Talk:Sony Music/Archives/2017

Where's the logo?

Where's the logo for SME that used to be on the infobox and why hasn't it been put back? Or, at least, a different file of it? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

File was deleted and removed (see this edit). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Record label"

I don't think we should categorize this company as a record label, since the article clearly states it's only a record company. So I think we should go through each music article that does this regardless, and remove its name from their infoboxes. What do you guys think? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between a label and a company?Kellymoat (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

I would like the opinion of some other users on this.

An unregistered user has made a controversy section and used the following link as a source:

http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-threaten-the-open-internet-isohunt-tells-court-120229/

I take two issues with this. I'm not sure whether or not this source is a blog. I also looked up this information and found nothing on it on any news sites. This website looks like the only one that has something on this. Secondly, I'm not sure if this is non-bias. Even though I do have knowledge of this subject, I do not have extensive knowledge of the issue in the article.

I would appreciate the opinion of any other users on potentially putting up this section and as to whether or not to do so.

Thanks --MusicGeek101 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

interesting process: everything I added so far has been undone by a single Wikipedia user ... I am completely new to Wikipedia - so I might miss here a few things - and I am happy to learn. Maybe it is simply that fact that I am not registered ... well I might do the few extra clicks if that's reassuring the community (even though : I don't see much of a community here ... more of an individual keeping control).

Now to concerns expressed above : torrentfreak is among the few unbiased sources regarding IP and Copyright issues. As a reference to the fact that they are an actual "blog" with some notoriety I would like to refer to the Wikipedia article about torrent freak. As for the professional news & media dealer - well they are biased by default - in particular if it comes to IP and copyright issues and they usually do not cover those issues. Nevertheless with a bit of an effort you can find other sources that related the fact that Sony was part of the gang using (actually 26 record labels are).

To the fact (as a fact) : there is court order - and I wonder what is biased about this. It is public record ... for those who want be 100% sure : they'll have to get there own copy. Otherwise there is copy available ere : http://www.scribd.com/doc/83175814/isohunt-scbc (I just want to mention that the original article refers to this link ... I did not really do much of a research here). Records labels have spend years and an impressive amount of money and time to sue file sharing website over the last decade. The reasons are obvious.

But then again maybe our friends music geek might just be paid by Sony to watch out over there own Wikipedia entry. We've seen this before ... now that's a biased speculation and I have no proof of this at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.137.80 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will let this stay on here, but I will make some adjustments. I'm just making sure these pages are within format and that sources are not speculative. Secondly, since you are new to wikipedia, I would recommend creating an account if you are serious about editing pages and I would recommend creating an account.

With an official copy of a court document, there is no problem with having this information posted since this document is clearly public. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am adding a section regarding IP issue as it has been removed once more (helas!) ... I wonder how long it will last this time (I am currently taking bets :)) Christophe T. = the man with the 85.70.137.XX IP address

—

I am frankly very surprised that there's no mention at all here of the uproar in fall 2005 about the "tool" Sony BMG required be installed on every computer to do DRM for their discs but looking and acting like a "rootkit" (the very worst kind of virus). That was huge news at the time. Sony BMG was pilloried for among other things i] misleading users so badly they were effectively installing their tool without "informed consent", ii] helping to legitimize the previously 100% bad "rootkit" technology, and iii] opening up security holes that might allow other bits of malware to also install themselves on each user's computer.

It seems to me that if there's going to be a section on "Controversy" at all, it should at minimum confirm that this event happened.

96.252.105.12 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sony Music uk

Sony Music uk fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. My PROD was refused by DGG and he suggested merge. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

that's my usual suggestion for national branches of a multinational corporation. I'm also a little puzzled that SONY UK is not more prominent, but I don't know the UK entertainment scene. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The article isn't that long or big and be easily merged into the parent article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. Hayman30 (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What is "Filtr"?

There is a redirection for lemma "Filtr" to "Sony Music", but "Filtr" appears nowhere here... Copa017 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)