Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes

from the put-the-stone-down-lily,-that's-a-big-glass-house dept

Really don't want to turn this into an all Lily Allen all the time blog, but reader Peter has sent in something rather interesting: When Lily was first trying to get attention, she created a couple of mixtapes with a ton of songs from other artists... available as MP3 downloads, and mixing in her own tracks. This is a well-known tradition in some circles and a great way to get some attention. We're all for it. But... it seems quite hypocritical of Ms. Allen to claim that file sharing is somehow evil and destroying the industry when she appears to be an active participant and used it to promote herself (oh my goodness! free music working as promotion!). According to the tracklisting of the second mixtape, it included 19 tracks by artists other than Lily Allen. Both mixtapes (mixtape 1 and mixtape 2) are available directly off of Lily's website, LilyAllenMusic.com, which has a copyright notice at the bottom from EMI.

So, when Lily notes on her anti-piracy blog that:

Also the government legislation is targeting uploaders -- people that make music available illegally

It appears that she actually qualifies. Quite directly. She's offering music from, among others, Jay-Z, Jefferson Airplane, The Specials and The Kinks. Admittedly, it's just a quick look around, but it appears many of the artists whose works she's distributing for free have no connection with EMI. Even if they did, remember EMI was recently claiming that it's never authorized MP3s for distribution for publicity purposes. Uh oh.

So... while the hypocrisy of Allen's copying a Techdirt post was still misunderstood by some (including Ms. Allen), I'm curious how anyone can say she isn't in serious trouble at this point. She claims that people who make music available illegally should have their internet connections removed. Yet, these two mixtapes, hosted directly on her own (EMI copyrighted) website, seem to suggest a pretty massive illegal distribution attempt. Given how much the music industry was awarded from Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum for distributing significantly fewer songs... not only should Allen be kicked offline, but she should be fined too. Or am I missing something from the recording industry's "education campaign" on this topic?

Honestly, this whole thing is so insane, I'm beginning to wonder if the blog and the statements from Lily Allen are really from her. How could someone who is still directly distributing free music from others from her own major label site claim a moral high ground against music being free?

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: emi

Some Questions For Lily Allen

from the once-more... dept

Lily Allen has continued to post statements from various artists on her blog against file sharing, and most are of the "yeah, file sharing, it's bad!" variety. While she still doesn't quite seem to realize what was hypocritical about her decision to copy a Techdirt post while claiming that copying was bad, she did recently post something where she tried to "answer some questions" that others seem to be having about her effort. The problem is that the "questions" she's answering aren't really the questions that people have been asking. Her explanation is that she's trying to show what file sharing is doing to new artists. Furthermore, she complains that comments about people getting cut off from the internet are misguided, since the proposals are no different than cutting someone off for not paying their bill. Then she attacks the concept that music could be free, saying:

"It's not free to make, so it can't be free, can it?"

And goes on to say that not enough people are paying for music, so that's "threatening new music." Anyway, her "answers to some questions" mostly raise more questions from me, so I'd like to present them here. If Lily Allen is serious about dealing with these issues (and serious about being "sorry" -- even if she apologized for the wrong thing), then it would be great to see her directly address these questions, rather than responding to some made up questions.

1. You claim that file sharing is harming new music. Yet, at the same time, a recent study has shown that more new music is being created today than ever before in history. Partly, that's because new tools have made it cheaper than ever to create and record new music. But those same technologies are also making it cheaper to promote and distribute that new music. All of those factors seem to outweigh the "piracy" issue. So, how can you claim that it's harming new music, when the evidence suggests more new music is being created than ever before?
2. You claim that "not enough people are paying for music." However, just a few months ago, the economists employed by PRS, which is a big part of the UK music industry, released a study suggesting that the music market was growing, not declining. They agreed that retail sales have dropped, but that live show attendance and other offerings (merchandise, etc.) have outweighed the decline in music sales. In other words, people are spending more on music, it's just going into different things -- just like 50 Cent said. Given that the economists who represent your industry are saying the opposite of what you claim must be happening, can you support the claim that not enough people are paying?
3. According to many reports, you benefited greatly yourself by promoting your music via MySpace, which allowed people to listen to your music for free. Other reports have suggested that you have complained in the past that your record label does not give you much, if any, money from CD sales. Given that you seem to have used "free music" to your own advantage in the past, how can you say that "music can't be free"?
4. You are posting your blog on a Blogspot.com domain, which is provided by Google to you, for free. It cost Google money to create this service, and all of its services, and yet it has been able to create a business model whereby it makes money by giving away certain aspects of its business for free. Google is one of the most successful companies in the world. Why do you insist with such certainty that using free as a part of a business model is a bad thing?
5. There are a growing number of artists -- big, medium and small -- who have learned to embrace file sharing, and have found that it has helped them to better connect with their audience, and when combined with a smart business model, makes them more money than in the past. Given that's the case, is it possible that the problem is artists choosing a bad business model rather than "piracy" being the problem?
6. Despite your shading of the issue, there have been and continue to be proposals in the UK that would lead to people being kicked off the internet -- yes, for a limited time, but still removed from the internet. Can you explain how that makes people any more likely to buy your music?

By the way, it's also worth noting that many of the ideas for these questions come from the comments to the post on Lily's blog. While there were some nasty and childish comments on some of the earlier posts (such as the one where she copied my post), going through the comments on this particular post show that the vast majority of them are well thought-out, well-argued and thought-provoking. And most of them disagree with Allen's statements.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, music, techdirt

Lily Allen, Don't Apologize To Me, Apologize To Everyone Else

from the sorry,-but-that's-not-the-point dept

It seems that a few folks misunderstood the point of my post yesterday in joking about Lily Allen's double standard in ranting against unfair copying while copying blog posts from other sites. And Lily herself appears to be among those people. She's posted an apology, though, a bit petulantly, starting in all capital letters:

I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT I WASNT TRYING TO PASS OF THOSE WORDS AS MY OWN , HERE IS A LINK TO THE WEBSIITE I ACQUIRED THE PIECE FROM . Apologies to Michael Masnick

While I appreciate the "apology," that's really missing the point. First, the reason TorrentFreak and I both brought it up wasn't because I was upset about her using the post. As I clearly said in my response, I thought it was great that she wanted to use our post, and I encouraged her to do so. The point, though, was that it was a bit hypocritical of her to be going on and on about how evil it is to copy another's work without their permission, when she went and did the same thing. Furthermore, the point is that when it's natural and easy for people to copy like that, it's time to learn to accept it and use it to your advantage. So, no apology is necessary to me. My post wasn't about you trying to pass off my words as your own, but recognizing that even you, Lily Allen copy other people's work all the time, even without realizing it.

And, yet, in the very same breath, you want to kick people off the internet for doing the same thing?

If anyone deserves an apology, it's all the people you've been blasting with this complaint that it's "piracy" that's somehow harming artists, when the actual evidence shows no such thing. Plenty of artists have learned to embrace file sharing and used it to their advantage, suggesting it's not piracy that's the problem -- it's artists unwillingness to adapt and put in place smarter business models. Running to the gov't and asking them to kick your fans off the internet isn't a new business model. So, don't apologize to me. We're happy for you to use Techdirt posts however you want. We just thought it was worth calling your attention to the fact that even you seem to have no problem copying stuff when convenient, so maybe you should think twice about blasting everyone else for doing the same thing.

Filed Under: apologies, copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, techdirt

If File Sharing Is Killing The UK Music Industry... Why Is The UK Music Industry Growing?

from the damn-those-pesky-facts dept

Lily Allen, who last we saw was copying Techdirt to convince the world that copying was bad (it's bad!) and destroying the industry, has been trying to get some other UK musicians to speak up on her behalf as well. Singer James Blunt took the the UK's Times Online to speak out in support of Lily and kicking fans offline. His reasoning is quite puzzling, however:

The world over, people are stealing music in its millions in the form of illegal file-sharing. It's easy to do, and has become accepted by many, but people need to know that it is destroying people's livelihoods and suffocating emerging British artists.

The music business is made up of thousands of jobbing musicians, producers, mixers and engineers creating and shaping popular music and culture, but illegal file-sharing is cutting off the income from their work. Without the revenue from established artists, record labels cannot fund emerging musicians. They'll just re-master the Beatles albums again, because they can't afford to put an amazing new band into a studio to record something that may surpass Sergeant Pepper.

Now, considering how long file sharing has been popular, you might think we'd be seeing some effect by now, right? Except that the music industry's own economists in the UK recently did a study where they noted that the music industry has been growing. That's because it's easier and cheaper to create, promote and distribute music -- and that's opened up many new avenues for making money. So how is it killing the industry? Only in the minds of a few who don't know the facts.

Blunt goes on to support Peter Mandelson's plan to kick people off the internet for file sharing, without bothering to explain how that's likely to get people to want to keep giving money to musicians.

Filed Under: file sharing, james blunt, lily allen, music, uk

Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright... Unless It's Done By Lily Allen

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

The folks over at TorrentFreak alerted me to the news that singer Lily Allen, who made some news last week for speaking out against file sharing and against artists who have defended file sharing, has put up a blog, called "It's Not Alright," to talk about this particular subject. In one of her very first posts, she reposted an entire Techdirt post about 50 Cents' view on piracy and how it's part of the marketing. Allen goes on to then say that this is not alright and that 50 Cent is being selfish and isn't thinking about everyone else. But what's quite odd is that Ms. Allen, while complaining about such unfair copying, seemed to have absolutely no problem with copying my entire Techdirt post -- without credit or a link. As I said when asked by TorrentFreak for my response:

I think it's wonderful that Lily Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post that she decided to copy -- or should I say "pirate"? -- the entire post. The fact that she is trying to claim that such copying is bad, while doing it herself suggests something of a double standard, unfortunately. Also, for someone so concerned about the impact of "piracy" I'm quite surprised that she neither credited nor linked to our post. Apparently, what she says and how she acts are somewhat different. Still, Lily, glad we could help you make a point... even if it wasn't the one you thought you were making. Feel free to use any of our posts going forward as well. Unlike some, we're not scared of people copying our stuff. By the way, does this mean we can post her music to our site without crediting her now, too?

Enigmax, in his TorrentFreak post put it nicely as well:

Lilly, in isolation we don't think your copyright infringement is a big deal at all and neither does Mike, but in the arena of this debate it's still quite important. Infringing copyright these days is so easy to do, most people manage it every day in one way or another, and you are clearly no different. You probably didn't mean any harm or even give it a second thought but half a dozen clicks later and you're a pirate these days I'm afraid.

The next thing you know you've got God-knows-who accusing you in public of being an evil copyright infringer and telling you the sky's falling in. Oh, you're on your first strike now by the way. A couple more and it'll be off to Ofcom for disconnection for you young lady....

That said, I also think it's worth responding to Allen's attempted "point" in response to 50's comments:

this is particularly selfish in my view, he seems to only be thinking of how piracy effects him. What about the guys that work in the studio and the kids that run around town putting his posters up,the people that designed his artwork, the people that run his website. Is he giving them a cut of his live fee?

Wait... since when did any of those people get a cut of album sales? Really. None of them do. They all get paid regular fees for their work... and that doesn't change if 50 is making all his money from album sales or concerts. So, yes, they actually do get a cut of his "live fee." It comes in the form of regular payment for services... the same as if it were coming from album sales. And, if 50 is making even more money from those live shows, he can still afford to pay the studio guys, the street teams, the art designers and his web gurus more. So what point is Lily Allen making again? Because so far I can't figure it out...

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, techdirt