The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Protect IP Act, or personal opinions. Any such comments
may be removed or
refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Protect IP Act, or personal opinions at the
Reference desk.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Lots of bias
This article has quite a lot of bias against the bill. Wikipedia itself is biased against the bill, as evidenced by their "important message" in 2012. This needs to be fixed, and quickly.
CheeseInTea (
talk) 17:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTeareply
I disagree and would ask to be notified of any effort to remove the technical concerns, which may seem opaque to the untrained but imnsho have been demonstrated to have been completely founded.
Disclosure: I was heavily involved in this article prior to that important message, which was indeed *very* important and should not be put in scare quotes.
Further disclosure: At the time I had two computer networking certifications pertaining directly to redundant WAN, load balancing and recursive DNS, although possibly they have expired now, not sure. With respect, anyone who needs a definition of any of those three terms is probably over their head and should discuss their concerns on the talk page before doing anything substantive to this highly technical article.
Elinruby (
talk) 03:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. The article shows that the full title of the act is "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act". See?--
Brianann MacAmhlaidh (
talk) 10:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't blame you if you're new to Wikipedia, but we have
WP:Official names and
WP:Article title guidelines justify the current title despite the ambiguity of the "IP" acronym. It's official
[1] and commonly used by our reliable sources. Yes, we have
WP:ignore all rules and
WP:common sense as well, but they only applies to the matters that we actually can change. Interpreting someone's silly acronym without reliable source constitutes
WP:original research. --
Sameboat - 同舟 (
talk) 11:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As noted above, the bill's full title is "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011". The word "protect" isn't even included. This long designation is commonly abbreviated to "PROTECT IP Act", with the uppercase "PROTECT" reflecting the fact that it's an
acronym (specifically a
backronym). "IP" also commonly refers to "intellectual property", as reflected in the bill's
common name. —
David Levy 12:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)reply
1. Wikipedia
prefers common names, not full names. 2. The word "bill" is part of neither. We don't rename things based our ideas of what they should be called. —
David Levy 17:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per arguments by
David Levy and
Sameboat - 同舟. The ambiguity is addressed right up front in the article. Definitely have to leave it all caps with PROTECT to indicate it's an acronym.
Braincricket (
talk) 09:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Food for thought. According to
WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." A
search engine test with "$NAME" -Wikipedia yields:
"Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property bill" – 1,040
I know you gotta take search tests with a grain of salt, but it seems "PROTECT IP Act" is more popularly referenced than the other two.
Braincricket (
talk) 09:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Economic impact estimates in Business and innovation section
I believe the following content would contribute to the Business and Innovation section. However, I'm a newbie at editing wikipedia and would feel more comfortable if more experienced eyes checked the neutrality of the tone and appropriateness of the citations. The proposed text would follow as a new paragraph following "...70,000 lost jobs." Thanks in advance for help from the pros!
PROPOSED ADDITION:
Making accurate estimates of the economic impact of IP piracy is difficult and contentious.[1] Cato Institute fellow Julian Sanchez and adjunct scholar Tim Lee found the economic models and assumptions used by the Institute for Policy Innovation to be inappropriate, with the resulting economic impact estimates inflated.[2][3] Similarly, the Government Accountability Office was unable to replicate the research methodology of economic impact estimates provided by the MPAA.[1][4] The same GAO report also notes that three frequently cited government estimates of the economic impact of piracy and counterfeiting "cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology."[1]
[1]"GAO-10-423. Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic
Effects of Conterfeit and Pirated Goods", April 2010
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf