This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phonographic Performance Limited article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 14 November 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd). The result of the discussion was not move. |
![]() | It is requested that a logo be
included in this article to
improve its quality. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.ppluk.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2012082810006726. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en ![]() |
Copy on page has been completely re-drafted and largely lifted from the existing PPL company website (www.ppluk.com). Copy has been tweaked to better reflect both sides of PPL - the licensing and the music industry. Filmbuff85 ( talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.ppluk.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2009122210056637. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en ![]() |
Pretty much everything after the lead was lifted directly from the PPL website. Specifics are as follows:
This was introduced by User:BlueNoteUK in September. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The tone of the article is rather commercial. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be made more clear that, you don't need to get the PPL licence, if you play "free" music, i.e Creative common or music that you own the copyright of, or have taken permission from the copyright owner. This is something that is not mentioned in any of the PPL material , leading folks to believe that they need to get PPL for *any* music. ( Raghu Udiyar ( talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
As noted above, the tone of this article is mostly biased in favor of the record industry. Much of this is the result of the cut-and-paste of copyrighted material from PPL's own materials. Those were being removed as copyvios, but that stopped once PPL filed the OTRS (also noted above).
But the OTRS only addresses the legality of using this material; it does not address the heavy bias in the article.
I note that an addition earlier today,
[1], is an odd island of bias in the opposite direction. I was about to remove it but once I saw the rest of the article, I hesitate to remove it, because that would put this back even more to a PPL puff-piece. ("Embracing performers"? Please.) I'm an American, not a Brit (or else I would have written "favour" above,
), so I don't have enough knowledge to really have at it. Any of our UK editors want to have a stab at it? At present, it is almost entirely a PPL_sponsored promotional piece.
TJRC (
talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
why is the addition bias? if it's true it merits inclusion, but perhaps a citation is needed for 'major record company lobbying'? the addition is probably the only part of the article not written by a ppl employee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.254 ( talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. CsDix ( talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Phonographic Performance Limited →
PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd) – The company is better known as 'PPL' now, with 'Phonographic Performance Ltd' being its original name. People searching for information about PPL may not realise Phonographic Performance Ltd is the same company. It is also out of date language. relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Filmbuff85 (
talk) 16:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Not moved. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 18:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Phonographic Performance Limited → ? – Page title should include the name by which subject is commonly known and referred to "PPL". One way of identify it from other PPL Acronyms would be to name as "PPL - Copyright Collective" or "PPL - Music Copyright Collection Society" both of which are accurate descriptions and instantly identifiable. More Cites to follow (Apologies for not understanding the process of page moving and ultimately, of course will respect the consensus DJ888kmg ( talk) 18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phonographic Performance Limited article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 14 November 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd). The result of the discussion was not move. |
![]() | It is requested that a logo be
included in this article to
improve its quality. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.ppluk.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2012082810006726. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en ![]() |
Copy on page has been completely re-drafted and largely lifted from the existing PPL company website (www.ppluk.com). Copy has been tweaked to better reflect both sides of PPL - the licensing and the music industry. Filmbuff85 ( talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.ppluk.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2009122210056637. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en ![]() |
Pretty much everything after the lead was lifted directly from the PPL website. Specifics are as follows:
This was introduced by User:BlueNoteUK in September. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The tone of the article is rather commercial. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be made more clear that, you don't need to get the PPL licence, if you play "free" music, i.e Creative common or music that you own the copyright of, or have taken permission from the copyright owner. This is something that is not mentioned in any of the PPL material , leading folks to believe that they need to get PPL for *any* music. ( Raghu Udiyar ( talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
As noted above, the tone of this article is mostly biased in favor of the record industry. Much of this is the result of the cut-and-paste of copyrighted material from PPL's own materials. Those were being removed as copyvios, but that stopped once PPL filed the OTRS (also noted above).
But the OTRS only addresses the legality of using this material; it does not address the heavy bias in the article.
I note that an addition earlier today,
[1], is an odd island of bias in the opposite direction. I was about to remove it but once I saw the rest of the article, I hesitate to remove it, because that would put this back even more to a PPL puff-piece. ("Embracing performers"? Please.) I'm an American, not a Brit (or else I would have written "favour" above,
), so I don't have enough knowledge to really have at it. Any of our UK editors want to have a stab at it? At present, it is almost entirely a PPL_sponsored promotional piece.
TJRC (
talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
why is the addition bias? if it's true it merits inclusion, but perhaps a citation is needed for 'major record company lobbying'? the addition is probably the only part of the article not written by a ppl employee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.254 ( talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. CsDix ( talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Phonographic Performance Limited →
PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd) – The company is better known as 'PPL' now, with 'Phonographic Performance Ltd' being its original name. People searching for information about PPL may not realise Phonographic Performance Ltd is the same company. It is also out of date language. relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Filmbuff85 (
talk) 16:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Not moved. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 18:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Phonographic Performance Limited → ? – Page title should include the name by which subject is commonly known and referred to "PPL". One way of identify it from other PPL Acronyms would be to name as "PPL - Copyright Collective" or "PPL - Music Copyright Collection Society" both of which are accurate descriptions and instantly identifiable. More Cites to follow (Apologies for not understanding the process of page moving and ultimately, of course will respect the consensus DJ888kmg ( talk) 18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References