Talk:Blacklock's Reporter

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Source

source reuters Jonpatterns (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Techdirt article

Here's a recent controversy on Blacklock's that should really find its way into the article.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151028/10255032658/canadian-judge-says-asking-copy-legally-obtained-paywalled-article-is-circumvention.shtml

Original blog post:

http://www.teresascassa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=197:copyright-decision-would-squelch-any-right-to-read-paywalled-content-in-canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.180.76 (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

65.112.10.250 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

There's an edit war for this article, with material either removed or unsourced and probably trollish material added. The last good version seems to be that of Shriheeran on 21 December 2016. Can an editor help? 198.103.145.50 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued hoaxing vandalism from 99.249.33.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in spite of two warnings and temporary block. Request administrator help. 199.246.169.1 (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This point of view should be included to balance the entry. Right now, it reads like an attack piece, selecting the most negative material possible: http://www.barrysookman.com/2017/01/02/browsewraps-fair-dealing-and-blacklocks-reporter-v-canada-a-critical-commentary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.33.254 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case comment you mention examines questions of contract law and copyright law. It should be mentioned in a page about the law, or perhaps about the Blacklock decision itself, if it's sufficiently significant, not in an article about Blacklock's as a Web publication. 84.199.15.126 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one sentence from a long decision. It is ripped out of context and has been placed in the entry to blacken this company. If a legal decision is going to be mentioned, then its details and the actual finding of the court, rather than just one negative line, need to be in the article.Jaquestheripper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an article about Blacklock's as a Web publication, not about contract and copyright law. But quite apart from that, the two quotations from the judgment are from the first and last paragraph of the analysis section, and seem to fairly summarize the judgment. The judge also said this about Blacklock's conduct: "misrepresentation", "at best, ill-informed", "inapt and unfair". This isn't a case where an unfavorable quotation was cherry-picked to give a false impression about the essence of the judgment. 2A02:A03F:18AF:A200:B99C:CD17:9D33:1CC7 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The "analysis" section of a federal court case is not the judgement. It is simply obiter. It does not summarize the ratio of judgement. But I suppose Canadian law and cases would be unfamiliar to people posting from IPs in, um, Antwerp. Jaquestheripper (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let's keep it civil and focus on the article, please. 199.246.169.36 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment posted by a Government of Canada employee! https://www.whois.com/whois/198.103.145.50 Jaquestheripper (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this looks like an attack page. It has been edited by staff of the Federal Court to include the most negative lines in a court case that was about copyright (the issue and the ratio descendi of the court decision are not mentioned at all in the discussion of the case). There's nothing at all about the journalism that Blacklock's does. Too often,Wikipedia entries have become vcatalogues of controversies rather than accurate reflections of reality.

There's already some information about the publication, its editor, its focus, its frequency and its contents. Feel free to add more information, with references to appropriate sources. 84.199.15.126 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm having a very hard time believing that someone in Antwerp, Belgium, is so enthralled with the nuances of Canadian intellectual property law that they would be inspired to edit the Balcklocks entry, and only the Blacklock's entry, to make it as damning as possible:

https://www.whois.com/whois/84.199.15.126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquestheripper (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]