Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes
from the put-the-stone-down-lily,-that's-a-big-glass-house dept
Really don't want to turn this into an all Lily Allen all the time blog, but reader Peter has sent in something rather interesting: When Lily was first trying to get attention, she created a couple of mixtapes with a ton of songs from other artists... available as MP3 downloads, and mixing in her own tracks. This is a well-known tradition in some circles and a great way to get some attention. We're all for it. But... it seems quite hypocritical of Ms. Allen to claim that file sharing is somehow evil and destroying the industry when she appears to be an active participant and used it to promote herself (oh my goodness! free music working as promotion!). According to the tracklisting of the second mixtape, it included 19 tracks by artists other than Lily Allen. Both mixtapes (mixtape 1 and mixtape 2) are available directly off of Lily's website, LilyAllenMusic.com, which has a copyright notice at the bottom from EMI.So, when Lily notes on her anti-piracy blog that:
Also the government legislation is targeting uploaders -- people that make music available illegallyIt appears that she actually qualifies. Quite directly. She's offering music from, among others, Jay-Z, Jefferson Airplane, The Specials and The Kinks. Admittedly, it's just a quick look around, but it appears many of the artists whose works she's distributing for free have no connection with EMI. Even if they did, remember EMI was recently claiming that it's never authorized MP3s for distribution for publicity purposes. Uh oh.
So... while the hypocrisy of Allen's copying a Techdirt post was still misunderstood by some (including Ms. Allen), I'm curious how anyone can say she isn't in serious trouble at this point. She claims that people who make music available illegally should have their internet connections removed. Yet, these two mixtapes, hosted directly on her own (EMI copyrighted) website, seem to suggest a pretty massive illegal distribution attempt. Given how much the music industry was awarded from Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum for distributing significantly fewer songs... not only should Allen be kicked offline, but she should be fined too. Or am I missing something from the recording industry's "education campaign" on this topic?
Honestly, this whole thing is so insane, I'm beginning to wonder if the blog and the statements from Lily Allen are really from her. How could someone who is still directly distributing free music from others from her own major label site claim a moral high ground against music being free?
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, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: emi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Obviously not...
(ba-dum-bum)
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haha, nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The plot gets ficker an' ficker, innit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about some math?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How about some math?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This just gets better and better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, I have to say it...
Either way...I'm a little bit in awe of what Peter has proved is possible of a relatively like-minded community can do on the web.
It'll be fun to see what, if anything, comes of this in terms of reporting on other venues...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This might do it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This might do it!
I am tired apparently...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cease and Decist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The danger here...
The way we SHOULD let this play out is to say, "Now, Lily, you see how easy it is to get caught up in this, even if you're a good person. Should we go after the worst and most egregious violators of the law? Sure. But the casual fan or artist may accidentally or innocently violate the law with the best intentions. And they shouldn't be persecuted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You guys rock
I love what you guys do here. I read the site just about every day. This is one of the priceless moments which bring me back over and over. Keep up the great work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This might do it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
Or then again, we can laugh at it, and wait for the press to cover it, and give Lily the scorn the earned. Count me as someone who's never buying her music or ever sharing her info to anyone I know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lets hope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This might do it!
Really chuffed how this story has made it to torrentfreak.com, and is doing massively well on Twitter. I did do some commenting on Lily's blog, but it's things like Techdirt and Digg which can really propel revelations like this around the world, and hopefully make a difference. I love reading TechDirt, it's pretty much bang-on 98% of the time!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You guys rock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
+1 for Drew
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: +1 for Drew
She chose to enter the Lars Ulrich path... Now she's going to burn in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lilly who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now all we need is law enforcement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lilly who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
here's the answer
That's why the whole thing has been part of it. I doubt she even does anything outside of perform.
http://www.upstartblogger.com/meet-the-music-industrys-new-misinformation-puppet-and-lea rn-how-to-benefit-from-her-tricks
The woman probably is no better than Amy Winehouse. Maybe she'll follow suit and start doing drugs more than they already do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's all show Lilly some love
Clearly Lilly is a hypocrite, but this doesn't disprove her argument. Ad hominem attacks, while often sensational, do little to disprove the message. Besides, discrediting the speaker is almost always an underhanded technique.
Having said that, Mike has presented many compelling arguments about file sharing, economics, and freedom of expression that do more for this discussion than talking about Lilly and her underdeveloped understanding of the 21st century.
I mean seriously I am sure you could find out that the kids of many people associated with the RIAA are infringing and file sharing. This proves little though.
The real proof is the failure of the RIAA, MPAA, and all supporters of IP theory and law in general to show anything other than an opinion that is not backed by any evidence whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL!
I think personally she's doing all of this to get publicity. Or she was paid under the table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kinda hard to figure out if something wrong has happened without at least looking into the above.
Moreover, let's not toss fair use to the side if it is applicable.
Using copyrighted music without the permission of the rights holder, if not fair use, is wrong.
Using copyrighted music with the permission of the rights holder is fine.
Not enough here to figure out one way or the other if the person is being fairly or unfairly pilloried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How about some math?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
EMI has said that it does not offer MP3s for promotional purposes. So, that would suggest that the rights were not secured.
Kinda hard to figure out if something wrong has happened without at least looking into the above.
Really? I recognize that you have been siding with copyright holders in every post about Lily Allen insisting that you don't understand our complaint, but even you can't be this confused.
She has gone on and on saying that giving away music for free -- even by choice -- is bad for new artists.
How can you not see that as hypocrisy?
Moreover, let's not toss fair use to the side if it is applicable.
Sir, I believe you are the same person who called kids trading *single* tracks as being morally delinquent. In this case, she's offering up somewhere around 40 tracks. And suddenly fair use is ok?
Not enough here to figure out one way or the other if the person is being fairly or unfairly pilloried.
Wait. How so? She clearly stated that 50 Cent in CHOOSING to let his music be given away for free was harming the industry. And here she is giving away a ton of music for free -- and most of it *appears* not to be licensed. Even if it was licensed (and, again, EMI has denied doing such things), it still goes against what she said.
I pointed this out earlier -- as I believe I know who you are -- but it's no wonder you, who promised to no longer post anonymously, have chosen to do so. Since you are, I believe, an IP lawyer, apparently you realize the harm it would do to your credibility to be saying the type of things you're saying here under your own name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taking something that is not yours to take is an important ethical issue. Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial. To then upload the copy so that it can be "shared" with the world is even more wrong.
As for "fair use", it is a legal doctrine developed in equity by our courts and now codified into copyright law within the United States. It is always appropriate to note its existence as it marks a line of demarcation between lawful and unlawful conduct.
The point I raised here is limited solely to the your posted article. In it you appear to be making many declarative statements that are based upon speculation. Maybe the facts will bear you out. Then again, maybe they will not. However, based upon the information thus far presented, a definitive answer is not possible. You recite "evidence" as supporting many of the points raised in other posts on other subjects. "Evidence" should apply with equal force here.
A final note. I am not, as you say, an "IP lawyer". That may be a term you choose to use, but it is certainly not accurate and not one that I use. More accurately stated, I am a lawyer who practices, in part, within the areas of law know as "patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related causes".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dear IP Lawyer
Nobody here argues that you should be able to download an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for it. Maybe you don't read Tech Dirt enough to know that this site never condones or promotes copyright infringement.
The point is that someone in the music industry says if you make copyrighted material available for download you should be kicked off the Internet. Then you find that the same person is making copyrighted material available for download.
She should kick herself off the Internet. In Fact I am sick of reading about her and wish she would be removed.
The music industry is starting to sound a lot like politics. Say whatever it takes to get your view to be fact even if the fact is your view is wrong or hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean copying, right? There is no taking being discussed.
And I have had this discussion with you in the past, yet you seem unable to understand the concept: if many musicians are able to use such things to their own advantage, and the market is pushing others to recognize that fact as well, I'm struggling to understand the ethical issue. It's a situation where everyone can be better off: the fans can enjoy more and better music, and the artists can make a better living.
So... please help me and explain how a situation in which all parties are better off is somehow ethically bad?
Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial.
That's a very strong statement. I don't argue that it is against the law -- and I do not engage in the practice myself. Yet, morals are an individual thing, and I find it incredibly elitist and, frankly, rather disgusting, that you presume to tell others what their morals should be.
To then upload the copy so that it can be "shared" with the world is even more wrong.
Providing the world with more access to beautiful music and culture, sharing wonderful sounds that make the world a better place, so that others can experience it. Yes. Downright evil, I see.
As for "fair use", it is a legal doctrine developed in equity by our courts and now codified into copyright law within the United States. It is always appropriate to note its existence as it marks a line of demarcation between lawful and unlawful conduct.
Indeed. And yet you were just claiming that any such sharing is *worse* than ethically challenged. Odd.
The point I raised here is limited solely to the your posted article. In it you appear to be making many declarative statements that are based upon speculation.
Declarative statements based on speculation... such as "Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial." Oh wait... that was you.
A final note. I am not, as you say, an "IP lawyer". That may be a term you choose to use, but it is certainly not accurate and not one that I use. More accurately stated, I am a lawyer who practices, in part, within the areas of law know as "patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related causes".
And yet, I note, you still seem entirely unable to explain WHY you no longer sign your name. I speculated that it was because you know all too well that actually associating the silly statements you have made here with your actual name will do significant harm to your reputation.
I saw elsewhere a claim from you that it is a "cookie problem." And yet... (1) no one else has the same problem (2) it is not difficult to sign your name (or even, as you have done at times, your initials) in the name box on each post, or at the end of a comment and (3) I have noted that on other sites -- mainly ones where you make personal attacks on me and my writings, your ability to sign your name and promote yourself as being a "kindred spirit" to those who legally attack fair use and free speech, you suddenly have NO PROBLEM figuring out how to append your name to those posts.
Gee... I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lily is clearly distributing free music while tell us it is wrong and harmful to do so.
Before we play semantics;
I am not a rock star, politician or lawyer, who it appears, can get away with this behavior.
I design safety systems for heavy machinery, so dishonesty on my part can have spectacular consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
Namecalling isn't very interesting really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I honestly think some pencil pusher from the music industry brainwashed her, because for any other young artist, this would be a death sentence. But then again, it appears Lily's quitting the music scene:
http://www.mtv.com.au/news/38ac76d9-official-lily-allen-quits/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lily Allen
Cause1
=> see fred in post Fed up, Some Questions for Lily Allen + Responses to fred for a coherent discussion on Piracy + New Music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lily Allen
It just seems that someone whispered into her ear some general "music piracy is bad" talking points, and she went off and threw herself into the arena without properly educating herself. Sound like any other teenagers/young adults you know?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The whole Lily thing
Like MP3 mixtapes - how DO you license them if they're not a neutered collection of tracks from one label with the rights all sewn up? Not to mention the whole area of MP3 giveaways and publishing/songwriting payments.
But these are questions for the industry to answer - it's not good at all for Lily that she's infringing copyrights while attacking file-sharing, but isn't the issue to chew over why licensing isn't flexible enough to make these mixtapes legal in the first place?
It just seems too easy to stop at 'Ha! She's a hypocrite!', which is what many commenters are doing.
This whole file-sharing debate is so polarised between 'It's evil!' and 'f*** The Man!' - and one of the reasons I love Techdirt is that you dig much deeper, and show how artists are trying new things and developing models that turn file-sharing into a positive and often necessary part of this whole getting-music-to-fans process.
If Lily's at the end of her label deal, she should spend a couple of hours reading Techdirt's archives and get some good ideas for going it alone. It might even change her mind about file-sharing. Maybe you should do a post cooking up 'What Lily Allen Should Do For Her Next Album' and point her in the direction of Topspin etc ;o)
But what her blog is doing is showing that there are still a lot of artists who don't think this way, and are angry about file-sharing. That's surely an important part of the debate too - better that they voice their opinions rather than shut up and let the labels talk for them?
If nothing else, Lily's blog has showed the spectrum of opinion among artists - and the importance of sites like Techdirt in getting positive stories out there of what's possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subject = NULL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
OK if we're into "ethics"...
What do you make of Luke 6 1-3 then?
"And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;"
Note that the issue here was no the fact that the corn was taken from a field that must have belonged to someone - but rather the fact that it was the sabbath. Everyone, pharisees included seemed to accept that it was OK to take a small quantity of corn without permission.
Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial. To then upload the copy so that it can be "shared" with the world is even more wrong.
Well to answer this ethical dilemma we need to step back a stage and ask whether it is morally acceptable to sell something to someone and then impose downstream conditions on what they can do with it, particularly when those terms are not individually negotiated but rather imposed by a government backed monopolistic cartel.
Personally I do not think that this is moral - although it is currently legal. Once viewed in that way the question becomes one of deciding when it becomes acceptable to break an immoral law. I guess most of us would do it to save someone's life. It is difficult to see how downloading music could fall into that category but certain other pieces of the so called "intellectual property" jigsaw, such as medical patents certainly could.
Copyright did not exist in biblical times to there is a shortage of guidance there on it. However Usury did exist and was condemned. One of the reasons for this is that it enabled the lender to take an income for doing nothing. Insofar as copyright now does the same (since replication/distribution costs have dropped to essentially zero) I believe it would also have been condemned for the same reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FYI, Lily responded
When you respond, rather than calling "hypocrite", I'd suggest simply pointing to the facts and examples of how it works. It makes a more convincing argument, and is more likely to allow real discussion. (Flies and honey and all that.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FYI, Lily responded
"hello, there is a meeting today in london where artists are meeting to discuss Piracy. my job done."
Multiple requests to answer the questions in the other thread have been made my different people, myself included.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FYI, Lily responded
(And now I'll stop updating you.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FYI, Lily responded
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and i've shut down the blog, the abuse was getting too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subject = NULL
For example, one of the Pirate Bay guys stood as the contact person for the domain name of a web site where a pedophile gave his view on things (only written thoughts, no illegal images or such), and people tried to use that to smear down the TPB guy's image, although it probably was common practice at the web host he worked at to do this in order to protect the personal data of customers.
Anyway, it seems strange choice to put your domain name in the hands of someone else like EMI though. I mean, what if she decides to stop working with them in the future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still I guess this will be OK as its Silly Lily
Its just the same when some of these so called "artists" become drug addicts, its ok that their use help and support major international crime rings is it ? and what do they do to help stop this level of crime when they are found out ?
Nothing
Their musicians / artist so its OK to be involved in serious crime.
I.e.:-
A teenage fan downloads a few tracks and sends them to their friends who also may send them to friends, the musicians does not know this but likes to see the fans at their gigs =
The fan gets disconnection from the internet, A huge fine (many thousands). which they can never pay and will be hounded for life.
The musicians has 1 less fan at their gigs and is down by 1 ticket
A Musicians takes drugs, Drugs come from dealers in major crime gangs, The musicians use influences some fans into drugs that then can not afford or physically take =
The musicians gets help and support, a lot of press and Millions in the bank when their come back album comes out.
The Dealer get introduced to the musicians friends and get to push drugs
The Fan gets into crime to support the addiction and then dies penniless and alone
Who would you want next door ?
I think Silly Lily should take a look at the industry she is in and start kicking out at the real criminals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blog shut down
1) Pissing off your fans is not good for business
2) She knows very little about copyright law.
3) She was losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very funny letters to Lilly
http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/dear-lily-allen/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice work
Everyone who posted thoughtful comments should be disappointed that they now can't be read. The people who posted abuse? Well, I guess they're feeling pretty proud of themselves - they showed her. And, indeed, any musician who has views they don't agree with.
That's not to criticise this site for highlighting the disparity between Lily's anti-piracy stance and her earlier use of mixtapes. It made an important point about the crazy parameters of this whole debate.
But the ugly tone of much of the Lily-baiting in recent days has been entirely unhelpful in the context of the wider and vital debate around how music gets distributed and discovered. Internet mob mentality FTW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It was right there a moment ago
On purpose or in error - only time will tell, in the meantime I think we should all be preserving her via the Google way back when machine to ensure that such valuable thoughts and responses do not go astray....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She quit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It was right there a moment ago
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: RE: Subject = NULL
Not sure about that, (if we believe Lilly) it is EMI that 'runs' the site. The content would have been put there by their staff, rather than uploaded by Lilly (or other parties) which would have protected (or more accurately defended?) EMI under the safe harbour provisions.
So would that no mean that while Lilly created it, EMI is making it available for distribution.
Sorry, if I've got the wrong end of the stick, if so can someone confirm how EMI could use the safe harbour 'defence' and prove they did not upload the offending songs?
Anyway, it seems strange choice to put your domain name in the hands of someone else like EMI though. I mean, what if she decides to stop working with them in the future?
Lilly confirmed (mentioning the wrong site unfortunately) that she has no control over LillyAllenMusic.com link, that could explain why they are the registrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
At no time have I staked out a position that the individual engaged in either a lawful or unlawful activity. I have merely noted that she apparently engaged in some activity for which critical information is missing in order to positively state what she did was legal or illegal. Despite the fact such critical information is missing, it seems to matter not to those prepared to jump on a bandwagon of accusations proclaiming that she engaged in something unlawful. It is easy to accuse someone of having violated the law, but proving it is a much more difficult matter. These posts have taken the easy path of accusation without proof.
You are quite adept at making your points on other subjects by reference to academic studies and the like, i.e., what we as attorneys label as "evidence". This matter should be treated no differently, and to pillory someone without evidentiary support is putting the cart before the horse.
Based upon subsequent posts there does appear to be an admission by the individual that she did do something wrong. Importantly, however, at the time of my comments no such admission had been forthcoming. I am curious what would have transpired had it been shown all of the remix tracks were authorized by the rights holder(s), or if some uses were unauthorized it was demonstrated that such uses without any reasonable argument to the contrary were fair uses. If this was the case all of the criticism would have been unwarranted. However, by that time all the damage would have been done and attempts at remediation largely ineffective.
Feel free to criticize, but at least do so with relevant facts in hand. Otherwise, discussions become little more than an uninformed/premature lynching.
If I may make a simple request. Please discontinue your constant deprecation of my professional qualifications as a lawyer. You do not know me. We have never worked together in any professional setting. You know nothing about any matters I have handled in my representation of clients, be they individuals, small businesses, or large corporations. Your apparent assumption that I am squarely aligned with advocates calling for a strong patent and copyright system is plainly wrong. You know nothing about my behind the scenes activities associated with proposed legislation and agency regulations.
In all fairness, I readily admit that I am not the only lawyer you treat in such a manner. You have directed many of the same criticisms to others having the temerity to offer comments on posts. We mention the "idea/expression" dichtomy regarding copyright law, and it is readily dismissed. We mention the contrast between "ideas and invention" under patent law, and it too is readily dismissed. We mention that many of the issues associated with judicial decisions are significantly more nuanced than you would have others believe, and it is readily dismissed. Likewise, you continually discredit our judicial system and readily dismiss court decisions with which you happen to disagree, even when persons knowledgeable with such decisions attempt to explain the reasons underlying them. In the process you loose a real opportunity to engage in the very type of discussion upon which you profess this site is based and encourages.
Let me extend an invitation. If at any time you believe it would be helpful to contact me and delve in greater detail concerning any of my comments, feel free to give me a call. I would be pleased to take the time to further elaborate. I happen to believe that sitting at a keyboard is a poor substitute for one-on-one discussions. Otherwise, it is all to common for persons to talk "past" and not "to" each other. If you ever decide to accept my invitation, I can be reached at (407) 876-4543. Alternately, though I seldom use it, I can be reach by cell at (321) 217-6102. By the way, each of these are listed numbers and can easily be found on the internet.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have other work that requires my attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Either you're a shill for her or for the industry. Smarten up.
Here's some additional info for you guys - when an artist that is on a major label has a website, it is usually administrated by the label. I'm almost certain that is the case with Ms. Allen. Now, the decisions about what go up on the site usually come from the artist themselves, or their representatives and handlers. Occasionally the label will submit things to the website but they usually need approval from the artist / management first. I'm not sure how things went down with her site but that is how it usually works.
In the case of the mix-cd's, it is possible that she got approval directly from the artists to use their material in her mixes. If that were the case though, I think they would have been quick to point that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where have my comments to this post gone?
If I am mistaken, please correct me, but if you have then this is quite audacious considering everything that has happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lily Allen is not to blame
Last time I checked, she was also 24, right? Not 16, 24... lifetime experience in the music industry, bright girl - you're actually insulting her in your defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where have my comments to this post gone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nice work
Stuart, I'm not sure I understand this comment. We were having a debate and a great forum for arguments and counter-arguments was already occuring. She took it down because she seemed unable to respond to *valid criticisms*
Everyone who posted thoughtful comments should be disappointed that they now can't be read. The people who posted abuse? Well, I guess they're feeling pretty proud of themselves - they showed her. And, indeed, any musician who has views they don't agree with.
Again, the vast majority of the comments were well thought out and not abusive at all.
But the ugly tone of much of the Lily-baiting in recent days has been entirely unhelpful in the context of the wider and vital debate around how music gets distributed and discovered. Internet mob mentality FTW!
I saw your post on this and I have to admit that I really haven't seen much "Lily baiting" at all. We've been having a serious conversation and rather than deal with it, she's taken her blog and gone home.
The debate continues. She stormed off as soon as the details of her own activities became clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lilley allen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
or will she?
also, im not buying the ghost writer. IT WAS HER BLOG imo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This just gets better and better
what i kept waiting for that person to say was that it's her choice so it's okay or it's fine or w/e the commenter's point was because that what he/she was inferring anyways.
i don't understand how people don't get that they infringe all the time. they might not be doing it intentionally but that doesn't mean that they are not infringing. i know i am speaking in generalities but this whole sharing information, likes, dislikes, music, art, whatever it's been going on before the internet and even then people were fighting over it but it was commonly accepted. uhm copyright i think used to be more respected in the past, even without laws, but now we have laws that give consumers and creators rights, but that will not stop people sharing, stealing, whatever you call it mediums. people will always share, legally or illegally. so is the riaa going to go and punish everyone, because they feel like they are on the right side of the issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You guys rock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: +1 for Drew
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nice work
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Where have my comments to this post gone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YO, I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9418/mixtapesu.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You again obsfucate the point.....
It is therefor a mute point as the the legality of the downloads Lily was offering.
Lily was, in her words, harming the music industry to promote her own sales (while telling others to stop).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Rick said...
thanks, love the free music you are sharing with your fans! glad to see someone doing it..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Very funny letters to Lilly
http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/its-not-alright/
Thanks
KennyX
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In responce to Valter's link
http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/its-not-alright/
Thanks
KennyX
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It was right there a moment ago
I notice that since this article went up, the links to the mixtapes on www.lilyallenmusic.com are now broken, suggesting that the content has been judiciously removed. Another own goal!
So I searched via the wayback machine and...they're not there either.
I don't think Ms Allen's 'campaign' could be blown further off course. But I'm going to hang around and see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.google.com/search?q=(407)+876-4543
Then why bother being anonymous here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They were literally .mp3 files put on her site. No way of tracking them via a third party, unlike legal downloads (iTunes, Amazon, Play.com) which are vetted by an indepedent agency. Ask yourself why they're now deleted when TechDirt reported on them.
Don't be angry that the blogosphere once again triumphed over the newspapers.
The newspapers are full of waffle about Lily "quitting music" - which turned out to be false, a deliberate lie from Lily/EMI which would get attention away from her illegal MP3s.
Blogs 1. Newspapers 0.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mix cd.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The danger here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]