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.

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

Beyond Kicking People Offline, France Raises Fines For Copyright Infringement To $440,000

from the proportionate? dept

With France continuing to push for a version of three strikes legislation, the latest bill approved also happens to increase potential fines for infringement up to 300,000 euros, or approximately $440,000. Nice to see governments making sure that the punishment fits the crime, huh?

Filed Under: copyright, fines, france, infringement, three strikes

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

Elton John Flip Flops: Kicking People Off The Internet Is Good! No, Bad! No, Good!

from the does-he-even-know-what-he's-saying? dept

Sometimes you have to wonder if certain celebrities even know what they're talking about half the time. A few years back, Elton John went on an anti-internet tirade, where he suggested shutting down the entire internet for five years for the sake of saving music. So, it was a bit of a surprise a few weeks back to see him among the list of big name rockstars coming out against kicking people off the internet for file sharing. Apparently, though, no one told Elton John that he was on that list, because now he's switched positions again and is saying that he's all for Peter Mandelson's proposal to kick people off the internet. Yes, just a couple weeks after his name was on a document against the very same proposal. Perhaps we shouldn't take much of what his opinion is this week seriously, when even he doesn't seem to know what it is.

Filed Under: elton john, file sharing, internet, three strikes

UK Music Pretends That Musicians Aren't Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the oh-really? dept

Recently, we noted that a bunch of big name musicians had come out against Peter Mandelson's sudden decision that it was ok to kick music fans off the internet for file sharing, despite earlier promises that such a proposal was off the table. Having these musicians speak out against such a "three strikes" plan looked really bad for the various collections societies and industry groups that want such a plan -- leading some to publicly complain that these musicians were doing something "destructive" in standing up for consumer rights (how dare they!).

There were rumors that following this little dustup, that the UK music industry would drop its support for three strikes. Instead, Feargal Sharkey, the head of the UK Music lobbying group, has come out with a totally meaningless statement that basically says that the industry supports the government's plan and there's nothing to see here in terms of a rift in the views of the UK music industry.

That's not very believable. More and more musicians have realized that a proposal to kick people off the internet does nothing to promote better business models and does a lot to create significantly more ill will with fans. The only people who seem to be supporting it are those who are looking to protect old business models, and seem to think that kicking people offline will magically bring back paying customers. Sharkey has claimed in the past that the industry needs to stop fighting against music fans. Too bad he's aligning himself with a plan that is entirely about fighting music fans.

Filed Under: feargal sharkey, music, musicians, three strikes, uk
Companies: uk music

Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the how-dare-they-speak-their-minds dept

Well, well. Last week, we noted that a large number of well known musicians had come out against the idea of kicking accused file sharers off the internet, noting that it would only escalate the problem rather than solve it. But, of course, the industry organizations who claim to represent musicians' best interests can't have that, so this week they're on the attack. The head of a royalty collection society apparently called the statement from musicians "grossly naive and desperately damaging." Yes, but damaging to whom? Perhaps to collections societies, but not to artists. Smart artists know that going to war with fans is never a smart move. But the collection society head went on:

"This is more than unhelpful. It's destructive, I wish I could understand the hostility. But if between us all we don't screw it up, within 12 months we could have some legislation in place. I am quietly confident."

You wish you could understand the hostility? There was no hostility from the artists. The only hostility has come from an industry hellbent on protecting an old and obsolete business model by kicking people offline for sharing the music they love. These artists were coming out against hostility. They were coming out against this war mentality where it's the industry against the consumer.

Meanwhile, another group, the Musicians Union has come out and called the statement from the musicians last week "a bit blinkered" and "counterproductive" and then said:

"I am disappointed they went maverick without looking at the bigger picture. Our position is somebody should be paid for their creation."

Actually, they are looking at the bigger picture, and recognize that kicking people off the internet doesn't have anything to do with getting paid. You get paid by providing something that people want to buy. Kicking people off the internet doesn't make anyone want to pay you. It actually does the opposite. No one is saying artists shouldn't get paid for their creation -- least of all the musicians who spoke out last week. What they're saying is that kicking people off the internet doesn't help anyone get paid.

Honestly, does anyone actually think that kicking people off of the internet is a good business model?

Filed Under: recording industry, three strikes

Good Old Fashioned Rant On Overbearing Copyright Holders

from the who-said-what-now? dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting stories about the ongoing fight between multimillionaire artist Damien Hirst and a teenager he had arrested. If you don't recall, the kid had created some collages, where some of them included an image of a jewel-encrusted skull that Hirst supposedly made and sold for insane amounts of money (reports put it at £50 million). Hirst, apparently got so upset by a 16-year-old kid using the image in his own artwork, that he threatened to sue the kid, and forced the kid to hand over the artwork and to pay £200 to Hirst. A bunch of other artists started creating more artwork using Hirst's skull in protest. But the whole thing got more bizarre lately, after the teen stopped by a Hirst exhibit and took a box of pencils that were in one of the "sculptures" and left a "ransom note" demanding his own artwork back. Except, the police have valued that box of pencils at £500,000 and arrested the kid. Yikes.

I wasn't sure I was going to write about it, but then a lot more of you also pointed to this beautiful old-fashioned rant by Charlie Brooker where he does a lovely job tying the "Damien Hirst puts a kid in jail" story to the new effort to kick file sharers offline in the UK. Basically, they're both stories about huge, ridiculous wealthy copyright holders totally overreacting to a rather minor inconsequential infringement. The whole thing is good, but here's a taste:

The vast majority of people who illegally download music from the internet do so because they bloody love music. They're resorting to theft because they're either too skint to afford 79p per track (often because they're students), or because what they're looking for is too obscure to find by commercial means, or because it's been leaked and isn't officially available and they're just too damn excited to wait. In the main, these are dedicated fans: precisely the same audience who in days of yore would've filled C90 cassettes with songs taped off the radio. In its heyday, the Radio 1 Sunday evening Top 40 countdown constituted the biggest file-sharing portal in British history, with millions of users hooked up simultaneously, mercilessly downloading content to their tape decks.

The government and the music industry should cheerfully view these people as eager young addicts. Let them have their illicit free samples because once they're hooked, they'll cough up later: when they've got more money, when the tracks are easier to find via legitimate means, or when they go to see an act they only discovered via free illegal downloads play live (and pay £30 for a ticket, £30 for drinks, and £30 for a poster and T-shirt).

Filed Under: charlie booker, copyright, damien hirst, three strikes

Recording Industry, Japanese Gov't Work To Break Your Mobile Phone If You Listen To Unauthorized Music

from the how-nice-of-them dept

You would think that the entertainment industry might look back at its rather long history of failed attempts to stop technological innovation from interfering with their business models and realize the sheer futility of trying to stop people from doing what they want to do, and could have learned that embracing what technology allows is a better path. But... that never seems to happen. Apparently the recording industry is now so worried that unauthorized file sharing on mobile phones is the next big threat, that rather than working on ways to use that to their advantage, they've teamed up with the Japanese gov't (note: not Japanese consumer electronics makers) to develop a system to break mobile phones if users are caught listening to unauthorized music.

Think of it like an automated "three strikes" plan for your phone:

Details are scarce, but apparently the system would consist of a central database which contains information about music which is authorized to be downloaded. This system would be responsible for verifying that cellphone users weren't downloading illicit music. Those that do would be sent warning messages.

But of course, simple warnings aren't enough for the music industry. The report claims that the music capabilities of cellphones could be disabled for persistent infringers.

Once again, the entertainment industry would prefer to break any new innovation rather than learn to adapt.

Filed Under: japan, mobile phones, music, playback, three strikes

UK IP Minister Defends Kicking People Off The Internet, As Rockstars Come Out Against It

from the who-is-this-protecting-again? dept

Despite the UK gov't insisting recently that a policy of kicking file sharers off the internet was off the table, a nice dinner between UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson and Hollywood bigshot David Geffen created a sudden new interest in the subject, which quickly turned into it being right back on the table -- creating massive complaints from just about everyone not associated with the RIAA or MPAA. Mandelson has tried to defend the idea, but his reasoning came up short, and demonstrated that he got his talking points direct from Hollywood and that he hasn't actually spent much time actually understanding the issue at all.

But, it's not just Mandelson in the gov't pushing this now. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, got to hang around with the MPAA and gave a speech "defending" kicking people off of the internet. Now doesn't that seem strange? It's the MPAA that's among those pushing for such a plan in the first place. So, Lammy is preaching to the choir. Why not "defend" the plan in front of actual consumers or ISPs or musicians who are up in arms about this idea? You don't "defend" the idea to the people who already want it and who were already wining and dining you to get it back on the table after you'd taken it off.

And, yes, I said musicians who are up in arms about this -- and not just small indie musicians either. Michael Geist notes that folks like Paul McCartney and Elton John have come out against the proposal as well. So, ISPs think it's terrible. Music fans think it's terrible. Musicians think it's terrible. Who's left? Oh, just some dying industries who have done everything possible not to innovate for a decade. But they sure do spend money on lobbyists.

Filed Under: david lammy, elton john, paul mccartney, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Companies: mpaa

BSA Jumps Onto The Three Strikes Bandwagon

from the with-some-weasel-words dept

So, this was really weird. I was having an instant messenger chat with a colleague here about the various "three strikes" proposals that have been popping up around the world, and he asked me whether or not the BSA had taken a stance on the issue. I noted not remembering hearing anything from them on it, and assumed that it was because the BSA mainly focuses on business users, for which a three strikes policy is not really an issue, and that the BSA would hopefully realize that cutting people off from the internet would almost certainly hurt the software industry a lot more than help it. But, literally 10 seconds after I sent that last text, I flipped over to my RSS reader and up popped an article about how the BSA has come out in favor of a three strikes plan. Freaky.

Guess I should have known better than to assume the BSA was smarter than the RIAA on this issue. As the article at Ars explains, the BSA tries to put in a bunch of caveats about due process and judicial oversight, but spends a bunch of time in its statement explaining how ISPs can get around all that due process and judicial oversight by simply putting three strikes into their contractual language -- meaning that they can just decide on their own to cut users off. Good luck with that.

More troubling, however, is that when questioned about the new statement by Ars Technica, the BSA said it was necessary because "last year our industry lost over $50 billion (USD) worldwide." Hmm. It's really quite troubling that the BSA still stands by these numbers when they've been debunked so thoroughly over and over again. They count the "retail value" of every piece of software as being "lost," which is clearly a lie. Five years ago, the research company that runs these studies for the BSA, IDG, flat out said that the BSA was wrong in claiming that "the retail value" of the software is the same as "losses." So why does the BSA continue to get away with claiming it?

Filed Under: contracts, copyright, software, three strikes
Companies: bsa