Talk:Graduated response

Countries that support Graduated response

The Governments of France, Taiwan, and South Korea have already adopted Graduated response initiatives, and it looks as though the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States are soon to follow. Should we maintain a section for each country? Wikispan (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

jep, that would be good, though I think we should try and keep it short.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Theirs some indicatiosn that the RIAA may have made a direct pact with ISPS

does something trump this? [1]

If not its worth knowing. even if it isnt a LAW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.171.23 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Some important news today. Ireland Is Latest With Plan to Cut Into Copyright Violations Wikispan (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Graduated response appears to be the universal term. — ThePowerofX 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Highly biased

This is basicaly a page about how free copying and distribution of knowledge and information is wrong and trying to convince people to filter the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.226.133 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't have anything to say about the ethics of file sharing. It simply describes the various initiatives in different countries. In order for the tag to stay, you need to point out specific examples of bias. — ThePowerofX 09:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And presumably this and this is your attempt at balance? — ThePowerofX 09:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the introduction implies that file-sharing is wrong, which is bias. 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The introduction was fine until you began editing it.

- The word "unlawful" is removed (diff)

- The word "wrongly" is added (diff)

- Then you slap down a NPOV tag (diff)

Seriously? — ThePowerofX 21:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graduated response. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026090128/http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/ISP%20liability_Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20warns%20consumers%20not%20to%20sign%20letter%20of%20guilt to http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/ISP%20liability_Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20warns%20consumers%20not%20to%20sign%20letter%20of%20guilt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027000900/http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20calls%20for%20Internet%20complaint%20board to http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2008/Norwegian%20Consumer%20Council%20calls%20for%20Internet%20complaint%20board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)