Talk:Criticism of copyright

The claimed losses to the industry in the criticism section

In the section "Criticism", it is said:

"According to a study by the Institute for Policy Innovation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy think tank, piracy of Copyright material costs the U.S. economy $5.5 billion in annual earnings among U.S. workers, as well as $837 million in lost annual tax revenue and $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all US industries. Furthermore it estimates that piracy costs the U.S 141,030 jobs, two thirds of which are outside the film industry."

However, these studies may be dubious. See: A $13 billion fantasy: latest music piracy study overstates effect of P2P ("First and foremost, it appears to fall into the 'illicit downloads == lost sales' fallacy" ) Now, I know they are speaking of a different article by the IPI, but the approaches used in the one cited in the Wikipedia article are the same.

However, at this point, I'm not necessarily recommending removing the text, as it is a criticism raised. Shrewmania (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

References

I don't know how 'nonpartisan' IPI is, but you are quoting an opinion piece by an editor of Ars Technica, whose WP article says writes in an opinionated style. Unfortunately, there exist a large number of poor sources in the WP articles on this subject.Objective3000 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While being opinionated doesn't necessarily mean blatant falsehoods, I can see how it's not as good as an NPOV. In any case, would you say that the IPI citation is reliable or unreliable itself? Personally, I believe it leans towards the latter. (but even if it's unreliable, see my comment above ("However, at this point...")). Shrewmania (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, by "there exist a large number of poor sources," do you mean to say that on both sides of the argument sources are poor, or just on the pro-IP or anti-IP side of the debate? Shrewmania (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am for removing the whole IPI paragraph, and not on the credibility basis (though IMHO any source which is founded by Dick Armey and claims to be non-partisan, is not really credible), but on the basis that IPI research claims losses from piracy, and might be relevant only in the article on piracy; inferring that losses from piracy have relation to anti-copyright, is an invalid WP:SYN, promoting point of view which is not in original source. Per my interpretation of WP:SYN, references really belong to anti-copyright page, when sources explicitly refer to anti-copyright (or usefulness/problems with copyright laws), anything else is invalid WP:SYN. And even if anti-copyright and piracy is the same thing (which I don't think is true), then such references still don't belong here, instead piracy and anti-copyright pages should be merged. Ipsign (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gray Album

Couldn't it be said that the right to create mashups is an extension or subset of the right to quote? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Illegal file sharing" vs. "file sharing"

Demonstration in Sweden in support of (illegal) file sharing, 2006.

An IP editor has added the word "illegal" to the description of this image four times so far. Every time it has been removed, but we should resolve this before it turns into an edit war.

I (and apparently several other editors) prefer the version without "illegal". It doesn't really add any information; as far as I can tell, it's only there to take a stand against file sharing. The wording without "illegal" appears more neutral. Obviously, though, 74.108.115.191 (talk) really feels that the word "illegal" belongs there.

Here's what other pages using this image have as I'm writing this:

• Copyright infringement of software - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• File sharing - "Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid, 2006."
• Intellectual property - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• Legal aspects of file sharing - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."
• Philosophy of copyright - "Anti-copyright demonstration in Stockholm, Sweden, 2006."
• Timeline of file sharing - "Pro-file sharing demonstration in Sweden after the police raid against The Pirate Bay, 2006."
• Warez - "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006."

All of these look better and more neutral to me than the version with "illegal", but apparently someone thinks otherwise. What's the consensus here - should the image say "file sharing" or "illegal file sharing", or something else completely? Sideways713 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Using "illegal" is too negative a connotation and implies that file sharing is illegal, which of course it is not. "File sharing is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when users are sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights." Keri (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First, the statement that an IP editor has added the word “illegal” four times is false. The word has been there for a long time. The IP editor reverted attempts to remove it. Second, the word is not a part of the article text, it is a part of an image caption. That image is specifically a demonstration in support of an illegal file sharing site. Note the pirate flag and the fact that the demonstration was in support of people that have been convicted of crimes. The protest was in support of “sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights.” Now, if you object to the use of the word illegal in the Anti-Copyright article, and believe that the article is NOT about illegal file-sharing, then I suggest that you remove the image of people specifically supporting illegal actions and find a more appropriate image.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pirate Bay is not an illegal site. The pirate flag is not illegal. Being anti-copyright is not illegal. Demonstrating in support of people convicted of crimes is not illegal. The protest was not "in support of “sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights.” According to The Pirate Bay raid the demonstration was "against the police action [and] organized by Piratbyrån and the Pirate Party in collaboration with the Liberal Youth, Young Greens and Young Left parties." Keri (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The founders of TPB were all sentenced to prison in that trial. The judge specifically stated that the site itself was illegal. The "police action" was to arrest criminals, as vindicated by the results of the trial and appeals. You have now again changed the text without consensus in violation of WP !rules. I suggest that you look at your own POV issues and stop removing long-standing text. If you don't want this article to be about illegal file sharing, then remove the image of a protest in favor if sharing copyrighted material in violation of the law.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the article about 2.5 hours ago, before this discussion started. You have changed it while the discussion is still in progress. The article is about "anti-copyright", not illegal file sharing. I suggest you are conflating the two issues and attempting to make a point. Keri (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to the text that existed and suggested going to the talk page before again making this removal. You then re-edited. I am not conflating the two issues. I am resetting the text back to its accurate state. The image is conflating the issues.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-standing text? The image was added on 11 February 2009 with the caption "Demonstration in Sweden in support of file sharing, 2006." and happily stayed that way until you changed it here on 26 July 2012. It's been at "file sharing" a lot longer than it has at "illegal file sharing".

Secondly, whether "file sharing" - generally or in this specific case - is illegal is secondary. The wording "in support of illegal file sharing" gives a clearly negative view of the supporters and thus the more neutral wording "in support of file sharing" should be preferred.

Thirdly, please stop edit warring. Sideways713 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The text has existed for nine months. An effort is being made to reduce the accuracy and a claim has been made that I am the one that keeps trying to change the article.

The supporters in the image WERE demonstrating in support of people convicted of aiding illegal file-sharing. If this is not what the article is about, remove the image and stop trying to claim it isn’t what it is.

I am not edit-warring. Keri is. He is the one that AGAIN tried to change the text AFTER the suggestion to take it to the talk page.

Seriously, if you are making these edits in support of LEGAL file-sharing, you are hurting your own case by keeping an image of a protest in support of ILLEGAL file sharing and inaccurately labeling it. The image is of the Pirate Bay trial with a pirate flag. Piracy is illegal. The site was ruled ILLEGAL. The defendants were convicted. File-sharing, in and of itself, is not illegal. Why conflate the case by including an image of a protest in support of convicted pirates and inaccurately labeling it? This suggests that all file-sharers share the beliefs of pirates. They do not.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any edits in support of file sharing, whether legal or illegal. If I did I would probably deserve a topic ban. What I'm supporting is Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view.

And trying to accuse someone else of edit-warring when you've changed the wording five times and he's changed it twice doesn't appear very constructive. Sideways713 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Organized and active opposition to modern copyright law and practices" =/= "support of illegal file sharing." Omitting the word "illegal" - which was added by you without prior discussion - in the image caption maintains a NPOV. Keri (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an obvious whitewash of TPB, and the word was added nine months ago. I agree that “Organized and active opposition to modern copyright law and practices" =/= "support of illegal file sharing." But, the protest was in favor of illegal file-sharing. So, it suggests exactly what you claim is not true, and that is reinforced by omission of a critical fact – an odd thing for an encyclopedia to do. Is this image illustrative or not? If not, remove it. But don’t suggest that the demonstration was in support of a legal site when the judge ruled it wasn’t. Inaccuracy is not NPOV.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The protest was not in support of illegal file sharing in particular, and omitting "illegal" does not imply "legal". But since we apparently can't agree on what the neutral wording here is, a natural question to ask would be... is there any wording we can all agree meets WP:NPOV?

These, as noted, have been used elsewhere:

• "Anti-copyright demonstration in Stockholm, Sweden, 2006."
• "Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid, 2006."
• "Pro-file sharing demonstration in Sweden after the police raid against The Pirate Bay, 2006."

Would you have problems with using one of those as the image caption? Sideways713 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I find all three agreeable. Keri (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now been threatened by Keri of banishment for reverting attempts to remove nine month old, accurate text. Although I have no question that this would not stand if pushed, and have never lost an escalation here despite over 1,000 edits, I am leaving this discussion as I simply have no time to deal with such nonsense. Such is why so many have left WP. I point you to the three month-old synthesis statement at the top of the article. This article is largely based on synthesis and is obviously slanted to anyone not wholly swallowing one side’s beliefs. Oddly, anyone that attempts to bring balance is accused of bias. I have been pro code sharing since before most of you have been alive and have shared massive amounts of my own code over decades. Of course, my own beliefs are not relevant. My reverts were based on a minor attempt to remove one obvious bias in the numerous, repetitive, one-sided, WP articles related to copyright. Article update at WP has been stagnating over the last couple of years. Some of these articles still point to a study on copyright long-since recalled by its own authors. Articles on the TPB founders are all wildly out of date and now sadly inaccurate. As someone above pointed out, many articles include the same image – an image of a protest in support of criminals convicted of “commercial” copyright violations (commercial under Swedish law meaning for-profit), without bothering to point out that their actions were illegal or for-profit. If you guys want to push such concepts; supporting criminals convicted of stashing millions in off-shore accounts (verified by court audits) by criminal violation of the rights of others, is not likely to be effective. It just makes WP look ridiculous. Do you really not believe that there is not a better way to present this argument, if that is your desire? Or to present a NPOV, if it is not? These articles should be combined and balanced and refs to criminals convicted of commercial rights violations should be removed. That’s my POV.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Use Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid, 2006.. The sources for that images is quiet clear. The demonstration was against three major topics: The claim of illegal influence on an police investigation by an other country, as reported by news papers at the time. The shutting down of physical close but unrelated servers including those used by news reporters. And thirdly, the abnormal larger use of police budget on minor crime, as cases like murder/mass-rape has a average of far less budget and police resources. Neither of those 3 has much to do with supporting illegal anything, and more to do with the political details of that case. Belorn (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Forcehimes reference

The Forcehimes paper, written by a student, appears to be unknown and unread except for the person that added it to two at least Wikipedia articles. There is no discussion of it elsewhere. It has no weight. Wikipedia has more references to it than the entire rest of the World. You do not become notable because you are in encyclopedia. You get in an encyclopedia because you are notable. This is Wikipedia SPAM and an encyclopedia should not be used in this manner. The article was discussed at length at Talk:Digital rights management. ی پیرحیاتی suggests it be discussed at Talk:Think (journal). Why discuss an addition to this article on the empty talk page of a stub? The editor even removed a sentence at DRM saying that this article, suggesting that it is moral to break the laws of nearly every country, is controversial. Objective3000 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it an academic article or not? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are millions of academic articles written by students in little-known journals. The point is, it has not been discussed anywhere. There are no critical reviews. It is unknown. It has no weight. Before something is added to an encyclopedia, there must be some discussion elsewhere. See the following, where a math journal accepted a paper generated by a program stringing together random math terms in the typical fashion of an academic paper: [[1]]. Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"...there must be some discussion elsewhere"; Is it mentioned in Wikipedia's policies? Where? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fact is, during the discussion on this paragraph on the DRM article, I was asked to give refs that it was, indeed, controversial. I tried, but was unable to find any reference to the article at all. No one has heard of it. No one has discussed it. At least there is no record of any discussion. It's just an unknown guy stating his opinion that it is ethical to steal eBooks, and was filed away without comment. If no one has heard of it, how can it have the weight needed to rate as encyclopedic? You do not add something to an encyclopedia to give it notability. It must already have notability. If no one noticed it, it isn’t notable. There have been massive discussions on the subject. Why add anything, much less an entire section, on a student paper that engendered no discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to refer me to a Wikipedian law or policy that justifies your argument. As far as I know, notability deals with entries, not sources. The source must be reliable and published. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explicitly says: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". By the way, the article does not say that "it is ethical to steal ebooks". You may want to check it again, although the content of a source doesn't have anything to do with its reliability. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. The person is a complete unknown in ANY field. He is not a reliable source in ANY field. But, you continue to push it into multiple articles and refuse to even admit it is controversial or respond to anything I have said. And, it will be allowed to remain because WP is no longer unbiased. Objective3000 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your language! Please answer this question: Is it against Wikipedia policies to use this source or not? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn’t even meet the overview of WP:RS. RS states there are three related meanings to source: the work, the author, the publisher, and that “Any of the three can affect reliability”. “Authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.” “These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.” Again, this is a completely unknown student. He has no known history in any field, much less “regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject”. He just posited a personal opinion in a philosophical journal. I cannot see how anyone can consider this a reliable source. It is simply some guy’s personal philosophy.

From WP:SCHOLARSHIP: “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.” Yet, this is EXACTLY what you did. Your addition uses the unencyclopedic words “it seems” followed by a conclusion that stealing ebooks is not morally wrong, followed by an unsupported and odd claim that EVERY argument that stealing eBooks is wrong is an argument against libraries. And you base this on an unknown person with no apparent background in any field from a philosophy journal. You may as well add an assertion that stealing eBooks is moral because Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said “property is theft”. Then, you could add this to every article involving the taking of personal property. Proudhon is certainly better known than this student. Objective3000 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed my addition to a kind of non-interpretative report. So your second argument is dealt with. As far as the first argument is concerned, the work is a peer-reviewed article in a journal sponsored by the Royal Institute of Philosophy in London and published by Cambridge University Press. The author is formally and officially studying ethics at the Vanderbilt University, so he has some kind of authority and also this authority has been examined by the reviewing process of the aforementioned journal which authority is demonstrable (and in this case obvious) to other people. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly a reliable source, for the reasons Ali Pirhayati says . It's an article published in an academic journal, which is produced under the auspices of a major academic philosophical organisation and published by one of the most prestigious academic presses. The author is a PhD candidate, that is to say, an advanced graduate student, at a top-tier research university. The relevant question is whether this particular argument is sufficiently significant to justify inclusion on this page. I don't know how widely-cited this paper is, and my guess would be that there are more in-depth, and more widely cited, papers on the ethics of copyright, and if we can find them we should cite them in preference to this paper. In particular, an academic paper which included a literature review surveying many different arguments about the ethics of copyright would be a particularly good source for us to use. VoluntarySlave (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is my point. It is not cited anywhere except the Wikipedia refs added by Ali Pirhayati. It appears to have garnered zero interest. Wikipedia should never be the first cite. It is also not a journal on law, economics, business, or any field directly related to the article. And, as a philosophy journal, what kind of "peer review" is there? Unlike a physical sciences journal, there are no proofs to check. It is merely an opinion meant to engender thought. That is the purpose of this particular journal. The author is unknown in the field and not a reliable source on the subject of copyright. I believe there is a standard method of measuring a journal author's reputation and there are those in WP that have the tools. Objective3000 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is another point that should be considered. This is an encyclopedia read worldwide and often used by children. Basically, this section is telling these children that it is moral to violate laws which exist in nearly all countries. A minor may not understand that this is just a philosophical view expressed by an unknown person in an obscure journal. Great care must be taken to make certain that WP is not advocating, or giving undue weight to someone advocating, lawlessness. Or, as WP:RS states: “When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised” Objective3000 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you answer my arguments? "Wikipedia should never be the first cite"!? Where does that come from? This is a journal on philosophy and ethics and my addition also deals with ethics of copyright. What is wrong with that? We do not measure academic journals. They are already measured. Think (journal) is so notable and reliable that it has an article in Wikipedia. If you think it's not notable, try to put it in the deletion process. This is the wrong place for this discussion. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are really stretching here. First, Think Journal is not a journal of philosophy and ethics. It is a general journal on philosophy designed to be readable by the general public. Second, you comment that “Think (journal) is so notable and reliable that it has an article in Wikipedia.” Yes, there is a two paragraph stub article, of which you are one of the few editors, that was pretty much taken from the journal’s own blurb about itself. On your comment that “We do not measure academic journals,” I was doing no such thing. I was measuring the credentials of the author. Not all articles in journals are created equal. I cannot find ANY citations outside of the ones that you added to WP, and I have tried several times. If an author's work is never cited by anyone else in the field, it's hardly a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Think Journal is a journal of philosophy and ethics, designed to be readable by the general public, so it is exactly suitable for Wikipedia. As far as its notability is concerned, you can provide your arguments for its deletion in its talk page. As long as it has an entry on Wikipedia, we assume it has notability. Here you can refer to the laws and policies that prohibit the use of this source. For example, where is this written: "Wikipedia should never be the first cite"? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read any of my edit? You AGAIN claim that Think is a journal of philosophy and ethics. NO, it is a philosophy journal. Their site does not claim to be a journal on ethics. You AGAIN claim that I am arguing that Think is non-notable and that it should be AfD’d, even though I stated I am not making that claim. And for the third time say that I should discuss on the Think Talk page. NOWHERE have I said anything of the sort and I have nothing to say on the empty Think Talk page. The Think Journal article is an orphan, stub that has only had three edits in the last two years -- two by you. I have zero interest in the article. What I am saying that the AUTHOR is completely unknown, completely uncited, and an article with NO cites hardly makes a good source. As WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, “extreme caution is advised” when citing a primary source. You should cite sources that discuss the primary source. But, there are none, because the author is not known, and not a resource on this or any other subject. He is a student whose papers have never engendered any discussion that can be found. Objective3000 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I AGAIN ask you to show me the laws regarding your claims. Where is this written in the laws and policies: "You should cite sources that discuss the primary source."? According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, extreme caution was advised, because I used almost exact sentences of the article. For your argument regarding WP:RS, I said that the work, the publisher and the author are reliable. What else? Also ethics is a branch of philosophy. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the entire sections that I referenced. Primary sources should be avoided. The author must be a reliable source, in addition to the journal. The author is a complete unknown with no citations. The article has no citations. How can you possibly claim that the author is an expert in this area when no one has ever cited his work? Objective3000 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have answered all your arguments. You are making your own laws. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you possibly believe that a completely unknown, un-cited person writing a completely unknown, un-cited, highly controversial article is a reliable source on any subject, much less a particular subject, in an encyclopedia? Can't you find a source that someone has heard of for the argument you wish to add that it is moral to steal? If you can't find any other source, then clearly this is not worthy of a section in WP. Objective3000 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe an academic peer-reviewed article, published by Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press which author is admitted to the Vanderbilt University is worthy of a section in WP, no matter what it says. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's hilarious. Do you have any idea what incredible nonsense has been printed in journals? As of two years ago, there were an estimated 53,097 peer-reviewed journals. [2]. So, anything published in these journals can be used as a reference, even if no one has ever commented on the article? This is an encyclopedia. That is not enough. Please again read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are not using "extreme caution" by using an un-cited article by an un-cited author not known as an expert in any field. You seem to be very impressed that he, like you, is a student. But, WP requires better sourcing. The very first sentence in WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised...." Forget extreme caution, you have not used any caution at all by relying on a primary instead of secondary source and selecting a source that is completely unknown positing a highly controversial idea that stealing eBooks is moral. Frankly, it is not using "extreme caution" for an encyclopedia, read by children around the world, to help circulate the concept that stealing is good, originating with a completely unknown student with zero commentary by anyone else. Objective3000 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Following is the start of a synopsis from a Think Journal article from last year: "Toot. Pass gas. Break wind. Cut the cheese. Float an air biscuit. Burp from behind. Blow the brown horn. The backfire, bant, bucksnort, booty bomb, colon cologne, drifter, fanny bubble, gasser, gurgler, moon beam, nether belch, pants puffer, pooh tune, rip-snort, sphincter whistle, thunder dumpling, tush tickler, and trouser cough." As you believe this is worthy of a section in WP, where do you suggest this be added? Objective3000 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just read the article and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of copyright law making several statements that are outright false. It's not surprising that no one found it worthy of comment. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks. First, thank you for refering to "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." I accept this. Assuming it's a primary source, here it was not possible for us to rely on secondary sources and we used a primary source. What is wrong with it? Second, I don't believe it's a primary source at all, because the article has been reviewed by a journal that has published articles by such notable authors as Antony Flew, Nigel Warburton, Simon Blackburn etc. Third, I'm not interested in the subject of the synopsis you mentioned, but I don't see a problem with using it in Wikipedia articles, simply because it does not violate Wikipedia's rules and policies. Fourth, thank you again for reading this article, but as you may know, your personal views do not matter here. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I made no personal attack.

2. The names you mentioned had NOTHING to do with the article. That's like comparing a politician that once wrote an op-ed for the NY Times with the numerous Pulitzer Prize winners that have contributed to the paper.

3. Of course it’s a primary source. It as written by him and is the first and only publication. A secondary source might be a review article, monograph, or textbook.

4. I have explained what is wrong with it eight times. It was written by a complete unknown and there are zero cites to the article or any article ever written by him. He is not a known source on the subject of this article. His opinion carries no weight on the subject of copyright law. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Generally, views of tiny minorities should not be included. From Jimmy Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This view has been stated by one person in a paper with zero cites. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Does Wikipedia say "Do not use primary sources" or "It's better not to use them"? 2. It's not a primary source because according to the policies, "academic and peer-reviewed publications ... are usually the most reliable sources". So the reference to them is recommended 3. I showed the reliability of the source and author several times. 4. The article is not the "view of a tiny minority". It's a kind of question about the ethical aspects of copyright. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say before I escalate this? I hate to waste the time of others. Seriously, a person with zero known citations and no known expertise on the subject of the article, or any other subject, with a highly controversial opinion used as a source in an encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested in other views, note that VoluntarySlave and Belorn say it's a reliable source. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Forcehimes paper: weight rather than reliability

Maybe it would be helpful to shift the discussion from reliability to weight? It doesn't look like either of you are going to change the other's mind about reliability, but perhaps we could get somewhere by looking whether having a section on ethical arguments against copyright results in us giving undue weight to Forcehimes's paper. My initial thought is that ethical arguments about the validity of copyright would be a significant enough area of discussion to reflect in this article. However, if the only source on ethical arguments against copyright is this one short article by Forcehimes, maybe there isn't actually very much debate in this area, and so having a section on it would be to give it undue weight. But, on the other hand, there are other sections in this entry that also appear to only be based on one source, so having a section based only on this Forcehimes paper wouldn't be unfairly giving this source more weight than other sources in the article. Ali Pirhayati, could you say a bit about why you chose this source as the basis for the section in the article, and if you know whether or not there are other sources that discuss ethical arguments about copyright? I had a very brief look in the my university library's catalog, and I was surprised not to find any articles directly on the ethics of copyright, but as I say, it was a very brief look and I may easily have missed some. VoluntarySlave (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. This would seem to suggest the possibility that some other sections should also be removed. I might also point out that the article doesn't actually say that copyright is unethical. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I contacted Stephen Law, the editor of Think Journal, this morning and asked if the peer-review of the Forcehimes article included a review of the legal underpinnings of the argument therein. He responded no and that he would make corrections if needed. I explained that the conclusion of the article appears to be based on a misunderstanding of copyright law. Stephen Law contacted Sadulla Karjiker, Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Stellenbosch University who specializes in Intellectual Property Law, for a review. Sadulla Karjiker has reviewed the article and written a response, which the editor tells me will be published in the next issue of Think. I have read the article. It is quite lengthy and detailed, and concludes that there appears to be no inherent contradiction in prohibiting the online distribution of ebooks without the copyright holders’ consent, and permitting access to physical books via public libraries. This is the opposite of the Forcehimes conclusion.

So, the Forcehimes paper was NOT peer-reviewed for legal content, and a later academic peer-review, requested by the journal, by an expert in copyright (the subject of this WP article) comes to the opposite conclusion. So, we have an opinion from one person in a philosophy journal that has never been cited. We will have an opinion from an actual academic expert in copyright law, the subject of this WP article, that explains the errors. I think this goes to both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. In any case, how can a minority of one, even if he understood copyright law and was cited, be included in Wikipedia, against the express statement from the founder of Wikipedia that such should not be included? Objective3000 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I also thank VoluntarySlave. I added some other sources that somehow argue against copyright ethically. I only added the views against copyright to justify the reference to Forcehimes and solve the problem of weight, but other users can add arguments against the aforementioned arguments (arguments for the copyright). Also we should note that the Forcehimes' paper (at least the part I quoted) is a kind of question about the consistency of moral views about copyright and it does not prove anything, hence I think it doesn't make a weight problem. And in response to Objective3000, I should say that a paper on ethics does NOT need to be peer-reviewed for legal content. The legal arguments must be ethical, not vice versa. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop adding to a section that is under discussion for possible deletion until the discussion has completed? And the editor of Think appears to disagree with you. If a paper draws a conclusion based entirely on a legal argument, obviously that legal argument should be reviewed. Particularly when the argument is based on a misunderstanding of law. Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First, we are not talking about a section; we are talking about one particular reference and the ethical section is not anymore limited to that one reference. Second, the Forcehimes' paper is about the morality of copyright, not its legality. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We most certainly are talking about the section of ethics. Forcehime's paper was based entirely on a legal argument based on a misunderstanding of the law. It is about the ethics of violating that law. If he misstates the law, the argument is meaningless. If you started a philosophy paper with the statement that 1+1=3, and used that to come to a conclusion, are you saying that we should completely ignore the fact that the assumption is wrong and allow the argument to stand, because it is in a philosophy journal? The statement IF A THEN B is always true if A is false. But, that says nothing whatever about B. Think Journal is publishing a response by an actual expert in copyright law (the subject of this Wikipedia article) that negates the conclusion of the Forcehime paper. A paper written by someone that has never been cited on philosophy, law, or anything else. I still cannot imagine why anyone thinks Wikipedia should be the first to cite this person. It's just some guy's opinion based on a misunderstanding of the subject.Objective3000 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The additions that you just made are completely one-sided. I just read the original documents -- and they are not in the least one-sided. You simply cherry-picked statements that you liked instead of giving any of the original flavor of the discussion. I try to see good faith -- but you are obviously pushing a POV into this article. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

1. No, we are not talking about the section of ethics according to the title of the last two sections of this talk page. 2. Forcehimes' main point is arguing that downloading books and using a library are alike and the ethical jundgements about the two must be alike, too. This main point does not have anything to do with the law. 3. I myself said that I added one-sided arguments (also this is "Anti-copyright" article). You may add opponent arguments. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is titled "Ethical arguments", by you. Forcehime's point was entirely based on the law, or rather a misunderstanding of the law. Using the actual law, the opposite conclusion is reached. As will be shown in the response by an actual expert in the area of this WP article. I have no intention of adding any arguments to this article. You used as a ref a paper, and yet gave a completely one-sided view of its contents. Editors are not supposed to split up into opposing camps and add their interpretations of papers favoring their "side". This is the opposite of what Wikipedia editors should do. If you ref a paper that has two sides, and cherry pick the quotes to favor one side, you are not making an honest ref. Objective3000 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

1. The titles of the two sections of this talk page show that we are talking only about Forcehimes' paper. 2. Even if you show that Forcehimes' paper has some legal problems, it won't implicate anything, because it's a reliable source and your point must be in some published source. 3. In the first reference, As you recommended, I used a secondary source (Alfino's paper) for refering to two papers against copyright (Bringsjord's and Hettinger's). These two papers are obviously against the copyright. In the second reference (Warwick's paper), I quoted exact sentences from the conclusion, so they're authentic. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is published in the Wikipedia article on Fair Use. There are now so many things wrong with the Forcehimes paper, it is beyond belief that anyone would support it in an encyclopedia. Even the editor of the journal, of which you feel so highly, is publishing a review by an actual expert in the subject of this article that destroys it. You cherry-picked the new article providing a sense about the paper that is simply false to push a particular POV. This is hopeless. You are stretching the rules completely out of shape. Objective3000 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is correct to categorize my paper as a moral argument. Let me start by making a distinction between (i) the law and (ii) the moral principles that undergird the law. The focus of my argument was (ii). On the one hand, if we think egalitarian considerations justify libraries, then we should think that these same egalitarian considerations justify stealing books online. If, on the other hand, we think that economic incentives justify a prohibition on stealing books online, then we should think those same economic considerations justify a prohibition on libraries. The arguments modesty comes from this parity thesis. I am assuming you (the reader) think libraries are justified and accordingly, if the parity holds, are committed to thinking that stealing books online is justified. Though the upshot concerns (i) legality, the argument, to repeat, all takes place a the level of (ii) the principles undergirding the law. So, even if an argument comes out showing that current legal practices are consistent, this fails to address the argument at the level it operates. --Forcehimes (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification. I made my last post before having access to Karjiker’s (forthcoming) article. I’ve now read this article. Karjiker’s argument attacks the economic incentives parity. Though I disagree with this arguments conclusions, it attacks my argument at the correct level – (ii) from my previous post. -- Forcehimes (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read WP:FORUM. Objective3000 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then don't make this a forum by writing about your personal views. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My personal view is that this is an encyclopedia. And, the articles in an encyclopedia should be balanced and based on expertise in the area of each article. This article is about copyright law. Objective3000 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And I showed there is no violation of Wikipedia's laws and policies. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This article was badly unbalanced before you came. You have now added three additional links to further the imbalance. If you were not trying to push a WP:POV, then balancing the article would be the responsible action instead of trying to prove that copyright holders are using an unethical instrument. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about "anti-copyright". Like economic and cultural arguments against copyright, I added ethical arguments against it. Others can add ethical arguments for copyright to copyright or to the section "criticism of anti-copyright". --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I remove bad edits from both those pro and con on various associated articles. Editors are not supposed to support a POV. You appear to be proselytizing a POV and, for some reason, expect that I, or some group, have some responsibility to edit in the opposing POV. I am only interested in balance and rationality within WP "rules". I am not trying to push a POV, have no interest in adding an opposing POV, and wish you would stop asking me to support some POV that you think I have. Again, editors are not supposed to break into separate camps in some battle to drive articles in their direction. Editors are supposed to improve articles, which includes improving balance -- not pushing articles into further imbalance toward their views.

Wikipedia has a large number of rules, as well it should, to ensure accuracy. Interestingly, the rules view verifiability above accuracy. But, the rules do this in order to ultimately increase accuracy. It seems a contradiction. But, it is no more a contradiction than the first rule of Wikipedia -- Ignore all rules. WP:WIARM. “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” The ultimate goal is to improve an encyclopedia. But, to follow this non-rule, you must first wipe your mind of any other goals. Specifically, promulgating a POV. Forcehimes is promulgating an idea. That’s fine. But, he is writing a journal article in a journal designed to provoke thought – not cure cancer or to necessarily be entirely accurate. I respect his effort to provoke thought. But, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. It’s just his opinion, and un-cited.

If you wish to improve this encyclopedia, perhaps you should try articles where you do not have a such a strong POV. Just a friendly suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a suggestion for yourself. You are definitely supporting a POV by calling other views "absurd", "hilarious", "silly" and "Absolute Bull" and also by deleting opposite views. You oppose the main point of Forcehimes' paper and you're trying to shut it up. When you don't allow other reliable views to be expressed, you are obviously pushing your POV. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Making up and exaggerating stuff is not useful.Objective3000 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have reached this conclusion! --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are becoming nothing but snarky insults and violations of WP:CIV. You are pushing an obvious POV with additions claiming that copyright is immoral and unethical in an already unbalanced article. You claim I am pushing a POV. What POV? I haven't added anything to the article on any "side". You have no idea what my POV related to the article is. I am just trying to remove poorly sourced, incorrect, and cherry-picked material to help with the balance. Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this a reciprocal feeling! I have replied to all these comments. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me drop NPOV for a moment. The addition I just made to this article was a copy from Intellectual property. I made it not just to bring out balance, but because I think this article should be subsumed into the IP article. The arguments, pro and con, are the same. The same, no matter how many people try to draw distinctions between different flavors of intellectual property rights by misunderstandings of the laws agreed upon by nearly all countries in the Berne Convention. Many of these disagreements amount to straw arguments, claiming injustice by misquoting the actual laws and agreements. Of course, as in all disagreements, there exist multiple sides. I know some people believe otherwise. And, they can point any differences in that, far more inclusive article. For those that are anti-copyright, seems to me that one strong article is better. For those that are pro, same. For those that want a good encyclopedia, same. Let us give the best possible, encyclopedic, explanation of the history, content, reasons, criticisms, etc. in one good article. My humble opinion.Objective3000 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent activity

This article has been renamed, without discussion, and is now seeing mass deletions of accepted text by someone with a clear POV who appears to have no interest in discussion. This would appear to be a problem.Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethical Issues is a stub

Maybe the contents could be put in other sections of the article, or removed altogether? 81.233.196.43 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

User:90.203.193.86, You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Opposition to copyright.[3][4][5] Wikipedia users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

In addition, your other edits suggest a close association with the music industry. If this is the case, our policy on conflict of interest editing applies as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly an example of edit-warring. OTOH, the text should be removed as it gives a couple of questionable, ancient examples in a narrow area to come to a broad brush conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by Pirhayati

Pirhayati is adding his own work to this article while refusing to discuss it. I have no idea what it says as it appears to be in Persian. Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your message. Is there a policy against Persian sources? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a policy against using unreliable sources. I can find nothing that tells me what npps.ir is WP:RS. There is a policy against edit-warring WP:EW. There is a policy against original research. You are adding your own work. WP:OR. There is a policy against pushing a point of view. You are adding your personal opinions to an article. WP:POV. You are ignoring the WP:BRD essay by restoring challenged text without discussion. There is no consensus for this text. You are in violation of policy and should self-revert your attempt to add your personal opinions to an encyclopedia article. Objective3000 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

1. There are plenty of non-English sources in Wikipedia. You can use google translate. 2. Then please don't edit-war. 3. It is "published", so it is not original research" 4. As I said before, you are definitely supporting a POV by calling other views "absurd", "hilarious", "silly" and "Absolute Bull" and also by deleting opposite views. You oppose the main point of this article and you're trying to shut it up. When you don't allow other reliable views to be expressed, you are obviously pushing your POV. Then respect other views. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Google translate cannot translate it adequately. It is not an RS. You are the editor engaging in edit-warring as you refused to follow WP:BRD and restored challenged text without discussion. You just violated WP:AGF by assuming my position on the article. You are referring to comments I made THREE years ago. I am not deleting opposing views. I am deleting original research pushing your point of view.

You have not addressed a single one of my statements on policy. You are in violation of policy and should self-revert your attempt to add your personal opinions to an encyclopedia article. Objective3000 (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's go ahead one-by-one. Can we use non-English sources or not? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, one step at a time. Remove your edit while it is under discussion as per WP:BRD. Objective3000 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. You are the suspect here. The Burden of proof is on you! Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not adding anything. I merely reverted to consensus. The burden is clearly on the person making the edit. Objective3000 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The burden is clearly on the person who is pushing his POV and offending others. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You are again violating WP:AGF. My POV is that we should follow the guidelines. You are the editor that is adding his OWN article of pure POV. And I have said nothing offensive. Would you please stop making false accusations and follow the guidelines? Remove your edit while it is under discussion as per WP:BRD. Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you call my edits "absurd" and "hilarious" or not? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Three years ago. It appears that you have no intention of engaging in an honest discussion of the matter at hand. Objective3000 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, three years ago. Please respect WP:AGF apologize for your behavior. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to respond to the policy guidelines discussed. You cannot add your own article containing your own opinions to WP. Please remove as per WP:BRD. Objective3000 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to respect other users. Please apologize. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)There is no prohibition on non-English sources; that is not the issue. It is correct that as the one who seeks a change it is up to you to justify it on this page and explain why it is needed. Objective3000 is correct that the status quo of the article must remain while your proposed change is discussed. Please leave the page alone and explain the reasons for your change, while addressing the policy based issues raised. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

He is saying that because the source is Persian, it's unreliable. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what he has said; he has said it is original research for you to post your own work as a source. Sources in articles must be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How can it be original research when it is published in several sources and I cited the reference? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You cannot be the one to post your own work. That is a conflict of interest. If you truly feel it should be included, you need to explain why on this page and allow others to add it. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not say such a thing. It says: Do not add texts "about" yourself not "by" yourself. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see the conflict of interest in you posting your own work to this page, I likely can do little to convince you otherwise. Primary sources are discouraged as references here. Regardless, you still need to gain consensus for changes you want to see. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding an argument

I want to add the following text to the part "Ethical issues". It is published by the website "Network for Public Policy Studies" (it belongs to Center for Strategic Studies. Let's discuss it:

"Ali Pirhayati proposes a thought experiment for Forcehimes' argument: Imagine a very high-tech physical library in a (say) 10-million-people city. All these people are the members of the library. The library uses UAVs to send books to its members. Hence access to a physical book is possible in a few minutes after the user sends a request for it and after he/she finished reading, the book is immediately sent back to the library (by UAVs). Therefore, the library can provide services to all the population of the city with only 10 copies of a book, because the people who request a certain book at a certain time are not more than 10 people. Then, in this city, nobody needs to buy any books and a book which was to be published in (say) 10000 copies, is published only in 10 copies. Such a library is exactly parallel to downloading ebooks in all morally relevant respects. Whatever you think about stealing books online, you should also think about this high-tech physical library. And, since most people will think such a library is not ethically problematic, they should also think stealing books online is not problematic."

Why should your views on this subject be posted here? Has your work been peer-reviewed or discussed in independent sources? 331dot (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Because they are relevant. 2. Yes, NPPS is peer-reviewed. 3. no they are not discussed in independent sources (like other views in Ethical section) Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Network for Public Policy Studies is a collection of blogs according to its own site [6]. Pirhayati submitted an article to his own blog hosted by npps.ir, and is now citing his own blog to add his opinions to a Wikipedia article. This addition fails Reliable Sources, Original Research, and Neutral Point of View. Objective3000 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't say that I disagree with Objective3000. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not correct at all. This is the translation of that page: "NPPS invites all the experts in policy-making to become a member and send their policy papers according to the introduced model. All users can submit the membership form. Please send your papers through info@npps.ir. After assessing the paper, it will be published and your name is published in the site."

There is no word meaning "blog". You can ask anyone who knows Persian. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, I don't feel that changes anything. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling what? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Google translate came up with the word blog. Obviously translators are not perfect. But, I looked through the site. Appears to be about 150-200 members each with a grouping of posts. In other words, a collection of blogs. I did a Google search for "Network for Public Policy Studies". It only came up with three items. The first was this article. Objective3000 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You're not right, but let's close this discussion. I think Forcehimes' paper is enough. :) Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll need to reopen discussion on Forcehimes. His paper was entirely based on a misunderstanding of copyright law and how it applies to libraries, as is yours by inheritance (not your fault). When it was added, the claim was that it was peer-reviewed. But, I called the editor of the journal, and he said it was peer-reviewed by professors of ethics and not by anyone as to the legal statements. The journal then asked for a review by an expert in IP law. He wrote a response saying that the legal understanding underpinning the article was false, which the editor of the journal forwarded to me. The editor of the journal said that the response would be published in the next edition. I never checked to see if it was. Wikipedia is quite serious about copyright infringement. We should be particularly diligent in vetting sources that advise readers, some of whom may be impressionable, that stealing is ethical.

Incidentally, I realize that Persian is right-to-left and this might be difficult. But, you might try to indent properly. It would ease discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Objective3000 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A reference currently leads to a nonexistent source

It's under no. 21: [Höffner. "Copyright and structure of authors' earnings" (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2012.]

The PDF cannot be found on the linked address and has been completely removed from that domain. I found the PDF on SlideShare, but that cannot be regarded as an official source. Furthermore, it is not a study as seems to be implied, although contains a useful comparison.

There is also an official article from Der Spiegel that mentions the same slide, available in English and German.

This is just a note. I have left the matter as it is for more experienced editors to handle.

Thanks for the note. Frankly, the slideshow is rather absurd. Basing an argument on worldwide IP rights based upon a look at only two countries, a couple of centuries ago, ignoring a vast number of other possible influences. Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede is too long

@Objective3000: If the lede was too long, we can discuss what to cut. However, as for the reversion in general, I'd like an explanation for exactly what you think was inappropriate about the content of this version of the lede. It was an explanation of the viewpoint, and briefly looked at one example. That is appropriate for an overview of an ideology with many conflicting ideas. lethargilistic (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your change tried to argue the case for opposition to copyright, as opposed to describing what it is. Indeed, the change even exaggerated the case by, for example, suggesting that copyright can guarantee income. In no manner does it do so. We must leave any possible discussions of arguments for the body, and keep the text neutral. Even in the Democracy article, the lead describes democracies, but doesn’t argue whether the concept is good or bad. As it is, this article is not neutrally written since it presents one side, often absurdly and often with highly slanted puffery like making society ever more free, more equal, more sustainable, and with greater solidarity . It could easily be argued that the opposite is true. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

State aggression

@User:Lethargilistic Thing is, Kinsella's opinion doesn't make sense. Yes, some countries have in the last thirty years enacted criminal copyright legislation. But it remains the case that nearly all copyright actions worldwide are civil actions - not actions of the state.

In my view, gibberish that is cited is still gibberish. I think it is counterproductive to include material that doesn't make sense - it won't help WP users to understand anything.

Incidentally, there's a huge amount of uncited WP:OR here. My general attitude to articles that are blighted by OR is to delete uncited stuff. BRD, someone reverts, fair dos. That enables me to ask:

Do you think that opinions that don't make sense should be included, simply because the holder is notable and citable?

MrDemeanour (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion on Kinsella's specific view because I haven't read the book, although I would not oppose removing the "aggression" clause because I don't think I've ever seen that argument made elsewhere, so I'd say its notability is debatable. More broadly, I also don't think it's necessarily our place to just say that an opinion is nonsense and not include it. After all, even though I personally find arguments in favor of copyright policies based upon morality extremely unrealistic about the relationship between copyright claimants, work they claim, and people interested in using the work later, those morality arguments are still used in favor of copyright. And, however wrong I think that is, they've obviously been successful to the extent that they enshrined moral rights policy in the Berne Convention. It's therefore certainly notable and, indeed, deserves its own article. Also, because this article is not very well developed in general, I'd caution against removing things under the banner of WP:OR. Even WP:V says any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. It does not say that things that are unsourced must be removed. It says they may be removed and that things which are challenged must be sourced. And, just to cover the base, simply saying "I challenge every unsourced statement in the article" would not be respectful of other Wikipedians' time. If you plan to work on this entire article's citation quality, it would be more productive to follow WP:V's suggestion of marking questionable statements with improvement tags like {{citation needed}} or {{better citation needed}}, or perhaps at least attempt in good faith to find a corroborating source yourself. My personal philosophy is generally that progress toward the content's eventual perfection should be prioritized over minor problems in the current version. Most of this content has a clear path to improvement, so I'm fairly hesitant to remove things just because someone should technically go through and find better references. It's not pretending to be a Featured Article or anything. lethargilistic (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree on the points made by MrDemeanour. Yes, the TPB founders went to prison and Kim Dotcom may also in some distant future. But, nearly all cases are civil. I would imagine the major reason for YouTube takedowns is copyright related and doesn’t require any legal action other than a DMCA which doesn’t require a lawyer. And yes, we need to add multiple viewpoints from RS. But, utter nonsense from activist sources should be limited, and/or relegated to their articles. This is an encyclopedia article, not a manifesto. O3000 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of the content in this article rises to the level of "manifesto." And since most prominent sources for opposition to copyright are based on activist activity (whether Lessig or a political party platform), it's natural that their views be covered. Just because you, personally, think their fears are nonsense, that is not a reason to cut them from the article if they are notable, perhaps if they are widely cited or appear in several different peoples' belief systems. TPB is certainly notable here and is not talked about that much. As for Kim Dotcom and YouTube, those are not in the article at present, so their notability isn't at issue. At a gloss, I'd say Kim Dotcom's views could be used as a specific example of a wider belief, but not alone. That's also why I'm not opposed to removing the "aggression" clause that started this discussion, as I doubt that part of "Artificial Scarcity" is a wide view. I didn't outright remove it because I wasn't sure. lethargilistic (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of the "state aggression" label. This would require multiple sources and shouldn't be included based on one deontological anarcho-capitalist. Also, the scarcity argument must include the obvious responses for balance. O3000 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. On the second point, feel free to add counterpoints to whatever appears in the article or direct to other articles. The lack of counterpoints in the current version is a temporary problem, not a reason for removing content. Also, keep WP:FALSEBALANCE in mind. Just because there is a counterpoint does not mean that that counterpoint must receive exactly equal time, especially when the article is about one side's view. lethargilistic (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes well, the fact that it presents one "side" suggests that it is a WP:POVFORK. And, I'd hardly think the status quo is a false balance. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of material for an opposition to copyright article, so per WP:POVFORK: The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article.. It's appropriate. I also agree that the status quo should be represented in the article. However, although it is an imperfect example, consider Socialism vs. Capitalism. The socialism article is not half-capitalism and does not respond to every point with a capitalist view because the article is not about capitalism, and the capitalism article is also not about socialism. Part of why it's not perfect is that I can't think of an argument against copyright offhand that hasn't at least been answered by a pro-copyright viewpoint, so there's almost certainly something you could add to each section to represent that viewpoint. That does not mean each section should be half-pro-copyright, as that would be what I consider false balance in describing opposition. Also, remember that there are several branches of opposition to copyright that argue for returning to old versions of the law, some of which were in place much longer than current versions, so they could just as easily be called a return to a "status quo." lethargilistic (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Socialism vs. capitalism is not on point and those articles don't push any POV. Opposition to copyright is clearly, specifically about copyright. Also, this article isn’t about a “certain aspect of a subject". It is an argument against the subject of the main article. Surely smells like a POVFORK. O3000 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This article does not currently push a POV, it would not do so by simply describing its subject if expanded properly, and concerns of false balance are a concern for the reader's education and not in service of a particular POV. Hell, most "criticism" of subjects is done in a single section of the larger articles, which is almost certainly how this page started its life. The simple fact is that it is a topic too broad to be relegated to such a section. I don't think there would ever be consensus to do that, too, so I don't think discussing that further would be productive. I'd rather address POV problems that currently exist in the article's text (such as not enough counterpoint) via responsible expansion rather than debate what might happen if we assume in bad faith that the article will be expanded incorrectly. lethargilistic (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic et al.: Thank you for your remarks.

I fully take your point that it is inappropriate to simply wade through an article removing all uncited content, and that instead one should generally (a) try to find suitable citations, and (b) failing that, tag content as being in need of references. I have re-read the article, and perhaps it is not so badly infested with OR and uncited content as I have claimed; maybe it just needs re-organising. However the accusation of state aggression is nonsense, because the state is so rarely involved in copyright enforcement. It should be removed. MrDemeanour (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed the aggression remark per our unanimous consensus. I've thought about reorganizing this article myself, though it's seemed daunting due to the variety of alternate takes. One approach might be to break it up into major categories of dispute, such as arguments on economic, moral, technological, etc. grounds. lethargilistic (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

General reorganization

Alright, if we're actually going to do this, it would be better for us to actually set out a plan rather than delete a bunch of stuff and communicate through edit summaries. I think we should settle on the highest level organization of the article first. What broad categories of objection are there? I'm sure there are papers and organizations out there that would supply content for this high level outline. My understanding of the subject is mostly American, so my topics list will certainly weigh toward sources examining economic forces. It goes without saying that counterarguments would appear throughout; just because I framed these as questions for expediency does not mean the article would be making arguments itself.

• Organizations that oppose copyright to one degree or another
  • Advocating changes to copyright
  • Use existing copyright law to promote change (copyleft, CC, etc.)
  • Abolition (This should not be first on the list, as it's not really common among advocacy groups)
  • Academic/Scholarly takes on the issue
• Overall goals of copyright. Are they being met?
  • Prevent monopolization of works
  • Compel the release of documents to the public
  • Promote the creation of new works
  • Lead to authors being paid better
• Economic (Heald and Boyle would be good sources here)
  • Market concerns
    • Are authors fairly compensated?
    • Does the current system weigh in corporations' favor?
    • How do poor/disadvantaged/those in the developing world get access to copyrighted things?
  • Piracy
    • Does it matter?
    • Does it harm authors?
      • Why have some authors embraced piracy and believe it helps them sell more books? (Neil Gaiman, CD Projekt RED)
  • Term length
    • Does a longer term benefit authors within their lifetimes?
    • Does a posthumous term benefit the author enough to justify its costs to society?
    • Does a retroactive extension of copyright benefit society?
    • What about the people who want to use things made in their lifetimes?
  • Automatic copyright
    • What were the arguments in favor of copyright formalities?
• Morality (any objections to moral rights)
  • Concerns with the Berne Convention
    • Three step test
  • Does attribution have value?
  • Do people who were born during/after the time when the thing was created have a right of their own to respond to it?
  • Are there demonstrable differences between the European and American systems that weigh in favor or against one or the other?
    • sui generis database rights?
  • Is it moral for an author to prevent people from reading their work simply because they speak a language that the author will not authorize a translation into?
• Advancing technology (Boyle, Lessig)
  • Does copyright adequately adapt to technology advances? (People will point to the automatic piano in the US or Betamax)
  • Does copyright prevent things that may benefit society? (Google Books, TVEyes, mass text crawling)
• Natural rights (Maybe Hettinger, perhaps there's a critique of Lysander Spooner's work out there)
  • Copyright is not physical property
• Conflicts with the public domain (Boyle)
  • What separates a book written in 1922 from a book written in 1923?
  • How available are books written before 1922 compared to books written afterward?
  • What is the value of a commons like the public domain?
    • Are companies mining the public domain and then preventing works from entering it? (Disney)
• Copyright's expanding scope
  • How has copyright expanded from literature to cover basically anything?
  • How do you define originality? How is that distinguished from creativity?
  • How do we rationalize things that are uncopyrightable because they are not original enough? Is the bar of originality that too low?
  • We could probably have a bunch of section of criticism of different expansions, but here are some quickies:
    • software
    • fashion
    • public speeches/presentations
    • public art/architecture
• Objections to the framing of the argument in favor of copyright
  • Arguments against lumping copyright into and arguing about the term intellectual property in general?
  • "Why do you hate poor artists?"
  • "Why do you expect to get things for free?"
  • Empirical evidence is rarely presented in favor of copyright during calls for expansion to copyright. Boyle calls is an "Evidence free zone"
    • Celebrity endorsements of copyright over time. (Hugo, Twain, Sonny Bono's wife. Recently, Smokey Robinson)

Certainly weighing in favor of economic arguments as I expected, but I think we could easily fill in something like this. lethargilistic (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, lethargilistic. I am more of a copy-editor by inclination, than an article author, and I don't want to try to contribute to your article structure, other than by body-shaming: I suggest that it needs a diet.

Your taxonomy is certainly comprehensive. It could accommodate a very long article. To be honest, I don't think a long article is called for. The subject is 'Opposition to copyright'; that should not subsume topics such as 'How to improve copyright', 'Using copyright to promote change', 'Why some authors benefit from unauthorised copying' and so on. In fact there is precious little to say about Opposition to copyright as such; very few groups oppose copyright outright, and they tend to be fringe.

There is quite a number of articles about different aspects of copyright. Some of this material should end up in those articles, not coatracking on Opposition.

Incidentally I do not want to encounter the term 'piracy' in any article on copyright. That term is strictly POV, comparing as it does copyright infringement with a particularly nasty kind of violent crime on the high seas. Same goes for 'copyright theft', a term that takes for granted that copyright is a kind of property, and then applies to it the term 'theft', meaning 'to take with the intention of permanently depriving'. Copyright is not a kind of property, and infringement is not a kind of theft. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, I often go overboard on outlines. Certainly, not all of these would be sections and there would be cuts. I agree that there is little to say about copyright abolitionists, but I think the limiting the article to outright opposition/abolitionism would make the article less useful because, as you say, those are fringe views and most copyright criticism comes from people who want to improve the system. (Not to mention it would make the anemic copyright abolition article redundant.) Perhaps a name change for the article is in order? "Criticism of copyright," even if that's a tad boring? Def agree on limiting the information that would better live in other articles, and there would probably be significant incentive to link out to those from here. Also agree on piracy -> copyright infringement. lethargilistic (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, it looks like you are trying to present an argument against copyright protection with this highly detailed outline containing numerous areas for which there is no text in the body. If we are reorganizing the article, do so around the text in the article. We’re developing an encyclopedia article, not writing a 70,000 word dissertation. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

While we don't have to use the entire outline, it's not necessary to limit ourselves to things already inn the article because the article is poorly organized and not comprehensive even on the issues it does talk about. Aside, repeating this vacuous accusation that I am trying to "present an argument" doesn't make it any more true. I'd prefer that you do me the courtesy of stopping. I have repeatedly been deferential to your insistent POV, even when I have deeply disagreed, and I have repeatedly agreed that the article needs counterpoints. This doesn't contribute to the discussion and could easily be said to be a product of your own biases, inappropriately so. lethargilistic (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop making false accusations that I have a POV. My POV, as always, is that articles should follow WP guidelines. O3000 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I only said it once, and once was enough. Let us please restrict commentary to the substance of the proposal from here on. lethargilistic (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Opposition to copyright → Criticism of copyright – This article broadly covers criticism of copyright in general, not just opposition groups, and the current title sounds like POV to me, particularly with the use of opposition. There are more critics of copyright than are there actual opponents (I for one think copyright is too strict and should only focus on protecting the commercial interests of the copyright holders, but seeing that there are practical uses in protecting such interests, I do not oppose it). Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. Boring title, but strict opposition to copyright is a fringe view and the article is about more than that. lethargilistic (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - A far more accurate description of the article. Primergrey (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. bd2412 T 02:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. A better description of the page's contents.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added link about sci-hub

• Sci-Hub - network of pirated research papers, "Sci-Hub can instantly provide access to more than two-thirds of all scholarly articles", Lindsay McKenzie. Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests. Science Magazine. Jul. 27, 2017. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst

Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti copyright "sentiment"

In the first sentence, this article conflates criticism of copyright with anti copyright "sentiment". Sentiment implies emotional response and is often regarded pejoratively, whereas most of the the arguments for and against copyright are based on logical reasoning, not sentiment. As such this label is misleading and possibly pejorative, it should be removed form the article or preceded with "regarded by some as sentiment" or words to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.3 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. "Anti-X sentiment" is a common phrase that has no implications as to logical soundness of the position. I'm not categorically opposed to changing it to something else, but a) it needs to be as pithy, and b) it can't be couched. lethargilistic (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)