Talk:Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion penalties?

This article is a featured article.
It is considered one of the best works of the Wikinews community.
See the archived discussion.

Headline

I'm not sure if posing questions in the title is appropriate, makes it sound a bit more like an editorial, imo. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Title can wait just now, I've some email queries outstanding and a good chance of responses to questions nobody else has asked. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Still waiting on an official response from the Canadian Rights people, going to bump the date on this and give them another prod. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Emailed Pirate Party of Canada last night, said they'd respond so sent list of questions BCC'd to scoop. At least get something this way, but may hold back PPC responses pending CRIA response. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub-header

The "lying lobbyists" section title seems a bit biased. --SVTCobra 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with SVT. "And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the blog entry Hogarth attempted to misdirect Wikinews with ..." is not neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let me prove it... Please start reading the documents! I'm just about to put up an additional PDF that is the third legal document proving what the lobbyist wrote on his blog is a lie or he's incompetent. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The inline image shows Sookman is not correct. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but there has to be a way to phrase that less scathingly. We are supposed to be objective, after all. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll change the text, but not the sub-heading. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is this better know. I do want to stick by the "lying lobbyists?" (question mark important). With more from the various affidavits incorporated around it this seems to become a more likely intent; one which I play down in the text. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the "lying lobbyists?" with or without the question mark. I find it leading. However, don't look to me for further comments or review notes; I just don't have the time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal notes

Since none of the people who've written stories on this seem to have done the work....

• http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/SI-88-47/FullText.html

  It is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to set the fee for "services in respect of registration under the Copyright Act, notwithstanding section 41 of that Act."

  SI/88-47 March 30, 1988

• Legal Deposit of Publications Regulations

  SOR/2006-337 December 12, 2006

  "...pursuant to subsection 10(2) of the Library and Archives of Canada Act"

• Interesting, but not really relevant,

"

DEPOSIT — NON-PAPER PUBLICATIONS
2. In order to make a publication and its contents that uses a medium other than paper accessible to the Librarian and Archivist, the publisher shall
(a) before providing a copy of the publication to the Librarian and Archivist,
(i) decrypt encrypted data contained in the publication, and
(ii) remove or disable security systems or devices that are designed to restrict or limit access to the publication; and
(b) when providing a copy of the publication to the Librarian and Archivist,
(i) provide a copy of software specifically created by the publisher that is necessary to access the publication,
(ii) provide a copy of technical or other information necessary to access the publication, including a copy of manuals that accompany the publication, and
(iii) provide any available descriptive data about the publication including its title, creator, language, date of publication, format, subject and copyright information.

"

Review worries

There is, so far, already so much in this I'm concerned about getting a good review carried out when I do put it up. Can people who might be able to do this start reviewing the documents listed. To deal with this properly I've just dumped the various papers here and linked in external links sections. All emails should have been shared with scoop by the time I'm putting for review.

Please periodically check it still flows; with so many lengthy documents to repeatedly crosscheck there are times I find myself puzzled at where two new paragraphs belong and how should flow. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 923233 [Failed]

Revision 923233 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Not sure about this, although I'd be willing to defer should another reviewer think differently. See below Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: "The industry's side; lying lobbyists?" subsection is not written objectively, imo. It was quite clear, from reading the section, what the author's personal opinion on the matter is; it really shouldn't be that way. Specifically: "clearly overlooks", "continues his attack", among others, gives a tone that seems a tad too scathing to satisfy WN:NPOV, I think. I know a lot of work was put into this, Brian, and I appreciate it a lot, but in all honesty I don't think it's ready for publishing. Cheers, -Tempodivalse [talk] 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 923233 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Not sure about this, although I'd be willing to defer should another reviewer think differently. See below Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: "The industry's side; lying lobbyists?" subsection is not written objectively, imo. It was quite clear, from reading the section, what the author's personal opinion on the matter is; it really shouldn't be that way. Specifically: "clearly overlooks", "continues his attack", among others, gives a tone that seems a tad too scathing to satisfy WN:NPOV, I think. I know a lot of work was put into this, Brian, and I appreciate it a lot, but in all honesty I don't think it's ready for publishing. Cheers, -Tempodivalse [talk] 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• I beg to differ, and will resubmit for another reviewer's opinion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• As I pointed out above, there are 3 very substantial documents need read, and a needed understanding of who the CMRRA and CARDOC are to satisfy the criteria this is disputed on. My approach would be: copyedit for style, grammar; verify per sources (including the initial legal filing and affidavits listed as external links), check style/grammar edits do not remove important, nuanced, legalistic terms, and then, only then, can you review for NPOV. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs* I still stand by my above comment. I'm not disputing that what you've written is true, I'm concerned that it's not neutral. Regardless of how incompetent, dumb, lying, etc., Sookman might really be, the point is: Wikinews shouldn't care. On a side note, I see that Durova (talk · contribs) has now toned down the part in question slightly. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I tried to tone down the article a bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do strongly object to this. Durova was asked to review on NPOV amongst other points and did not tag or raise neutrality issues with me. The vast majority of her edits were not "toning down" but changes to active voice. If you mischaracterise such, how can I trust your accuracy on neutrality issues? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Less 'diplomatic' response: I gave all four majors ample opportunity to respond. Most are not in compliance with Internet standards, run mail servers for their domains, and have disabled the RFC-mandated postmaster address. If this section is cut, the article would fail NPOV. Apart from that I now see nothing wrong with it other than a cybernannying attitude that I might get sued for libel in, factually, stating that a CRIA lobbyist is a liar. I would have welcomed the lawsuit - so should other Wikinewsies. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• *sigh* ... I thought that Durova's edits were smoothing the somewhat sharp tone; perhaps my perception was incorrect. Again, I've clearly indicated in my review above why I feel that this article is not neutral enough, and can elaborate more if necessary. SVTCobra (talk · contribs) has also expressed some concerns in an above section about bias as well. If other reviewers think the article is OK, then I'll defer judgement. This is not personal and I don't want hard feelings, I'm just doing what I think is best for the project. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, I was getting the "rolled-up-newspaper" treatment in Skype chat; never any question it was not neutral, just "normal" for investigative journalism. I don't want to start on-wiki disputes, I'm reasonably confident SVTCobra's concerns are already addressed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Should be formally reviewed and published as-is. Looks accurate, and balanced to me. The character of a person appointed by a company to speak for them (at first or second hand), and the contextual qualification of the contents of said statements, is one of the paramount duties of the journalist, or at least, that's what I've been taught. Ktetch (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• When reviewed, please slip in a __NOEDITSECTION__ for appearance/layout. I retire, disillusioned that nobody can simply read the source and external links in 9 hours. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I did, but since i'm new, not much I can do about it. Ktetch (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this simply didn't make it into Google News. An inquisition is being held. Developers may face the rack. ;-) Oh, and I got the noeditsection in as early as I could. Ktech, if you c/e some stuff to pub standard before it gets review you should easily be able to get the privilege. We'll need every reviewer we can get for the competition; could be 15+ articles every day. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 923493 [Passed]

Revision 923493 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 923493 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

FAC

As I'm 99.9% confident this is the most comprehensive coverage of this issue and exposes a Machiavellian lobbyist to public scrutiny I would like this, when appropriate, put forward as a WN:FAC. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

{{FAC}} --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)