Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legality of BitTorrent


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. John254 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality of BitTorrent

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is vague and has no clear purpose. I don't see any way it can be saved, so I'm nominating it for deletion. The first point that must be made is that BitTorrent itself, as a protocol, is no more illegal than FTP or HTTP are. All can be used to do illegal things, but so can common items such as knives and cars. Therefore, the very title is intentionally misleading, as nobody credible is claiming that the BitTorrent protocol is illegal. Now let me go into more depth. The 3 main sections of the article all seem to cover separate topics.

The first is pretty much a summary of websites which distribute .torrent files to copyrighted material, and description of legal action taken against those websites. This content belongs on the articles for the websites themselves, there is no need for a separate article about them. Maybe make a list or category of websites that had legal action taken against them due to copyright claims?

The second section is a brief description of an agreement made by BitTorrent Inc. and the MPAA. This belongs in the article for BitTorrent Inc.

The third section is a brief explanation about how the BitTorrent protocol may not allow for anonymity. This belongs in the article about the BitTorrent protocol, and it should be there, possibly under a different heading. There is no evidence that the facts stated in this section have any bearing on the legality of BitTorrent.

In conclusion, this article has no place in Wikipedia, it is merely a collection of disparate information that is better placed elsewhere in the encyclopedia, under a misleading title. Icestryke 09:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete was split from BitTorrent for being largely useless to the protocol article; if nobody is stepping up to make it a better article it's not doing the encyclopedia any good. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The information is valid and verifiable, and there are plenty of refs in the article (I haven't looked at all of them, there's 20 of them). It might be worthwhile to consider renaming this something like Legal cases involving BitTorrent trackers or something, so that it's clear this is not claiming that the BT protocol itself is illegal. Yng  varr  11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Question & comments What is the size of the original article? If it was split due to being over 50 kb, then there is on reason for it to be kept. Long articles can loose their focus. A makor keep point would be regarding the legality of the file swapping services in general. It is a major, notable issue in the media, content creation and computer/networking industries. Maybe this article could be moved to or merged into a general article addressing the legal issues for the peer-to-peer sharing companies.- Jeremy (Jerem43 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep, more than notable enough to justify its size and existence, merging into bittorent would make that article too large and unfocused--victor falk 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.