A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
from the missing-the-point dept
In my last post about Lily Allen's hypocrisy in uploading tons of songs without authorization, while saying it's good to cut off internet access for regular uploaders, one of the commenters made a good point: we should use this as a teaching moment, to try to show Ms. Allen why her position is wrong, rather than focusing on calling her a hypocrite. And, indeed, that would be great, but it seems like a difficult lesson for some -- including Ms. Allen -- to grasp. Her response to my post seems to come up with a variety of excuses, none of which actually touch on the actual point:i made those mixtapes 5 years ago, i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then...The point is that, thanks to today's technology, it's quite easy for people to infringe while doing what they think is a good and reasonable thing. Lily, you created these mixtapes to promote both your own music and the music of others you liked. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's infringing. Think of all the other people who are just like you 5 years ago. They don't have knowledge of the workings of the music industry, and they're trying to promote themselves or share music they like. But, based on the laws that you yourself now support, the Lily of 5 years ago might not have an internet connection. Even though the "infringement" you did was for entirely innocent reasons. How is that fair or just?
The point (and this was the same point we tried to make with our original post about copying a Techdirt post) is that incidental infringement is almost impossible to avoid. Everyone infringes in some way or another in the course of a day. One paper found that people infringe many times over in the course of a single day. Everyone does. And while your infringements are a bit more... um... blatant than most, it highlights the problem of having such a draconian action against file sharers. Cutting them off from the internet for something that everyone is doing all the time seems quite problematic, doesn't it?
So, a quick question for you, Lily: Is "well I uploaded those songs before I knew how the music industry worked" a reasonable defense to prevent Lord Mandelson from taking away your internet access or the internet access of anyone else?
As your article clearly states , lilyallenmusic.co.uk is an EMI run website, which is exactly why i don't acknowledge it (i think theres a link to it on my myspace(which i do run), thats purely because, my record contract states i cant sell my merchandise online anywhere else on the net . i don't post on there, i dont even look at it. the record company run it.Fair enough, but really the fact that it's a major label owned site was a separate issue (having to do with EMI's claims in its lawsuit against MP3Tunes). It still doesn't change the fact that you created these mixtapes, and used them to advance your career. And now you are claiming that the very same tactics should not be allowed for others?
In your original post pushing back on the Featured Artists Coalition, you complained about how they were all big stars, and how their plan would hurt the up-and-coming artist. And yet, when you yourself were an up-and-coming artist, you used free music distribution to your own advantage. Now you're not only looking to take that option away from up-and-coming artists, you're looking to kick them entirely offline for a period of time. It seems like that's a much bigger "harm" to up-and-coming artists than people sharing their music and promoting them for free.
But just like you mocked the FAC artists for having an unfair advantage for being big, you seem to be in the same position. You want to take away tools from up-and-coming artists that you yourself used.
Anyway the snippets of songs you hear on those mixtapes are about 30 seconds to 1 minute in length, in traditional mixtape style, it is infringement, correct, but it's not my site, it's EMI's. i am not a hypocrite, i don't illegally download music, and i still think unauthorised file sharing is wrong.But you were the one who created the mixtapes, correct? You were the one who infringed and uploaded them and offered them to the world. That they're now on a site controlled by EMI is quite besides the point.
If you truly believe that regular uploaders should have their internet access taken away, why not make an example of yourself? Why not take away your own internet access for a year to prove the point? Or do you not think the laws you want to apply to everyone else should apply to you?
Again, the whole point here is that what you did was entirely natural and made plenty of sense. Lots of people do it today. They do it because they love music. There's nothing wrong with that, and you know it (or, apparently, knew it at one point in the past). And, there are many ways to take advantage of that fact. Just as 50 Cent does. Just as you did. Going to war with the fans who made you who you are today, in part because of your own infringing behavior, just doesn't make any sense. You keep saying that file sharing harms artists, but it existed five years ago as well, and didn't harm you. It helped you. So why would you want to take that away from everyone else?
Update: Wow. In the half an hour or so that I took to write this post, Lily erased the blog post where she responded (I've got a screenshot if anyone wants to see it), and just added a note to Twitter, saying that she's shut down the entire blog due to too much abuse. Lily, it's not abuse if we're just asking you to rethink your positions that appear to not be particularly well thought 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, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: emi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amazing stuff...
Pity, hopefully at least she'll now refrain from entering into the political sphere again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amazing stuff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lily
But I agree with pretty much everything said here too.
True other journos might have seen all this as an opportunity to have a quick snipe at Lily on account of her celebrity.
Still lots of love for Lily around here, and at FAC tonight too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily
Both in engaging in the debate AND pulling the plug. The latter could prove to be her biggest statement yet.
If by biggest statement yet you mean that she knew her argument was garbage and that she let herself turn into a mouthpiece for EMI/Major Record labels, then yea, it was her biggest statement yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lily
Look, if you're a younger musician, with little to no understanding of economics, and your friends who work for labels all spout a certain rhetoric, it's quite likely that that would become your POV.
Her shutting down the blog is basically saying "I don't wanna be involved in this debate anymore". Kind of noble (if done with petulant overtones), in that she's backing out.
The points raised here and on torrentfreak have effectively trumped her in the debate, though to be fair a more articulate person may have had more to say. Hopefully, she learns not to jump in swinging without understanding the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily
Misrepresenting her position by copying and pasting an outsourced article, then claiming that everyone knew that she didn't write it, while decrying the very behavior that she once did (early in her career with music, and just a few days ago with text), and then arguing when she does it it's ok and understandable, but everyone else is an evil pirate taking money away from the janitor at the recording studio (who does not get a cut of music licensing revenue anyways)?
And you respect that?
I so could not go out drinking with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily
Misrepresenting her position by copying and pasting an outsourced article, then claiming that everyone knew that she didn't write it, while decrying the very behavior that she once did (early in her career with music, and just a few days ago with text), and then arguing when she does it it's ok and understandable, but everyone else is an evil pirate taking money away from the janitor at the recording studio (who does not get a cut of music licensing revenue anyways)?
And you respect that?
I so could not go out drinking with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily
I couldn't agree more with your sentiment, and at the same time I think it is totally off-base.
Your insights on this issue leaves me breathless in admiration, and at the same time I think you are an idiot.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The blog is still available under Google's cache though
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:71YTrvaYcn4J:idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com
I'm actually sad that it was taken offline. Though I understand her reasoning's especially with some of the abusive and idiotic comments.
Maybe someone (hint) should put a basic site together that shows all the posts as they were done (removing the idiotic abusive troll comments) and then allow a debate type of format not unlike what Ben Sheffner and William Patry are doing over at Moral Panics. (Waves at Ben and William *g*)
Lily no matter what anyone thinks has done a good thing in trying to bring her ideas as a musician/artist together with both competing, critical and supportive conversations.
This shouldn't go to waste.
{Oh and for those who think she should of kept taking the abuse.. Why? Not many people know how to actually deal with trolls or high harrassment from "supposedly" adults. I'm amazed she has been as patient as she has)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad she did a horrible job of that. She put herself into the position of being called out as a hypocrite in relation to her current-day beliefs, and then when confronted with her hypocrisy, she tried to use lame, transparent excuses to get herself out of the hot water she'd tossed herself into.
This whole situation was one of Lily's own making from the second she copied that Techdirt post, and now she's learning what it's like to be called a pirate and a copyright infringer, among other unsavory and (probably) unwarranted insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no
It's like "I'm on top, there's no room for you" mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here, Here - there has been no respect shown here for the need to have a civilised debate. It is a positive step forward that musicians feel they can now voice their opinions on this matter - whether you agree or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here, Here - there has been no respect shown here for the need to have a civilised debate. It is a positive step forward that musicians feel they can now voice their opinions on this matter - whether you agree or not.
Mike's been nothing if not civilized in addressing Lily's nonsense. And debate usually requires both parties addressing each others points, instead, Lily simply addressed the ones she thought she could (not that she knew what she was talking about) and ignored the vast majority of other ones. Yeah, debate my butt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on a second...
Curious, what artist releases songs that are 30 seconds to 1 minute long?
Sounds to me like she downloaded the entire song, then cut out what she didn't want to use.
It doesn't surprise me her blog was taken down. Everyone who posted pretty much told her to go "beep" herself. And rightfully so.
It's amazing how the internet works. Anyone can be a troll and be respected (for idiocy), but come off as a hypocrite and people post against you that normally wouldn't do otherwise.
Lily, grow up already or do us all a favor and just keep your mouth shut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a second...
More likely she ripped them from CDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
30 seconds to 1 minute in length?
Absolute rubbish, I downloaded the mixtape MP3s last night (I wonder if they're gone now), I'm listening to them right now. Waterloo Sunset by the Kinks is there IN FULL, among many other songs. Only a small handful are in there under one minute.
Lily, don't lie to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mix tapes....
I wonder what the outcome of informing the rights holders for the tracks used would be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was one of the last people to comment on her blog and there was barely any abuse, it was mostly long, well-thought-out arguments that happened to show her to be in a bad light (because they contained, y'know, *facts*). if she classes people taking her to task for her comments to be abuse, then that's something she has to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"...there was barely any abuse, it was mostly long, well-thought-out arguments that happened to show her to be in a bad light..."
Perhaps, some people find a well-formed opinion abusive if they aren't capable of understanding what was said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In the red corner, an internationally successful pop star taking (imho) a very brave public stance on an issue that directly affects her ability to make a living and benefit from the fruits of her labour.
In the blue corner, a variety of keyboard warriors who - and I'm taking a wild guess here - have a limited understanding of how copyright law actually works and why it exists in the first place, and who essentially want something for nothing, no matter how they try to rationalise it.
Now, while I agree that Lily has shown her arse somewhat on this particular point, and that it's a cautionary lesson in what can happen if you don't keep a close eye on every aspect of your career, this does not alter the fact that, as far as her main point (which this blog exists to highlight) is concerned, she is right.
The crucial point that people continue to overlook regarding copying and sharing music is that technology now allows people to do this at industrial levels. It's not like twenty-five years ago, when copying and sharing music involved recording something on a C-90 cassette in real time and dubbing off copies one by one on a second deck. The music industry used to insist that 'home taping is killing music (and it's illegal)'. They were right about the second bit, but wrong about the first. However, it's now theoretically possible for millions of people all over the world to simultaneously download a piece of music by Lily Allen or anyone else for the equivalent of peanuts. Which begs the question; why, then, should anyone actually bother making music in the first place? There certainly seems little point or incentive in trying to make a living from it, because you know that, no matter how hard you try to stop it, somebody somehow, is going to try and find a way to get it for nothing. Not because they want to strike a blow against Evilcorp Records LLC, or because they believe that copyright is an antiquated concept (even though they haven't the first fucking idea how to reform it beyond 'music should be free'), but just because they can. And just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Every action has a consequence.
You see, in both this case and in the case of Lily's broader point, it's a question of degree. And the degree to which Lily is liable, directly or otherwise, for copyright infringement over the contents of a couple of mixtapes is in no way comparable to that of the legions of serial torrenters and filesharers. And to anyone who says, "Yeah but the law is the law", I would say, "Oh, you want to talk about the law now, do you?". There's a reason why people get more lenient sentences for shoplifting, but often do proper time for fraud, for example. I'm sure you can work out why that is for yourselves.
As for '20-year traditions of filesharing on the internet'...well, unless I woke up in Bizarro World this morning, the maxim 'two wrongs don't make a right' still applies. The music industry - by no means a beacon of saintliness, blamelessness and unblemished virtue as far as this mess is concerned - has plenty of traditions of its own, and rather like filesharing, these often involve the ripping-off of artists. On one hand you have a faceless corporate monolith doing it, whilst on the the other, it's a faceless band of armchair anarchists with high-speed broadband connections. You're more like the people you claim to loathe than you think."
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are now pushing back their chairs, folding their arms and congratulating themselves on a job well done. But have they actually contributed anything to the debate, beyond the already well-established point that they don't like paying for music? Haven't they in fact stifled the debate by abusing Lily Allen (and terms like 'greedy bitch' are certainly abusive in my house), despite seemingly having no more of a grasp of the nuances of the issue than they accuse her of having?
Nice to see the childhood tradition of bullying girls until they cry lives on in the technology community, which, as we all know, is an environment in which conventional social skills are so highly-valued.
(slow clap)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes there were morons commenting as well, but also a lot of thoughtful posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lily took issue with this, but she forgot that she could infringe too.
And now you say, it doesn't matter if she infringes, she's just one person with a few mix tapes. It's about degree. Did you see the article here where France is charging $440,000 for that?
And that's the point. It's simply a double standard. When Lily gets a benefit from filesharing, it's not a problem. When she imagines that a fan has stolen something from her, she wants to take their internet access.
And that makes her opinions a joke. She realized she was beaten, and so she quit playing. She's guilty of the crime she hates, and no one can stand that.
You can justify her actions and opinions all you like, but she's wrong, and she got crushed. She's breaking the law she wants tougher enforcement of. And rather than realize her error and change, she's pulled the site.
But don't worry. Nothing ever disappears on the internet. Maybe she can copyright her posts, so she can issue takedown notices to anyone who uses her statements to illustrate why infringement is common and shouldn't be punished legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's not forget Lily wanted to criminalise her own fans. The proposals she campaigned for, would sever the internet connections of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And, as I pointed out, she'd have her own connection cut off, rather ironically.
I do NOT sanction the abuse she got. I did see comments on the blog calling her a "skank" and a "ho", which is just juvenile. It doesn't mean to say that all pro-filesharers act like that.
The conclusion is that us we won. Yes, the "keyboard anarchists" did. Lily lied several times in that blog, about the music industry shrinking, the contents of the mixtapes, etc.
Following Lily's own logic would see herself facing legal action, but most of her opponents wrote some incredibly insightful stuff and put her straight.
I cannot see how anyone could see this as a win for Miss Allen. Unless they're in the pocket of the record labels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A brave stand? Really? One that's supported by one of the largest lobbying budgets and all of the major entertainment companies in the world? Is it really a brave stand to claim that the gov't needs to protect my business model?
In the blue corner, a variety of keyboard warriors who - and I'm taking a wild guess here - have a limited understanding of how copyright law actually works and why it exists in the first place, and who essentially want something for nothing, no matter how they try to rationalise it.
I don't know who that's directed to, but I have a rather detailed understanding of copyright law, and I have no interest at all in "something for nothing." I do have a very strong interest in the right to free speech and basic civil rights for individuals -- including not having them kicked off the internet via accusation, not conviction.
Now, while I agree that Lily has shown her arse somewhat on this particular point, and that it's a cautionary lesson in what can happen if you don't keep a close eye on every aspect of your career, this does not alter the fact that, as far as her main point (which this blog exists to highlight) is concerned, she is right.
No, actually, she is not right. Which is why we've gone through a rather detailed attempt to show why she is wrong. Why don't you respond to the questions we raised earlier about these issues.
The crucial point that people continue to overlook regarding copying and sharing music is that technology now allows people to do this at industrial levels. It's not like twenty-five years ago, when copying and sharing music involved recording something on a C-90 cassette in real time and dubbing off copies one by one on a second deck. The music industry used to insist that 'home taping is killing music (and it's illegal)'. They were right about the second bit, but wrong about the first. However, it's now theoretically possible for millions of people all over the world to simultaneously download a piece of music by Lily Allen or anyone else for the equivalent of peanuts. Which begs the question; why, then, should anyone actually bother making music in the first place? There certainly seems little point or incentive in trying to make a living from it, because you know that, no matter how hard you try to stop it, somebody somehow, is going to try and find a way to get it for nothing.
I don't know why I need to keep raising this point, but the above is flat out wrong. Musicians can still make money -- and many are making more money by using the free music to promote other, smarter business models. The idea that the only way they can make money is directly from selling music is flat out wrong. Even the *music industry's own economists* admit that MORE MONEY is being made on music. It's just that the money has shifted from CD sales to other avenues, including concerts and merchandise.
You see, in both this case and in the case of Lily's broader point, it's a question of degree. And the degree to which Lily is liable, directly or otherwise, for copyright infringement over the contents of a couple of mixtapes is in no way comparable to that of the legions of serial torrenters and filesharers.
Really? She's been offering up dozens of songs for years off of her website.
As for '20-year traditions of filesharing on the internet'...well, unless I woke up in Bizarro World this morning, the maxim 'two wrongs don't make a right' still applies.
Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. But when Lily's own wrongs highlight why her extreme position does not make any sense, it's worth calling out.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are now pushing back their chairs, folding their arms and congratulating themselves on a job well done.
Huh? Job well done for what? There was no job well done. We were having a rather important and interesting discussion over business models and music, and Lily suddenly said that she was going home because she couldn't respond to the points.
But have they actually contributed anything to the debate, beyond the already well-established point that they don't like paying for music?
I would argue yes. First of all, I actually do like paying for music, and spend an awful lot of money on music. But that was never the point anyway.
Haven't they in fact stifled the debate by abusing Lily Allen (and terms like 'greedy bitch' are certainly abusive in my house), despite seemingly having no more of a grasp of the nuances of the issue than they accuse her of having?
Again, the VAST majority of the comments that were on her site were incredibly well thought out and reasonable. Not the sort that you mention at all. Yes, there were a couple of idiots, but they were definitely in the minority. I don't believe for a second that it was that sort of thing that made her shut down the blog.
Nice to see the childhood tradition of bullying girls until they cry lives on in the technology community, which, as we all know, is an environment in which conventional social skills are so highly-valued.
Oh please. Do you honestly call what I wrote "bullying"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can't say I read many of them Mike, but everything I saw was abusive or contained rudeness of some degree.
But then is anything Ms Allen wrote that surprising? We've seen it all before, in some form.
What is more notable is the wider support she received in her position from other young artists, so many in such a short space of time. 'Making it' as a young act has always been hard, yet it seems that piracy has become a scapegoat for everyone's problems. Didn't make the cut? It wasn't because no one liked you, it was because they all pirated your stuff. It softens the blow to the ego.
I've done a little work with developing artists and know some of the frustrations they labour under on a day-to-day basis. It isn't surprising that some see piracy as the feather that's breaking the camels back. But piracy is but one problem the industry faces in the digital world, and shouldn't be considered the root of all evil.
The other trend seems to be the blame they all place on ISP's. While that seems deserved to a degree, they seem to be labouring under the misconception that internet providers are making huge revenues that can be shared with artists. That simply isn't true. The ISP market is as competitive as any other, and prices would have to go up wholesale to start paying off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its escapism
When unsuccessful: it's the man, or the government, or mean people, or filesharing.
When successful, it's god, or your family, or your sister/brother/wife/mother/etc, or the industry itself.
Even though none of the above have *any* bearing on being successful or unsuccessful, people shift the blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: its escapism
Hey, when did recently-replaced U.S. presidential politics come into this discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: its escapism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: its escapism
Recently replaced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True, and the paradox now is that the reason that there are more musicians failing now is probably because more are trying. New technology has lowered the cost of "having a go" and so inevitable the proportion that fails will rise.
Likewise there are now enormous numbers of aspiring classical musicians (pianists, violinists etc). Many of them are very capable but most will fail because the market isn't big enough.
I believe that the future of music is more in participation than consumption. In my experience performing music beats listening to it hands down. The popularity of programmes like "The Choir" (on BBC in the UK) shows the way it is going. Yes this may mean that the professional performing sector will probably shrink a bit (perhaps only in relative terms) but the professional teaching sector may well boom. Of course there will be overlap too. I recently went on a singing weekend with a well known folk singer. It was wonderful, and I'm sure it was also good business. (If it wasn't it could have been - I would have paid more!). Artists need to think in terms of earning larger amounts of money from a smaller number of fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I read a lot of the comments on her website and most were of the thoughtful intellectual type. There were some that were just rude but most actually tried to make a point. I'm not just talking about the people who were against her, there were plenty of intelligent debate and a few idiots who were with her. I'd say less than 5% of her posts (for or against) were abusive. But I guess that depends on what you call abusive. If you call the posts that say "I think you are misguided and this is why..." are abusive then yes, most of her posts were. Personally, I call the ones that just insult here and don't add anything to the debate abusive, and those were few and far between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, what??
In what sense does that seem deserved to any degree at all?
ISPs carry as much responsibility and culpability as the power company that supplies the electricity the computer is using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes no one is getting rich by putting their music up for free on YouTube, getting noticed and then signing a record deal. 292,000 results, they are having an awful time. If you can't get noticed its probably because your music is not resonating with the current market, which probably have a large proportion of file sharers. Nearly all the teenagers I know download songs because they can't afford to buy them. Yet they drive the market. Ironic no?
Music has always needed to be shared for free to become popular, whether it was performed to the public, played over the radio or fileshared. No one picks up an artists music that they are not familiar with in some way and pays money for it. Whether it is hearing the songs first or having heard earlier music they then decide it is a reasonable risk to buy new music from that artist.
Musicians are artisits, there is no fundamental need for their product. We as the consumers decide what we want to pay for it. It is up to musicians to make their living from what we are willing to pay. Record companies are trying to treat music as a fundamental need and a type of property and ask that we must pay regardless.
When I download someones music I am not stealing I am appreciating. Art is for appreciation, not collection. It has no value if it is not appreciated. This is the fundamental difference between what the record companies say and what we know. Music needs appreciation or its value is nothing. By appreciating it more we make it more valuable.
Record companies try and put the same value on a song good or bad, trying to make it a property. I would never pay anything for a bad song, but when they put it on an album I buybecause of a good song I am being fundamentally ripped off. Because this 'property' is not what I paid for, I paid for good songs. I have paid for something I didn't get. I should only have to pay for albums where I like every song. The whole idea breaks down if music is treated as property.
In summary, music is not a fundamental need or property and needs to be appreciated to be valuable. People will not pay for things that have no value. So for music to become valuable you must make it freely available so it becomes popular. When it becomes popular it becomes valuable. Then you can charge for the music, some people will pay for it. Others might not pay for the music but they will pay for things linked to the music, live concerts, merchandise etc.
Lily Allen is retiring from the making music valuable side of this equation, therefore she wants to assure income for herself by trying to make the music property, which it cannot be. So she becomes opposed to the people who want to appreciate her music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your response
"I don't know why I need to keep raising this point, but the above is flat out wrong. Musicians can still make money -- and many are making more money by using the free music to promote other, smarter business models. The idea that the only way they can make money is directly from selling music is flat out wrong."
You may hear lots of great stories about how musicians are doing well with new business models in the world of the web, but it is genuinely naive of you to think so many are making money this way.
There are more people to this machine of a music industry than you considered when you wrote this line. You are surely aware of recording studios shutting down left right and centre? Or the crisis of the creative economy of thousands of record engineering graduates (literally) having to fight for less than a dozen jobs?
In my year alone of over 100 students, only 3 of my friends (thankfully including myself) are working in even a relevant field to our degree. I worked for over a year for free (and raising a kid) and have finally got to a position where I am earning enough to live off. This was a difficult time.
Although this does not detract from the overall argument at all, and bravo for scaring Lily into actually shutting her blog down (though I am bothered that she has played the press to get sympathy!), I really wanted you to be careful of debating in that style if you want to be taken 100% seriously by the people who need to read it.
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: edit:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your response
I do not believe that is true. We've seen enough evidence that both the overall industry is doing better, and every musician we talk to who embraced these principles is doing better. So, it's difficult to see that it's a small exception, as you appear to be claiming.
There are more people to this machine of a music industry than you considered when you wrote this line. You are surely aware of recording studios shutting down left right and centre? Or the crisis of the creative economy of thousands of record engineering graduates (literally) having to fight for less than a dozen jobs?
That is not an issue due to piracy, as much as you would like to blame it on such. It's an issue having to do with the fact that it's cheaper than ever to record. So it's a basic market correction. The old expensive system is getting pushed out in favor of the newer, cheaper system. And, yes, many will bemoan this, and claim that the engineering and mixing isn't as great as in the past, but that's the same as complaining that you miss the good old days when automobiles had giant tail fins. Tastes change. It's not due to piracy.
In my year alone of over 100 students, only 3 of my friends (thankfully including myself) are working in even a relevant field to our degree. I worked for over a year for free (and raising a kid) and have finally got to a position where I am earning enough to live off. This was a difficult time.
Again, you are blaming piracy for it when that's not the problem. The market is changing, the technology is different.
There is, as you see, still a place for some recording engineers, and smart ones will learn to adapt to the times. But just like telephone operators, at some point it's a *good* thing that we need fewer of them, and it makes the whole process cheaper.
I'm not trying to minimize your work. I agree that there's a huge difference to having a top notch engineer or mixer working with you. But for many musicians today, good enough is good enough. It's not because of piracy. It's because of the inevitable march of technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: your response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since you asked, yes, it was bullying. To be fair however, what you did pales in comparison with what was done by many, many others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Asking her to back up her positions is bullying? Really? Please do elaborate.
And, I'll note, by the way, that once again, I am pretty sure you are the IP lawyer who spends an inordinate amount of time on this site asking questions of us (and on other sites attacking me). If me asking questions of Ms. Allen was bullying, then you are quite a bully as well, aren't you sir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To repeat, yes, you and many others did engage in bullying. You can surround what was done with a raft of window dressing, but in the final analysis the object was little more than to hold the person up to ridicule.
There are ways to ask questions in a thoughtful and considerate manner. This is especially important when available information is lacking in material respects. Assuming the worst and proceeding accordingly is certainly not calculated to elicit a thoughtful response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only bring it up because you do, at regular intervals, to suggest that either myself or other commenters are somehow ignorant, immoral or unfit for comment.
Funny. Now you run from it when we call you on it.
And, since you ignored the question, I might as well ask again: why, after promising that you would start signing your name to your comments, do you post anonymously?
To repeat, yes, you and many others did engage in bullying. You can surround what was done with a raft of window dressing, but in the final analysis the object was little more than to hold the person up to ridicule.
I disagree 100%. I did no such thing. In each post, I described what was happening, and asked her questions. She had every chance to respond. At no time did I toss out insults or attack her personally. I questioned her double standard, but that is not bullying. That is pointing out the rather obvious.
And, again, if I "held her up to ridicule" I did no more than you do to me on a regular basis. I think that's silly of course. You aren't bullying any more than I am, but you do have a rather skewed view of the world. Whenever I speak my mind it's "bullying" or "immoral" and when you speak your mind it's "Just FYI" or "Merely to provide some info." Heh. Perhaps that's why you don't sign your name. You're afraid I might point out your blatant hypocrisy... or would you just call that bullying?
Anyway, I'll note also, for the record, that you again choose not to answer when I asked you how come your comments are not bullying, when they are much more directed at trying to ridicule me than any of my comments ever were towards Ms. Allen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it was noted that two "remixes" could be downloaded, it was immediately assumed they were illegal. Once again, important facts were absent, but the criticism continued despite their absence.
In a still later post it was noted that the individual may have violated the copyright of others. If so, then at that point in time criticsm would seem warranted. Prior to that time, however, the criticism (and invective by some commentors) lacked evidentiary support. To this I made a very simple observation. What if it had turned out that all of the material available for download was fully authorized by the rights holders (I was not alone in previously noting the possibility that such rights may have been secured and the posting for download proper)? What would have happened then? The damage was already done and would have been quite difficult to rectify.
My point was a cautionary one. Marshall facts before proceeding. It is far too easy to work people into a frenzy that may later be proven wrong.
It is wearing thin your constant claim of my directing insults your way. Many, many months ago I made a statement that on reflection I realized might be misunderstood. If you will recall, I clarified the statement and apologized to you, stating it was never my intent to cast aspersions your way. Reciprocity would be most welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excuuuuuuuuse me, Anonymous Harold, I DO have a name sweetheart :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a person makes something that seems ridiculous and someone points that out and asks constructive questions about the inconsistencies that lead to that situation, how can that be called bullying?
"There are ways to ask questions in a thoughtful and considerate manner."
Which ones of mr Masnick's questions were not thoughtful and considerate? Care to give any examples?
"Assuming the worst and proceeding accordingly is certainly not calculated to elicit a thoughtful response."
Maybe you should apply that argument to the blocking of file-sharers without prior trial. How is that anything else than assuming the worst? How is that supposed to elicit a throughful response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
The mixtapes are still available (when I post this) but she has taken the time to remove the blog.
Lets hope she stops impacting on others ability to make a living and benefit from the fruits of thier labour soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it is a guess and if you read this blog consistently you would realise that it is badly wrong.
Most of us here do not actually share files illegally nor do we condone the behaviour of those who do.
We also tend to have a deeper understanding of the origins and practice of copyright law than most of it's advocates.
The general consensus here is that copyright law is now unenforceable (note that does not mean that we encourage people to break it). Given that it is unenforceable the smart thing for a business to do is to change the model to one that does not rely on enforcement.
What worries us, and what we complain about is the collateral damage to these new businesses that is created by futile attempts to enforce copyright.
Incidentally some of us believe that the enforcement of copyright as a non-negotiated contract is itself immoral. Had it been practiced in ancient times I am fairly confident that Judaism, Christianity and Islam would all have condemned it as a form of Usury.
Consequently we try to avoid using those businesses that rely on it as far as we can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You imply that Ms. Allen has a better understanding? I think that is clearly not the case.
"Nice to see the childhood tradition of bullying girls until they cry lives on in the technology community"
The situation would have been no different were it a male. In fact, the tradition in online communities is typically to do the complete opposite; rather fawning over the girls for attention. Thankfully many were able to see past Allen's supposed attractiveness to recognize the ludicrous nature of her attention-seeking quest.
"I'm sure there are a lot of people who are now pushing back their chairs, folding their arms and congratulating themselves on a job well done."
I suspect that's what you just did. "I sure showed those nerds!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I'll pass on your offer to eat a dick.
(slow clap)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are a Greedy Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm wondering why Ivanhoe is attacking the commentators instead of talking about the techdirt entry or what Lily said. Attacking commentators on the internet isn't contribution either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Out of curiosity - do YOU?
The purpose of copyright law (as established in Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution) is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," NOT to protect authors or creators. http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
Looks like the only "keyboard warrior" here is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ivanhoe Martin who doesn't do brevity
Stealing is where the original OWNER is DEPRIVED of the PHYSICAL ITEM.
We need new laws to protect original artists material and the means to protect is up to the original owners. Joe Bloggs can now click his mouse and be listening (or watching) 5 minutes later, WITHOUT depriving the original artist.
What annoys the AVERAGE person is that AMERICANS want to MONETIZE EVERYTHING and if you have not PAID DOLLARS then you have STOLEN. Some people around the world still know how to SHARE, and not just music but KNOWLEDGE, FOOD, SHELTER, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lily Quits Music
No more tours or albums.
But is continuing the blog to stop the 'biggest threat to British music's future'?
But the blog is already gone?
Colour me confused....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily Quits Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lily Quits Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lily Quits Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lily Quits Music
I don't know what sources are considered reliable for this sort of thing, but a quick Google showed:
Perez Hilton: Lily Allen Confirms End Of Singing Career, linked to an article of a similar title from Digital Spy. There's also a slightly longer article in Daily Mail.
But according to the Mail article:
None of the articles mention anything about this recent fiasco though, only passing references to the closed blog and the Twitter post. Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is your friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is your friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google is your friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Ivanhoe
Lily is now able to wander off with her head held high, she can, and is, tell everyone how she started this new crusade that has ended up with a press conference and meeting (that she will not attend due it becoming a "media frenzy" if she does).
She doesn't grasp the situation, like many of her kind she believes that the only way to stop something is to legislate and criminalise.
Her industry needs to modernise, it needs to become more competitive and mostly it needs to start a dialogue with its users, us poor shmucks who have spent plenty of money purchasing music.
Lily took the cowards way out, she got called out for her infringments and ran away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Ivanhoe
This is the truth. She couldn't take having her beliefs questioned, and rather than listen to new ideas, she fled the discussion (and the music industry, apparently) in order to keep her belief structure intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome...
Oh, and to add to your point about newspapers vs blogs, where was the mainstream media while all of this was going on? Seems a blogger got the scoop on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome...
this was all that came up for me in my reader:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/24/lily-allen-filesharing-twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject = NULL
As your article clearly states , lilyallenmusic.co.uk is an EMI run website,
lilyallenmusic.co.uk seems to be owned by a squatter. The site you mean to talk about is lilyallenmusic.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is that filesharing(or pirating) have to be associated with "theft" or "loss of sales"?
Why not compare it with radio? That is the most near to accurate one can get to what the internet is. Data streams are not physical goods and is debatable if they can be called goods at all, data streams reach the houses of people who just want to listen to it and most people don't even have the storage capacity to keep all the songs they listen too so why is that you people choose to ignore those facts and say that is a horrible thing and it is taking away something when not even the numbers from the industry can backup such claims?
It surprises me that people keep defending those same arguments that no one besides the people inside the industry believes. The internet is not a CD or a DVD if you want to compare it to something compare it to radio that transmits streams of data to antennas everywhere where no one pays anything is free to receive and still people go out and buy stuff. Why can't this be an accurate and valid comparison?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare it radio
You know how much getting a single play on a national network radio station makes you? Give you a cleu: it's not a freebie.
So actually no, radio is nothing like comparable to filesharing because it actually pays to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare it radio
It's just another case of the major labels punishing others for their own failed business practices. It also drives out smaller stations from the market, which is good for the majors, as they no longer have indie competition.
So, yeah: good comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare it radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Compare it radio
So instead of wasting my time reading it, I am going to waste it being a grammer troll.
But seriously, try adding some spacing in there and maybe people might actually respond beyond what I have just done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Not even "5 years ago..."
Here is a link to the track listing for the Mixtape #1 - from Lily herself:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=36707169&blogID =79088703It is dated 2006.
I'm not good with remembering dates, either, but sheesh. It's hard not to be disappointed by her slushiness with facts about her very self, let alone the arguments she's pushed forth.
I also wonder if Ms. Allen has stopped to consider other people who've only recently uploaded a mixtape or two, and thus by her logic are three (or five, as Ms. Allen would have it) years away from their own "knowledge of the workings of the music industry."
Her excuse is curious. Is she acknowledging that there is a learning curve involved in understanding tech and copyright issues? Is she suggesting there be a window of time in which every internet user may be exempted from these laws? Or is she demonstrating some rudimentary awareness that, yes indeed, the difference between a minor misdeed (taking a pen from the bank, say) and a serious crime (stealing money from the bank) exists? I'd guess to answer correctly you'd have to ask Ms. Allen, and I doubt she even thought too much about her reply of "5 years ago" in the first place. That's a pity, since it would be an excellent chance for some self-reflection and renewed analysis of the issues at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Planespotter
Nevertheless, as a friend put it when I sent him the link to this story, "It just isn't very fashionable to point out flaws in the everything-free-all-the-time vision of the arts, and the armchair anarchists shout rather louder than the more reasonable, even handed people", so I don't have any problem with Lily Allen taking a fuck-this-for-a-game-of-soldiers stance as regards the blog. After all, her time would probably be better spent debating the issue with people who a) know what they're talking about, and b) can actually do something about it.
I'm not going to defend the music industry, because to some extent, it's in the midst of a crisis of its own making. However, this does not alter the fact that industrial levels of downloading come with a price. As it currently stands, that price is being paid not just by record companies, but by artists of all stripes who, after working on their music for however long, are now seeing their potential royalties dissipate as a result of lost sales, thus leaving them in debt to the labels and effectively working for nothing without sufficient means to finance their creative endeavours. Of course, we could always return to the days when artists depended on the patronage of an independently wealthy elite. After all, that gave us the likes of Da Vinci and Mozart, but I'm not sure how well that would sit with the faux-egalitarian sense of entitlement that usually runs through your side of the debate.
As for the issue of Lily's so-called infringements, let me ask you a question; how can you, or anyone else, be certain that those mixtapes weren't fully licensed? How do you know that Lily Allen didn't deliver them to her management, who in turn took them to the label and said, can you please clear these uses before you put them on the website? I'll answer that for you. You don't. You could find out the answer with a phone call if you knew who to ask, but then that would render your mealy-mouthed threat of snitching (more playground tactics, I note) pretty useless. Record companies are only too aware of issues of liability when it comes to third-party infringement claims. Every sample on Lily Allen's first album - and there were a lot of them - was cleared. Every single one. I know this for a fact. So it's not as if she isn't aware of the issues, or "doesn't grasp the situation", as you put it. She's already paying for the right to use other people's material, which is more than many of her critics are doing, so this match-winning accusation of hypocrisy isn't as bulletproof as you might think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Planespotter
Um. Because Lily herself admitted they were infringing. I quote her (now deleted) post: "it is infringement, correct."
You could find out the answer with a phone call if you knew who to ask, but then that would render your mealy-mouthed threat of snitching (more playground tactics, I note) pretty useless.
You do realize that most of the responses to you have been polite, detailed and well-reasoned. And you resort to insults? And you do so at the same time as claiming that the reason she went away was because folks here were insulting *her*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Ivanhoe Martin
But, you're going to tell us this whole blog is all about "people just want stuff for free"? Or are you going to address the real points?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Planespotter
I agree that it's a pity she's taken her ball and gone home, because it's refreshing to see a pop star not known for vacuous rebel posturing actually taking a stand on an issue which has potentially catastrophic implications for our entire culture - music, entertainment, journalism, the fucking lot - never mind her bank balance.
You seem to imply that Lily is being a rebel. I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word. The word rebel is commonly and accurately used to describe a stance against an established authority such as the government. Technically, Lily is really an anti-rebel and often perceived as an anti-hero to the actual rebels in this case.
Nevertheless, as a friend put it when I sent him the link to this story, "It just isn't very fashionable to point out flaws in the everything-free-all-the-time vision of the arts, and the armchair anarchists shout rather louder than the more reasonable, even handed people", so I don't have any problem with Lily Allen taking a fuck-this-for-a-game-of-soldiers stance as regards the blog. After all, her time would probably be better spent debating the issue with people who a) know what they're talking about, and b) can actually do something about it.
I don't really get the idea of fashion influence and I admit I am repelled by any opinion tied to fashion whether it be towards or against. Having said that I shall try and acknowledge and address your friends point on its merits. Yes there are a lot of people who are very vocal about copyright issues and the more vocal internet users (or armchair anarchists as you will) generally lean away from copyright solutions. Now if you could tie that fact with anything justifying the statement that those people are less even handed and reasonable you may have a point. If not then you are merely guilty of being an armchair anarchist spouting nonsense loudly.
I'm not going to defend the music industry, because to some extent, it's in the midst of a crisis of its own making. However, this does not alter the fact that industrial levels of downloading come with a price. As it currently stands, that price is being paid not just by record companies, but by artists of all stripes who, after working on their music for however long, are now seeing their potential royalties dissipate as a result of lost sales, thus leaving them in debt to the labels and effectively working for nothing without sufficient means to finance their creative endeavours. Of course, we could always return to the days when artists depended on the patronage of an independently wealthy elite. After all, that gave us the likes of Da Vinci and Mozart, but I'm not sure how well that would sit with the faux-egalitarian sense of entitlement that usually runs through your side of the debate.
I would be sincerely interested to know of any economic studies on which you base these opinions so that I may respond in an informed manner instead of shouting 'You Lie!' as I want to, based on my shallow perception of that opinion. I only have to ask you to read Techdirt (let alone delve into Lessig) to get an understanding of my side of the economic argument, to do any further without any contrasting arguments seems redundant yet leaves your opinion poorly grounded in the strong winds of progress.
As for the issue of Lily's so-called infringements, let me ask you a question; how can you, or anyone else, be certain that those mixtapes weren't fully licensed? How do you know that Lily Allen didn't deliver them to her management, who in turn took them to the label and said, can you please clear these uses before you put them on the website? I'll answer that for you. You don't. You could find out the answer with a phone call if you knew who to ask, but then that would render your mealy-mouthed threat of snitching (more playground tactics, I note) pretty useless. Record companies are only too aware of issues of liability when it comes to third-party infringement claims. Every sample on Lily Allen's first album - and there were a lot of them - was cleared. Every single one. I know this for a fact. So it's not as if she isn't aware of the issues, or "doesn't grasp the situation", as you put it. She's already paying for the right to use other people's material, which is more than many of her critics are doing, so this match-winning accusation of hypocrisy isn't as bulletproof as you might think.
I think you are avoiding Mike's point. He put the story forward as a case to show how Lily and artists like her might rely on freedom to distribute to be successful. If he made any incorrect assumptions then I get the impression he would be the first to apologise should someone take reasonable measures to correct him. I believe this not only because my impression of this blog is truth over agenda but because it wouldn't harm his argument at all. Pointing out what Lily was doing seems merely a tool to communicate, not a weapon to bash Lily. That people perceive it like that is unfortunate but perhaps inevitable.
What you describe as misplaced accusations of hypocrisy and 'playground tactics' seem to me to be a well tempered attempt at debate. Considering the strength of the language used by those such as Lily I am made to think of glass houses. What I perceive the real problem here to be is a lack of patience, rather than continue the debate Lily has decided for reasons unknown that all efforts to communicate are futile and shut up shop. This is a shame because I believe Mike was in at least some way, driven by Lily's enthusiasm to have given her so much consideration. If the moronic comments on her blog really are to blame then I certainly feel a loss not a victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lily allen Pics
Lily allen pics
I really like this work visa one ... well not so much actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because as horrendous as most of her points have been on this issue so far, the one thing you CAN guarantee when she was fishing around for an explanation of those mixtapes existence was that she'd have SAID so.
Unless the most obvious solution to "issue with mixtapes", being "they're licensed, bye" wouldn't have actually occured to her, which I find hard to believe.
Much more peculiar looking that she suddenly decided not to attend some conference, pull her blog and leave everything in the air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"FYI, pleading ignorance doesn't absolve you of your hypocrisy."
"ummmmm, yes it does, i didn't make them available for download, so how can i be held responsible"
....amazing. Absolutely amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA asked her to leave the music industry because of the potential damage she could do to their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Ivanhoe Part Deux
I can sit and read reports day in day out from both sides of the arguement and from reports compiled for middle men, a high percentage of reports would indicate that p2p has at worst very little impact and at best a positive impact.
The problems with decreased CD sales can be attributed to many things, a decrease in quality output by artists, the advent of legal downloads, the explosion in youtube type licensed video outlets and finally the current economic climate, these are not the only examples but ones easy for everyone to understand.
It would seem that the music industry would rather target its fanbase than consider some of those points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some good advice for miss Allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJxc3Lxn4o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point...
The means of delivery might have become available to all but sadly 99.9% of it is all utter rubbish. It takes a lot of time and dedication to develop great music but then it is nigh on impossible for a new band to get heard. How will the future ‘Radioheads’ of this world get known? In short they won’t because they will be buried amongst a pile of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
Back whem MP3.com was a "free music" site that featured unsigned bands and free MP3s to download, myself and a couple of friends were surfing on the site looking for music and (by pure chance) happened upon the section for an unknown band called DragonHeart, where we downloaded a song called "Valley of the Damned" and agreed (after listening to it) that it was a great song. I still have that MP3 on my hard drive to this day. Seriously.
That was around a decade ago. What's that band up to nowadays? They're now called DragonForce, and they're famous worldwide.
Good music can and will be heard, even if it's just by one person and even if it's just by accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
"Ivanhoe makes a lot of good comments and certainly Lily won’t be the last artist to act naïvely or have a chequered past, but that doesn’t make her points any less valid."
Actually, it sort-of does. If her stance is valid, she should not have an internet connection. If that seems fair to her, then the earlier proposal that she simply disconnect herself from the internet to prove that this is the right thing to do seems like a great idea.
As far as your point that 99.9% of the music being delivered is rubbish actually makes the point in the other direction. You have made an error in basic statistics. If the percentage of good music is very low, INCREASING the amount of available music will, in-turn, increase the amount of good music. We do not need to regulate the music more with government to increase the amount of good music, we need to open the floodgates completely to make sure all of the good music gets through rather than getting stuck in the copyright filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point...
So how is this different than any other business? Do you think any other business just pops up and is an overnight success? Do you think they "deserve" to be heard and be successful? The answer is no on both counts. Work is work and making it big is hard and only a few do it. That is the same in any industry whether it be music, auto, internet search engine, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Mike
And while I should perhaps apologise for some of my more intemperate language earlier, please be aware that my ire isn't directed at people like you, who attempt to at least analyse the issues on more than just a superficial basis and come up with some sort of reasoned responses and solutions to them. It's with the 'c0pywrite suxxx LOL' brigade, who have a minimal understanding of the consequence of "wanting stuff for free" which, like it or not, is as significant a part of the debate as the search for new business models, etc.
How, then, to convince people that music and films and newspapers are things worth paying for? It wasn't so long ago that people were happy to do just that, but do the advances in technology that have made us a nation of potential bootleggers now render these things valueless? What are the long-term consequences of expecting film-makers, musicians and journalists to work for nothing so we can get our news/entertainment fix while others tie themselves in knots trying to come up with new business models that both the industry and the public will embrace? After all, it seems to me that, as soon as someone does, someone else will be trying to circumvent them in order to get something for nothing. People proudly trumpeting about how easily they can rip music from Spotify - a free service as it is, more or less - is a good example. Surely you can't ignore this. The Lily Allens of this world can't afford to, fits of pique or not.
I'm not trying to defend the music industry, because like I said earlier, it's made a rod for its own back here. But it's not just the industry that's suffering. It's the creative community as well. And eventually, as a result of that, standards are going to plummet. Some would argue they're plummeting already. Sure, if you can respond to these new developments and changes in a resourceful way, you can still earn a living out of making music. But that doesn't alter the fact that someone is still trying to tuck the artists up. It used to be just the record labels, but now it's the punters as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
This argument was made about VHS. Do you argue that the movie industry has suffered because of this invention? It didn't. The VHS (and now DVD) release of movies added an entire revenue stream to the industry as soon as the executives figured out how to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
Except, as has been pointed out on this blog and many others, "one download does not equal one lost sale". If the artists think they're being fleeced, maybe they should take it up with their record label instead of their fans.
It wasn't so long ago that people were happy to do just that, but do the advances in technology that have made us a nation of potential bootleggers now render these things valueless?
No. And besides, there is a value in the arts that is far beyond the ability to make money.
What are the long-term consequences of expecting film-makers, musicians and journalists to work for nothing so we can get our news/entertainment fix while others tie themselves in knots trying to come up with new business models that both the industry and the public will embrace?
Nobody expects filmmakers, et. al. to work for free. Nobody is saying the artists shouldn't get paid. But if somebody doesn't think something is worth paying for, they're not going to pay for it. If the business model makes the product worth paying for even if the product is available for free, people will pay for it.
After all, it seems to me that, as soon as someone does, someone else will be trying to circumvent them in order to get something for nothing.
And those people would never have been customers to begin with, so I'm not seeing a problem.
But it's not just the industry that's suffering. It's the creative community as well.
And yet there's more creative works being made and shared in this day and age than in any other period in human history.
And eventually, as a result of that, standards are going to plummet. Some would argue they're plummeting already.
That's not piracy's fault, that's the fault of the musicians who try and get by with a bare minimum of effort while their record company rakes in the cash and makes them look like they're the best thing since sliced bread.
Sure, if you can respond to these new developments and changes in a resourceful way, you can still earn a living out of making music. But that doesn't alter the fact that someone is still trying to tuck the artists up. It used to be just the record labels, but now it's the punters as well.
There have been people who try to screw over artists since long before the advent of the Internet, computers, and digital filesharing. There will continue to be those types of people well after we're gone from this plane of existence. Filesharing doesn't change the fact that if people don't think your product is worth paying for, they won't pay for it. Finding a business model that works and makes your product worth buying, no matter what the product is, should be the priority of every artist and creative person - not just making money, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
Yes it is. Due to corporate control of record labels and radio.
You know, the very thing that drives people to downloading free music, which allows smaller artists to become noticed (as they can't get the record deal, or be on the radio), which, well, improves the quality of the product.
Funny how that works out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
and who exactly would that somebody be?
The filesharers don't make money so it must be the record labels then - so this is nothing to do with filesharing and everything to do with the business practices of the recording industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
What are the long-term consequences of expecting film-makers, musicians and journalists to work for nothing so we can get our news/entertainment fix while others tie themselves in knots trying to come up with new business models that both the industry and the public will embrace?
---
every semi-professional musician and amateur filmmaker I know is excited about file-sharing and the free downloading of media. filmmakers especially.
and the artists i know don't give an F about business models, to be frank. they spend their time creating--trying to get to a point where they can worry about business models. by intuition alone, most new artists can see that new media and new technologies will do nothing but add to their distribution. to artists who have not 'had a break,' free distribution is a mindblowingly good thing.
for somewhat established artists--of this generation or previous--that are losing CD/DVD sales from file-sharing--it is time to have a talk with their accountants. as said many times the last decade, the music industry is expanding. just as the industry seeks new revenue streams, the artists must negotiate for a taste. this is what you saw with the Hollywood writers' strike--with new technology came the digitization of television. with digital television came a new stream of internet advertising revenue. the writers and actors went on strike, and eventually they negotiated a contract to get a piece. if artists do not share in new revenue streams, they must renegotiate contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Michael
A fair proportion of the current situation is down to them, they have spent a decade alientaing and criminalising vasts swathes of society simply because they couldn't move from one buisness model to another.
They should have looked at p2p back in the 90's and worked out how to monetise it, rather than make money suing those that use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the mix tapes...
My guess is she would never answer this question because she won't like the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6226690/Lily-Allen-drops-fight-against-filesharing -after-Techdirt-spat.html
Selective quoting there a little i think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heaven forbid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
""I've shut down the blog, the abuse was getting too much."
Techdirt denied it was abuse, saying they were asking her to “rethink your positions that appear to not be particularly well thought out.” "
Since he doesn't point out anything other than the Techdirt article, that makes it sound like she overreacted.
There are other points as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the US fines?
Lily did this infringement for financial gain also, she could face the max penalty of $150,000 per song fine - can she afford $2,700,000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100 years old argument!
Your arguments are old and didn't prove to be true before what makes you think that they will be true this time around? What changed that will turn true the cultural destruction that you talk about?
Music is now free and there are those who still can make a living out off of it how can you explain that with such a pessimist view of the world? The answer is that you can't because you stop believing in the market and stopped paying attention to consumers and what they want, you don't understand why they buy or why they are eager to listen to some music and go to extremes to get it and for that I would say you lost touch with the market as others have.
People buy for many reasons and few of those are logical in nature most are impulse driven, I knew people who bought the same LP 4 or 5 times just because they were from different countries, I knew people who would work months just to have enough money to travel to a concert in other places and endured all kinds of hardship to do it and in a sense calling these same people criminals and talking about how hard it is for the artists is like saying that fans are just cash cows to be milked and artists have no obligation to please them in any way because it is their duty to give artists money and I'm sure you will try to less these words in some way but when people hear you saying such things it is exactly what they feel. People feel used, robbed and humiliated and they give it back, all those insults you hear on other forums are not happening without a reason, people are angry.
You say people want everything for free that is not true most people understand they have to buy things or how would you explain why there is so many success business that work with free products and still make a killing?
Blender is an 3D software people love it go to the forums and you won't see nobody complaining about it or nowhere on the internet and it is recognized in the whole world, people buy T-Shirts with the logo, buy mugs now ask yourself if anybody will be buying a T-Shirt with Lily Allen on it anytime soon? why do you think people don't buy T-Shirts with the "labels" logo anymore?
In the mean time options that are not as good yet are popping up all over the place and if these kind of behavior persists you people will find yourselves were Microsoft is today, with a very real competent new player that offers everything that you wont give to your costumers and that new player will probably make more money then the current players.
You say artists are threatened with destruction and famine, I will argue that only the incompetent ones unwilling to adjust to the market will endure that end. Those that lash out at their costumer forgetting that those same costumers, are not rich people either and in many instances endure real hardship to earn enough money to go see their idols, can turn their backs on people who will hurt them. I don't buy CD's or DVD's and I'm choosing what I listen for now on, if it is not a CC Commons licensed song I don't bother to go after it and more I'm showing all my friends how to find music that is trouble free and I'm sure others are doing the same else I wouldn't be seeing a lot of websites popping up offering only CC Commons songs.
So the point is, the market for music has changed, some people think they have all the power to do what they wish, and they will find out soon if they keep that up that you have to give in order to receive, be greedy and egoistical that shun free venues and think costumers are obliged to give anything to them will find out that they also can walk away from such people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100 years old argument!
Blender Troll!!! ... LOL ... kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sampling v. File Sharing
Don't you think it is somewhat specious to compare file sharing to sampling? You've indicated many times on this site (and I agree with your opinion) that sampling in many (most) cases constitutes a fair use of copyrighted materials. The same cannot generally be said about file sharing. I think it is damaging to equate these sorts of activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sampling v. File Sharing
Therefore, Lily would still be infringing copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sampling v. File Sharing
C.T. I believe you have misread. I was not talking about sampling at all. Lily released *mixtapes*. That wasn't sampling. She released two hourlong "tapes" filled with full songs.
She does sample in some of her songs, but I never mentioned that at all, and I'm sure those were licensed. I didn't think that was relevant.
Either way, I'm not sure why you think I was talking about sampling. This was not sampling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sampling v. File Sharing
Is that not the case?
I find it hard to believe she literally released a mixtape in which she simply included various songs that she liked. If that is what happened, Lilly Allen is indeed a hypocrite.
I would really appreciate some clarification on this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sampling v. File Sharing
Yes, that's exactly what it is. It's just a long mp3 of song after song after song. You can find the links on my last post about it. It's not her singing over them or sampling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Teaching Moment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire industry
I am really tired of so much effort and focus in the government and court system being placed on Entertainment. Who the hell do these people think they are? They are not gods, they are no better than everyone else because they can make pretty sounds, yet the want to be treated as an elite breed of Special citizens that are somehow more important than the rest of the world. These people want all of their own rights protected by laws but have no problem trampling all over everyone elses rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
Enjoy living off the bundles of cash us saps have given you. Better yet, make a donation to get that retarded gold tooth out of your dads mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's cache gone now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She lied
I'm listening to tape 2 now. It appears that the full song, "White Rabbit," performed by Jefferson Airplane, in on the mix. It starts at about 28 minutes and ends at 30:30. I listened to tape 1 last night. While I didn't time each song, I believe there are lots of songs in their entirety, or at the very least much longer than 1 minute. So, by either willfully or carelessly misrepresenting the truth, Lily is now digging a deeper hole for herself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was obvious that the blog wouldn't last too long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, always the same argumentation
- How could Filmakers, Musicians etc can still do their jobs if thay have no revenue?
- Not so long ago, everything was fine, thanks to copyrights (and of course the absence of internet connection)
Thos are two good points in the debate to show how the gvt/majors side want to go back to a world where they have total control of the distribution process.
They try to preach to us that we'll kill the art...
I might be dumb but films and music at industrial level are not so old. Music even existed before any capacity to reproduce it on a sell-able media. More, music existed before copyright law. long before...
Same goes for books.
What majors want nowadays is to turn the internet into a vast offline mall. But based on past approach for a new media (not so new but again, they did not take the train at first - Maybe afraid of the mojo "not invented here" with a consortium of industrials)
In a world of sharing, on all level, if find it really funny that industrials still keep on testing DRM, zone limitations, exclusivity for one country, and so on. And when they look at users trying to enjoy "entertainement", just cry because they can't follow ?
It's not that they can't follow, it's just that they don't want to follow.
One thing is sure, if internet take the road of limitations, only maid for "professionnal" services, another technology will rise to elude the issue. And the problem of copyright will rise again and again and again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my take
my question for you... are you involved in the music industry or do you have any ties with someone in the RIAA...? You're opinions are typically biased towards the industry lobbyists who want us kicked off the internet for sharing information (albeit in the form of music/films/other media forms) which most people would see as a primary function for the net. there are many uses for the internet but it seems that sharing information is a key purpose.
its fairly apparent from your comment taht you consider yourself an expert on the subject at hand. bearing in mind that as mike points out, there was substantially more polite/reasonable commenting taking place on Lily's blog, it would appear that you are siding with the "all filesharing is wrong and the industry will lose if we dont fight it" crowd. The fact is, the industry stands to lose out more from standing against this than wising up, improving the business models and embracing technology. As far as i can see they are alienating the very people who give them the money they need to survive.
@ RIAA, MPAA, music industry lobbyists
I know hundreds of people who file share. We share some of our favourite music with friends/family and sometimes complete strangers. do we feel guilty about it... NO!
the main reason for this... most of the music we share is by people who get little to no air time on radio/tv/streaming media (because insiders in the music industry cant sell them or puppeteer them).
these people are effectively receiving free advertising from our sharing their music and honestly many of the people we have shared music with have ended up ordering the full CD's or online download (pay per song/album) therefore getting that all-important money to the artist (or more likely their record company CEO's wallet (if applicable lol!)).
I dont see sharing music as a crime persay. Obviously there are potential revenue losses for the music industry but these are (as mike and the industry analysts have already proven) heavily overshadowed by the high levels of revenue received through merchandising and concert ticket sales.
As far as I can see, the crime is only apparent because the higher powers within the music industry are feeling a slight pinch on their wallets (anyone paying attention to the world economy atm??!).
I will continue to share music whether online or offline as I see fit because I love music, my friends love music and many many many people I meet on a daily basis love music. Im simply sharing the love in a cost-effective manner and at the same time, providing the artists whose music I share with a sh*tload of free advertising.
The only people losing out here are the musicians and record labels who insist on branding all of us as criminals for sharing with others the music etc that we love. I share music with my fellow humans as i believe that it has a unique way of bringing people together. Music for me is one of the all time greatest sensory experiences i have. I go nowhere without a media player of some description and i listen to my favourite music wherever i go.
If I end up getting sued for sharing my passion, I will firstly be broke (therefore unable to buy the music anyway) and massively PO’d with whoever sued me (therefore making me one less loyal customer to the artist/record label/affiliated artists etc)
On a slightly different note, if my ISP threatens to cut me off for my internet use… im going elsewhere. This is a viewpoint shared by the many people I talk to both online and in the “real world”. ISP’s should not be the internet police, they are INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lily's Tweets: nonsense
"hello, there is a meeting today in london where artists are meeting to discuss Piracy. my job done."
Erm, the meeting is being hosted by the FAC, the very people against whom you've set out your stall, Lily. They've been meeting up regularly, since well before you waded into this debate, love. Yes, you might have brought attention to the filesharing issue at a timely moment, but one little meeting isn't going to crack this chestnut. If only it were that easy.
"i wont be attending the meeting because it's going to be a press frenzy and i don't want to detract from the issues"
No press are invited to the meeting tonight. It's strictly artists only. Sure, they might have hung around outside to get some photos of you stumbling into/out of a taxi for their gossip pages, but they can get those any night of the week, right? On the other hand, if what you're trying to do is bring the issues to the attention of the mainstream media, then you should absolutely be there! Your attendance might mean that an important story gets reported (or misreported, no doubt) in the kind of tabloid rags that wouldn't normally touch it with a barge pole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that all said...
She's slipped up, yes. Should have retracted her statements? Yes. Deserves to burn? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: that all said...
:P
Whore is (again, I assume-- never heard of her until this) probably baseless, but "hypocrite" certainly is not. Hell, she gave away (ish?) her music on myspace to get attention, the years before that she was unknown (even with Daddy's help!), even though she was in the music business. Then those now infamous mixed tapes and the Techdirt blog cut-n-paste.
Not to mention, if you're going to jump into a heated debate with the public at large you'd better damn well be ready to be called some names. It's not pretty, but it is a fact.
She didn't shut down for abuse, she shut down because the hole she dug was too deep to get out of, so she ran away. She was probably *told* to shut down, but that's just a guess based on no actual facts.
Don't feel sorry for her, she was a fool and now she gets to feel it. It's a *learning* experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC is Sooo Right
Especially when they've made the issue an important part of their work, their life, and their societal impact.
Mike, why can't you just drop it? 10 years of your life working towards these issues - you should just pull the plug and shut down the blog. So pathetic. Pathetic to have a purpose and work tirelessly to improve society through rational discourse. I'm "unfriending" you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teachable Moment Fail
It would be great if the first reaction to such incidents as this were taken as teaching moments, but I'm not holding my breath. The first response always seems to be ridicule, accusation, and snarky sarcasm. And when that doesn't work, a bit more angry snark that the person just "doesn't get it."
For many in the "content" industries, the shifting market dynamic are indeed hard to grasp. These changes threaten the livelihood of thousand of people, and those people's first reaction is usually to push back.
If this community were truly interested in changing industry behavior, attitudes, and practices, it would try to use these instances to actually teach and persuade that change isn't as threatening as it might seem.
But you don't teach by ridicule. You don't teach by attacking people. You don't teach by calling them cowards, idiots, or skanks. You don't react with ire when the point isn't instantly grasped.
I don't necessarily expect all blog commenter to get this, not when there's such fun to be had just slagging people.
But if the thought-leadership on this issue can't get, then it may be a thought-leadership fail as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teachable Moment Fail
Wait I'm confused, I thought for a minute you were talking about comments here on techdirt, but then you started complaining about the RIAA/MPAA's "Education Campaign's" and attacking their fans... (not teaching by ridicule/attacking is something they need to learn, not us)
Which side are you on again?
Oh, I see you had a thought-leadership failure yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Alex Murray
Besides in the U.S. performers never got paid, until recently just composers and the market there is bigger then the U.K. so again how is that even without payment the market is still bigger in the U.S.? Does that not refute the argument that it takes the ability from the artists to make money?
The obvious answer is that radio that don't pay performers don't affect their ability to make money and since the internet functions in the same way artists still don't suffer big losses either and don't have the ability to capitalize on their work compromised to the extent that would it make profits impossible and right now there are people out there making money without having to curtail filesharing they even use it to promote their songs and people still buy how do that happen?
The theory is that free kills sales, but if that is true why is there people right now making money without having to block filesharing? and it is not a small amount either?
So again, show us how is that radio that is not paid hurt artists again? and why should the internet that is the new radio hurt the ability for artists to capitalize their work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Alex Murray
The internet is not the new radio, that's just plain wrong. Radio is editorialised, internet access is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Alex Murray
A comment unrelated to your positions here, but unrelated advice. In debate, if you know that someone will attach a weakness in what you said (whether real or perceived), you'd best get that out in the text of your opening volley. Otherwise, the debate will doubltess go that direction.
In debate terms, it's called a concession. If you bring it up proactively and diffuse it, it can't be used as a "gotcha".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sympathy for lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sympathy for lily
1. Compulsory music license on the internet? Idiotic, since no everyone pirates or uses the net for music. That's a tax on everyone, even though everyone doesn't use the benefit of the tax.
2. Tax ISPs? Same, see above.
3. Govt subsidies? Same, see above.
All of his solutions are the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sympathy for lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sympathy for lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sympathy for lily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wrote: "It's with the 'c0pywrite suxxx LOL' brigade, who have a minimal understanding of the consequence of "wanting stuff for free" which, like it or not, is as significant a part of the debate as the search for new business models, etc."
If we ignore for a moment that this seems to be a strawman-argument (yes, there are impolite and idiotic comments but you seem to overemphasize the importance of these few loud-mouths), then I'd argue that the same goes for many of the pro-copyright people or copyright-maximalists.
The problem is that they don't see what the current copyright regime does to civil rights, fair trials, the right to privacy, proportional penalties, net neutrality and in the longer term the open net. What happens when you start to convict people to serious punishments (cutting off the net so that they can't perform daily duties, buy things, do their job, connect with friends, create public opinion for their issues in a democratic fashion etc) without the right to a prior trial? And what does it do to young people's views on laws and socity to find that they constantly break the law just by doing everyday tasks (eg. a high-school band recording and publishing an amateur cover version of a song they like)? What does it do to people's perception of politics when copyright laws seem to be designed to favour a few and not the interest of the public (or promote the progress of useful arts as the US constitution puts it)?
A young musician who creates a piece of music today will enjoy a protection that lasts until his 150's birthday, i.e. it ends about the time his grandchild's grandchild's child is born. One of my favourite authors was born in 1858 and her works are still not in the public domain. What does it do to our cultural heritage to lock up works like that and how does it affect the creative possibilities for artists of today?
Those who defend the current system often like to discuss the immorality of unauthorized copying, but are not at all interested in discussing the collateral damage of their proposed anti-file-sharing measures. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@tacticapple
An industry subsidized by the people is not competitive and it does not have any natural mechanism to regulate it so it will be abused(tax increases) it is the worst idea ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAAAH! WAAAAAAAH!
More like too much common sense, all I see from her is a little kid running around with her hands cupped over her ears shrieking "I CAN"T HEAR YOU, I CAN"T HEAR YOU"
Worthless split tail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd call it abuse...
While I certainly don't agree with Lily's stance on copyright issues (and in fact agree with most if not all of your points here, Mike), I think it's unfair to say that she hasn't received abuse on her blog.
When I read through the comments of her first infringing post, there are a lot of, "Stupid bitch," and, "Hypocritical cunt," kinds of posts. Some of the comments were very aggressive and sounded fairly threatening. And it wasn't just a few, but a pretty large volume. I don't imagine that volume went down with subsequent posts.
Even though I strongly disagree with her, I don't fault her for taking down her blog under those circumstances. Not everyone was trying to have a rational dialogue with her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd call it abuse...
Actually, you are wrong. While you are correct that the first post had a lot of that sort of thing, later posts were REMARKABLY tame in terms of comments. The vast majority of them were longer, well argued, well written and well thought out.
There was an occasional idiot mixed in, but for the most part, the dialogue was quite advanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd call it abuse...
"Actually, you are wrong. While you are correct that the first post had a lot of that sort of thing, later posts were REMARKABLY tame in terms of comments. The vast majority of them were longer, well argued, well written and well thought out.
"There was an occasional idiot mixed in, but for the most part, the dialogue was quite advanced."
Okay, but that was only intended as a small part of my point (and I apologize if it came across as the main point).
My point was that she did suffer significant and extreme verbal abuse associated with this issue. So I find it highly questionable when you say, "Lily, it's not abuse if we're just asking you to rethink your positions," because you're not looking at the whole of what's been happening, only the parts that you and other calm, non-abusive people have participated in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'd call it abuse...
read the entire comment thread of that blog. its incredibly clear even to my limited intellect that Lilly is obviously an incredibly thinned skinned person who refuses to take any constructive criticism. Rather than sit back and try to argue in a reasoned manner (she only responded to the easiest arguments to dispel and judiciously avoided the well argued ones) she stomped off with her ball and shut down any further ability to debate the issue. That, my friend, is what I call being a petulant child.
She can argue about file-sharing until she's blue in the face. When her bank account gets to zero I'm sure she'll then be open to new ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd call it abuse...
There was a remarkable difference between the comments to the first post and the comments to the follow-ups. Maybe this mirror the fact that the rude people may be less interested in staying around after they have dropped their insults whereas the people interested in the matters like to continue discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, is she anti-free speech or something? Next thing she'll be burning books.
This is really one of the most exciting things that I have ever seen unfold. A big part of that is I can almost feel this "celebrity" becoming undone. There will be a massive backlash from her actions and she might just be committing career-suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED
So what? That sucks, sure, but TOO BAD. MANY people are in this kind of position. Things change, times change, jobs change. Change WITH them, or get left behind. Simple as that. Blaming anyone else for why YOU wont adapt is not THEIR fault. Again, it sucks but thats life for you. Find a way through, or dont, but stop blaming everyone else for what you LACK the courage to do.
The entitlement babies that exist in this world never cease to amaze me. Just because you WANT to work in a field you like, doesnt mean you GET to. Either find a way TO do it, or do something ELSE. You are not OWED it just because thats what you studied for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just to say...
after watching friday night with jonathan ross one evening, i was really excited about the new band i'd just seen perform at the end of the show. i downloaded their single off itunes (paying the rip-off british price of 79p) and introduced my friends to them. we subsequently booked tickets to see them in concert the next month. before the gig, one of my friends downloaded the whole album (illegally) so that we could listen to it in the car on the way to york. the gig was amazing, and as soon as i got home i logged on to play.com and bought their album. yes, i already had it, but i wanted to buy it and support them as they were (and still are) a pretty small, unknown band. i have since been to see them twice more in concert. and i probably wouldn't have gone to see them at all OR bought their album if i hadn't first listened to their music without paying for it. so actually, this particular band have benefited greatly from me not initially paying for their music.
to sum up, since listening to their music illegally, i have paid for:
- three gigs (and brought friends along each time - about 20 tickets in total)
- their album
- a t-shirt
- two posters
- a pair of shorts
so there you have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you first started out, how did/do you promote yourself?
How did you manage to get gigs, at events/clubs?
- free cds/mixes
- open mike
- auditions
- knowing somebody in the business
Any of the above answers, all rely on one fact, that some one had to hear your music(most likely for free), in order to pass judgment on whether you were good enough to play the gig/sign a contract/buy the hardcopy(cd)/ or go to the event you were playing at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new meme!
I've started you off with a couple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mail me
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mail me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re artists "making it"
Very sad imho - I make music, I've never made much money from it, I've lost money on some bits and pieces I've put out in spite of it getting good feedback and playing time, and I've had a few nice windfalls from the odd licence from someone higher up the food chain.
None of the negatives I've experienced have diminished my desire to keep making it, as it's an enjoyable process - if other people like it and want to pay for it, that's a very nice bonus.
Presumably that passion for creating isn't shared by Ms Allen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re artists "making it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://twitter.com/lilyroseallen
@philipcmeyer @Stoneyyy listen, I'm not against ALL file sharing. it's unauthorised filesharing that needs to be stopped.
3:26 PM Sep 20th from web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overall, i got the impression that Lilly Allen is a childish, spoiled, thin skinned elitist who seems to have surrounded herself with "yes men" and doesn't tolerate any dissenting opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Alex Murray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like she showed up to the meeting anyways!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like she showed up to the meeting anyways!!!!
lol. Was she brave enough to get up in front of a panel and defend her moronic stance on file-sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boing boing discussion. i don't assume that all of techdirt readers are posting on boing boing under different names but i know there are some readers who already participate on boingboing aside from their post about this.
yeah apparently she said she is not doing music right now/isn't renegotiating a deal/has no ulterior motives for this crusade/is not looking to make music for money...
and then when i was on perez apparently her publicist released a statment saying that lily allen just has no plans to make music right now and hasn't quit.
i don't care really if she quits music. what i care about is this discussion. ugh. all the name calling is beyond respectable especially if we're supposed to be conducting this as a discussion and not a neener neener neener argument, but lets also understand that a lot of lily allen fans are even younger than her (love how she used her age as an excuse)and have been pissed off more than one time by her, but of course she doesn't give a shit because she's lily allen. i don't know how she ever got to be as successful as she did. i mean she's creative, but that means that her artistry must then overshadow her attitude...and yet we just went through a moemnt where we called out kanye west, not because of what he said which is his opinion although he states his opinions like facts based on facts from the school of kanye, but more for his righteous actions.
i think a commenter brought up a good point about a sister site where this discussion can continue. i think the insight community is another way this is already happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constantly getting accused of being an ignorant freeloader and/or an online anarchist who is jumping on the bandwagon just because I have strong objections to the proposed 3 strikes system is getting old extremely fast.
If you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, do you honestly think making sweeping generalizations like this is a sensible tactic? Or are you simply trying to convince yourselves that paying customers and people that don't like the way the music industry is conducting itself are two mutually exclusive groups?
Let me make this as clear as I can:
I love music, and I invest a lot of money in that love.
I am becoming increasingly angry with the way the music industry takes my money for granted and lobbies for legislation that I have strong objections to.
I am not a freeloader. I am not an anarchist, and I am most certainly not ignorant.
The most important thing for you to realize though, is that without people like me, there is no music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. Do you not see how that makes her an even bigger hypocrite? I still can't understand how that's complicated to you. When someone says "x is bad" but then does x herself... that's being a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A final note. My invitation still stands to call me at any time you may believe a personal conversation may help promote a discussion. No matter what benefits new technology may provide, I have not as yet found a substitute for one-on-one conversation, either in person or by telephone. It is far too easy for people to talk past each other via impersonal comments produced at a keyboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would merrily praise Lily Allen for the actions you've mentioned, except that she's gone on to say no-one else is allowed to do it.
It's like telling the world that they can't eat cake while you're stuffing down a slice of Battenberg - it's hypocritical and completely detracts from either side of the argument. She can't be an advocate FOR file sharing because she publicly condemns it, but she certainly can't be an advocate AGAINST it in that she encourages it herself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ego
I personally hope they finally do lock down the issue under copywrite and fine all of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ego
Hi Chris, could you let us know what facts have been clouded?
Copyright infringement (at least the kind we're talking about here) also is not a crime, but a civil dispute.
In the blog posts here we have done nothing to mock copyright at all. In fact, we have been quite careful to raise important questions concerning "facts" that were being used by Lily, which were not supported anywhere. I'm not sure what your complaint is against us since you don't spell it out.
I personally hope they finally do lock down the issue under copywrite and fine all of you.
It's copyright, not copywrite... but why should I be fined? I have not violated copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't speak for me, Lily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An interesting case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Chris
"The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to bring up some points
Google
Wordpress
Linux(Redhat)
Jamendo(and every artist on it)
Facebook
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
Every single webcomic online
Marian Call(Sing a Song of Saffron/Firefly Filk)
Mint.com
Hulu.com(which includes most major networks)
Myspace
The Guild
Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog
Moby
Trent Reznor
weather.com(they charge nothing to use their website)
Some Franchises that have benefited from Copyright Infringement
Star Trek: Conventions, Of Gods and Men(movie), Phase II(show), Star Wreck(a parody that has made money), Fan Filk, Websites, Video Games(Excalibur)
Battlestar Gallactica: Beyond the Red Line(game)
Star Wars: See Star Trek
Firefly/Serenity: Fan Movies, Fan Shows, Fan Filk, Etc. Through the fan's dedication another movie was made and the fans organize every year for a screening of the movie.
This is just a small taste of the ways in which your model of extremism does not connect with how the real world model works. While I don't think copyright infringement is right, more often then not, you can not pay for the kind of publicity it can bring you for free, by word of mouth which any first semester marketing student can tell you. As an artist, blogger, web designer, occasional musician, video enthusiast amongst other things I don't feel threatened by the new economy I relish it and look forward to making money. Stop using the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition as your business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ AW Just to bring some points
'Everyone against copyright, keeps bringing up how free isn't profitable'
You seemed to have missed something fundamental.
The record industry says you can't make money with free music, they are 'for' copyright.
We say you can make money from free music, we are not 'against' copyright. Just implementations of it that infringe our civil liberties.
Most of those companies and people you mentioned make use of copyright and license it under licenses that cannot be corrupted from the purpose of protecting the creator against infringement. Not being used to stifle innovation or criminalise users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ AW Just to bring some points
Companies use licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons to protect themselves from impersonation but also to make sure that other people can make use of their work.
Not one single invention or peice of music is completely new, everyone stood on the shoulders of the people before them. To try and stop people standing on your shoulders is the crime. It is a crime against humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its immature commercial pop crap...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recorded Music is Advertising for the Tour
songs out now so hit the road and earn a buck you lazy whinging sod.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me it sounds like control more than anything. Record labels may get money from partnering with youtube, but I would be willing to bet the artists dont get a dime.
Which in turn almost makes me feel bad for Ms Allen, as it seems very apparent she is very much like a child being used by the record companies. (not unlike tom cruise being used by scientology lol)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Contribution to I Hate Lily
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTvyBHfMZ_Q
[ link to this | view in chronology ]