Talk:United States v. LaMacchia

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

United States v. LaMacchia was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 20, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from United States v. LaMacchia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that copyright infringement not involving profit was not a criminal offense in the United States between the 1994 U.S. v. LaMacchia ruling and the 1997 passage by Congress of the NET Act?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. LaMacchia.

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hey,

Great job creating a new article. I have some simple and substantial changes to your article that I would like to propose.

At the bottom, you can have a section that links to news articles and significant opinion pieces on the case. As this is a recent story, there should be plenty of articles to be found.
Although this is not very significant to the case, you should bring up the fact that LaMacchia is still liable to civil suits, even if he found a loophole from criminal prosecution. An uninformed reader may assume that there was absolutely nothing acting as a deterrent to his actions, which just isn't true.
You should consider creating a "Prior Cases" section before "Facts", and give a couple sentences of background on Dowling v. US and any other case that was significant in decided this case, especially if it is referenced repeatedly in the primary text and your article.

The rest of my suggestions are more trivial. I'll automatically apply them, but leave this note up so that you can know what I did and why =]

the word chattel is used in a quote, few people will know what that means (I didn't), I'll add a link to "personal property.
Where you say "This is the point where the court finds...", I'm changing that to "The court then finds...". It just sounds more erudite.
There is a broken internal link to "17 USC Sec 506". I set it up so it points to "Copyright law of the US"
"Therefore, the LaMacchia was held..." - remove "the"
I'll use the Main article template to link your Net Act section with the main Net Act article.

Drozycki16 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these points, I've made some of the changes you suggested. VM 05:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykonautiks (talk • contribs)

Hey--definitely agree with the points above. I also went ahead and just changed the order around a bit under the Court Decision section so that the final decision was listed explicitly first, followed by the factors/criteria behind it. Feel free to edit it further/change it back if you think that may be better. Misbahuz (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination

You need to nominate at Template talk:Did you know. Please read and follow the instructions there carefully. You will also need to review another nomination on that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encrypted Address

What is an encrypted address? 12.34.56.78 is an address. So is thisismyaddress.com. They're not something you can encrypt. You can encrypt the data being sent to/from a site, otherwise known as a secure connection. Or you can not publish a domain name to a DNS, so the address is just the IPv4 numbers rather than the human readable .com address. But that's still not encryption. It's stated as such due to the official court document, but I have little faith of the court system circa 1994 to have any clue about what they're talking about when it comes to the digital domain. 12.234.226.200 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Yale University supported by WikiProject Law and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]