Talk:Center for Copyright Information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Expanding this article[edit]

Hello, I've been working at the behest of the Center for Copyright Information to improve this article, which is currently very limited, as you can see. I've posted a new version of this article in my userspace; you can view it here. A brief summary of the changes I've made can be found below.

  • The lead paragraph has been shortened a bit, in order to better conform to Wikipedia's standards.
  • A section called Background has been added, which details the reasons for the creation of the CCI, along with some of its work and leadership.
  • The section Copyright Alert System has been significantly expanded, providing additional details about how the system works.
  • The Endorsements section of the current article has been changed to Reception, and details criticism of the CCI alongside positive reception.

Because of my paid COI on the matter, I'd like to get some volunteer editors to look at the draft and, if everything looks okay, move it over into the mainspace. I've disabled categories in the draft on my userspace, so the article does get moved over, they'll need to be re-enabled.

If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know, either here or on my Talk page. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Here's my question. As I understand it, CCI is basically the organization set up to run the CAS. Does it have any independent existence besides that? Does it have any media coverage outside of CAS? If not, then I would submit that the organization does not really have enough of a distinct identity to sensibly be separated from the CAS article. The information about who's in CCI is all important, but if CCI only does CAS, and CAS is done wholly through CCI, then the two articles are basically co-extensive, and it would be unnecessarily confusing to a reader to have the information split out. --Lquilter (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lquilter, Thanks for your quick reply to this. I can certainly see how you might view the CCI and the Copyright Alert System as being essentially synonymous. Although the Copyright Alert System is a major focus for the CCI—and was, in fact, one of the reasons that the center came into existence in the first place—the alert system certainly isn't all they do. For example, they also provide educational materials to help people understand what copyrights are and help them find videos and music online legally. Further, their "About" page doesn't even mention the Copyright Alert System, and there is independent media coverage of the Center that doesn't mention the system, including pieces which explicitly talk about the CCI's educational role.
Given all of this, I really do think it makes sense to consider the organization and the alert system separately. What do you think? ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not yet persuaded. The educational materials were created to be go-to resources from Copyright Alert System warnings. What independent life do they have beyond that? --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • of the cites you list:
    • Billboard - It's a relatively brief mention of the CCI, and again, the mention is related to the CAS: "allowing ISPs to share information about individual actions and learn lessons that can lead to better enforcement."
    • CBS - Again, this is a story basically about enforcement, which mentions CCI basically as the implementing organization of CAS.
Here's the thing. I want information about CCI, and its funders, to be here. But CCI is basically at this point a one-trick pony, and it is confusing to readers of the encyclopedia to have the organization split off from its single primary mission in life. The information is split into two places, which does a disservice to the readers & to people who want to know about CCI or about CAS. It would be far better at this point to simply merge the CCI content into the CAS article, and have a redirect from CCI to CAS. When and if CCI develops a substantive mission over and beyond CAS, and that mission achieves some notoriety, then I think it would make more sense to have two separate articles. Right now I just don't see it. --Lquilter (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Lquilter. I was just looking at the article for the Copyright Alert System, and it looks to me like the decision to have two separate articles for the CCI and CAS was made pretty recently—in March of this year. So it seems like consensus was formed then to create different articles for these two topics. Given that, we certainly need to get the article for the CCI up to shape—do my changes otherwise look okay? If so, could migrate them over for me? Thanks again for your input here; I really appreciate your feedback! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Your suggested changes seem to me to minimize the amount of criticism CCI has received, although I don't have time to provide detailed alternative suggestions today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevin Gorman, Thanks for your feedback. There's not currently any criticism in the article, so I added some in an effort to make the article more neutral and encyclopedic. Do you see specific criticisms that should be discussed, but aren't? ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
ChrisPond writes: I can certainly see how you might view the CCI and the Copyright Alert System as being essentially synonymous.
Is that really unreasonable, given how your proposed edits treat the CCI and CAS as synonymous, and given that the content of the Memorandum of Understanding, and the fact that your proposed lead paragraph kicks off with The Center for Copyright Information (CCI) is an American organization that aims to reduce online copyright infringement through a graduated response system called the Copyright Alert System.? The CCI and CAS go hand-in-hand, and the Memorandum of Understanding is quite clear about that. —mjb (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's unreasonable at all—the two things are certainly intimately connected, and I can understand why Lquilter saw them as being coextensive. I was simply indicating that, despite the intimate tie, I believe there's reason to have separate articles.
Thanks for your detailed comments below, mjb. I'm looking into them and will get back to you in the next few days. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding proposed edits (as of today):
The lead paragraph has been shortened a bit, in order to better conform to Wikipedia's standards.
You make it sound like it was a minor copy edit, but there are substantial content changes in your proposal.
Right now we're using what's in the Memorandum of Understanding, the very document that called for the creation of the CAS and the CCI. We list what's in that document about what the CCI's mission actually is (slightly edited by me for brevity): it's to 1. educate the public about copyright law; 2. coordinate with copyright owners and Internet service providers (ISPs) about issues related to online copyright infringement; 3. assist with the design, implementation, review, and promotion of an online infringement notification and mitigation system; 4. collect and disseminate online infringement data; and 5. promote lawful means of obtaining copyrighted works.
You've proposed replacing all of that with just "aims to reduce online copyright infringement", which isn't even really a summary of the five aspects. Perhaps a more terse summary would be better suited for the lead, but it would need to actually summarize the five specific points, which, in turn, would still need to be in the article as the "detailed version" of whatever is in the summary. And if "aims to reduce online copyright infringement" is added, it's going to need a source which says that's a CCI goal.
You also want the lead to mention specific member organizations and advisory board members. I can see why you'd want to get the advisory board members mentioned, but I feel like that's not good info for the lead. So that it wouldn't have to be updated and kept in sync with the infobox and the rest of the article, I deliberately tried to keep the lead as general as possible, referring to "the CCI's founding member organizations, which include five major American ISPs and four major organizations representing copyright owners in the U.S. sound recording and motion picture industries." This also is more encyclopedic and ideal as an introduction to the topic. Would a one-paragraph description of any other organization be likely to include a list of its advisory board members? I think not.
A section called Background has been added, which details the reasons for the creation of the CCI, along with some of its work and leadership.
This is more-or-less OK. A couple of reservations, though:
Although the last paragraph about leadership and the advisory board is really about current members in those roles, and is not really background at all; it should be its own section, and should cover past members as well (e.g., what happened to Marsali Hancock?).
Without citations, I'm skeptical of any attempts to imply that the CCI has any accountability to its advisory board, or even solicits the board's input except when it's convenient for public relations. The advisory board is not on equal footing with the executive board or the member organizations, and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as if it has influence or provides balance merely by consisting of people with certain specializations. Now, if you can cite sources which demonstrate the actual balancing influence that the advisory board has had, that would be much, much better.
I also don't feel comfortable mentioning child pornography at all. It's akin to mentioning terrorism. It's irrelevant and manipulative. Drop it.
The section Copyright Alert System has been significantly expanded, providing additional details about how the system works.
If we retain a separate article about the CCI, then it needs to be about the CCI and not the CAS. It's bad form and a maintenance nightmare to have two articles covering the same topic. Obviously we have to say something about the CAS in the CCI article, but it should only be a terse, general summary, preferably containing no time-sensitive information (so, a list of participating ISPs is inappropriate), in order to allow us to use the 'main' template to refer people back to the CAS article as the place to learn all about that topic.
The Endorsements section of the current article has been changed to Reception, and details criticism of the CCI alongside positive reception.
This isn't going to work at all, because despite the use of the term CCI, everything you've added is about the CAS, not the CCI. Obama's endorsement is the only one that's about the CCI itself. Even if this content were proposed for inclusion in the CAS article, it has problems (see recent discussion on Talk:Copyright Alert System#Proposal to edit page.
I hope this helps. —mjb (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey mjb, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm still looking into this, and hope to have a response to your feedback soon. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi again mjb and others, Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back about this. I've had to focus on other things recently, but I'm returning to this article in earnest this week. I'll be making edits to the draft in my userspace incorporating the comments here, and will post again once I've got things sorted over there. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi mjb, I've now had a chance to review your comments and incorporate them into the newly-updated draft in my userspace. Below, I detail the changes that I've made to the draft based on your feedback:
  • In the intro, I've incorporated language from the current intro based on the memorandum of understanding, but I've also kept some language describing the CCI based on third-party sources. I've also removed the full list of advisory board members from the intro along with examples of the ISPs involved.
  • I've also updated the infobox to include the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM). One question here—I see that the current infobox contains "Purpose/focus: anti-piracy measures." What do you think about including this?
  • In Background, I've moved information about the governance of the CCI to a new subsection called Leadership. Additionally, I've clarified the advisory board's role, based on language from the CCI itself. This new language should make clear the difference between the executive committee that leads the CCI and the advisory board.
    • One thing I did not include—past members of the advisory board. I wasn't able to find a source for, e.g., Marsali Hancock leaving (although it's clear from him not being included in the list of advisors on the CCI website that he is no longer involved), and it seemed more appropriate to have this subsection focus on current leadership rather than past changes in leadership.
  • Regarding mention of child pornography — the New York Times article used clearly indicates that the CCI came about as a direct result of a meeting about how to fight child pornography online, so I included this as it is clearly a key part of the organization's origin. I'm not sure I follow your reason to not include this.
  • The section on the Copyright Alert System has been significantly shortened, and a link to the main article is now included. Hopefully this is sufficient to provide an overview of the system, while not being burdensome to keep updated.
  • I've removed any discussion of reception about the CAS that was previously included here. The only thing that remains is Obama's endorsement.
If this all looks okay, could you go ahead and move the draft from my userspace into the mainspace, re-enabling categories when you do? If you have any additional feedback, though, I'm all ears. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, I hope someone else will take a look at it instead of waiting for me. Whoever wants to take a first crack at it, go ahead... I'll join in later. (I'm just busy with other things.) —mjb (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey mjb, Thanks for the reply—I'll reach out to some of the other editors that were involved here after the holiday weekend. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added the userspace draft version into the article. However, I have not added the reception section. I think there needs to be some improvements and balancing there.
I can understand and agree with statements by other users above that we need to look for reception that's specficially about CCI and not CAS. However, it can't be that difficult, considering the huge amount of news that has been produced about CCI. Chris, I know you can find some stuff out there, both positive and negative, that is about CCI. SilverserenC 03:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Silverseren, thanks so much for moving the changes over; I really appreciate it! I'll definitely do some more looking for criticism and see what I can find. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 12:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey again Silver, I did some more checking yesterday, specifically looking at new sources since I first drafted this article. Unfortunately, everything I can find (both positive and negative) is about the Copyright Alert System, and not about the CCI. I'm thinking the best solution here, since we only have the one thing about the CCI itself, is to ditch the "Reception" section, and instead incorporate the one detail we do have (the White House endorsement) elsewhere into the article, maybe in the "Background" section, just before "Leadership and advisors"? What do you think? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And it is certainly important enough to include. I've added it in. SilverserenC 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks, Silver! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)