Talk:The Orchard (company)

Copyvio

The article was replaced by a cut and paste abotu the company taken from a press release. It is both a copyvio, and introduces a POV bias into the article making look like an advertisement. I've reverted to an earlier version of the article. -- Whpq 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ironic. From the article: "The Orchard's YouTube multi-channel network has more than 1,000 channels across the globe and uses technology, built in-house, called B.A.C.O.N. (Bulk Automated Claiming on The Orchard Network) to crawl, claim and track YouTube videos to monetize for their clients..." This results in false copyright claims against musicians who have created their own music for youtube. A little reflection suggests that automated copyright claims without checking provenance is not a good idea. I am searching google for an authoritative source. Wastrel Way (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Eric

This doesn't involve youtube but it is an example of the sneaky way that Orchard operates. In this case, the plaintiffs (B&B) created two albums and copyrighted them both, and all of the songs on them, and Orchard copied them and resold the copies. B&B won. It's not clear if they got an injunction. https://berschlerlaw.com/blog/2019/02/07/statutory-damages-claimed-for-copyright-infringement-of-songs/ Wastrel Way (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Eric

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Orchard (company). 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/20151119064958/http://www.4entertainmentjobs.com/jobs/l/4entjob47500.html?utm_source=SimplyHired&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=SimplyHired to http://www.4entertainmentjobs.com/jobs/l/4entjob47500.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 14:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Intentionally tagged as checked=failed, because the bot took an archived 2015 snapshot consisting of a "job taken" message with no further info, the archived 2014 snapshot is the real thing for the reference in the infobox. Already fixed here, but I'm not volunteering to discuss this with the bot owner, visit phab: without login, or whatever else enwiki vs. WMF expect without offering a decent salary. –84.46.53.168 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IODA/IRIS merge

I propose merging the IODA and IRIS Distribution articles. SebastianWolff (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Talk:IODA (disambiguation)#Merge with The Orchard.  Done Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of "advert"

I propose removing the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" banner. Reading through I just don't see the issue. I suspect that editors have cleaned up since the time that flag was thrown. --Lucas gonze (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not much better than January 2016 as of today, but on your say so and after two minor improvements let's say it isn't too bad. OTOH it's tagged as WP:COI removal when I try this, so this requires a @Lucas gonze: {{sofixit}}.

The enumeration of allegedly "better known" #Distributed labels is a weasel attracting spam, I'm tempted to throw in RWG Records for a serious case of WP:IAR vs. WP:POINT. A category for the distributed labels would be far better, the notability is then covered by "article (or redirection) exists", and nobody has to decide what "better known" is supposed to mean. –84.46.53.168 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

After reading the horrible dewiki version I can't decide if this page should get a {{PROD}}, an attention=yes, or a demotion to class=stub. What exactly caused these first=Staff + last=Billboard abominations not only here? If it was some bot running amok, does it have a log to undo the damage? –84.46.53.168 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This company should be liquidated.

Listen, this company has falsely copyright claimed a YouTuber I watch named "EchartsLadder" who has permission from the creator and copyright owner. It is a horrible company and should be destroyed, as well as an investigation into Sony Music and The Orchard's employees. BruvGBruvington (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)