Talk:Phonographic Performance Limited

Page re-draft

Copy on page has been completely re-drafted and largely lifted from the existing PPL company website (www.ppluk.com). Copy has been tweaked to better reflect both sides of PPL - the licensing and the music industry.Filmbuff85 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

Pretty much everything after the lead was lifted directly from the PPL website. Specifics are as follows:

• "Mission statement": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Our-values/
• "History": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/Our-history/
• "Where the money coes from": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Where-the-money-comes-from/
• "Speaking out for music": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Speaking-out-for-music/
• "Lobbying governments": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Speaking-out-for-music/Lobbying-international-governments/
• "Shows and events": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Shows-and-events/
• "Growth and development" and "Embracing performers": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/Our-history/How-we-have-developed/
• "PPL & VPL", "Music users" and "Record companies": http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/Who-we-are/What-is-VPL/

This was introduced by User:BlueNoteUK in September. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems the lead was also lifted from http://www.ppluk.com/en/About-Us/ - albeit in this case someone at least took the time to rearrange the words slightly. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS received an appropriate permissions release from the copyright holder. Everything should be good with this page. NW (Talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of the article is rather commercial. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's apologetic tone seems to suggest that they are doing those "hard up" platinum selling performers a great service.

Where as the reality is far more simple, allegations for PRS who try to get small clubs, charities and community groups to cough up thousands of pounds if they play music for their members, visitors or users.

That was just one example, type "Phonographic Performance Limited" into a search engine along with the word charity and you'll get the picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.158.81 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

this article is biased without the previous points included, small not for profit venues are being hit hard by ppl and they are typically the few places in towns and cities supporting non-commercial independent music.

Content

I think it should be made more clear that, you don't need to get the PPL licence, if you play "free" music, i.e Creative common or music that you own the copyright of, or have taken permission from the copyright owner. This is something that is not mentioned in any of the PPL material , leading folks to believe that they need to get PPL for *any* music. (Raghu Udiyar (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC))

I've added this clarification covering both free, and copyright-expired music. 2A00:67A0:A:6:A987:4ABC:E4F1:47A9 (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More on bias

As noted above, the tone of this article is mostly biased in favor of the record industry. Much of this is the result of the cut-and-paste of copyrighted material from PPL's own materials. Those were being removed as copyvios, but that stopped once PPL filed the OTRS (also noted above).

But the OTRS only addresses the legality of using this material; it does not address the heavy bias in the article.

I note that an addition earlier today, [1], is an odd island of bias in the opposite direction. I was about to remove it but once I saw the rest of the article, I hesitate to remove it, because that would put this back even more to a PPL puff-piece. ("Embracing performers"? Please.) I'm an American, not a Brit (or else I would have written "favour" above, ), so I don't have enough knowledge to really have at it. Any of our UK editors want to have a stab at it? At present, it is almost entirely a PPL_sponsored promotional piece. TJRC (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

why is the addition bias? if it's true it merits inclusion, but perhaps a citation is needed for 'major record company lobbying'? the addition is probably the only part of the article not written by a ppl employee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.254 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. CsDix (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Phonographic Performance Limited → PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd) – The company is better known as 'PPL' now, with 'Phonographic Performance Ltd' being its original name. People searching for information about PPL may not realise Phonographic Performance Ltd is the same company. It is also out of date language. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Filmbuff85 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support in principle; I agree with renaming, because PPL is now the organization's WP:COMMONNAME. However, in keeping with WP:NCDAB, the new name should be PPL (licensing company). TJRC (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move to PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd), which completely ignores our disambiguation and other naming conventions. Support move to PPL (licensing company) or similar disambiguation. The resulting redirect and an appropriate lede will take care of the concerns of the nominator regarding searching. The DAB at PPL already links here. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • On reflection it should remain where it is, and I note the well-argued consensus below in favour of this. No change of vote, but striking out support for the alternative proposal above. Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Shelve RM and add some 3rd party sources - this article is a straight copy of the website with large dose of WP:NPOV and WP:Peacock issues. I would honestly think some editing is a bigger priority than a move. As it stands the title isn't that bad. It is what is found in Google Books, it is clear and self-disambiguating, and it is still required to anyone outside the industry who wouldn't have heard of "PPL." I have added project tages (which need collapsing), 3 sources to created a new WP:WIKIFY lede, not brilliant but better than nothing, and bumped down the website paste. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: abbreviations in title should be avoided per WP:TITLE, and it is still clearer to use its full name. PPL might be its commonname but readers not in its industry (like me) is meaningless.--Michaela den (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – we try to avoid abbrevs as titles. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Don't move It is standard practice that when an entity uses an ambiguous abbreviation, we used the unabbreviated name for the title. Since PPL can stand for a lot of things, PPL is an ambiguous abbreviation (unlike AT&T) and is not the primary topic for this abbreviation (unlike NYC, which almost always means New York City) Ego White Tray (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 August 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Not moved. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 18:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Phonographic Performance Limited → ? – Page title should include the name by which subject is commonly known and referred to "PPL". One way of identify it from other PPL Acronyms would be to name as "PPL - Copyright Collective" or "PPL - Music Copyright Collection Society" both of which are accurate descriptions and instantly identifiable. More Cites to follow (Apologies for not understanding the process of page moving and ultimately, of course will respect the consensus DJ888kmg (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I could see that maybe "Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)" might be a useful title, but the suggestions above seem to just confuse and muddy the waters to no benefit whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Proposed new title (see below) PPL (Music Copyright Collective) This would help define the target of the Article and help anyone searching for the Phonographic Performance Limited find it quickly and without confusion. DJ888kmg (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose at least for now. First, the proponent has not identified the name they propose to move the article to. Based on their prior undiscussed and now-reverted page moves, it looks like they want something like Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) or PPL - Music Copyright Collection Society (or, as above, PPL - Copyright Collective), none of which comport with Wikipedia naming guidelines.

Users searching on PPP PPL will find it via the ordinary means for disambiguation; I note that Phonographic Performance Limited does not appear to be the primary topic for the ambiguous term PPP PPL.

This seems also to have been addressed in the 5 December 2012 above; and while consensus can change, I have no reason to believe it has here.

I may change my position if an actual concrete move proposal, with a proposed new name, is made. That being said, the current title is unambiguous, and appears to be the correct name for the article. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: Proposed new title (see below) PPL (Music Copyright Collective) This would help define the target of the Article and help anyone searching for the Phonographic Performance Limited find it quickly and without confusion. Some further info and cites below. Be very useful to define this article as being the Company most commonly known as "PPL" as the PPL Music Copyright Collective. DJ888kmg (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: Just for clarity "PPP" is not being suggested, please see cites below that clearly show this subject is commonly known as "PPL", so I think that the move should be included in the article of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ888kmg (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; "PPP" was my typo; corrected. The point still stands. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: No problem, I'm still getting used to correct communication etiquette - have responded to your point above. Thanks DJ888kmg (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Following Cites on "PPL" being used commonly to refer to the PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited)

Musicians Union Cite is significant as this is what musicians members would understand this subject to be referred as. DJ888kmg (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

("PPL to make advance distribute payments")

("PPL AWARD FOR MOST PLAYED NEW INDEPENDENT ARTIST")

("PRS Foundation’s flagship fund renamed PPL Momentum Music Fund")

("Music Industry Organisations")

("Music Royalty Body PPL") DJ888kmg (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment PPL Corporation is what over 10 million utility customers and an unknown number of people in related business and areas associate with "PPL", so it seems to qualify for the primary target of the PPL redirect, which means users typing PPL into the Wikipedia search will go to PPL Corporation, regardless of a page move decision here. Any move here should then have a disambiguator that is simple and descriptive, not something that sounds like a slogan, in parentheses. I could see something like "PPL (music licensor)" or "PPL (collective rights manager)" (more formal, but maybe less widely understood?). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Very fair comment. And agree on the primary target of the PPL redirect. PPL Corporation was established 14 years earlier, too. A simple and descriptive disambiguator would be addition of "Music Copyright collective" - which is what it is commonly recognisable as, specifically in the UK but also around the globe. So my suggestion for move would be from Phonographic Performance Limited → PPL (Music Copyright Collective) DJ888kmg (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of deliberately moving to an ambiguous name like "PPL" and then being forced to add a disambiguating parentheses, natural disambiguation using the actual name "Phonographic Performance Limited" is preferred. WP:NATURALDIS. No need to move. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: I disagree. "PPL" adheres to Wikipedia:Article titles Article title policy - It is what the name is Commonly Recognisable as in it country of incorporation and globally - and my proposed new title PPL (Music Copyright Collective) cover the five suggested characteristics. "Phonographic Performance Limited" is not the commonly recognisable name, as per the example in Wikipedia Article Tiles "FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football)". DJ888kmg (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your PPL is has nowhere near the same magnitude of name recognition as FIFA. The vast majority of readers, let's face it, don't think of PPL at all, let alone as PPL. Your argument is essentially, "people who know it as PPL know it as PPL." I guess that's is irrefutable as such, but it's a tautology, not a valid rationale for renaming. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJRC: so now you are hinting at notability again? (thought we'd established this already?), £271.8 million ($353.7 Million USD) was collected last year by the PPL, so certainly worthy of an eyebrow raise, don't you think? And besides we're not talking magnitude of entities, we are discussing Article title policy, and "PPL" is what this notable entity is commonly known by. You have seen and read the cites in my comments above, I think they're reasonable evidence from reliable sources of "PPL" being commonly used name of the target. DJ888kmg (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Also, read WP:BLUDGEON. TJRC (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for highlighting and noted. DJ888kmg (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. In any case the suggested disambiguatior (with initial caps) does not meet WP:LOWERCASE. Pedantically, this could be at Phonographic Performance per WP:NCCORP § Article titles but that would help nobody (and perhaps not be WP:PRECISE enough). 94.21.78.115 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.