Talk:Copyright Alert System

Merger proposal

I propose that Center for Copyright Information#Copyright Alert System be merged into Copyright alert system. The sub and the article cover the same, single agreement, yet do not reference each other. I think this piece should be an article instead of a sub because, with this agreement coming into affect in July 2012, many people will likely begin searching for information about it. But, I could see cause for merging the article into the section instead. Either way. ~ Pgn674 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I have gone ahead and moved the CAS content from the CCI article to this article. In the CCI article, I replaced it with a terse summary. —mjb (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of Copyright Alert System

This article was originally titled Copyright Alert System. Soon after its creation, it got moved, without explanation, to Copyright alert system.

I feel this was in error, because:

• There are no other copyright alert systems, as far as I know.
• If there were other such systems, we don't know they would be called "copyright alert systems".
• This article is not about such systems in general; it is about the CCI's system.
• The CCI capitalizes Copyright Alert System and refers to it by the acronym CAS.

Therefore, the article should not have been renamed; it should be Copyright Alert System, which is a proper name, not a general noun.

As per the guidelines at WP:RM/TR, I have placed a speedy-delete tag on the Copyright Alert System redirect page. Once that redirect is deleted, this article can be properly moved back to its old home. In anticipation of the move, I went ahead and made sure Copyright Alert System is capitalized in the article lead. —mjb (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Looks like the redirect was deleted and the page moved today. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of the EFF's opinion in light of the CAS rollout

I tagged the section Due process concerns section again for a need to be updated in light of the CAS rollout. Specific statements that may no longer be correct include

• "The MoU only allows consumers 10 days to respond to allegations of copyright infringement" (this was 10 business days; it was changed to 14 days in the Second Amendment)
• "Moreover, the MoU only allows consumers to use six defenses to copyright infringement, ignoring other means of defense such as the "fair use" defense enabled by 17 U.S.C. § 107" (as implemented, fair use is an allowable defense in an independent review)
• "However, the Copyright Alert System may still be an infringement of the privacy of Internet users, depending on the level of data that is captured, according to the EFF" (from what I understand, only P2P and BitTorrent traffic is monitored, and subscriber information is not shared during an independent review)

Come to think of it, the entire Reception and Controversy section reeks of WP:UNDUE weight on what the EFF thinks. This needs to fixed to comply with WP:NPOV. I shall tag the article for NPOV as well. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with tagging that, uh, rather "intense" section, but I don't think the rest of the article is particularly biased. However, since I wrote or rewrote a fair amount of it, maybe it's not for me to judge. :)

The reception/controversy section was added (to the CCI article) back when the first wave of publicity hit. It actually got tagged later as being outdated. Maybe there's more to add, now that the system went live and is getting more press, but I chose not to bring the tag over when I merged the content into this article.

Personally I don't think it we really need to get into all the details of the EFF's concerns, unless the same issues are being independently raised elsewhere. I think the section intro is fine in that it says 1. the White House is enthusiastic about the CAS's goals, and 2. the EFF (and whoever else) has many concerns about X, Y and Z. As long as we point to the relevant EFF documents, it can be an exercise for the reader to go look at the details. So I think it would be OK if you wanted to condense or remove the reception/controversy subsections. —mjb (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This could be a good source for the reception section

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2145059 RJaguar3 | u | t 00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Independent review

There are several issues in the Arbitration section of the version I reverted that I felt were fixed in my change:

• We should use the official terminology where possible. I did add in my edit that independent review was a form of arbitration, which should make things clearer. Contrary to the IP's assertions, I think using the phrase "independent review" is clear and accurate. Even if "appeal" is the common name used in media sources, I think it is misleading in some respects; an appeal in law is taken from a judgment (or sometimes an arbitration decision), whereas the independent review process seeks to remove erroneous accusations of copyright infringement.
• I changed the sentence "Individual alerts as to alleged customer violations can not be questioned." and moved it to the parenthetical "(In particular, individual alerts may not be reviewed until a mitigation measure is about to be imposed.)" The IP's sentence is misleading because it appears that users can also challenge any alerts and seek to have them removed outside of the independent review process. Although I don't think many have gone into how removing an alert outside the CAS process would work (Bridy just says declaratory judgment would be a possible relief a court could give a user), it is wrong to say that the alerts cannot be "question[ed]" at all, when, in fact, they just cannot be independently reviewed unless a mitigation measure is to be imposed.
• "At that point the customer will pay $35" was changed to "must pay" by the IP. I think this sentence could be reworked to account for the possibility of obtaining a fee waiver, as described in the source.
• I wrote "An independent review must be filed within 14 days of the alert triggering a mitigation measure", which the IP changed to "An arbitration request must be requested within a 14 day window starting with the notification from the consortium of the alert triggering a mitigation measure." In addition to the independent review/arbitration issue, the source says " YOU HAVE ONLY FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A MITIGATION ALERT TO FILE A REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW" (all caps in original). It does not mention details and therefore any elaboration on how the alert triggering mitigation is not only unsourced but also extraneous. My version is clear, concise, and accurate.
• The IP wrote "Customers do not at this time have a contractual obligation restricting them to binding arbitration and do not give up their legal right to the US court system." This misrepresents the source. The IP's text (especially with the phrase "at this time") implies that the ability to go to court in addition or as an alternative to the independent review process is a loophole that will likely be removed, a statement that is not supported by the source (which says that independent review "is a non-exclusive procedure, and you still have the right to challenge any action in a court of law.") I also take issue with the IP's phrase "do not give up their legal right to the US court system." This may be inaccurate with respect to many ISP customers (who may be subject to a general arbitration clause). My text "Customers may additionally challenge alerts through a court of law" accurately reflects what the CCI's website, which is used as a source, says.

I look forward to discussing these issues. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 14:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to first point out that your reliance on the corporation's website as your source material is a non-starter. We do not use primary sources as a rule. The article read like a public relation's press release - and that was because we, as a group, initially used the PR handout and published it here.

• Your first point, "We should use the official terminology where possible", is precisely what we should not do. Regurgitating the marketing language is an exercise in obfuscation.
• The section in question is in regards to an appeal process, many of which exist outside the court system and can be found in everything from student self-governance to amateur athletics or beauty pageants. Calling the process by it's name is proper. It is an appeal process.
• The appeal process functions as written, no appeal of findings of guilt can occur until a punishment has been meted out, At that point one has 14 days in which to discover the precise number as to how many individual findings of guilt must be disproved in order to avoid the execution of punishment. A fee of $35 is required to be paid in order to question the findings. These things are clear.
• You also seek to continue here the corporate spin the marketing language puts on the consumer's right to redress in the courts. It is, as I wrote and which you agreed with, simply, clearly and concisely true that, "customers do not at this time have a contractual obligation restricting them to binding arbitration and do not give up their legal right to the US court system." You agreed with this statement when you rightly pointed out that, "This may be inaccurate with respect to many ISP customers (who may be subject to a general arbitration clause)." The general arbitration clause has not been at this time invoked either by the CAS, nor individually by any of the corporate owners. So it is true, accurate and encyclopedically correct to limit our sentence to, "at this time" in regards to CAS and our notation of the difference between the CAS arbitration regime and binding arbitration.

The section is best written using the common language for the concepts, appeal, arbitration, etc. We should avoid republishing the press release here using the marketing department's double-speak. 12.144.158.23 (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the CCI's source is the only source currently cited in that section. If you want to cite other reliable sources, feel free to do so. (By the way, I should add that it clearly meets WP:SELFPUB.) Bridy covers the independent review process also, so it could be added as a source (although the article is written in 2012, and the rollout took place in February 2013).

As to your points:

• The term "independent review" is an accurate description of the process. It also happens to be the terminology used in the cited source. Bridy, though, does use the word "appeal" to describe the independent review process (p. 33).
• You are correct on your second point.
• I disagree with your third statement. First of all, "no appeal of findings of guilt can occur until a punishment has been meted out" is inaccurate: a copyright alert is not a "finding[] of guilt". Second of all, "At that point one has 14 days in which to discover the precise number as to how many individual findings of guilt must be disproved in order to avoid the execution of punishment" is inaccurate; in addition to the "findings of guilt" comment above, the number (half of the alerts) is already known at the outset, so it is incorrect to say that the customer "discovers" this number during the 14 day window. "A fee of $35 is required to be paid in order to question the findings" ignores the possibility of a fee waiver (both in the cited source and Bridy at 33). All of this ignores that alerts can additionally be challenged in court (both in the cited source and Bridy at 55, 58). Thus, it is not accurate to suggest that the only way to question a copyright alert is through the independent review/appeal process.
• The statement "customers do not at this time have a contractual obligation restricting them to binding arbitration and do not give up their legal right to the US court system" is indeed literally true, in the same way that "customers do not at this time have a contractual obligation to be sucker-punched by a content owner representative" is literally true. As I said above, contrary to what your statement suggests (that ISPs/content owners will in the future make the independent review process the sole means for challenging copyright alerts, preempting other legal theories that could allow for the removal of copyright alerts) nothing in the cited source suggests that this will happen. Although it may be true that the customers or the ISPs could demand arbitration of a dispute regarding copyright alerts that is not sent through the independent review process, this is just speculation on our part, which has no place in Wikipedia articles. Of course, if there is a reliable source that directly challenges the ability for customers to bring an action in court to challenge copyright alerts, it can be added.
• Summarizing a cited source is entirely appropriate.

RJaguar3 | u | t 03:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an inexhaustible list of sources which use the term appeal. The Christian Science Monitor, "Customers who have been wrongly accused can appeal the mitigation step, though submitting an appeal costs $35.". CBS News, "Consumers who maintain they have been wrongly accused would be forced to pay $35 to appeal the decision.". The Wall Street Journal, "The Internet service providers say that at each stage, the customers will be able to appeal a claim." I'll suggest here that any of those reliable secondary sources take precedence over the marketing language.

You also take issue with the phrase, "findings of guilt". There is a list of copyright violations and then a punishment. It is the accumulated list of copyright violations that is used as the guilty action and punished. You can seek (for a $35 fee) to disprove the acts of copyright theft (the finding of guilt) and overturn the punishment. This finding of guilt and subsequent meting out of punishment is where the program has found itself criticized, as according to Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Freedom Foundation. “They’ve essentially created a private, extra-legal process with real consequences, without the balance and protections of a real judicial process.”.

We describe the appeal process accurately, using common language and concepts and neither regurgitate the marketing language nor editorially disparage the system.

It is what it is. 12.144.158.23 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't support the following edits made by 12.144.158.23:

• Replaced alerts with their findings of guilt which they term as "alerts", and replaced mitigation measure with punishment – This is biased phrasing, and redundant, since we already introduced the terms with scare quotes or explanations. That is, every time the terms are used, we don't need to crow about how they are "really" "findings of guilt" and "punishment", which are, despite your protest, editorial disparagement of the system. Besides, "guilt" should only be used when talking about criminal acts by a certain party, preferably as determined in a court of law, just as "liability" would only apply to civil wrongs. When an ISP subscriber receives an alert, it is not a "finding of guilt" (or liability), just a notice that the subscriber's account is suspected of being used, perhaps by others, for copyright infringement. You have more of a case with characterizing a "mitigation measure" as "punishment", but you'd be better advised to explicitly state that the EFF, et al., have characterized the mitigation measures as such, rather than injecting this characterization into every mention of the term.
• Replaced the alert triggering the mitigation measure with a final notice of punishment, termed by the CAS as a "mitigation" measure – again, biased, and redundant.
• Removed special from special arbitration proceeding – improper, because without special, it falsely implies that it is an ordinary arbitration proceeding, whereas it has actually been set up just for the CAS, such as by limiting the defenses to a specific list of options.
• Removed and the arbitrator will be selected by the AAA – improper, because this is unusual; in an ordinary arbitration proceeding, both parties to the arbitration would get to choose from a list of arbitrators.

I have reverted the changes for the reasons stated. —mjb (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC) People should point out that Stroz Friedberg is not actualy independent whatsoever. Considering they worked for the very people who's interests they are supposedly standing up for, this is not independent at all. -Ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.178.129 (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Another law journal article on the CAS

"Graduated Response by Industry Compact: Piercing the Black Box" by Mary LaFrance (2012) I will be reading through it for any useful material to add to the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Integrating opinion about specific aspects of the CAS into the article

I think this will better serve WP:NPOV. I just simply copy and pasted the sections into the most relevant heading; please feel free to help fix the organization and make it flow better. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not copy and paste pieces into the article that is a copyright violation, irony, no. I'm really not kidding about this. All work has to be in your own words, rehashing and making sense of technical or legal terms is not always easy, but as it is this article is not layman friendly and will actually do nothing to point out the system to those likely to research it. I'll try to clean this up later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It was actually moving the text already in the article around, not copying new text out of sources. If you have any text you think is a copyright violation, please let me know. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 00:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to edit page

I would like to edit this page by adding the following information:

In section: Copyright Alert System

• According to the Center for Copyright Information, the Copyright Alert System (CAS) has become active since February 25th.[1]

In Section:Reception and Controversy

• Critics on Billboard.com claim that this system jeopardizes the individual’s privacy and also may affect open wireless networks in the sense that the main subscriber may not be responsible or involved in infringement. Also, if CAS were applied to business accounts or open institutions, it would be an ineffective way to find the source of who is committing violations to the copyright laws.[2]
• The internet is basically a right; it connects us with the modern world whether it be the need of occupational, educational, or social opportunities. These opportunities are now at the risk of a civil offense. People have been taking great measures to protect their connections, however, at times networks can be flawed and therefore consumers can be vulnerable to unwanted situations. This law becomes even more hypocritical as it has been revealed that even people in the government have been caught downloading torrents such as our Homeland Security and the Recording Industry Association of America.[3]
• Furthermore, this system is proven to be completely unfair as the public’s tax money is being invested into enforcing this law. Approximately, anywhere between $4-32 is being spent per notification that gets sent to warn the internet user. The public is paying either through higher prices for legal content and/or internet service. Therefore, this system is undemocratic.[4]

Pringles012 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting these edits. Since it appears you're a student, I'm going to be a bit more verbose than usual in my replies, and will try to offer constructive criticism.

First, regarding the specific rollout date of February 25th: The lead section currently ends with this slightly more general statement: After multiple delays, ISPs began implementing it in February 2013. The source cited for that is an Ars Technica article, which, if you look at it and click on its sources, actually gets the time-frame from this statement: Over the course of the next several days our participating ISPs will begin rolling out the system. That was made by CCI director Jill Lesser in her Feb. 25 blog post on the CCI's official website. Because she was somewhat vague, I'm hesitant to say that the system started on exactly the 25th, even if other media outlets are not so careful. Some ISPs apparently were expected to start slightly later than others. It's possible the 26th was the first day. All we know for sure is that it was on the 25th that she said the ISPs would be starting it up over "the next several days". So if you want to make it more specific, you could go so far as to insert "late" so that the last sentence reads as follows: After multiple delays, ISPs began implementing it in late February 2013. You could also supplement the Ars Technica reference with the CCI blog post I mentioned.

The original source you chose for this wasn't ideal. Maximize Social Media is not a real journalistic outlet; it's just a small company providing social media services to other local businesses. Their website is basically an anonymous blog (it's actually a WordPress installation), and the announcement they were making was geared toward spreading the news about CAS to local businesses—just informing business owners they're at risk of getting copyright alerts, thus they should ensure employees aren't doing unsavory things with BitTorrent on their computers at work. For an answer to the question "when exactly did the CAS launch?", there must be better sources than this.

(Also, the assumption that businesses will be hit with alerts might be false—see Jill Lesser's post from Jan. 31 clarifying that only residential Internet accounts are targeted, so the only businesses that would be affected are those that use residential connections, like people who run their business out of their home, or small offices just trying to save money by not getting a business account with their ISP.)

Second, regarding what critics say about the CAS, take a closer look at what you saw on the Billboard site. Billboard is mainly a magazine that's, to say the least, very pro-music industry. It's extremely unlikely they'll publish anything critical of the CAS. Indeed, the page you linked to is an op-ed (an essay meant to express an opinion and, usually, to persuade readers to adopt a similar point of view). It was written by a guest writer who represents an advocacy group for musicians. Op-ed pieces are basically glorified blog posts which are useless as sources about facts, other than the fact that someone wrote it. The gist of this particular essay is that critics of the CAS are wrong: the CAS is not harmful, and the CAS is probably good for musicians. When she refers to these "critics of the CAS" who she's arguing against, she links that text to a blog post on the EFF's site. So, there are no critics of the CAS on the Billboard site; it's the EFF who are the critics (well, one of the bigger critics, anyway).

It's good that you noticed we haven't said anything about open wireless in the article. We should say something about it.

If you shift your focus over to the EFF blog in question, and compare it to what was written in the Billboard op-ed, it gets interesting. What happened is the EFF (not unnamed, plural "critics") claims that by holding the subscriber who runs an open Wi-Fi access point responsible for the suspected misconduct of others, the CAS jeopardizes the "Open Wireless Movement". The Open Wireless Movement, I found after some poking around, is the EFF's advocacy campaign to promote freedom on the Internet by encouraging residential account holders to run open Wi-Fi access points, perhaps in violation of their ISP's Terms Of Service. The Billboard guest writer misinterpreted this, perhaps deliberately, and said that the CAS wouldn't have a chilling effect on "open wireless networks" because 1. the CAS only applies to residential accounts, and 2. "I'm running open WiFi" is a defense in the appeal process. She didn't seem to understand that residential open WiFi, not business open WiFi, is exactly what the EFF was talking about, thus she committed a straw man fallacy (shooting down an argument that her opponent didn't actually make). And her claim about the appeals process is an outright falsehood, as far as I can tell. Open WiFi is not a defense they allow at all. Even if it was, the fact that the appeal isn't allowed until the 5th or 6th strike, right before "mitigation measures" are imposed, suggests that there would still be a chilling effect, so whether it's a valid appeal is irrelevant.

The biased Billboard writer also refers to the EFF's claims that the CAS could jeopardize privacy, and you picked up on this. But privacy isn't actually mentioned in the EFF blog post she linked to. If the EFF or any other notable, knowledgeable critic has expressed concerns about privacy, then maybe we can talk about that, but we need to find a source for that before mentioning that these concerns have been raised.

You said Also, if CAS were applied to business accounts or open institutions, it would be an ineffective way to find the source of who is committing violations [of] copyright laws. That seems to be your own analysis, not something that's written on the Billboard or EFF sites, so it's not really usable. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just not attributable to a reliable source. Also, it's problematic in that it's akin to saying "applying the CAS to business accounts or open institutions would be an ineffective way to gather recommendations of where to go for lunch today." The CAS is not designed for that. It's not designed to determine who the actual infringers are, nor is it even designed to prove much of anything.

Your first part of your third proposal, regarding Internet being a right, etc., is based on an essentially anonymous post to reddit, just someone expressing opinions and a call-to-action. Again, I don't disagree with it, it's just not a good source for anything factual. Besides, we can't say in Wikipedia "the Internet is a right", as a statement of fact, no matter who said it. Rights are a philosophical concept, something that can be asserted through claims, but not really observable as fact. Now, if that reddit post is notable enough to be mentioned in the mainstream press or in an academic publication, then we could maybe say something about it, but only in the context of why it's notable. We can't repeat its claims as if they were fact; we can only talk about how someone said these things.

The second part of the third proposal, regarding this "law" being hypocritical, is likewise problematic. Aside from the fact that the CAS is not law, we can't say that the CAS is hypocritical. Any apparent hypocrisy would need to be referenced as being an accusation made by someone in particular, preferably someone more notable than "robertrobot", and preferably somewhere more trustworthy than the chaotic, anonymous message board that is reddit. It might not be easy to find anything other than message board and blog posts, because calling things hypocritical, no matter how truly hypocritical they are, is pretty much always a commission of the tu quoque fallacy, which is a form of ad hominem—attacking the opponent, rather than their arguments. As such, accusations of hypocrisy are mainly confined to the kinds of sources that aren't acceptable in Wikipedia.

Your last proposal, based on Sean Flaim's op-ed at Ars Technica, is in much the same boat. Sean rails against various aspects of the CAS, and it's an interesting read, and your summary of some of its highlights isn't bad. You should notice, though, that when he said "Estimates range from $4 to $32 per notification sent," he linked that text to his source for those numbers: an op-ed from 2006, which, in turn, relies on a study published in January 2006. You always have to chase down the original sources as far as you can, and attribute the claim to whoever originally made it, and consider how reliable that source is. In this case, the estimates are not in reference to the CAS, but rather are for a CAS-like "notice and notice" system used in Canada. This is a problem. We can't say that the CAS involves notices costing $4-$32 each (which was in Canadian dollars, incidentally). That's how much the Canadian system is estimated to cost, but we really mustn't assume anything about the actual expenses incurred by US ISPs participating in the CAS. Sure, it's plausible that it's not completely free for them, and that they pass on the cost to us one way or another, but without a CAS-specific report of our own, we have to remain silent about that for now.

So, I'm sorry, but I'm opposed to most of your proposed edits, as currently written. You need to confine your proposed statements to facts rather than arguments; you need to make sure the sources for the facts are reliable, are published in good sources, and aren't opinions.

If you refine what you say about the topic of open wireless networks, though, we can and probably should make use of it in the article. —mjb (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what mjb is pointing out about the sources is definitely important. I know you have done an extensive amount of research on the topic already, but do try to find some reliable sources on open wireless networks and add more information of that. Atavel (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

==I propose to add the following changes==

In section: ^{Copyright Alert System} The CCI director, Jill Lesser, blogged on February 25 on the CCI's official website,that the ISPs will begin implementing this system sometime during late February 2013.

Under the Section: ^{Reception and Controversy} Create a Sub-section: _{Open Wireless Networks} Professor Derek Bambauer, of University of Arizona tech law, told Ars Technica that the whole six-strikes system “is fundamentally flawed.” It is unjust for the fact that even if you are not participating in infringement, as in just downloading a movie or song that is not copyrighted, the new systems still treats the user as an infringer. This system is partially undemocratic since the bargaining parties were only content owners and ISPs. There are limited reasons for why ISPs would support free speech or protect against such mistakes.

The Open Wireless Movement goals are failing as this system does not support the benefits of having open wireless connections available to these kinds of places—commercial, residential, or public. Jill Lesser, Executive Director of the Center for Copyright Information, admitted that the copyright surveillance machine will affect small businesses that do provide an open wireless connection: “Depending on the type of Internet service they subscribe to, very small businesses like a home-office or a local real estate office may have an Internet connection that is similar from a network perspective to a residential connection... The practical result is that if an employee of the small business, or someone using an open Wi-Fi connection at the business, engages in infringing activity the primary account owner would receive Alerts.” Pringles012 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Participating parties

On July 8 2012, there was a section called "Participating parties", which I contributed to with extra information, accuracy, internal links, and references. The section was a list of ISP and media parties participating in CAS. I notice now the entire section is missing. It looks like it was removed by Mjb at time stamp 16:52, 4 March 2013, with the comment "merged in much content formerly in CCI article, where it didn't belong". I am wondering why that section was removed? Should it be added back in? For the last appearance of the section, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright_Alert_System&oldid=542032911#Participating_parties Pgn674 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the info seemed redundant after I merged in the content from the CCI article, and it was already somewhat redundant, itself. How many times do we have to list the 5 ISPs? How many times do we need to mention the RIAA, MPAA, etc.? Is it really necessary to point out that the Memorandum of Understanding mentions specific big-name RIAA and MPAA members, when all the other press releases and the CCI's own announcements just refer to the overarching organizations? What's the point of mentioning the three Verizon corporate entities? These seem to be minutiae of dubious importance to the article, not worth devoting real estate to. Are you trying to imply that there are inconsistencies, or what? Also there's a style guideline about avoiding lists when prose will do. —mjb (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some sources I found; anyone is welcome to add them.

• http://www.copyrightinformation.org/uncategorized/early-reports-cas-moving-forward/
• http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/copyrightvigilantism.pdf

RJaguar3 | u | t 04:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OMG, this is complicated!

I found a rendering problem.

The following is a PrintScreen of the actual page.

[Cannot figure out how to insert a png.]

The following was produced by:

Download as a PDF >>

Rendering finished; The document file has been generated. Download the file to your computer.

[Cannot figure out how to insert a png.]

Jim Kochanski jim@kochanski.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.198 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright Alert System. 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/20130113051407/http://www.copyrightinformation.org/about to http://www.copyrightinformation.org/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright Alert System. 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/20130312225438/https://www.cdt.org/personnel/beryl-howell to https://www.cdt.org/personnel/beryl-howell

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) 01:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)