This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music 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.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
The "performing rights organization" definition (I'm abbreviating this "PRO" here for convenience) seems generally problematic.
1. It has a line that states "The best-known" which is subjective if a citation isn't given; the citation given leads to the main page of ONE of the example PRO's listed; this seems like more of a primary source to me, and probably not useful as a source for "The best-known" list. However, the main problem is that the reference source doesn't lead to an article stating "The best-known" PRO's; so the citation seems totally non-valid to me; and if the citation is invalid, then the whole sentence isn't factual but is subjective, which is a problem. The citation/source is Spanish language, which made it difficult for me to read, so I hope a Spanish-speaking person can help verify whether the Spanish language article does or doesn't have anything about "The best-known" PRO's on it.
2. The list of PRO's that are given as examples of "The best-known" is problematic as well. The whole 2nd sentence of this definition, which is a long and confusing list of acronyms with parenthetic full names, is grammatically problematic and confusing. 3 PRO's (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) are USA-based and listed in the U.S. Federal Register so they seem quite legitimate, but in the same sentence with them is ACEMLA, which isn't listed in the U.S. Federal Register, which makes it seem as if it doesn't belong -- while 3 other very legitimate PRO's that are listed in the U.S. Federal Register (AllTrack, GMR, and PRO Music Rights) aren't listed here as "The best-known" at all, which seems strange, considering ACEMLA isn't "well-known" enough to be listed as an official or legitimate USA PRO in the U.S. Federal Register. There is then a comma, followed by something about 2 "United Kingdom" PRO's (PRS, PPL). One would expect that in a list of PRO's used in the definition, that there would either be a list of PRO's more representative of various countries in the world (only the USA/Puerto Rico and United Kingdom PRO's are listed), or no list at all -- simply define the term without examples.
It might be possible to substitute a link to this Wikipedia page, to replace the long list of "The best-known" examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_organisation article . That article includes a list of the PRO's of many countries. It lists ACEMLA under Puerto Rico, and interestingly, ACEMLA doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so if it isn't noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page... why, then, are we listing it as one of "The best-known" PRO's in this "Music_licensing" article (see #1 above)?
3. When I try to fix any part of this, I'm given an error message which happens due to a CS1 citation error which prevents me from saving my changes. I didn't make the CS1 error (Wikipedia "Help:CS1 errors") myself; I'm not sure, but it seems likely that whoever added the ACEMLA citation didn't add it properly maybe(?); but it is preventing anyone else from fixing the issues.
