Talk:Copyright infringement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Changing language from it to en wikipedia: "wrong" redirect, totally different and biased article.Atleast not neutral/totally correlated.Please check.

Hello, I was reading the voice "http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirateria_informatica" which translated is "informatics piracy", I wanted to point that copyright infringement and piracy are in many ways connected but it shouldn't be directly translated like this, it should have a different voice.My point is that coming from a discussion about piracy, to directly a discussion about copyright make the reader feel that there is quite a heavy negative bias on the phenomon, while to me it seems it should retain more neutrality on the matter.I won't agree that piracy 99% of times includes copyright infringement and that should be noted and linked in it's own article, I simply don't agree on being pointed on this page since it feels like wikipedia has it's own vision about the matter and not showing a neutral point.It doesn't feel right to point to "criminals" when talking about piracy I'd say, and it feels this way.Also copyright infringement isn't limited to informatics piracy but it's a broader aspect, probably it should have it's own article like on italian wiki.Reading the article I also have felt a bit of bias towards the "illegal" part, it just felt biased I have to say, tough I'm not sure hwo it could be changed also since I'm not expert I don't know if I should have flagged the contents I felt biased or what I should've done, I decided to post in the talk page and get some feedback.There aren't also mentions to the "other side" of the matter, like the pirate parties, maybe it has it's own voice, but it should be noted a bit better than just a pair of links at the end of the page(which in this case are absent too), or either, again, it feels heavily biased.Please, if you can, check the differences and consider it's neutrality.Or atleast change the redirect from it--->en they are different subjects and considered in totally different ways. Neviskio (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption under 2nd picture

The following was recently added to the end of the caption for the second image here, showing a 1906 advertisement:

"Note that in this case, those who would legally copy non-copyrighted works are being labeled 'pirates'."

I had tagged it as original research; that tag was subsequently removed with the comment "common sense is not original research." I still disagree and have removed the text to this page to reach a consensus.

"No original research" is not a guideline—it is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The policy is very explicit: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

In this situation, the picture is a primary source, and the statement in the caption pointing out the use of the word "pirate" in the picture is explanatory, not descriptive (or common sense). Indeed, the statement implies that such a use of the word is significant. Any implication based on a primary source is interpretive and cannot be in Wikipedia unless it is verified from a secondary source.

My solution is to remove the sentence completely unless its claim can be verified from a reliable secondary source, but since my previous edit has been reverted, I have instead opened it up to discussion here.

Hartboy (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:OR is a core policy, and like all other policies is to be applied in the right spirit. What it forbids is "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" (emphasis mine) and explicitly says "summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing". In this case, the image is about protecting your un-copyrighted work from pirates. Pointing out this usage is simply being helpful; since part of the article is about the use of the word "piracy" (in fact, the image might as well have been chosen to illustrate this usage). If you feel the current caption is "advancing a position", it would be better to just change the wording: "note that 'pirates' is used for non-copyrighted works", without the "legally" (is that the problem?). The policy does not mean that simply noticing what is in bold letters is too "interpretive" for inclusion. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

True, WP:OR cautions against synthesis. But it also strongly cautions against novel interpretations of primary sources. You may think the "interpretation" is trivial, fair enough. I think the description is borderline making an implication that advances a point of view.

That's why I brought the discussion up here. If I'm wrong or being over-cautious, it should be easy to find a secondary source that can verify the statement here—that statement being that it is significant or relevant that this ad is using the word "pirate" in a way that is not congruent with the meaning of the word as set forth in the Wikipedia article.

Hartboy (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

For many images and other examples used as illustration, it is unlikely that the fact being illustrated was itself relevant at the time — clearly, when we seek out examples, the selection bias puts greater weight on the fact than was present originally. I (strongly) think that simply finding examples should not be considered WP:OR. (For example, in Daniel Defoe's 1703 statement that "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates", it was not intended to be significant that the word "Pyrates" was being used; we (or the OED, in this case) have picked it out as significant. This is not "original research" of the sort forbidden on Wikipedia, just good research.)

Certainly, if you think the caption advances a POV, then we should reword it (I agree that "legally" may be borderline , since we may imagine the implication is that even if they are not breaking the law, they are plagiarists, etc). And if it is not congruent with the article (I don't think so), the article should be expanded.

But simply pointing out the usage of "pirates" in the ad, which to me seems clear and straightforward, does not seem OR. As I see it, straightforward explanation is good, only explanation not directly supported by the source (e.g. a reasonable alternative interpretation) exists is bad. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "picking examples should not be considered WP:OR." I think picking examples should be approached with caution because of the high risk of advancing a POV, and the WP:OR guidelines should be followed more strictly in situations where this risk is more present. I think that risk is present in this article, and I think the last statement of the caption constitutes WP:OR.

As I said, the solution is simple: find a secondary source that advances the claim made in the statement—"historically, use of the word 'pirate' was used to describe unauthorized users of copyright even in situations where those uses were not infringement."

Hartboy (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh indeed, I agree with the last part of what you said; finding secondary sources would be ideal. We have the OED's definition 3.a.: "A person or company who reproduces or uses the work of another (as a book, recording, computer program, etc.) without authority and esp. in contravention of patent or copyright; a plagiarist. Also: a thing reproduced or used in this way." — the "esp." is the crucial part. :-) The attached quotes are "examples": [1668] "Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.", [1703] "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates." [1758] "In 1599 two of them [sc. Shakespeare's Sonnets] were printed by the pirate Jaggard." etc. BTW, I don't see why you say that the claim made in the statement is "historically, use of the word 'pirate' was used to describe unauthorized users of copyright even in situations where those uses were not infringement." (After all, they were reprinting non-copyrighted works, and saying that it is "not infringement" is not clear.) Simply stating that the use of 'pirates' covered non-copyrighted works is not POV, and is clear from the ad (and the point of including the image, I'd have thought, if it weren't already present before the sentence was added). If you think the statement, as it stands, can be interpreted as what you said, or advances a POV, then it should be rewritten. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The caption with the added sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of the law. Prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, state law also gave copyright protection without federal registration. The added sentence shows that the author is taking offense at the label of pirate and wishes to point out the mistaken belief that the author of the original advertisement was labeling the activity as piracy even though it was "legal." This is not necessarily the case. The author could have a book copyrighted in New Jersey, but not have any federal copyright protection without registration in 1906. Such an individual would have only been able to sue for "piracy" in the state of New Jersey, but would not be able to sue in other states, New York for instance. If the "pirate" set foot in New Jersey after pirating material in New York, the author would have gained in personam jurisdiction and would have been able to bring a suit in that state. The problems with jurisdiction would have been solved through federal copyright registration. Therefore, the caption should be changed back to what it was two years ago without the added "Note" that demonstrates a misunderstanding of copyright law in the early 20th century America. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

removed un-sources stuff and original research, changes structure. Moved some of the more detailed stuff in the relevant country articles.--SasiSasi (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw what you did, you should have posted here first before taking upon yourself to make the changes. The article now lacks most relevant material concerning the law of copyright infringement. It appears that you removed information concerning the Berne Convention. I can't understand why you would remove information about an international treaty concerning copyright from the copyright infringement article. I also can't understand why you would remove the section on US copyright and UK copyright law seeing that the copyright law of those countries do apply overseas. For intance, US law is the basis for the prosecutions of those associated with The Piratebay over in Sweden. The only reason why a criminal trial is possible is because an action would be sustainable under US copyright law for copyright infringement. The Berne convention does not operate in a vacuum and the individual country's exception to that treaty are notable for international enforcement actions. If you don't understand the law, you should refrain from touching articles that deal with it. Gx872op (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://ipmetrics.net/blog/2010/06/17/copyright-infringement-damages/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How tricky it is. The article about copyright violation is itself a copyright violation. 183.81.73.107 (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian Copyright Law

I could not find any place in russian copyright law (http://civil-code.narod.ru/chapter70-copyright-law.html) that proves that downloading music is not a copyright infringement. Gnann (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Costs of piracy

Came across this source and found the question intriguing - what are the actual costs of piracy? Some numbers have been tossed about in the media, but it turns out that its impact is simply unknown and the estimates poor at best. That and (possible) positive effects of piracy should be included in the article for the completeness of discussion. 87.244.233.12 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a brazilian study about the damage made by reprography. About 1% of people obtained a book by copying it. In Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture there is an excerpt that covers the positive effects of music sharing and points lots of problems in the way the industry calculate the 'damage'. Gnann (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

some questions

why is the term "piracy" linked to copyright infrigment ? is it a form of ad hominem attack by the pro-copyright parties to discredit those against it ? was it so coined because it is from a time where pirate and piracy was a common practice and pirates were the common scapegoat as muggers in england in the 70s, communists in the 80s, pedophiles in the 90s and terrorists in the 00s ?

also I don't think this article properly represent the other side of copyright infringement, not everyone thinks copyright is good and infringement is bad, why isn't there a t least a link to the social conflict on copyrights article ?

Good questions. The earliest reference to copyright priates that I could readily find was from 1924 Indianapolis News editorial. |The United States has gone a long way in the 70 years since American publishers did not hesitate to steal outright the work of foreign authors and publish and sell it in this country with all the abandon of an eighteenth century pirate.

As far as the "social conflict in copyright" article goes, if you mean Anti-copyright, I just added it. --Nowa 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that the term "piracy" is equally used by those condemning piracy as by those advocating or participating in it. I don't see that it's an NPOV issue. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with IntrigueBlue's comment that the word "piracy" isn't a biased term. I recently commented on this at Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term?. Here's the main part of what I wrote which is relevant here:

In my opinion, the term 'piracy' in this context is definitely a biased, point-of-view-pushing term, so it's not appropriate for an encylopedia. It's equating copying information (I mean just straight copying, not plagiarism), with attacking ships, stealing their cargo, and kidnapping and murdering their crew. Even if you think copyright infringement is immoral, I don't think many people think it has the same moral implications as that. From my understanding, that term was invented by some of the big media companies, to deliberately equate that act with the very immoral action of actual piracy, to discourage people from breaking copyright laws, though I don't know the exact history of the term. It's not an actual legal term to describe the act of copyright infringement. It's true that some people who are involved in copyright infringement use that term, such as the Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party, but I think they generally do that to turn the term back against the people who use it and to give it a different meaning, in a similar way to how some black people use the racist term "nigger" to turn it back on the people who use it against them.

I definitely don't think that because some people who are engaged in "piracy" use that term for it, that means that it's a neutral and appropriate term to use. Going back to my parallel with the term "nigger", I don't expect anyone here would think it was at all appropriate if someone changed all the references to a black person in Black people to "nigger", just because some black people use it to turn it against those who use it as a term of abuse, to try to give it a different meaning of their own. Guyjohnston 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, only some people should use the word "Nigger" then? I'm not sure the way to reach a NEUTRAL point of view is to only let SOME people can use it neutrally. MrZoolook (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Penalty" section. Would it be possible to write that using a simpler style? A style that let's the reader know -- straight up -- how they will get penalties. For example, tell the reader what will happen if they rip off a picture from let's say -- Wikipedia. That would be helpful. I just don't understand why the tone comes from what sounds like a lawyer. It's as if this was written for a clandestine audience.

I think...

no

In a case of copyright infringement is the person receiving the material in violation also or just the distributor. Can that receiver of the copyrighted material be tried along with the distributor?--J. Daily 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If "piracy" was being used interchangeably with "copyright infringement" in this article, with no distinction made between them, then I would agree that it is a NPOV issue. However, as far as I can see, the link from "piracy" to this article, and the references within it, merely suggest that "piracy" is often used (whether rightly or wrongly) to refer to copyright infringement. That strikes me as being factual information rather than a potential NPOV issue- in particular, I think the link should be there, as otherwise people who see this as "piracy" would end up looking up piracy and not finding the right article. Tws45 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pushing any particular PoV is the issue at hand, here. “Piracy” is a highly loaded term. Is it not the purpose of an encyclopedia to educate readers? Endorsing the political stance of copyright holders is entirely NPoV; I fail to see how it can be justified as anything other. This is why use of correct terms is important, they were established for good reason. Sans rhetoric, it is difficult to adequately justify (against rebuttal), the notion that mere infringement of a government-granted, limited-term ‘right’ is anyhow similar to the significance of physical violence and aggression toward a ship, its crew, and cargo. Copyright simply has nothing to do with ocean-travel, and is not related to the explanation of it. — Lee Carré (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial terminology

I was nonplussed to find Piracy and Theft as basic headings in the article, as if they were (even in context) kinds of copyright infringement or issues related to copyright infringement. In fact they are loaded slang terms for copyright infringement, and this is indeed what those sections of the article cover. So I made them subheadings within a broader heading for loaded slang terms. (But to keep that header unloaded itself, I called it "Colloquial terminology". There might be something better.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Illegal downloading

Someone tried to add a mention of illegal downloading as another loaded term associated with copyright infringement. I reverted it—not because it was incorrect, and not because there shouldn't be some mention of it in the article, but just because it was only added to a summary; there needs to be an explanation given of why and how that term is associated with copyright infringement. —mjb (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely it can only be illegal to download something if one accepts the notion of owned and controlled data. Since copyright laws implicitly accept this notion (I can only think of governmental "Secret", "Top Secret", etc. classifications as another example of controlled data) then "illegal downloading" would be an appropriate term, I guess. Oh, "illegal numbers" are illegal, too.13:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.9.194 (talk)

Illegal numbers and intellectual property laws exist to protect entities either from grievous harm or from others who want to utilize their investments without making contributions towards the costs of those investments. That is what makes copyright infringement and the publication of illegal numbers wrong. To date, there has never been a single valid case presented for why all information should be "free" and/or why IP should never have owners. All examples of such are motivated by selfish desires. -XJDHDR (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An article's discussion page is for discussion about the article and what it should contain, not for philosophical debates about its topic. We needn't pose nor answer questions like "should all information be free?" or "is IP actually property?"—much less "are copyright skeptics really just selfish freeloaders?".

However, if people are taking up those kinds of positions in arguments precipitated by accusations of copyright infringement, then it may be worth mentioning in the article, in that context. Citations needed, of course. —mjb (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture does not support statement

I changed the picture to support the statement 80.249.255.234 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the section "Theft", there is a long piece of text differentiating between "copyright violation" and "theft". Under the same section, there is a picture of the "Piracy is a crime" video with a caption underneath stating that the video "equates copyright infringement to theft." Under the scope of the article section, the picture does NOT equate the 2, it merely says "Piracy is a crime". Additionally, the text under the picture is not supporting the picture itself. As an aside, the picture caption says the video is un-skippable. This isn't always true. Some players will allow you to use the fast-forward button (rather then next-chapter button) to speed up the advert, speeding up to a high speed would essentially skip the video. Some DVDs also allow the use of the main-menu button to skip it. Others will allow you to type 01 (or 1 etc) to skip straight to the first title-set on the DVD - usually the main menu. I seriously doubt there is any credible source for the above skipping, but I would argue the statement that it is UN-skippable should also be sourced. MrZoolook (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I asume we are talking about this video, which is called by MPAA You Wouldn't Steal a Car as by this source. I am not sure why the person that uploaded that image picked the phrase "piracy is a crime" and not the more famous phrase "you wouldn't steal a car". as for being un-skippable, is this bbc news article and this less good source ok? Belorn (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for MrZoolook, but I also had a problem with the picture, and my problem is that, while the *entire piece* does equate copyright infringement with theft, the *still shown* does not. I suggest moving it under the Piracy section until we can get another still. (Unfortunately, the best line, ‘Downloading pirated films is stealing’, is spread across several stills.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not any more: User operation prohibition#Counter-counter-countermeasures QuentinUK (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Piracy is a mess

Okay, I have been trying for some time now to consolidate all information in piracy into one comprehensive article. Originally this was through significant additions to this article, but piracy lies somewhat beyond the scope of that article. I just discovered the article on copyright infringement of software, and VCD peddler yesterday. As well, you can find significant discussions in the articles on Bittorrent, RIAA and related articles. I was in the process of creating a proposed article in my user namespace to be at Piracy (information), but in light of the widespread discussion of this issue I've realized that this is not something that I can do alone.

So, I'm asking for help, or at least discussion of ways to clear up the present situation. Please comment on the proposed article's talk page, so that we can keep discussion centralized... despite the insanity that attempts to cover this rather complex topic. --IntrigueBlue 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea, but I completely disagree with using the term "piracy" as I think it's very biased (see my arguments under the heading "some questions"). A more neutral title might be something like Unauthorised copying of information. Guyjohnston 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the start of this talk page, the word piracy has been in use for over 400 years to describe copyright infringement. Nazlfrag (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Logical falacy. Long-term use doesn't make it is any more neutral. The original term (copyright infringment) is even older. This also ignores the confusion which “piracy” throws up. This article is about copyright not, for example, patents, so a more specific/unambiguous term is required, for clarity. — Lee Carré (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a pejorative term has been in use for over 400 years doesn't make it a neutral term. Jarble (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Company report as source

Hi! Recently I download one of a company's annual report. Can I upload the company's annual report so that it can be used as a source in this wikisource. Tq. Ms. Li Po.. Hang Li Po (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Digital piracy in developing countries

The 2011 Business Software Alliance Piracy Study Standard shows that mature markets for the first time received less PC shipments than emerging economies in 2010, making emerging markets now responsible for more than half of all computers in use worldwide. With software piracy rates of 68 percent comparing to 24 percent of mature markets, emerging markets thus possesses the majority of the global increase in the commercial value of pirated software. China continues to have the highest commercial value of pirated software at $8.9 billion in 2011 and second in the world behind the US at $9.7 billion. Pphan1991 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Causes

In Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, the first independent international comparative study of media piracy with center on Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, Mexico and Bolivia, “high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies” are the chief factors that lead to the global spread of media piracy, especially in emerging markets.

According to the same study, even though digital piracy inflicts additional costs on the production side of media, it also offers the main access to media goods in developing countries. The strong tradeoffs that favor using digital piracy in developing economies dictate the current neglected law enforcements toward digital piracy. In China, the issue of digital piracy is not merely legal, but social – originated from the high demand for cheap and affordable pirated goods as well as the governmental connections of the businesses which produce such goods. Pphan1991 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

US-centric

There is a lot of focus on US law in the article, with very little about other jurisdictions. As a reader, I would have liked a more international view, even if restricted to bullet-points. A separate US-specific article is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.73.122.167 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Useful Copyright Law Reference

Copyright Codex is a free treatise on U.S. copyright law. Its a reorganized and updated version of Prof. Robert Gorman's Copyright Treatise for the Federal Judicial Center (which is also an excellent reference, if somewhat dated).

The Copyright Codex page on Infringement and Substantial Similarity could be a useful reference for this article.

Copyright Codex is my own work, and I don't mean to be spammy. But it covers a lot of copyright law in detail, and without a paywall or advertising. Anyway, I'm just proposing it on the talk page, I'd never use it or link to it in any of my edits to the actual article. Teachingaway (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

content and source added today - Dudareva dissertation

last night/today content was added to the article based on a dissertation in these difs. if you look at page 21 of dissertation, where the statistics about the value of copyright in the US economy, the information is sourced to a 2010 GAO report - but those stats don't appear there. I don't have time to fix this now, but will later if someone else doesn't fix it first.. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

economic impact

Reworked the economic impact section.

• removed block of text that used numbers from a paper about counterfeit goods to make claims about copyright
• separated industry estimates/studies
• removed estimate of copyright in relation to GDP, which isn't copyright infringement and would better fit elsewhere (and with a more authoritative source).
  • ...and connected claim about Ukraine with some rather liberal speculation
• changed "debunked" to "widely disputed" ("debunking" seems a little extreme)
• copyediting, consolidating, etc.
• removed some unsourced claims about piracy as technology tax
• minor organizational changes to emerging markets section

The "emerging markets" section seems like it could be better integrated, but I'm not sure how best to do so. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't really sure where to begin.

I was thinking we should also add something about the Special 301 Report... —mjb (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Computer Gaming World 1986 article

I started to rework this addition. It's an interesting early example so should probably at least be linked to, but I have reservations about putting it up with e.g. MPAA/RIAA estimates. First, the text I'm [at least temporarily] removing (revised by me before having second thoughts):

In April 1986 Computer Gaming World published a survey of 10 game publishers, which included an early criticism of software piracy. When asked about the relatively few titles being released for Atari 8-bit that year "more than one company stated that copying (piracy) of Atari software was worse than occurred with other machines and that their sales figures did not justify greater support for the eight bit Atari."

The original addition to the article included the following, some editorializing which doesn't seem to fit here:

In an accompanying editorial, the magazine stated: "Piracy occurs with every machine but a price will eventually be paid. If piracy becomes so severe that sales are minimal then your machine will simply no longer have new software to copy. It doesn't really matter what the justification for copying was, the bottom line is no new games. CGW strongly urges our readers to be aware of the hidden costs of piracy and to consider these facts when you are asked to make a copy of a game."

It's a survey of 10 game publishers, "more than one" of which said the only thing that's relevant re: copyright infringement. Furthermore the console in question is outdated by most of the others on the list, so of course support will be waning (but that's my own OR). Also, immediately before the pulled editorial above is "CGW has no evidence that either side is right."

In other words, it's not based on any data except for what "more than one" company said, with no data other than the number of releases for an aging system. Difficult to compare to the methodologies, data, etc. used by the RIAA/MPAA. Interesting, though -- where can it go? --Rhododendrites (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The section is called "Industry estimates", not "MPAA/RIAA estimates", and I think a survey of the industry qualifies. The platform's age is both OR and irrelevant; the Atari (introduced 1979) was younger than the Apple II (1977), a new Atari 8-bit model appeared in 1987, and although the Commodore 64 was newer (1982) it, overall, was no more advanced technically than the Atari (I write this as a 64 owner). Publishers still viewed Atari as a viable platform in 1986, unlike the TRS-80 or PET; otherwise they wouldn't have put new titles out at all.

I am less wedded to retaining the editorial quote, but perhaps it could fit elsewhere. I think the editorial's existence itself is more interesting; although the magazine did not provide detail beyond "more than one", clearly what it heard from the publishers was strong, and alarming, enough to cause the editorial to be written in the first place. (CGW itself did not favor copy protection; on the contrary, the magazine repeatedly denounced games with it in its reviews.) Ylee (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right the system's age is OR and not particularly relevant to the question at hand. The section is indeed "industry estimates." The perspective of "more than one" company isn't very representative of an industry though, and no estimate is even offered. RIAA on the other hand speaks on behalf of [most of] the industry and gives specific figures based on data (even if there are criticisms of their methods). Should every published opinion of a CEO/VP/employee of a game/music/movie/tv/publishing company on the subject of piracy be included? (Rhetorical question of course -- I'm just trying to figure out why this one would count as an "industry estimate" other than that it's interesting from a historical perspective).

To be clear, I agree it's an interesting find and should have a place here somewhere -- I just don't think that's the right spot.

What about a new section for History? This is, after all, the primary article for software piracy. It would have to distinguish itself from History of copyright law by focusing on the type of infringement's cultural/economic context rather than its legal standing, but in talking about the history of software piracy this CGW piece would be good. Just a thought... --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is going off on a tangent now, but I just saw there's a History of music piracy article but no History of software piracy. If I'm not alone in thinking there should be one, I'd be glad to help out with making it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Software piracy needs to be a standalone article with a History section. It would be a place to put quotes/cites like this, Bill Gates' famous Open Letter to Hobbyists, and mention of things like code wheels, Fast Hack'em, modern online activation and serial keys, etc. Ylee (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another CGW mention of Atari piracy being more widespread than on other computers, from page 13 of the May 1987 issue, goes into the problem in some more detail. Whether or not this was really true it seems pretty clear that the companies believed it, correspondingly affecting their plans. Ylee (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

too much piracy talk interspersed into every portion of article

There is a TON, and ENTIRE BODY OF LAW that existed and exists about copyright that has absolutely nothing to do with the very recent phenomena of internet piracy. I know internet kiddies love to make every article about their favorite political spin on a topic, but we don't need all these images of piracy protests, pirate bay. What the hell. No image of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ie the patent and copyright clause? Despite constant internet propaganda piracy is a tiny portion of the idea of copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.207.228 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition: pretty pathetic, it doesn't even talk about the ELEMENTS THAT ESTABLISH WHAT INFRINGEMENT IS until the criminal law section halfway through. Completely omits any discussion of the elements of the civil infringement action. This article is so far up its own ass about piracy that it doesn't even define what Copyright Infringement is, instead immediately talking about piracy in THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE MEAT OF THE ARTICLE. What a joke. Not going to bother editing it because I'm sure someone with an agenda is going to insta-revert it. There is clearly no room for objectivity or facts in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.207.228 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No contributory infringement?

The Contributory infringement disambig page links here for the copyright version of contributory infringement[1], but the articles doesn't seem to cover it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:21 20 October 2007 (GMT)

Contributory infringement disambiguates to this article, but is not mentioned. We need either a separate article (my preference, as "contributory infringement" is more open to confusion and debate than simple infringement), or at least some mention here. Bustter (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. A quick Google search reveals some sources [2][3] for two types of indirect infringement: vicarious liability and contributory infringement. However they're not the best of sources. Anyone feel like doing some more digging? —mjb (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article has almost nothing to do with the actual legal action and concept known as copyright infringement. It's a pointless political puff piece that talks about it like the entire subject is some sort of two-sided political argument, when in reality the policy arguments around Copyright Infringement make up a small portion of the topic at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.207.228 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

POV Issues in this Article

This article needs more balance... not enough discussion of defences to copyright infringement, and not enough acknowlegement that increasingly what is labelled "copyright infringement" is in fact "fair use". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.149 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Details and discussion of fair use as a defense are covered in the fair use article. I don't think we should go quite so in-depth here. However, you're right in that fair use got short shrift in this article.

I tried to address this today by splitting and substantially rewriting the Limitations and prevention section, which dealt only with digital infringement, wasn't global in perspective, and was rather biased.

The most significant oversight was that it ignored that infringement is reduced by simply narrowing the scope of what's considered infringing. Copyright owners do this through non-traditional licensing (GPL, for example), and legislatures do it through exceptions and limitations on copyright, such as fair use, compulsory licensing, and safe harbor.

The diff of my edits makes it look pretty major, but I think most of the changes are just better introducing and expanding on what was already there. The only material removed was biased and redundant, and I removed a blog being used as a reference. Hopefully this resolves your concern. —mjb (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i think the OP was ax-grindy and quite wrong. I am concerned that the new text is unsourced.Jytdog (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I added a number of references and ended up removing one statement (a hasty comparison of fair use & fair dealing) that apparently is contentious. If any of the other material in those sections is legitimately doubted, please explain here or at least tag it {{citation needed|date=February 2014}} and I'll see what else I can find. It may help if you or someone who can help us has access to Nimmer on Copyright or Patry on Copyright, well-regarded and quite pricey treatises which probably address these issues in depth. You may also want to devote some attention to the equally uncited copyright and fair use articles, which make some of the same statements (e.g., copyright#Fair use and fair dealing talks about fair use being a matter of common law long before its U.S. codification in 1976). —mjb (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In practical terms the copyright holder, who is not a multi-national with a big budget is quite powerless as my experience has shown. I have never made my book available in digital format and yet it has been offered on the Dubai site blogymate. I have contacted them several times, and they removed it twice, but only for a little while, and now they no longer reply. It kept popping up again and is still there. There is an Anti-Copyright-Piracy office in Dubai, but they don't seem to be interested, maybe they only defend the rights of the biggies. Plenty of other books/works are offered on that site, would they also be pirated? All authors need to check if there's an illegal offering there. Hopefully one day someone can pull the plug on those blogymate fraudsters and they'll have to pay up. 121.209.56.9 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The monkey selfies

The recently added section Celebes_crested_macaque#Copyright_test_case needs to be removed from that article, for lack of significance there, and moved to an appropriate article about copyright. My feeling is that this is the best choice, but I don't know enough about the subject to choose the appropriate section (or whether it would be better to create a new section). Obviously the text can be modified as deemed appropriate, as with any other text.   Mandruss |talk  03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the subject of copyright in animal-produced works is a significant topic that should get its own article. There's at least one law review article that deals with it in detail:

• Dane E Johnson, Statute of Anne-imals: Should Copyright Protect Sentient Nonhuman Creators?, 15 Animal L. 15 (2008).

Other potential sources:

• Neal Smith, Monkey Art and Copyright: Intellectual Property Rights in Works by Nonhuman Creators
• Doug Whitfield, Doug. Music Manumit Lawcast: Monkey Art and Copyright: Intellectual Property Rights in Works by Nonhuman Creators. (interview with Smith)
• Cindy Alberts Carson. Laser Bones: Copyright Issues Raised by the Use of Information in Technology, 10 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 281 (1997), esp. pp 298, 300.
• Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 202.02(b) ("The term 'authorship' implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.").

I think there's enough here, and probably elsewhere (not to mention the coverage on Slater's claim), to start at least a stub on the subject. There's certainly enough to make it past WP:GNG. I haven't digested all of these yet, but the Johnson article considers it in some detail: not just whether such a work is could be subject to copyright, but who the owner would be, given than there's already plenty of law for the proposition that animals do not have standing to sue. TJRC (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me, but it's far beyond my knowledge level, which is why I started this topic.   Mandruss |talk  05:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not property crime

Please do not re-add this article (or Category:Copyright infringement) to the property crimes category or its piracy subcategory. The property crimes article does not support calling copyright, trademark or patent infringement property crimes. For some rationale as to why this is the case, see Intellectual property#Criticisms. In a nutshell, property crime has long had a particular meaning in the law, and is distinct from offenses related to "intellectual property." —mjb (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

redirect

Should internet piracy really redirect to copyright infringement? I mean really, piracy doesn't really infringe on any copyrights unless used for commercial purposes. 72.197.162.227 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, it should. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

new Copyright Law in Developing Nation/argentina content

Content was added today - needs a bunch of work before it goes live. a bunch of this is sourced to WP, which is not OK per WP:CIRCULAR

Argentina has established itself as one of the top developing nations in the world. As a developing nation, Argentina continually faces intellectual property rights violations. In an effort to combat these issues, Argentina introduced the National Directorate of Copyright and, in the year 2000, passed the European Union approved “Law for the Protection of Personal Data.” Argentina, even with this legislation and government agency in place, is losing the battle against piracy. In 2011, Argentina’s recording industry disclosed that a staggering 99% of the digital music market had been obtained through online piracy. Argentina’s music industry has proved to a very outspoken voice against piracy, leading Argentina to increase the copyright term for music from 50 to 70 years.

Similar to the United State’s legal battle against Napster, Argentina found the popular forum Taringa! to be in violation of national copyright law. In an effort to protect digital intellectual property rights, Argentina targeted Taringa! claiming it helped to circulate access to copyrighted content. Ultimately, Taringa! introduced an upgraded system with the ability to report any material that could lead to copyright infringement.

Argentina’s legislation and enforcement to uphold copyright regulations are far from perfect. In 2013, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) reported that Argentina lacks the enforcement and the effective laws to stop Internet piracy. Although the piracy in Argentina has fallen from 74% to 73% from 2008 to 2009, Argentina is still leagues behind the United State’s piracy rate of 20%. The IIPA recommends increased enforcement and more strict digital copyright laws that reflect Argentina’s growing Internet usage in an effort to lower this rate.

References

so.. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The other side of the coin

A somewhat controversial area is the use of copy protection mechanisms to create usage restrictions which fall outside the scope of intellectual property law.

Examples:

DVD regionalisation, which prevents a person who has legitimately purchased a DVD in one country from playing that DVD in another.

OEM software licenses which forbid the transfer of the covered software to another computer. If the transfer is by physical exchange of hard disk, then no copying whatsoever is involved, yet some vendors claim that even this action violates copyright. Which makes no sense.

License conditions forbidding the legitimate resale of software, and which are enforced by threats of deactivation. (Restrictions which I believe have been declared illegal in Europe, following a German court precedent)

The issue in any of these situations is that the licensee may be left with a choice of forgoing what they have legitimately paid for, or else to infringe the license conditions and potentially risk prosecution, even though they are not actually pirating anything. Perhaps this aspect should be mentioned. --Anteaus (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Text with issues

Before reinsertion, I think the following text (in box below) needs:

• specification on what types of "different methods" are referred to
• a reference to the claim that industries are "increasingly meeting global consumer demand", and what parameter is used as a basis for this

Until then, I think this is too vague to be encyclopaedic. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to legal maneuvers to curb copyright infringement, the music and motion picture industries have been trying different methods of digital distribution, reforming and sometimes abandoning the traditional system of "windowing" that keeps content from being available in all forms, worldwide, at the same time. By working with manufacturers, broadcasters, and distributors to deliver content efficiently and maintain acceptable revenue flows, the industries are slowly but increasingly meeting global consumer demand for immediate, in-home access to copyright-protected works. Nevertheless, the industry's position is that with the Internet being a global entity, it will still take a combination of worldwide legal agreements, agencies tasked with enforcement, and new ways of selling products to substantially reduce copyright infringement.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Copyright infringement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100213110414/http://www.linux.com:80/archive/feature/113252 to http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/113252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Motivation section

The first paragraph in this section seems like WP:OR to me. It has one reference to a software developer who briefly mentions DRM in the context of piracy. I also take issue with the need for a motivation section at all. Making copies of things and sharing information is what humans do. Its called communication. The reasons do not need to be explained. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Registration required for lawsuit

To any interested editors, as I write this, the article is missing information, as far as U.S. law is concerned, that registration is required to bring an infringement lawsuit and that there are statute of limitations for civil (3 years upon discovery) and criminal (5 years). Perhaps editors in other countries will then add their relevant information.

• https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411 ("Registration and civil infringement actions")
• From what point in time does the copyright statute of limitations begin to run?
• Second Circuit Adopts Plaintiff-Friendly "Discovery Rule" for Copyright Infringement Claims

The article as I write this seems bloated with less important information in my opinion. For example, an entire subsection is devoted to the coined term "freebooting," which seems more like an advertisement for someone's podcasting career. I don't intend to do any edits to the article, just want to give some feedback that I came to the article and found it lacking. The above links would make good references. 5Q5 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty US-specific. I think it's too detailed for an article on an international subject. Much of it is already in Copyright law of the United States, which is the applicable subject on the national law. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copyright infringement. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219143600/http://hsog.tk/2015/02/piracy-and-copyright-in-australia/ to http://www.hsog.tk/2015/02/piracy-and-copyright-in-australia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127214713/http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Computer/SoftwareAndCopyright/Softwa06.html to http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Computer/SoftwareAndCopyright/Softwa06.html

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) 12:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dekker

The information regarding the labeling of prohibited copying as piracy in 1603 and the related citation of a work by Thomas Dekker (the Wonderfull Yeare) does not hold up to inspection. Nowhere does it mention the Stationers' Company, royal charters, or even publishers. I have read the piece multiple times and it merely contains a seemingly poetic phrasing about the nine muses being "Word-pirates". It should be read by someone who has more understanding of the historical period in which the passage was written wrt publishing, but I am surpised it hasn't been questioned in the ten years since its insertion into the wiki.

If interpretation is to be the mode, I find this section to be supportive of writers' defiance of publishers/copyrighters. "It is not the ratling of all this former haile-shot, that can terrifie our Band of Castalian Pen-men from entring into the field: no, no, the murdring Artillery indeede lyes in the roaring mouthes of a company that looke big as if they were the sole and singular Commanders ouer the maine Army of Poesy, yet (if Hermes muster-booke were searcht ouer) theile be found to be the most pitifull pure fresh-water souldiers: they giue out, that they are heires-apparent to Helicon, but an easy Herald may make them meere yonger brothers, or (to say troth) not so much." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.154.246 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

After careful reading, it became clear that this section supports the author's defiance of the monopoly over publishing books. Initially, the author claims that it takes courage to commit words to paper because of critics and dissatisfied readers, and then the author starts complaining about those who fight against independent publishers, those who make profits from such monopoly. The author isn't admonishing the "9 muses", but instead asking them to withold providing inspiration for those who would write for stationaries (it was seen as guild, a regulated industry). If anything, the only seemingly direct reference to who this passage is specifically targetting, it would be this "Hermes" which could supposedly be the name of the "Army of Poesy" mentioned previously. Hermes "muster-book", a list of enlisted soldiers in a regiment, would supposedly be a record of writers and stationaries in general registered to publish works legally.

Ironically, this then means that Copyrighters are the "Word-Pirates", not independent publishers, although it would be more appropriate to refer to them as Privateers instead, while the author would be the outlaw Pirate. 177.182.180.146 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Edison

The Edison's (not only) episode against Méliès maybe could be insert like a "Copyright infringement ante litteram" or a sort of "proto-Copyright infringement".

In 1902 a famous copyright violation was committed by Thomas Edison, Siegmund Lubin and William Selig. They had produced illegal copies of the film A Trip to the Moon by the france filmmaker Georges Méliès and made large amounts of money from them.

TJRC thinks different: "Not a copyright infringement; at the time the Méliès was not protected by copyright in the US, where Edison's actions occurred. Unethical? sure. copyright violation? no." --Assianir (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It should remain out. The article is about copyright infringement, and Edison's acts were not copyright infringement; it's that simple. At the time of Edison's actions, the US barely recognized copyrights in non-US works, and then only when complying with US formalities, which the Méliès film did not do. The sources cited to do not claim it was copyright infringement.

It was probably a pretty shitty thing for Edison to have done, but there's no indication that it violated copyright law or any other law.

It just doesn't belong in the article; it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My POV is clearly a little different; here we are not speaking about The law of the United States, so if "At the time of Edison's actions, the US barely recognized copyrights in non-US works" is irrilevant. When you kill a person it's an homicide, when you beat a dog it's animal abuse doesn't care if you violated a law or not. IMHumbleO here we are speaking about an action, a behavior, sometimes it is considered criminal and sometimes not. IMHumbleO this episode can help to understand and can add something useful at the voice but if this remains my only opinion then ok. Nothing to add Assianir (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is about copyright infringement. This wasn't copyright infringement. TJRC (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"Illegal"

It is very common to find copyright infringement described as "illegal" (and approved usage as "legal"). Some discussion is required in the article: is copyright infringement against the criminal law, truly illegal (the police will come for you), or a civil matter (the copyright owner might take you to court)? I suppose this might vary by jurisdiction. Not knowing for sure I do not amend the article, but I tend to think that "illegal", as widely used, is incorrect. Best wishes and a Happy New Year, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is the first word at the top of the autocomplete when typing the letter “C” on “Search Wikipedia”?

Try typing just one letter, “C” on the search bar, you get, in this order:

1. C
2. Copyright Infringement
3. Copyright law of the United States
4. Canada
5. Copyright
6. China
7. California
8. Catholic church
9. City
10. Chicago

Please tell me, why is “Copyright infringement” being the first word/sentence on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That is what you got - not necessarily what others got. Had you been reading about copyright infringement ? ---- Beardo (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comes up Computer for me. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect COPYVIO. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. funplussmart (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Copyvio. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous 1600's Dekker Reference in "Piracy" section

The consensus is to remove the material based on the source because as explained by Pincrete, "The very fact that the question has to be asked - that interpretation of a primary source has to occur - means that the source does not support the claim. A reliable secondary/tertiary source explicitly making the claim would be needed."

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting someone who has a good understanding of 17th century English and copywriter guilds to verify whether the article's content really reflects what the source material is saying. 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the line which failed verification about copyright infringement being referred to as piracy in 1603.

It has been on the article as failed for more than a year. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert changes but please read the previous discussion and the source material, and help us understand why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright_infringement/Archive_2#Dekker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.148.103 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Archived talk section rendered here for ease of reading

Dekker

The information regarding the labeling of prohibited copying as piracy in 1603 and the related citation of a work by Thomas Dekker (the Wonderfull Yeare) does not hold up to inspection. Nowhere does it mention the Stationers' Company, royal charters, or even publishers. I have read the piece multiple times and it merely contains a seemingly poetic phrasing about the nine muses being "Word-pirates". It should be read by someone who has more understanding of the historical period in which the passage was written wrt publishing, but I am surpised it hasn't been questioned in the ten years since its insertion into the wiki.

If interpretation is to be the mode, I find this section to be supportive of writers' defiance of publishers/copyrighters. "It is not the ratling of all this former haile-shot, that can terrifie our Band of Castalian Pen-men from entring into the field: no, no, the murdring Artillery indeede lyes in the roaring mouthes of a company that looke big as if they were the sole and singular Commanders ouer the maine Army of Poesy, yet (if Hermes muster-booke were searcht ouer) theile be found to be the most pitifull pure fresh-water souldiers: they giue out, that they are heires-apparent to Helicon, but an easy Herald may make them meere yonger brothers, or (to say troth) not so much." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.154.246 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

After careful reading, it became clear that this section supports the author's defiance of the monopoly over publishing books. Initially, the author claims that it takes courage to commit words to paper because of critics and dissatisfied readers, and then the author starts complaining about those who fight against independent publishers, those who make profits from such monopoly. The author isn't admonishing the "9 muses", but instead asking them to withold providing inspiration for those who would write for stationaries (it was seen as guild, a regulated industry). If anything, the only seemingly direct reference to who this passage is specifically targetting, it would be this "Hermes" which could supposedly be the name of the "Army of Poesy" mentioned previously. Hermes "muster-book", a list of enlisted soldiers in a regiment, would supposedly be a record of writers and stationaries in general registered to publish works legally.

Ironically, this then means that Copyrighters are the "Word-Pirates", not independent publishers, although it would be more appropriate to refer to them as Privateers instead, while the author would be the outlaw Pirate. 177.182.180.146 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Added to aid the RfC process 100.4.151.231 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Does not support The very fact that the question has to be asked - that interpretation of a primary source has to occur - means that the source does not support the claim. A reliable secondary/tertiary source explicitly making the claim would be needed. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I favor removing it. If the cited source is so unclear we can't be sure what it means, we shouldn't make that conclusion. I'd favor inclusion if we had a WP:RS that cited the Dekker source as an early instance, but we don't; we're essentially exercising WP:OR to draw that conclusion.

The pertinent entry for "pirate" in the rather authoritative Oxford English Dictionary is the one as a noun, in the sense of:

"A person or company who reproduces or uses the work of another (as a book, recording, computer program, etc.) without authority and esp. in contravention of patent or copyright; a plagiarist. Also: a thing reproduced or used in this way"

This entry does reference the Dekker quote, but marks it as "relevant to the development of a sense but not directly illustrative of it" (my emphasis). That is reason enough, in my view, to strike it.

The earliest illustrative quotation in the OED for the noun is by a John Hancock in a notice at the end of a 1668 print of a book Brook's String of Pearls (here's a 1671 edition, which unfortunately lacks the notice): "Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.".

The earliest citation it provides for the verb in the sense of:

"To reproduce or use (the work, idea, etc., of another) without authority, esp. in infringement of patent or copyright; to produce a pirate copy or edition of"

is in Daniel Defoe's Jure divino: a satyr; in twelve books, published in 1706: "Gentlemen-Booksellers that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. reprint it, and sell it for half a Crown.".

So, yeah, the 1603 Dekker cite is sufficiently called into question that I'd say kill it. TJRC (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for removing claim of "piracy" being used in Berne Convention 1886

https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12807 - original document, uses "ouvre contrefaite", not "piracy" http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation.php?id=representation_uk_1886c&pagenumber=1_13 - official English translation, uses "infringing work", not "pirated works" 2.121.5.184 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, except that really means "counterfeit/imitation/forged works"; "infringing" is a very different concept, so it was mis-translated. I'm not sure it really matters in this exact context, but I'm skeptical we should use an inaccurate translation simply because the inaccurate translation got published.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 12:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Video piracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Video piracy should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Video piracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Techdirt

User:MrOllie reverted my edit which had removed some information concerning possible legal malfeasance sourced to Techdirt by objecting to my claim that the site is a blog. As far as I can find the site is in fact a blog and the only two mentions I've seen of it on RSN refer to it as both a poor source and as a blog. In the spirit of BRD I'd like to discuss another possible change here. Here's the direct link to the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1061820068 108.174.175.69 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joe q 5150.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of 17th/18th century satirists & poets

I question the use of authors such as Edward Ward and Thomas Dekker as supporting the history of the use of the word "piracy" to describe copyright infringement. These men lived under the thumb of the Stationers' Company. Their works that have been cited here are seething, dripping with malign for the stationers and their petty enforcers.

Regardless of their true feelings on the subject, it is evident that merely citing the works themselves is hardly demonstrative. The depiction of stationers in Canto VII of Ward's "A Journey to Hell" is an exaggeration, a caricature for satire's sake to stretch the attitude of the average stationer towards the independent authors/publishers to its extreme.

Perhaps a dictionary can better serve as a reference, as it doesn't carry the same personal vendetta the prior mentioned authors harbor. I have compared three editions of Nathan Bailey's Dictionarium Brittanicum. Of the 1726, 1730, and 1736 versions, only the 1736 version is revised to include in the definition of "pirate" literary plagiarism.

@LilianaUwU, you approved my prior edit, what do you think? I thought some discussion would be appropriate before removing yet another reference to Dekker and perhaps replacing Ward. 216.59.173.143 (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@216.59.173.143 Seems like a reasonable concern from a cursory glance. As you said, finding a better source than a blog is the best way to go about it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"An example of copyright infrigement" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect An example of copyright infrigement has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 19 § An example of copyright infrigement until a consensus is reached. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)