Talk:IFPI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was initially a stub. Having the official IFPI publications and history at my side and the history of the record and radio industry in the UK, I have created an initial article. Like all Wikipedia articles it is subject to change. I intend to return to add to, amend or whatever and I invite you to do the same. It is my intention to document everything and I would ask any editors who are interested in contributing to do the same. If you see a statement thatI wrote which seems to lack supporting documentation, please ask and I will do my best to supply what I have. In the light of the activity taking place in the name of this organization I thought that it was high time that a light was shone upon it so that everyone has an idea of who they are and where they have come from and possibly, where they are going. MPLX/MH 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 update 2 NPOV Guidelines, by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder 3 Same song 3.1 Geography 4 How to erase an article

[edit] update

I have now added a lot more material to this new article. I am looking (misplaced at the moment) for two other IFPI publications which I have (in addition to the two already listed), plus a several articles about the collapse of the American music industry and the creation of EMI. As soon as I find this and other related material I will add it to the aritcle. MPLX/MH 19:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further update: I have now added a lot more to the reference section and added new sub-sections and many new links which has spawned many new stub articles. I am now in the process of trying to locate an article that I have from the 1930s concerning the death of the American recording industry which was blamed upon the growth of American commercial radio. General Electric shifted its interests in this area to Britain to make use of the draconian copyright laws which were used as a form of censorship. It was not until fairly recently that a "P" symbol began to appear on American records. If anyone has a small copyright "P" symbol there is a place in the existing text where one is required. Simply search the article for "P" and swap them out. I am still looking. MPLX/MH 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Guidelines, by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

The basic concept of neutrality: At Wikipedia, we use the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" in a precise way that is different from the common understanding: Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.

The original formulation of NPOV: A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. (The section above was written by Jimbo)

---

The current article is about IFPI who have dominated the position that everyone agrees that unregulated airplay of music is a criminal activity. However, the biggest artists of the 1960s (the Beatles, etc) did not agree with IFPI. Then there is the claim made in the press by the record companies condemning free radio as pirate radio while the owner of three of the biggest offshore stations of the 1960s is quoted as saying that the record companies supplied the records free to the radio stations. There is a LOT more material to show the TWO side of this matter, but somewhere the article had to be contained or run over the limit for a Wikipedia article. IFPI sources are documented and footnoted. I believe that the article does meet Jimbo's guidelines. If you disagree then show in which paragraph and upon which line you find your dispute. MPLX/MH 04:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I don't think Wikipedia is really the appropriate venue for this. You are clearly out to make an argument, not write a neutral overview. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are plenty of other places for that. Marking NPOV. Chowbok 02:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with sweeping statements is that they are sweeping statements. I went over to your User page and it was blank. I went to your Talk page and there was a note and nothing more. I found no history. Therefore when someone makes a sweeping statement I first want to know what the credentials are for that person to make a sweeping statement. I found none. So my question to you is: what specifically do you find in error? The article is balanced by stating when IFPI was formed, who formed it and what their agenda was and is and then it balances the strange situation where the record manufacturers who control IFPI are at odds not only with the end users, but with the artists themselves. So perhaps you would point out what you find to be in error? Sweeping statements are easy but pulling together many, many hours of documentation are not easy or quick but hard work. I have not expressed a viewpoint but it would seem that you have by defacing a work without contributing one word of meaningful material whereby we all might be enlightened to know what you know and everyone else, myself included, do not know. Please be very specific:

Example: In paragraph x and on line x it states y and yet I know y to be false because (and cite source). It will take you many hours of work but it took many hours of work to pull together all of the many sources quoted. Failure to do this will result in the removal of your notice. MPLX/MH 04:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Somehow I doubt anything I say will satisfy you. You obviously have an axe to grind. I didn't realize I needed "credentials" to make a wikipedia edit. Where do I get a degree in Wikipediology?

I'm sorry that you feel the need to make personal attacks when somebody posts a criticism of your article. That's not very appropriate.

I think the entire tone of the article is NPOV, rather than simply a statement here or there, or I would have just corrected it. Ask yourself this: would a reasonable person, unfamiliar with you or the topic, be able to guess your position by reading this article?

However, since you asked for examples (which you will no doubt reject), here's a few (emphasis mine):

• Just two years after taking his office, Reith expressed his dictatorial views...
• Reith believed that the British public did not know what was good and therefore it was up to John Reith to use the BBC to enlighten them

(Really? Would that have been how he described his actions?)

• On Tuesday, August 15, 1967 this draconian new censorship law became effective
• ...unfortunately the electronic means of communication has become controlled like the printing presses of old...
• IFPI has attempted to portray the interests of its member recording companies as being the interests of the artists who made the records, which clearly is not the case

Anyway, those are just the most obvious examples. I wish you wouldn't get upset just because you've "pull[ed] together many, many hours of documentation". I think it makes a good argument, and, like I said, I agree with your general viewpoint. But that's the point--I shouldn't know that I agree with your viewpoint, because it shouldn't express a viewpoint. Why don't you just take this essay and post it on your own website, and just have a link here? That way you won't lose your work. -- Chowbok 16:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my best to keep the last comments current so that I can follow this discussion. Question: Did you read Jimbo's advice? That is my guideline and the guideline that I was pointing you towards. I did not write that, Jimbo did. But the reason why I asked you to be specific is because when people are specific they write specific things that can be specifically addressed. So thank you and here is my response to your specific points that you cited above: 1. Just two years after taking his office, Reith expressed his dictatorial views...

• Reith believed that the British public did not know what was good and therefore it was up to John Reith to use the BBC to enlighten them

(Really? Would that have been how he described his actions?)

-- My response: In one word YES that is EXACTLY how he described his views in his book 'Broadcast Over Britain' published in 1924 which I have read and have in my own private collection. ALL major authors agree that Reith was a dictator when it came to the running of the BBC. He sacked the brilliant Peter Eckersley for getting divorced. He actually wrote the words that the British public did not know what was good for them and that it was up to him to enlighten them! (You should read his book!) Sorry I did not reference the book in the article, I will do so now that you have requested it. Those were not my views but the views of John Reith.

2.::::* On Tuesday, August 15, 1967 this draconian new censorship law became effective

• ...unfortunately the electronic means of communication has become controlled like the printing presses of old...

-- My response: I have not documented all of the outcry to this law. I did cite George Harrison and that is in the article! I could supply a bucket load of references if you would like me to. Those are not my views but the views of the major stars of the 1960s and millions of fans of the offshore stations! Would you like the references? The Postmaster General who actually caused the final act to go into play later fled the UK as a crook wanted by the police! The words of famous author and one time operator of Ted Allbuery state EXACTLY what is written. Now that you have asked I will incorporate Allbuery's words!

3. ::::* IFPI has attempted to portray the interests of its member recording companies as being the interests of the artists who made the records, which clearly is not the case

-- My response. In addition to all of the IFPI books I cited, I also have a file of press cuttings to back up the statements. Would you like the references? Several, including Cat Stevens and Cliff Richard are in the article! What more do you want?

If those are your MAJOR objections then what is your beef? Do you disagree that the IFPI is an organization specifically dedicated to fighting their definition of "piracy"? If that is the case then I will quote from their books. Is it that you don't believe that General Electric created the record cartels (like EMI) that formed IFPI? Then I will quote from documents to show that they did.

Again, when push comes to shove it is so easy for you to smear but so hard for you to come up with facts that dispute what is written. Clearly you would have a very hard time trying to tell anyone what my POV is because I have stated various points of view. By the way, aside from using the letters POV you have to date not stated what you think the POV is! That is because it written from an NPOV using Jimbo's guidelines! MPLX/MH 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the answer to "this article is biased" isn't "but I'm right!" I don't really want to fight with you on this, as you clearly don't take well to even mildly phrased criticism. I'm sorry you view it as a "smear"; I specifically said I liked the article and agreed with its POV. Since you keep putting the Jimbo article in my face, I'll just say that you violate both of the points he makes, in my view. "An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals." This article argues that IFPI is a malevolent organization. "An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view." You argue that this is a bad organization, and then post quotes that agree with your point of view. You do not post arguments of people who disagree with it.

I'm not going to keep arguing, because I can tell an endless flamewar when I see it. You can have the last word here, and I'll ask some third-parties to take a look as well. You should do the same. Sound okay? -- Chowbok 18:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, you made a blanket statement about the article. I asked for specifics and you provided three and I answered them. On one you did not believe Reith made the claims that he did because you have not read Reith's book. On another you do not seem to know how the major recording stars of 1967 viewed the closing of the UK offshore stations. You did not seem to understand that the record companies (who are the IFPI members) attacked the offshore stations in the press while giving them free records to play. You did not seem to understand that IFPI is an organization of record companies. This issue VERY topical right at this moment because the USA IFPI member has announced that on Wednesday, April 13 it will start issuing a new round of lawsuits while claiming that "pirates" are stealing from it. This article shows who IFPI is and it also shows what the other side to the story is. It tells both sides. Do you have an interest in a IFPI member related company or interest? I asked you to discuss facts and thatis what I am discussing. So far your facts are not holding up. MPLX/MH 04:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Same song

From the article:

"Its stated intention is to promote the products of its members while using the copyright laws to attack new techologies or any means of distribution it has not licensed."

Actually, according to its website, its intentions are:

• Fighting music piracy
• Promoting fair market access and adequate copyright laws
• Helping develop the legal conditions and the technologies for the recording industry to prosper in the digital era
• Promoting the value of music in the development of economies, as well as in social and cultural life

Nothing about promoting members products or attacking technologies. Now, it may well be doing the things you say, but they do not appear to be stated intentions. -- Dcfleck 02:18, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

If you are going to quote from the article then please do so in context. The article actually states:

Copyright enforcement Today IFPI remains a highly controversial trade organisation that is involved in high profile litigation. It represents 1450 members of the recording industry in 75 different countries. Its stated intention is to promote the products of its members while using the copyright laws to attack new techologies or any means of distribution it has not licensed. IFPI now maintains its international secretariat in London and has regional offices in Brussels, Hong Kong, Miami, and Moscow.

1. It is a highly controversial trade organisation that is engaged in high profile litigation. The news headlines of April 12 stated that on April 13 its USA affliate member will begin suing a lot of new people over claimed "piracy". (You also agree that stamping out what it claims is piracy is its objective.)

2. It does represent 1450 members of the recording industry in 75 different countries. (That is what IFPI claims.)

3. Its stated intention is to promote the products of its members while using the copyright laws to attack new techologies or any means of distribution it has not licensed. (If you want rock solid proof and documentation for this statement I will gladly attach that to the paragraph in question.)

4. IFPI now maintains its international secretariat in London and has regional offices in Brussels, Hong Kong, Miami, and Moscow. (That is what IFPI claims.)

You added: Actually, according to its website, its intentions are:

• Fighting music piracy = which is a highly subjective and controversial word - as the quotations by people such as Cat Stevens and George Harrison demonstrate.

You added:

• Promoting fair market access and adequate copyright laws. = Isn't it interesting that Wikipedia is also promoting fair market access without resorting to the copyright laws which have been subjectively applied by IFPI and its members?

You added:

• Helping develop the legal conditions and the technologies for the recording industry to prosper in the digital era = This is not true. It fought the offshore stations of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and it also fought the Tandy corporation; it fought against DAT and on and on. That is the opposite of its stated claims. I have the files and I will gladly reference the news stories with sources and dates.

You added:

• Promoting the value of music in the development of economies, as well as in social and cultural life = This is not true either. See the quotation by Don Pierson regarding the record companies. Read the comments of the artists. IFPI has a separate royalty from the mechanical end of manufacturing and that is what it is protecting. IFPI never got a foothold in the USA until the 1980s but it still lacks the teeth that it has in Europe.

You added: Nothing about promoting members products or attacking technologies. Now, it may well be doing the things you say, but they do not appear to be stated intentions. --

Promoting members products is what IFPI does! It is a trade organization promoting manufacturers. It was formed by General Electric manufacturing interests which came to include EMI at one time. It was formed in fascist Italy and the next year it brought a test law via its driving force British affliliate with a suit against a pub owner playing his radio in a bar in Bristol, England! If you had been listening to the news today then you would have known about the big lawsuits being filed by its USA interests tomorrow! MPLX/MH

Sigh.

Look, all I was doing was pointing out that what you said the IFPI's stated intentions are, and what (as far as I can tell) the IFPI says its intentions are, are different things. It does not matter if the IFPI's statements are a pack of lies - you are misrepresenting what they say they are doing. That is why this article has NPOV problems. Your dislike of the organization oozes from every paragraph. This piece reads like an anti-IFPI editorial, not an encyclopedia article.

I think there's a decent article in here, but it needs to have the anti-IFPI tone removed, and a fair amount of apparently extraneous and irrelevant information removed; e.g., what possible relevance does it have to the IFPI that the word "station" appears in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? -- Dcfleck 13:01, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

To answer your specific points:

1) By the SAME reasoning the article is not supposed to be a duplication of IFPI material. It is supposed to balance all views. That is the intention here. It shows IFPI views, the facts on the ground and it also shows the opposite views. Read again what Jimbo had to say. An article about an organization is NOT supposed to be a duplication of their own web site.

• Yes, but Saint Jimbo also said

  the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.

  (emphasis added). It's when you try to add "the facts on the ground" that you slip into trying to write what is so, which, as the quote indicates, is where people let their biases show.

2) As for the reference to the Declaration, that is because the word "station" (which means location) has taken on a POPULAR supposition that it has no meaning so that a radio station is a general name for, let's say, the BBC as an organization when in reality it means the place, the geographical location of where the organization is located. Same for a railway station - it is a place where trains stop. The Declaration refers to a place, a geographical location, "stations of the cross"; "battle stations"; "action stations" all do the same thing. The foundation of the UK broadcasting laws (different from the USA laws) has to do with location first placing the location under UK government control. The USA laws are not based upon this concept because of the constitution and specifically the prohibitions against the government contained in the first amendment. MPLX/MH 13:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Actually, the only usage of the word station in the Declaration of Independence is:

"...it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

This is "station" in the sense of "position or rank among independent countries; position in human society", not "physical location". (For some reason, Wiktionary's definition of "station" lacks this usage, but any other dictionary should have it.)

I will try to take a section of the article and rewrite it in what I would consider NPOV; I'm handicapped in this in that I don't know much about the topic, but I'm willing to try to put my copyediting skills to the test. Then we can compare the differences between the versions and see if we can come to some sort of understanding. -- Dcfleck 13:11, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

You miss the point in that a location is also a position and this is why it is a variation of the meaning when applied to railway station (for example) and has more in keeping with "stations of the cross" or "battle stations", or "action stations". When applied to radio station within the meaning of the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949 as constantly amended and incorporated within various British laws, this is exactly the intended meaning. The law is divided into four key parts: 1) no person can establish a station for the purpose of setting up a radio station without a license; 2) no person can use a station (ditto); 3) no person can install equipment at a station (ditto); 4) no person can use the equipment at that station (ditto). US broadcasting laws are founded upon an entirely different foundation resting on the "We the People" concept of the Constitution. The UK which has no written constitution is built upon the Crown controlling everything and then apportioning out its authority through acts of Parliament (since 1688). The word station means a location, position, and it is geographical in nature. But in all instances it is a position which is a location. You further miss the point by quoting:

"...it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

... because unless the penny has not dropped, the location is Earth - the Globe and the People are located on the Earth which means that it means exactly what I said that it means - it is talking about a geographical location because the position you mention is a position on the Earth as being both separate - very specific and equal - all the same. I am not standing on your head and you are not standing upon mine. We are both standing upon separate but equal bits of the Earth (planet.) Note that it is referencing the Laws of Nature and Nature's God - not Jesus Christ, or Moses, or some other human deity. It is discussing Nature. The "position" you are referencing is a totally artificial concept created by human beings, but the basis for all interpretations is geographical in nature. MPLX/MH 15:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to erase an article

I have created a page containing a sample rewrite of the beginning of the article at Talk:IFPI/Temp. The biggest single problem I had with the article is the fact that much of the information listed here I consider to be irrelevant - or if it is relevant, its relevance is not substantiated. -- Dcfleck 14:31, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Having taken a look at your proposal we might just as well turn IFPI into a stub and then delete the stub. There is nothing to explain why IFPI was created, or what its agenda is. So you send the reader back to square one with no information on IFPI and yet this past week its affiliates were launching more high profile law suits in the USA. It was IFPI that created Needle time which begat the career of John Peel on Wonderful Radio London which IFPI branded as a pirate radio station to which millions listened and led to the controversial last day of broadcasts with the biggest stars lamenting its closure while IFPI said that it represented them. It was IFPI that shaped the music policy of the original BBC that led to the creation of Radio Luxembourg in the 1930s. Behind IFPI was General Electric that was accused by Congress of creating a worldwide monopoly and so it created EMI to escape US laws, only to run into WWII. The kids who were previously sued over music file sharing do not know what hit them and how IFPI came to redefine the word "pirate". IFPI caused the closure of the original Napster and so on and so forth. So if the idea is to bury knowledge then let's just blank the entire page now and be done with it. MPLX/MH 15:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at your responses, it is evident to me that we are talking past one another, and no useful outcome will be achieved. You seem to be unwilling to change a word of your article, most of which I consider to be highly biased and irrelevant. -- Dcfleck 16:06, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

There is a big difference between gutting the article so that it no longer contains information and many making changes. Of course anyone can make changes - you included. If you feel that by gutting the article and removing information that it will improve the article, then why discuss it here? What you are looking for is approval of your viewpoint and I have expressed my own viewpoint to you here. But you are hardly asking for consensus when your intention is to remove information so that knowledge will no longer be available. MPLX/MH 16:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, we are talking past one another. I suggested ways to improve what I (and others) consider a flawed article; you rebuff all suggestions, categorically.

By the way, please don't tell me what my intentions are. Doing so makes you look even more like a crank. My intention is to improve an article that others have called "...basically a rant. It needs to be severely pared down."

I'm done here. This topic isn't important enough to spend any more time on. Have fun with your little screed. -- Dcfleck 20:23, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)