Talk:Copyright social conflict

NPOV
I flagged this article because, well, look at the sheer number of arguments for vs. against copyright, mostly, and, before I edited it, "arguments in favor" wasn't even its own section. I realize that Wikipedians (myself included) are a pretty darned anticopyrightly lot, but that still doesn't make it neutral. --Orborde 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at adding some changes and balancing things out, as well as working the "anti" arguments down to some more general examples. For:against ratio is now 5:8, which I don't believe is unreasonable. I'm going to provisionally remove the NPOV flag, but if you or anyone believes that a problem still exists please state it here or change away! Seraphimblade 09:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to quantify an argument simply in terms of how many reasons you have - although (and this is a personal opinion) the ani-copyright people are correct here. Good job on presenting both sides, though :) Disavian 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Notice
I noticed that the cleanup sign has been on the article since May 2005, yet no one bothered to specifiy exactly what was wrong with it, or even come into the discussion area to say they are doing it? Exactly what lackings are there in the article that make it so a clean up message is necessary?

List the problems here so people can see what's wrong and correct it instead of guessing. --ShaunMacPherson 20:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition

 * [...]a name given to the broader copyright social conflict between content creators

In my experience, the conflict seems to be between those who obtain financial profit from the content (i.e., producers, distributors) and the general public, rather than between the public and content creators themselves. Some big-name artists might be bothered by what they call illegitimate distribution of their works, but (again, in my experience) less famous creators tend not to oppose royalty-free distribution as it gives them some extra free exposure, or, in the case of some--esp. those not working for independent labels--they actively encourage it (as is the case with a personal friend who burns what technically would be illegal copies of his own CDs and gives them away, rather than have people pay a ridiculous price--his words--to buy them through the normal distribution channels). Just FWIW.--81.42.165.32 23:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are mostly correct - that many content artists see no conflict since they are happy to share their work into a copyleft license, or even into the public domain. However, we maybe dealing with a biased sample, that is the RIAA MPAA and other companies with the money can make their 'complaints' heard and get the visibility which simply drowns out the grumbelings of individual artists without the resources to be similiarly heard. An example, I hear individual artists complaining about their work being 'stolen' all the time, especially in the anime community.


 * Should we put that:


 * 'Even though some content creators are fighting for the status quo of copyright, some (many?) artists and content creators agree that copyright needs reform. One organization who advocates reform is the Creative Commons?'


 * to make the statement more accurate?--ShaunMacPherson 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer to wikireason
It's not a sister project yet, but some day a debate like this should be transferred to http://wikireason.net. Mathiastck 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)