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

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

New Infringement Defense? 'We Don't Roll That Way'

from the well,-there's-that... dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the story of how some of the major record labels are suing the Ellen DeGeneres show for not paying for clips of music that the show uses during something called the "dance over" portion of the show. Not having ever watched the show, I don't know, but it sounds like a brief clip of music used as an interlude between parts of the show. As plenty of people are pointing out along with their submissions, this seems pretty silly. It's not like hearing these brief musical interludes is likely to harm the market for this music. If anything, it sounds like it would only increase interest in that music from the fans watching the show. Also, it does seem a bit odd that the show would be sued just as DeGeneres is named as a judge for American Idol (though, it's important to note that it's the producers of the show being sued, not DeGeneres herself).

However, I have to admit that the most fascinating part of the lawsuit to me is the piece pointed out by Whitney McNamara discussing how those producers first responded when the labels first asked the show why they hadn't licensed the music:

According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn't obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn't "roll that way."

That won't get you very far in court, but is pretty damn funny. The response from the record labels wasn't too bad either:

"As sophisticated consumers of music, Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully."

Even though it makes little sense to me, the labels are almost certainly right here, and will almost certainly win. If, somehow, the show producers could convince a judge that this use of the music was fair use, that would be a huge victory for fair use -- but seems (unfortunately) quite unlikely. Either way, the "we don't roll that way" defense is quite amusing -- especially coming from TV producers who you would think normally fall on the "stronger copyright law" side of the fence. Imagine if a file sharer used that response?

Filed Under: ellen degeneres, fair use, infringement, music

And What's The Deal With Copyright Misuse? Seinfeld Cookbook Doesn't Infringe

from the you-can't-copyright-an-idea dept

Do we need some sort of anti-SLAPP-type law against bogus copyright lawsuits over similar ideas rather than actual copying? We've seen quite a trend in such lawsuits especially concerning people who claim to have had an idea for a similar book, movie or TV show. But, of course, copyright is supposed to be clear: it's for the expression, not the idea. Of course, at times it's quite difficult to separate the two, and with our society always talking up "ownership" of content, it's perhaps no surprise that many people seem to think that they get to own certain ideas. And then they file lawsuits.

The latest such case involves Jessica Seinfeld, Jerry's wife, who published a cookbook, "Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food." It's a pretty straightforward idea, and apparently the book has done well. That upset the author of another book on the same topic, who had apparently pitched the book idea (and had it rejected) by the publisher of Seinfeld's cookbook -- so she sued for copyright infringement. But, again, copyright doesn't cover ideas -- something you would think her lawyer would understand. Thankfully, the judge quickly tossed the case, while also taking the time to issue a bit of a thumbs-down review of the cookbook by the woman suing:

"Lapine's cookbook is a dry, rather text-heavy work," Judge Laura Taylor Swain of Federal District Court wrote in her review, while Ms. Seinfeld's "cookbook has a completely different feel and appears to be directed to a different audience."

On top of the ruling, interestingly, many people are recognizing that these types of lawsuits are really no more than PR stunts by the less-well-known author to jump on the publicity bandwagon of a best-selling author. Seinfeld's lawyers are claiming that the woman suing was just using the lawsuit as a publicity attempt, which is similar to what we've seen in other lawsuits like this one. That's why it makes sense to set up significant sanctions for actions like this, where it's clearly not a case of copyright infringement, and the lawsuit is almost certainly designed not to right some wrong, but to use the justice system as part of a PR campaign.

Filed Under: cookbooks, copyright, ideas, infringement, jessica seinfeld

Trying To Apply Rules Designed For Publications To... Coffee Cans?

from the tricky-laws dept

One of the common problems that we run into all the time is seeing courts trying to apply laws that were meant for a specific scenario to a totally different scenario. Take, for example, the question of the use of a photo on a coffee can. Let's say the photo is "infringing" on some right that was originally created to deal with publications such as newspapers or magazines. How do you figure out when the coffee can was "published"? Or is it even "published" at all? And is it republished every time a new can is sold? That's an issue faced by the California court system, as it struggles to figure out what counts as publication with a coffee can. It seems the courts agree that the coffee can is covered by a "single-publication" rule, meaning that if the image on the can is infringing or defamatory, it only counts as a single publication. But, where it's still struggling is on the date of publication issue. That's because, in this particular case, there's a statute of limitations of two years from the date of publication. But is that just when the first coffee can was sold? Or is the date of publication a running tally, so long as the cans keep being sold? And then, suddenly, you wonder: wait, why are we so concerned about infringement on a coffee can?

Filed Under: coffee can, defamation, infringement, publishing

Judge In IsoHunt Case Tells MPAA It Needs To Actually Prove Infringement By US Residents

from the well,-that's-a-first dept

This is a first. In the trial that the movie studios have brought against torrent search engine Isohunt, the judge has pushed back on the MPAA's claims, noting that it has failed to show any evidence of actual infringement by US users. In the past, groups like the MPAA and the RIAA have been able to get by without ever proving real infringement, but just by suggesting it must be happening. So this is quite a surprise. It makes the Isohunt case one to watch more seriously. The company may still lose the lawsuit, but at least the judge seems to want to see actual evidence, rather than having Hollywood execs insisting that these sites are killing their business just because they say so.

Filed Under: bittorrent, copyright, file sharing, infringement, proof
Companies: isohunt, mpaa

iiNet Says Complying With Anti-Piracy Complaints Would Violate Telecom Laws

from the privacy-anyone? dept

We've been following the lawsuit down in Australia, where AFACT, the local entertainment industry "anti-piracy" group, has sued ISP iiNet, complaining that the ISP refused to do anything when it would send over infringement notices. From the beginning, iiNet's response has been clear:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

AFACT continues to insist that iiNet should be responsible for becoming copyright cops themselves, and had won an early battle, forcing iiNet to hand over "sample" records of users. However, Big Al points us to the latest news, where iiNet is claiming that not complying with AFACT's usual demands (it is handing over the sample data after working out the details) isn't just an issue of iiNet not wanting to be AFACT's enforcer, but that it violates Australia's telecom act, and could be a serious breach of privacy laws:

"Under the Act, it is illegal for iiNet to use customers' personal information in the manner demanded by AFACT without a court order or warrant. Breaches of the privacy provisions of the Act can attract a two-year gaol sentence."

Separately, iiNet noted:

"To examine customer communications on the basis of a third party's allegations would be a criminal act for us to engage in."

"Our starting position on this would be there is good public policy reasons for why Australia Post should not be opening your letters. And good reasons for why carriers should not be listening to your phone calls or looking at what you download. Our view is that would constitute a criminal offence."

It should come as no surprise that AFACT isn't buying this, calling it a "very novel" argument and one it hadn't seen before, and claiming that IP address information is not the sort of information that's meant to be included under the telco act, since it's not really "confidential." This case just gets more and more fun to watch (though, if I had to guess, iiNet's arguments probably won't prevail).

Filed Under: australia, copyright, infringement, isps, liability
Companies: afact, iinet

Insurance Company Sues Website Offering Claim Advice... Saying It's Infringing

from the entitlement-culture dept

Yet another example of "entitlement culture," as companies misuse intellectual property law to try to prop up questionable business models, comes in this latest story, sent in by Jesse. An insurance company in British Columbia, Canada, called ICBC, is suing a website that offers advice on how not to get your insurance claim denied. Obviously, for policy holders, this is useful information. But, to ICBC, it's copyright infringement. Well, at least that's what the article linked above says. I have a hard time seeing how there's a copyright claim here -- especially since the ICBC spokesperson states that they don't have a problem with the content, and that they just have to protect their trademark. So... let's give ICBC the benefit of the doubt and assume the newspaper reporter screwed up, and this is actually a trademark claim rather than a copyright claim (professional reporters for the win, again!). Even so, this would seem like a typical "gripes site" type discussion where, as long as it's clear that the site in question is not run by the company, there shouldn't be any problem. In fact, given that the site provides useful information for ICBC customers, it's difficult to see what the problem is, other than that the insurance company doesn't like its policy holders to learn how to stand up for their rights.

Filed Under: gripes site, infringement, insurance, trademark
Companies: icbc

Instead Of Nasty Lawsuit Against Counterfeiter... Why Not Look At Partnership Opportunities?

from the not-everything-needs-a-lawsuit dept

It's all too common for IP lawyers to go to the legal nastygram first, rather than recognizing that perhaps the "infringement" is an opportunity. Take, for example, this (amusing) story about how when Prada, the famous design company, first got started, Miuccia Prada got angry about someone making knockoff products. Except... rather than sue Patrizio Bertelli, who was making the knockoffs, she was convinced by him to make use of his manufacturing capabilities, and the two teamed up... even to the point of eventually getting married to each other. Obviously, that's a pretty extreme example, but the key point is worth repeating: sometimes the better solution is not to freak out and sue over infringement, but to see if that infringement can be used to your advantage.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, infringement, opportunity, partnership
Companies: prada