Jump to content

Talk:Performance rights organisation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

requested addition

[edit]

This article fails to mention Global Music Rights, a performance rights organization in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellybk (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

NO. It does not duplicate copyright collective. A copyright collective or a rights collecting agency is the more general category, performance rights organizations only collect in the performing arts, copyright collectives collect for any copyright, copyright collectives (or the variety of other names they are known by can collect for a variety of types of copyright, see, i.e. access copyright and photocopying. Technically the performance right is distinct from the right to copy a work, though it is a subset of the basket of rights known generally as copyright. Alex756

As far as I am aware, at least in the UK, the CCLI is only required for photocoping of certain music and words, including making slides for OHPs. The performance part of religious music within services is free from any need for licences.Zeth

POV, POV, POV.

[edit]

What the H? Firstly, excessive superlatives are used. 'wealth of advantages', 'enormous advantages'. The criticism section uses other POV adjectives like 'laughably' and 'depressingly'.

'Large users, such as broadcasters, are well-represented by very capable lawyers in hearings before rate-setting tribunals and exert unceasing efforts to erode the rights and earnings of creators and music publishers. Similarly, they lobby intensively with legislatures in all countries to create "exemptions" to allow them to use music without paying. This battle will go on as long as people both value music and dislike paying.'
  • 'That some users, unwilling to pay for what they use, would condemn the actions of collectives as being heavy-handed or choose to malign collectives as "cartels" is understandable. Yelling is cheaper than paying.'

... Joffeloff 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ai-yi-yi. I made a first pass at editing the first section for NPOV; it still needs significant work. The "criticisms" section is largely composed of strawman arguments; I started to edit and gave up for now. Still needs significant work--the entire section is riddled with NPOV. LQ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still horribly POV. dcandeto 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since performing rights organizations only collect royalties as specified by copyright law, most of this section is actually a criticism of copyright law rather than of performing rights organizations. Additionally, the author seems not to understand copyright law since this text refers multiple times to using copyrighted material without direct profit, which has limited relevance to copyright infringement cases (AFAIK it can affect the amount of damages awarded, but not the judgment of infringement), and offers a "free publicity" argument, which is totally irrelevant. I won't presume to delete this section, but I will offer the opinion that it offers misleading information and is out of place in this article. ArloLeach (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still very POV. Mickwalsh (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

[edit]

There doesn't seem to have been serious discussion of this, difference between the two needs clarifying if there really is a difference other than terminology. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 03 May 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. On a headcount, there is only a slight (3–2) edge for the opposers, but WP:NOTAVOTE. What matters is how well-founded the arguments are in policy, and both spellings are acceptable per MOS:ENGVAR, so MOS:RETAIN applies. That strength of policy-based argument amounts to a consensus to not move. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Performance rights organisation → Performance rights organization – spelling 24.224.64.67 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
A dangerous precedent, though, inviting fait accompli violations of RETAIN. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depends on whether the content of the article was always primarily using "-ize" or was previously primarily using "-ise". I didn't review the history. I believe the WP:RETAIN guideline says that the variant used in the first non-stub version should be considered the default. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this is an ENGVAR issue. While "-ize" may be an acceptable variant in British English, "-ise" is most definitely the modern standard and we have generally adopted it as such on Wikipedia. In addition, it seems to me that the proposer has probably misunderstood that English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia and the proposal is therefore a fallacious one from the outset, as the only reason he has given is "spelling", implying that the spelling of the title is incorrect, which it clearly is not. The spelling within the article is irrelevant. It should be adjusted to the spelling of the title, not vice versa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Oxford English Dictionary lists "-ize" as the primary spelling. "-ise" is most certainly not the modern standard. 24.224.64.67 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that first this is the proposer and should not really be counted towards support, and secondly, in this instance the OED does not trump other spellings. See Oxford spelling. "-ise" most certainly is the norm in modern British English, used in most British publications, and is the norm in British English articles on Wikipedia. But in any case, WP:RETAIN applies, since either spelling is perfectly correct English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Postscript: Since the -ise spelling variation has prevailed in the RM discussion, I have changed the content of the article to match the spelling variation used in the title. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

[edit]

Performing Rights Organization 96.35.35.92 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Written in British English, so "organisation" is correct. See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Although I doubt that it would be successful, requesting a move is done thataway. -- Orduin Discuss 20:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms section

[edit]
  • Citation 1 is incorrect. Article does not contain quote.
  • At least 4 other citations are needed in this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

[edit]
Musicfunfact (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC) *Pro Music Rights (U.S.)[reply]

[1] [2]

}} Musicfunfact (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.ProMusicRights.com
  2. ^ CISAC.org

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

[edit]

Pro Music Rights A Public Performance Rights society in the USA Musicfunfact (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Music Rights should be removed from the list of North American PROs. 28 Feb 2019

[edit]

The only evidence this company exists is their website which is very unclear about what they actually do.[1], or their own press releases which make unverified claims. [2] A Wikipedia page they had submitted themselves a few months ago was deleted for these reasons. (See recent history for this article)[3] 78.144.77.223 (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

[edit]

Reference to link on Tolling spelled Trolling. SJASoc (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 08:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

[edit]

added to USA Performance rights organisation list Pro Music Rights[4] Music Publisher s (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://promusicrights.com/
  2. ^ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/08/03/pro-music-rights-7-4-market-share/
  3. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Performance_rights_organisation&action=history
  4. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8544945/sosa-entertainment-pro-music-rights-spotify
Not done, does not have an article here on Wikipedia. See also WP:COI. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spellings

[edit]

An editor has been repeatedly introducing alternative spellings, such as in this edit. Like Necrothesp, I believe this is unnecessary and unhelpful and contrary to the established Wikipedia guidance. I believe readers of English are generally capable of interpreting minor differences of spelling and that this article does not need any special treatment. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this editor tried to change the primary spelling of the article to "organization". When I reverted this they alleged that I was "making unproductive changes that shuts out global facts as they want to exclude the proper spelling in US and other PRO organizations". They do not appear to understand the principles of WP:ENGVAR or WP:RETAIN. I agree that it is not productive to note minor spelling differences like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend stubbing out "organizatons" list

[edit]

I recommend keeping just the pointers to List of copyright collection societies and Category:Copyright collection societies and possibly a list of government-agencies or government-sanctioned monopolies if they exist.

In the alternative, remove all organizations that do not have articles or are not "valid" red-links. That is, remove all organizations that do not qualify to have a Wikipedia article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

[edit]

Incomplete list of Canadian PRO's

Add ACTRA RACS Northsideresids (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, see WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Performance_rights_organisation&oldid=1208334364"