peer-to-peer file sharing to consider. — ThePowerofX 19:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

torrentfreak meets WP:RS

I just reverted a recent edit that removed some torrentfreak sources - I believe they meet WP:RS in this context. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

TorrentFreak is (i) a pro-file sharing blog (ii) that publishes guest contributions by Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge plus The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde (iii) and also interferes with criminal investigations. It's only a reliable source for information on itself. Please find a neutral source. — ThePowerofX 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles that link to TorrentFreak because it is considered reliable. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Those references need to be removed and updated too. Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. — ThePowerofX 12:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I once held your view that it wasn't reliable. However it has been discussed already, here and here. It is ok to use it for this article. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The archived RSN links provide no clear agreement. 2 people think it's passes muster (one with limited weight) and 2 people argue against inclusion altogether. I have commenced a new discussion here where I am hoping for new input. — ThePowerofX 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Torrentfreak has been seen as reliable about straight news reporting about filesharing by other RS first, and Wikipedia second. The author is known, and the publication is considered reliable and is regularly cited by many other reliable news outlets: The Guardian, Wired, New York Times, etc. This has been discussed in RSN, as Shiftchange noted. Its factchecking is generally very good, and TorrentFreak is not generally considered by other publications to be a mere blog (as you pejoratively describe it), otherwise it would have been simply ignored. The fact that it hosts guest articles, which are labeled as such, does nothing to damage its reliability as an alternative news source.

ThePowerofX, your apparent bias against TorrentFreak is noted, as is your edit warring against its use as a source. It looks a bit like you're pushing a pro-industry POV, so, please be careful about that. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Power - there's nothing with using a non-neutral source in an article. If we were required to use entirely neutral sources, we pretty much couldn't write an encyclopedia - the vast majority of sources have biases of one sort or another. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Steal this film

The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film.^[3]

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)

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)

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)

Determination of Damages

A quick precursor - I am a new wikipedia editor and thus might be approaching this incorrectly; please let me know if there is a better way to propose/enact changes

I would like to propose re-writing the Determination of Damages section, as it offers no information on how the RIAA fundamentally determines the damages sought in its lawsuits. Specifically, the section currently consists mostly of specific lawsuits from the RIAA and how they were or were not deemed constitutional (information that I consider somewhat irrelevant to this section), and offers very little information as to why the RIAA sought specific amounts from certain individuals. To change this I want to add information from US Copyright Law showing how copyright holders are eligible to seek between $750 and $30,000 per infringement, and then use specific court cases from the RIAA to show what factors might influence their decision to seek more or less damages from an individual for each infringement.

Additionally, the line "The evidence of the effectiveness of the suits is not conclusive. Recent research suggests that the lawsuits have reduced the number of files large file-sharers offer but have had limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time." does not seem to pertain to the section, as it alludes to the long term effects of lawsuits and not about the lawsuit damages themselves. At the very least, I believe this should be re-written to relate to the long-term effects that the RIAA hoped to achieve by seeking large damages from individuals. Gloudas (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. — ThePowerofX 23:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposal in your first paragraph sounds like WP:OR violations. We can't speculate about what goes into RIAA decisions; we'd need reliable sources which say what actually does.

Also, plaintiffs in these lawsuits don't usually ask for a specific amount of damages; they want the maximum to be available. I'm not sure that it's even up to them to say; they can request any outcome, but the judge and jury may well produce a different one. So I'm wary of reporting anything about damages "sought" without seeing court filings which explicitly say as much, even if some reporters aren't so careful.

Your other proposal sounds better, but again, be careful of original research; we can report that the RIAA said it hoped to achieve X Y & Z, and maybe also what some other notables (the EFF?) said about the RIAA's ulterior motives, but we mustn't say that the RIAA's intents were X Y & Z. Does that make sense? —mjb (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing words to match reference

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)