Talk:Online piracy

And VS OR

The beginning sentence of the article "Online piracy is the practice of downloading and distributing copyrighted content digitally without permission, such as music or software." should be updated. For example, you would pay for a youtube video by watching an ad, by installing an adblock, you are committing piracy. This sentiment has been reflected by various content creators and the article should be updated to reflect changing times by changing "and" to "or" or "and/or" --2603:6011:A400:D58D:388D:B392:6C33:4A49 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 13 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VQuiche. Peer reviewers: Zarens, Adriel824, Ijustinns.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article title - Online piracy vs Unauthorised online distribution

This article title has changed from Online piracy to Unauthorised online distribution and back with the explanation that the former title is a smear word and the latter title is a more neutral point of view title. I think that the editor making that page move misunderstands that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. The common name should be used for an article title and in this case it is Online piracy. However, the article should be written in away that explains how Online piracy is the same as Unauthorised online distribution, perhaps first explaining why the highly biased term Online piracy is used by distributors who have their copyrights violated by Unauthorised online distribution because they see it as international daylight robbery of their copyright royalties in a very similar way that pirates have,for centuries, raid shipping on the high seas, and still do. Wikipedia should report society's biases, but do it in a fair and unbiased way so that all sides of the story are given their due weight in what could be a highly emotive subject area. - 203.96.84.33 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view says "prefer nonjudgemental language". Does that not apply here? "Piracy" in the article title is both judgemental and misleading, and if we have an option to not use it I think that option should be taken. It isn't as if anyone is going to be inconvenienced by having a neutral title due to redirects, and if the article explains in the lead that it's often called this (but also explains that it's a smear term), then we both acknowledge the common term while remaining neutral ourselves. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

While WP:NPOV is true, WP:COMMONNAME also is true. Further, as part of WP:NPOV we follow the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS which overwhelmingly describe this activity as "piracy". ResultingConstant (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ResultingConstant: The common name policy also states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.", though. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is a policy that forces us to carefully consider and moderate our use of language. In a BLP article, we sometimes describe Neo-Nazis as "far-right activists", or to describe wackjob cult leaders as "a figure prominent in a new religious movement". BLP is, with the possible exception of WP:MEDRS, the strictest and most heavily enforced policies on this site.

Nonetheless, there remain exceptions to this rule in BLP. Category:American neo-Nazis contains 105 pages, the majority of which are BLPs (and the remainder bio articles of dead people). It even included pages where the subject of the article denies being a Neo-Nazi. Category:White supremacists contains over 300 entries, many of whom vociferously deny being a white supremacist.

BLP is the only policy to require us to police our terminology with such caution.

Without such a policy as BLP applying to this subject, the argument that we should use an inoffensive name for this subject to avoid violating WP:NPOV is completely without merit. There is absolutely nothing non-neutral about calling this subject "online piracy". There's no judgement in the word. There's no implications of wrongdoing that aren't both entirely true (IP theft, however wrong one may consider that) and equally as present in "Unauthorised online distribution".

People on both sides of the debate over the morality of this subject use the term. The Pirate Bay is one of the most recognizable websites in the world, a staunch defender of the practice. SOPA was a major effort by detractors of the practice to put an end to it, and SOPA stands for "Stop Online Piracy Act.

There's nothing misleading about the term, either. No RSes have ever reported on any confusion about what "online piracy" means. Anyone under the age of 40 who claims they've ever heard someone express confusion is almost certainly lying. My father, who worked construction his whole life, grew up on a farm in the 40s and 50s, taught me to hunt and fish and retired to rural Alabama to raise chickens knew what "software piracy" was back in 1993, when he caught me playing a video game he hadn't bought me. In fact, it was him who explained the term to me.

The argument that there is something wrong with the current name is completely and utterly without merit. None of the postulates upon which it rests are true. Not one. This should not be an issue for discussion, and I cannot take seriously anyone who insists that it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MPants at work:

No judgement

There is indeed judgement in the word "piracy" – it is equating the act of copying without permission with theft, murder and kidnapping (i.e. things that actual pirates do). The term has been so heavily pushed by business interests that you can't see the judgement.

Implications of wrongdoing that are true

There is no such thing as "intellectual property theft", because there is no such thing as "intellectual property". The term "intellectual property" was invented to group together many different laws which are only related in the sense that they are about intangible ideas and concepts. An important word there is "intangible" – something that is intangible cannot be property. (Further information: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html) Property is a physical thing that you own, and if someone takes it from you, you then do not have that thing. Copying is not theft because nothing is being taken. "Copying is theft" is a (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of copyright law. There is a very good reason why, when someone copies something without permission, it is called "copyright infringement", not "theft". That reason is because these are two entirely separate concepts in law, because theft necessarily implies that something has been taken from someone; as in, they no longer have it.

Used by both sides

It is used by both sides, yes. The reason for this is because it has been heavily pushed, and because it is a simpler term than unauthorised copying. People love simplicity, so it's no surprise that a word like "piracy", which has nothing to do with what is going on here, would be able to become popular. That means that whether or not the people who copy without authorisation are using the term, that doesn't automatically make it "neutral". It just means that we have a very serious problem in our culture.

Nothing misleading in the term

Of course there's something misleading in the term: it's equating copying with violent acts. It is a calculated act to smear something that benefits the people, but possibly doesn't benefit publishers. They obviously don't want people to consider it okay to do this sort of thing, so they have to invent a term that makes it sound like it's actually wrong. If it was actually wrong, why would they have even needed to make up the term? Because "unauthorised copying" actually describes what's going on, if it is genuinely a bad thing then it surely shouldn't matter that it isn't being equated with violence.

People know what it means

Of course they do; they know because the term has been pushed. Why would so many people know what it means if that wasn't the case? Someone has to explain it, because it's not literal. "Unauthorised copying" is literal and requires no explanation. So again: If the act is objectively immoral, why would they need to come up with a new term for it that equates it with violence?

All I'm trying to do here is make Wikipedia explain this neutrally. It isn't currently doing that. We're supporting the point-of-view implicitly by calling it "piracy". We can say that that's what it's commonly called, but we shouldn't call it that ourselves. Do you consider that that would have a negative affect on articles about unauthorised copying? Would people have more difficulty understanding them if we call it something else, while also stating that it is commonly called "piracy"? Personally, I don't think so. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Not gonna do this, because you started by asserting something that there's no evidence for, and plenty of evidence against. So I'm not having this discussion unless and until I see evidence that you're willing to fully engage with reality in doing so.

I would further point you to WP:RGW and WP:1AM as essays worth reading, given your claim to be trying to fix a broken article, and the fact that literally no-one has shown any agreement with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants: What did I assert that there's no evidence for? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything you've asserted. You have no consensus to change this name. Please move on, I'm not interested in arguing with you, for reasons I've already made clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants: I'm not trying to argue with you. Can you at least think about what I said regarding why the word "piracy" is being used? That's something I only recently thought of myself. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought over every argument you made and came to the conclusion they were unpersuasive back in 1996. Stop pinging me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This page needs an update

‘ Digital piracy has taken the spotlight. Lost revenues due to digital piracy could reach $5 billion by the end of 2005.’ 82.46.30.103 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Bias claims

@185.217.158.63, The claims about bias being made here are ridiculous, as is the opinion of the GNU that the term "content" is biased. "Content" is widely-used term that has become accepted in the past 20 years as one of -if not the- most common term for intellectual property. In addition, the changes of phrases like "intellectual property theft" to "unauthorized copying" and the repeated removal of sourced content is actively degrading the quality of this article.

If you want to effect a change in the articles phrasing, you can make a case for it here on talk. But continuing to perform the same edits repeatedly is edit warring and can result in your ability to edit being blocked. You should have written a message here the first time you were reverted, per our widely cited guidance, which I strongly suspect you are well aware of already, since you decided to attempt to put a warning template on my talk page. Happy (Slap me) 13:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The terms "content", "intellectual property", and "piracy" for that matter, have been labelled as biased for over two decades by many people and organisations, such as the GNU Project and EFF. You keep reverting my attempts to replace them with unbiased terms. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

After your harassment on my talk page, I'm no longer willing to discuss this issue with you. We shall see what the administrators think of your behavior (including your wildly hyperbolic response at ANI). Happy (Slap me) 14:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I found some of the wording in the article biased. I don't understand, though, the bias issue with "works" vs. "content" and "customers" vs. "consumers". Could you explain? The article seems to loosely use "intellectual property theft". I've always understood the term to involve re-publishing copyright protected works without license, not to the act of copying the works. In any case, the issue will be resolved here on the talk page. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I found an argument by Richard Stallman for avoiding the use of "intellectual property" but I can't find anything to explain your objection to the word "content". Could you link to something that explains it? Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, the IP actually did provide a link in one of their edit summaries to justify it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content. I don't find the arguments there to be the least bit persuasive, however. As someone who exercises his creativity in a public space, I frequently refer to myself as a 'content creator', and to my work as 'content'. The argument that the word is belittling to my work is wholly ignorant of the widespread use of the word and the meaning it has taken on in recent decades. I understand the position presented therein, but it simply doesn't seem rooted in reality. I suspect it made a lot more sense in 2002, though I doubt I would have found it persuasive even then.

I also find the argument presented by Stallman in your link to be more than a little vapid: Stallman doesn't seem to realize that "intellectual property" refers to the, well, intellectual property itself. Not to the laws governing its use, which are far more widely referred to as "intellectual property laws". His suggestion of replacing the term with references that include the word "monopoly" literally made me cringe reading it.

In fact, one claim stands out to me. Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. That is categorically false. If I copy a pop song and change nothing, I can never hope to claim copyright on the resulting work. In fact, there is a great deal of changes I can make to the song that would not be sufficient to establish a copyright. I must make substantial, meaningful changes to it, to the degree that the result is "transformative".

Regardless, at the end of the day, these arguments are both stemming from the same source, and are both in the minority on the issue. To suggest that Stallman is the arbiter of what constitutes biased language is to be flatly wrong.

I'm open to discussing the issue with any other editor (not the IP, whose behavior is beyond the pale), and even to changing my mind on the subject. But it would take better arguments than Stallman has presented to do so. Happy (Slap me) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That link helped, HappyMcSlappy, thanks. So apparently Stallman's GNU Project has some strong opinions on language, which of course makes sense for the purposes of their social movement. Some of the IP's changes seem unimportant, but not all. For example, changing According to the IP Commission Report the annual cost of intellectual property theft... to According to the IP Commission Report the annual cost of unauthorised copying... makes it difficult for the reader to verify the information, since the cited report doesn't say "unauthorised" or "copying" anywhere. Nor does "unauthorized copying" appear an adequate replacement for counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets which the report includes in its description of "IP theft". I don't find Stallman's arguments about the word content at all convincing either.

Just as other social movements have had to fight to get their perspective on word choices recognized and accepted elsewhere before they trickle down to Wikipedia, so will GNU. Wikipedia makes changes when the mass of reliable sources change; we follow, we don't lead. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of the IP's changes seem unimportant, but not all. For example...

I agree with your assessment here, both in general (I don't mind changing "content" out for "works" at all, for example) and with respect to the specific example you cited, which was what led me to revert.

I'm highly sympathetic to the GNU project, as I'm fairly copyleft myself; for example, my digital books are published without DRM software, and one of them (and more in the future) are available for free on my website, along with some of my music and artwork, all under a permissive attribution license. But my sympathies for their position do not translate into any weight wrt how an encyclopedia documents the subject. Happy (Slap me) 19:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"I'm fairly copyleft myself;" -- this makes no sense. You obviously don't understand what copyleft means...

"for example, my digital books are published without DRM software, and one of them (and more in the future) are available for free on my website, along with some of my music and artwork, all under a permissive attribution license." -- and this is proof. Copyleft does not mean gratis, and permissive licneses are by definition *not* copyleft.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "intellectual property".

It is a biased term used by people who heard someone else use it and then parroted it without question, which was invented by people who are against free culture and use it as an excuse to restrict people.

The concept is incoherent and misleading; not only does the term conflate many disparate laws, but it also makes the false analogy that artificial legal rights like copyright are somehow related to natural rights like physical property, which they are not.

The purpose of the term is to lead people to make conflations and false conclusions, based on this false analogy.

e.g. Physical property can be stolen, so surely "intellectual property" can be, hence we observe people using the term "intellectual property theft", when in reality all that is happening in the real, physical universe, is that people are making copies of published works, which other people do not like.

Therefore, an unbiased term which describes this is "unauthorised copying".

The term "intellectual property theft" is also inaccurate and loaded because it contains the term "theft".

It is inaccurate because copying is not theft, and it is loaded because the people using this term want people not to copy, so they deliberately mislabel copying as "theft", as a way to tug on people's heartstrings.

Therefore, the terms "intellectual property" and the "theft" thereof have no place in unbiased use-cases, such as Wikipedia.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Intellectual property is a widely used, common phrase, despite your ideological objections. For your argument to sway other editors, you need multiple independent reliable sources that support that the phrase has fallen into disuse. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"widely used, common" -- this is the typical ad populum fallacy people use to defend biased terms. It doesn't matter how many people use it, or how often; it's still biased.

I can't demonstrate the term has "fallen into disuse" because it was never in good use! This is an impossible task. It was designed from the beginning to be misleading and biased.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change the world, you don't start on Wikipedia; it's the last step. Schazjmd (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It follows what the reliable independent reliable sources say. If you want to get things changed you will need to generate a consensus via something like a RfC however I would not expect much success without the support of multiple WP:RS publications. Gusfriend (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"In fact, one claim stands out to me. Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. That is categorically false." HappyMcSlappy then goes on to conflate "innovation" with "originality". The statement made by Doctor Stallman is correct; one could write a wholly non-innovative song for example and copyright it. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

For reliable sources demonstrating the term "intellectual property" is biased, just look at the Wikipedia article Intellectual property#Criticisms. I count 12 references, and the names of Doctor Stallman, Professors Boldrin, Levine, and Lessig, the lawyer Kinsella, the politician Falkvinge, and the hacker Oliva.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Which means that when someone follows the wikilink for intellectual property they will see the criticisms section and be made aware of the concerns that some people have raised. As I said above, if you wish to change all usage of ""intellectual property" in this page or another phrase then you should start a RfC to get consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would we use terms many people have called biased when we can use terms nobody has called biased instead?

185.217.158.63 (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

One issue with that argument is that there are people who would view using "unauthorized copying" instead of "intellectual property theft" as biased. At the risk of repeating myself, the discussion thus far has not provided support for a change, but if you believe that the terms need to be changed as they are biased then you should start a RfC to get consensus to change it. Information about how to write a RfC is available at WP:RFC.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that people find the term "unauthorised copying" biased? If not, I have already provided reliable sources that the term "intellectual property" is biased, so there should be no issue with replacing it with an unbiased term.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You better start with our Intellectual property article. Your POV is pure WP:FRINGE and disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the first paragraph in the Scope section

Not only is it out of date, but it uses weasel words like "could be", and the latter section makes a conflation between counterfeit goods, "pirated" software, and the "theft" of trade secrets. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2022

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.

---

Online piracy → Online copyright infringement – The term "piracy" is biased because it likens copying to attacking ships at sea: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy Moreover, the existing Wikipedia article Copyright Infringement already exists, and this page move would bring it in line with that precedent. To quote that page, "This was taken further in the case MPAA v. Hotfile, where Judge Kathleen M. Williams granted a motion to deny the MPAA the usage of words whose appearance was primarily "pejorative". This list included the word "piracy", the use of which, the motion by the defense stated, serves no court purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury." 185.217.158.63 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Search on JSTOR shows most articles using the term "piracy", with others using constructions such as "illegal downloading", and specifying that "piracy" is used by copyright holders. Some articles use both synonymously. Relevant policy includes WP:POVNWP:POVTITLE. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  12:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Those uses of this biased term will also have to be corrected.

185.217.158.63 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't help you with that; we follow the sources, and our policies and guidelines. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  12:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I was unable to find the policy or guideline that endorsed the use of biased terminology.185.217.158.63 (talk)

WP:POVNAME ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  13:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That's obviously about alternate names, not blatantly biased terminology which is so biased even a judge banned its use so as to ensure a fair trial! 185.217.158.63 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: also, if moved, it should be to Online copyright infringement per WP:SENTENCECASE. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  13:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; the term "piracy" is extensively used to describe this practice, even by its supporters. The case of MPAA v. Hotfile seems to be a bit of an anomaly: even articles about the exclusion of the word "piracy" from that trial note that "piracy" is a word that has become part of popular culture and is used in prominent copyright legal rulings, such as the 2005 Supreme Court case MGM v. Grokster. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is misleading. Only a minority of supporters use the term. Regardless, who cares if "piracy" is a more common term? It's blatantly biased and misleading and has no place on a neutral encyclopedia.185.217.158.63 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, when it comes to RMs, RFC, MFDs etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedians care (both in this discussion and on the site overall). WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and enjoys widespread support. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a common misconception about Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. The policy does not mean that language used must be objectively neutral. WP:NPOV states All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (bold mine) Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Naming an article after a pariticlar POV term is not in line with that policy.185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As "piracy", falls under COMMONNAME. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Piracy is by far the COMMONNAME. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, COMMONNAME (and concission). "Bias" claim is ludicrous. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In what way?185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In a way that makes me laugh out loud. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this user has demonstrated his opinion is based on no reliable sources whatsoever and we should discard his vote accordingly. This user's page says he is a lawyer. I wonder if he is the kind of lawyer who benefits from the confusion this biased term causes. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are intellectual property lawyers". DeCausa (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: (1) we follow the terminology used by our sources. The word piracy has been so commonly used, for so long, that if we did carry out this move, we'd still be obliged to leave a redirect at the original title, which would undermine the rationale of the move. (2) The rationale is in any case misguided: we don't change names to change the world. Many editors have strong moral positions, but Wikipedia is not the place to campaign. It's good to have a moral hat, but we should log off from WP when we swap our hats from "reflect what is written" to "make the world better". (3) The legal ruling is at best irrelevant. At worst, it is a suggestion we should allow our language to be censored by courts - to give in to a legal threat that hasn't even been made. Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Nope, it's piracy. Just because an editor doesn't like it or think it is biased doesn't mean it is. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Can someone SNOW this? Editing IP is blocked for a week for disruption, this was obviously a continuation of the disruption. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Piracy is obviously the commonly recognizable name. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Snowclose. It's clear by now that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at passing. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:08, 24 August 2022 (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.

It should tell about phone-specific issues

The article should tell about phone-specific issues:

Many phones are not rooted and don't allow installing software from any sources except of the official app stores. Is piracy of paid/shareware software on phones nevertheless a big problem? VictorPorton (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ehhh? The article wouldn't exactly need to, it doesn't even give insight at all on hassles that all devices have.

Gemdation (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [P.S. I am aware that this message is from 2023]