Talk:International Intellectual Property Alliance: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 2 May 2016

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article reads like an IIPA press release. It needs a balanced treatment, including issues like criticism of IIPA's methodology and stance. Flagboy (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template about neutrality since I think it's fixed now. If you think there're still neutrality problems, please, point them out ;-) --ColdWind (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in law at the University of Edinburgh discovered that IIPA is asking the US government to consider the actions of countries mandating or suggesting open source as a harmful act roughly equivalent to not combating piracy.[2] IIPA is urging the United States government to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil and India to be put on the Special 301 watchlist because of their use of open source software, but not taking into account that also many of the U.S. companies that the IIPA represents depend on using open source software in their own business."

Useless hyperbole, as that's not the justification the 301 report says at all (for instance, Indonesia was requested to go on because rates of piracy there are, according to the report, second highest in the world). It's hyperbole from critics, is Wikipedia a platform for grandstanding now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.12.60 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I noticed that the controversy regarding IIPA's lobby attempt to outlaw Open Source Software was removed. I disagree that this information is not relevant, and Im reverting to a previous version. Also the one who removed it was not signed in. Gnurkel (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to switch to the past tense?

The IIPA's site seems to be gone, their domain name up for sale. Is the group defunct? I found a news article from Feb 2016 saying they were petitioning the US Trade Rep and with a link to their site to download a pdf for more info, so they must have gone offline just recently. 23.242.135.196 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ---
 I noticed that the controversy regarding IIPA's lobby attempt to outlaw Open Source Software was removed. I disagree that this information is not relevant, and Im reverting to a previous version. Also the one who removed it was not signed in. [[User:Gnurkel|Gnurkel]] ([[User talk:Gnurkel|talk]]) 17:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
+== Time to switch to the past tense? ==
+The [http://www.iipa.com IIPA's site] seems to be gone, their domain name up for sale. Is the group defunct? I found [http://gamepolitics.com/2016/02/10/international-intellectual-property-alliance-wants-more-countries-on-ustrs-watch-list/ a news article from Feb 2016] saying they were petitioning the US Trade Rep and with a link to their site to download a pdf for more info, so they must have gone offline just recently. [[Special:Contributions/23.242.135.196|23.242.135.196]] ([[User talk:23.242.135.196|talk]]) 05:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)