Talk:Copyright Alliance

Members list
Comparing the members list from 2009 with the current list of board and executive members, there is much overlap. Changes are:


 * Added


 * American Association of Independent Music
 * American Photographic Artists
 * The Association of Magazine Media
 * The Recording Academy


 * Removed


 * Advertising Photographers of America
 * American Federation of Musicians
 * AT&T
 * Entertainment Software Association
 * Langley Productions
 * Magazine Publishers of America

Because I'm not 100% sure of the provenance of the previous list (AT&T was added to it just before the deletion) I'm going to use the current list, even though this is recentism - in the encyclopedic sense, the list of companies that actually founded the organization early on is most important. At some point it may be interesting to go back and look over the changes to see if there's anything interesting about them. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:
I got this undeleted as a userspace draft, but sat on it waaay too long in my userspace, so I've moved it to Drafts for wider input. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and Depth
This article is overly simplistic, and most of it is written in a tone biased towards the organization. "It is committed to promoting the cultural and economic benefits of copyright" sounds more like a mission statement than a description. Although this article contains one accusation against the group, claiming it is a "front group," there is little information about what the group actually is or does. The tone of the article as a whole creates the impression that this is a group which exists to help artists (which is the image the CA tries to convey), while in reality it is a group formed to advocate a certain set of copyright policies that artists are sharply divided on. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral tone, and greatly expanded IMO.Rotwang Daedalus (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, YES, YES! How about listing the policies and position points that the copyright alliance supports and is campaigning for? Efforts they have made?  Certainly this can be done in an encyclopediac and NPOV way. Centerone (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting changes
I have reverted to revision 790090162 that was before one IP and one new account begun editing on this article that doesn't seem to comply with the Wikipedia's guidelines, including the unexplained removal of references, addition of content without providing a source, and adding external links onto bodies of an article, in which it remained for almost 6 months before I jumped in and cleaned up the mess. Oh and yes, I have also removed that one sentence on the lead part that doesn't seem to comply with the neutral POV policy, as users complained on the above topic. Since I've reverted it to a version made in July 2017 that complies with the guidelines, I've added an update needed tag, and also a refimprove tag, since there's still some text that has been uncited, and also removed 1 source that links to a person's personal website, therefore unreliable. I've done my absolute best now to improve this article while keeping it within the guidelines, so if anyone wants to add something/update it, then don't hesitate, as long as you've got a reliable source ready and as long as it's within the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially the five pillars. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)