Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright... Unless It's Done By Lily Allen
from the funny-how-that-works... dept
The folks over at TorrentFreak alerted me to the news that singer Lily Allen, who made some news last week for speaking out against file sharing and against artists who have defended file sharing, has put up a blog, called "It's Not Alright," to talk about this particular subject. In one of her very first posts, she reposted an entire Techdirt post about 50 Cents' view on piracy and how it's part of the marketing. Allen goes on to then say that this is not alright and that 50 Cent is being selfish and isn't thinking about everyone else. But what's quite odd is that Ms. Allen, while complaining about such unfair copying, seemed to have absolutely no problem with copying my entire Techdirt post -- without credit or a link. As I said when asked by TorrentFreak for my response:I think it's wonderful that Lily Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post that she decided to copy -- or should I say "pirate"? -- the entire post. The fact that she is trying to claim that such copying is bad, while doing it herself suggests something of a double standard, unfortunately. Also, for someone so concerned about the impact of "piracy" I'm quite surprised that she neither credited nor linked to our post. Apparently, what she says and how she acts are somewhat different. Still, Lily, glad we could help you make a point... even if it wasn't the one you thought you were making. Feel free to use any of our posts going forward as well. Unlike some, we're not scared of people copying our stuff. By the way, does this mean we can post her music to our site without crediting her now, too?Enigmax, in his TorrentFreak post put it nicely as well:
Lilly, in isolation we don't think your copyright infringement is a big deal at all and neither does Mike, but in the arena of this debate it's still quite important. Infringing copyright these days is so easy to do, most people manage it every day in one way or another, and you are clearly no different. You probably didn't mean any harm or even give it a second thought but half a dozen clicks later and you're a pirate these days I'm afraid.That said, I also think it's worth responding to Allen's attempted "point" in response to 50's comments:
The next thing you know you've got God-knows-who accusing you in public of being an evil copyright infringer and telling you the sky's falling in. Oh, you're on your first strike now by the way. A couple more and it'll be off to Ofcom for disconnection for you young lady....
this is particularly selfish in my view, he seems to only be thinking of how piracy effects him. What about the guys that work in the studio and the kids that run around town putting his posters up,the people that designed his artwork, the people that run his website. Is he giving them a cut of his live fee?Wait... since when did any of those people get a cut of album sales? Really. None of them do. They all get paid regular fees for their work... and that doesn't change if 50 is making all his money from album sales or concerts. So, yes, they actually do get a cut of his "live fee." It comes in the form of regular payment for services... the same as if it were coming from album sales. And, if 50 is making even more money from those live shows, he can still afford to pay the studio guys, the street teams, the art designers and his web gurus more. So what point is Lily Allen making again? Because so far I can't figure it out...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a twat.
(yes, I realize that doesn't add to the debate but, it makes ME feel good, k?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I count about a dozen well made pints on that Blogs comment section which she remains curiously silent on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(I instantly recognized the format as a Techdirt post, but didn't notice she missed crediting it, or I would've asked.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you care if she reposts your blog? You have said numerous times that you would be honoured to have this happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason to buy?
Funny thing is, it was hearing her music *for free* (omigosh!) that made me consider supporting her in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reason to buy?
Hey man, you're about three Hershey bars short of a dozen. Mike C runs the place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason to buy?
And no-where near Tommy February 6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason to buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason to buy?
In most cases - have you bought music without 'hearing it free' first? Be it on the Radio, at a Friends, etc?
For me - umm, nope. hehe
If there's a band I am a real fan of - I will in that case, but I've still heard their stuff first.
I own a lot of CD's and such - but I bet there are a LOT of bands out there I'd love; but since I haven't heard them...
An example is 'E Nomine' - I never heard anything of them, even though they had been out for years. Heard some of their stuff and went to Amazon and ordered a couple of their CD's. If I would not have 'heard it free' - I wouldn't have bought them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrisy!
as you once so poignantly said in one of your songs:
F%%k you very much.
How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh, public performance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idiocy
I hope Lily gets this karma back in spades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left vs right hand ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That was a little uncalled-for, Mike. Everything to that point was pretty nicely phrased, but this line just makes it feel petty. Next to the rest of your comment, it makes you sound insincere about not-caring if she copies you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely not!
You're not from Brooklyn, are you? It's a wonderful example of the ironic structure: the high (and mighty) being brought low.
It's my suspicion that Mike is at ease with the lack of understanding of this structure west of the Hudson, as I too became in my travels out west.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful comments on Lily Allen's post
A sample of the people commenting on Lily Allen stealing the blog post
http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/2009/09/50-cent.html
"HAAHAHAHA - stupid cunt."
"clean the sand out of your gaping vagina."
"You hypocritical fuckstick"
Do you realize any point you may be trying to make is completely disregarded when you make comments like these?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonderful comments on Lily Allen's post
I know that makes me a bad person, but I can't help it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonderful comments on Lily Allen's post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you know what blog you're on?
> completely disregarded when you make comments like these?
We do. So why don't you ask people on the blog where those kinda comments actually are posted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonderful comments on Lily Allen's post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonderful comments on Lily Allen's post
i'm an artist myself and i would like to be supportive of her, but really i'm not because i don't agree with her pov. i am also a consumer and i know all too well how beneficial this change has been for me.
it's hard to innovate but people make it seem like it's so hard to change from the past. if she was smart she would be getting her fans opinions on things and she would become what musicians of the past were, which is her own brand and her own everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright-patentdirt.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright-patentdirt.com?
Unless, what you meant was that there are a lot of posts about the absurdity of patents and copyrights. In which case you would be correct. But I just read a little while ago a post about that guy who followed his GPS off a cliff. Nothing about copyrights or patents there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she also lifted from others
http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-coverage.html
At least the reporter's name got in there so she's getting a bit better. But still, pretty amazing considering her message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't imagine such a world, but I bet if you said that to a music industry exec, dollar signs would replace his irises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A shame...
It's almost enough to make me think she's simply misinformed. That maybe she's being used by the record labels, fed false information like kidnappers feed children drugs, and then trotted out onto her "blog" the way those Latter Day Saints retreat cults bring out there kids to tell the nice lady with the TV camera that "Life is great here on the ranch, and won't you please just ignore the fact that I'm 12 and a grandmother?"
Almost enough.
But not quite.
She's an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but i nub her anyway
By the way, here's an old mix of source material she borrowed from for her debut album "Alright Still". This was compiled by a music blogger in a package cleverly titled "Alright Steal"
http://www.musiclikedirt.com/2006/09/27/lily-allen-alright-steal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It works!
It's like all these things that he's been saying about Newspapers and musicians is actually true.
Go figure. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change your Terms of Service about your website!!!
Even if you don't actually enforce it, Techdirt could point to the ToS topic and say "Oh look. So-and-so musician copied my story verbatim or linked to it directly without written permission, so I guess we can post their music and songs."
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change your Terms of Service about your website!!!
the record labels do own them
and sometimes with a 360 degree contract they own part of their t-shirt sales and live performance revenues too.
so only way you could get the "you use mine and i use yours" work is if the record labels pull that kind of bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lily Allen
Lily Allen is a SKANK!
See what I mean?
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop apologizing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop apologizing
It's -easy- to copy stuff (especially on/from the Internet), so easy that sometimes (often) people don't even realize what they are doing is wrong (or perhaps 'wrong-ish'). Sounds like Lily absolutely infringed on Mike's (automatic, yay!) copyright, but fortunately for her Mike has essentially given permission to one and all to infringe to their heart's content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop apologizing
i'm an artist. when i copy something i credit it. i understand that stealing, borrowing, sharing have become more of the norm for people and that maybe people don't understand the effects on the artists, but i for one think lily allen has to much wine with her whine and she needs to instead of complaining do something else. she could be the one to come up with one of the new models (snicker).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike M. has repeatedly stated on this blog that he has "no problem with people taking our content and reposting it ... Some of them give us credit. Some of them don't. We don't go after any of them." Furthermore, he's also expressly stated that "We're perfectly fine with people taking and repurposing our content. We hope they give us attribution, but we don't worry too much if they don't ... There's really no reason to spend much time thinking about it. Yet, we still get people emailing us all the time to ask for "permission" to reuse our content -- and of course, we always "grant" the permission, even though they don't need it at all." See e.g. "Why Is It So Difficult To Opt-Out Of Copyright?", http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
So, Mike's basically stated quite clearly that no one is required to obtain permission before re-posting or re-purposing his content, and that he doesn't care whether proper attribution is given. In the legal world, this pretty much amounts to an unlimited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license for anyone to do what they want with the posts on TechDirt. Furthermore, this site does not appear to have any terms of service or other conditions which would change this state of affairs.
And now TorrentFreak and TechDirt are jumping all over Allen for doing EXACTLY WHAT MIKE MASNICK SAID ANYONE COULD DO?!? In light of this, I'd say that TorrentFreak and Mike alleging that this reposting is "piracy" is frankly more hypocritical than anything Allen did...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike telling people they can use his stuff freely and then calling someone out for claiming to believe in the sanctity of content while not practicing that with his work is NOT hypocritical.
All I'm trying to figure out is if you're missing the point on purpose or not....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How so? I did not complain about Allen using the material. In fact, I said, quite clearly: "I think it's wonderful that Lily Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post."
How is that hypocritical?
I was merely making the point that for someone who insists that copying is bad, perhaps SHE should have been a bit more careful in copying the work of others. The hypocrisy is on her part.
So, Mike's basically stated quite clearly that no one is required to obtain permission before re-posting or re-purposing his content, and that he doesn't care whether proper attribution is given. In the legal world, this pretty much amounts to an unlimited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license for anyone to do what they want with the posts on TechDirt.
Indeed. That's why I said it's great. I have no *problem* with it. I think it just highlights Allen's double standard and not-so-great handle on the issues.
And now TorrentFreak and TechDirt are jumping all over Allen for doing EXACTLY WHAT MIKE MASNICK SAID ANYONE COULD DO?!? In light of this, I'd say that TorrentFreak and Mike alleging that this reposting is "piracy" is frankly more hypocritical than anything Allen did...
We're not accusing her of doing anything wrong. I believe you have misread this post (and TorrentFreak's, though I won't speak for them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikes response 37.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was merely making the point that for someone who insists that copying is bad, perhaps SHE should have been a bit more careful in copying the work of others. The hypocrisy is on her part.
I'm not surprised that your hypocricy was largely lost on you, Mike, in your haste to make a slightly snarky case.
The point (also seemingly lost) is not that "copying is bad" but that copying without authorization to do so is bad.
Allen's reposting your post is not hypocritical on her part specifically because you have already given permission for such reposting. After giving such permission, calling her out on her repost is indeed hypocritical.
Now...that said if she has posted other content without permission, I'll happily jump on the bandwagon in criticizing her. But that's not the case here.
You do see that, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And now TorrentFreak and TechDirt are jumping all over Allen for doing EXACTLY WHAT MIKE MASNICK SAID ANYONE COULD DO?!?
*WHOOSH*
That sound you just heard was the whole fucking point zooming RIGHT OVER your head. Sorry, you missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You totally missed the point of the article. I mean, totally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Using an article for whatever purpose, as you and Mike M have described, is fine (by his own rules).
But what Lily 'Clueless-Fucking-Twat' Allen has done is try to pass the work off as her own by subtly including it in a spout of drivel she posted on MySpace.
I find the funniest thing about this whole affair is that Lily claims to be "in touch" and suggests that the record industry needs to get to grips with modern technologies. All of this, however, is posted on a slowly-dying networking site that has been surpassed and obviated by Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
she basically proved not only mike's points but all of the points of people who share share mike's pov.
i don't understand why these industry people don't get it. they are people too. why don't they think like a consumer instead of a suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Engineers, street teams, web designers, oh my
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Engineers, street teams, web designers, oh my
All the expenses of promotion, touring etc etc will be paid for out of the advance. So the record company pays - but does so out of the artist's money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hardly surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh dear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh dear!
If I stated that "instead of scalpuls, we should use rusty chainsaws in hospital operating rooms," I'd be pretty damn wrong. But by your defence, it's okay for me to say that because I'm not educated as a doctor.
The fact is that I'm not qualified to give expert opinion on surgery any more than a high-school dropout is qualified to give expert opinion on advanced and rapidly evolving business practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh dear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh dear!
Lily Allen feels that no one, ever, should ever copy anything put up by anyone else. No one should ever violate copyright, because it hurts the person who created it.
And then, possibly ignorantly, possibly not, she violated copyright and copied something made by someone else. Now, Mike has said it is fine to take his stuff and do things with it, but that is his choice. He has said it is okay. Lily Allen has said that is not okay. She has violated her own code of ethics.
Now, does that mean she did something wrong? Not as far as Mike is concerned. Hell, not even as far as I am concerned. But, as far as SHE is concerned, she has done something wrong. And that is what makes her a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue for some ridiculous sum like £1,000,000,000 per word used....instant front-page news:
Singer sued for £100,000,000,000 by online blogger...Silly Allen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading Comprehension is for YOU!
Perhaps you should actually, you know, READ the comments before posting. He DID say this. The point, which seems to have eluded you, Lily Allen and about 90% of the people reading these comments, is that its HYPOCRITICAL for someone to:
a) come out SO STRONGLY against "piracy" and copying without compensation, permission or attribution
b) then turn around and copy in its ENTIRETY an article from someone else without even a MENTION of the source
I know you STILL wont understand, since this deals with principles and ethics, so I'll pre-forgive you for your subsequent forthcoming comments that will, once again, fail to make your point, and will continue to fail to GET the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IOKIYAACN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
50 is selfish? What about her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing income
I don't think so - you let the marketplace determine what you pay people, and it should have nothing to do with what your income is - after all, they aren't running your business, they are providing an independent service.
Otherwise you build in a failure mode for your business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I think it's wonderful that Lily Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post that she decided to copy -- or should I say "pirate"? -- the entire post.'
and your attempts to claim otherwise - after being pointed back to previous statments showing you to be guilty of mild hypocrisy yourself - by isolating a sentence and completely ignoring the tone of your original post are frankly laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'your comment is also laughable. i've been coming to this website long enough to know mike's take on things and he really meant what he typed even if he was taking the piss out of her a bit and laughing.'
I don't doubt your dedication and service to mike but for him to make a snide and sarcastic remark and then claim sincerity when accused of having double standards is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's all gone!
All the posts/comments as of 10:51 UK time have been deleted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the sanctimonious filibustering about standing up for the rights of other musicians is disingenuous. We know this because Lily Allen has made a career out of bagging out other musicians. Musicians far more influential and accomplished than she could ever be (and I’m implying that she’s a musician only because I’m too drunk to rephrase this sentence - not too drunk to write this disclaimer, though).
Long story short: some inane tart whose music sucks succeeded in not falling out of character, by ranting without class or grace about the evils of the music industry, musicians, and the public. Enjoy dying alone with your terrible music.
Cold and alone. Hey, I think I feel a song coming on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Portrait
http://portrait.sebrieu.com/post/2009/08/11/Portrait-de-Lily-Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
woody allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lilly is a copying slag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she's a total hypocrite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]