Lessons From Prince's Legacy And Struggle With Digital Music Markets

from the innovative,-but-controlling dept

Undeniably, Prince’s death last week marked the loss of a true musical genius and maverick. In his life, he was known for being a talented musical innovator with flamboyant clothes and a contrarian streak. He was adept at a range of instruments, as well as in multiple genres of music including funk, jazz, pop, rock, and R&B.

As broadly gifted an artist as he was, Prince never quite found the right approach when it came to licensing his music for distribution -- in spite of the fact that sold over 100 million records, placing him among the best-selling artists of all-time. He won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and seven Grammys, among other accolades. His massive discography includes 50 albums, 104 singles, 136 music videos, among other creative works. And yet his fans were left in the odd position, on the news of his death, of being frequently unable to provide links to Prince’s massive oeuvre.

Like David Bowie, who died only a few months earlier this year, Prince was constantly reinventing himself throughout his career. But one key reason for his reinvention -- at different times, he was known by “Prince,” “Jamie Starr,” an unpronounceable glyph, and perhaps most notoriously, as “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince” -- was his unhappiness with his record labels, and later with digital/Internet distribution.

And even now, if you’re looking to listen to your favorite Prince tracks on popular digital music services like Spotify or Apple Music, you’re out of luck. While you can find some live performances on YouTube, and a couple exceptions like his single “Stare” on Spotify, the streaming rights to his music are licensed exclusively through Tidal -- a niche subscription-only service owned by Jay Z.

You can see why Prince may have been attracted to Tidal as a service. Since its launch in late 2014, a number of major artists have embraced it, offering exclusive releases and touting the service’s better deal for artists. Indeed, Tidal purports to “pay the highest percentage of royalties to artists, songwriters and producers of any music streaming service.”

But it’s hard to see how it would make business sense to exclusively license with them, as Prince did. For one thing, it’s not entirely clear that Tidal’s rates are that much better than Spotify. Respectively, they each claim to pay out 75% and 70% of their revenues to rights holders. Yet, Tidal has also claimed that they pay out four times Spotify’s royalty rate.

Vania Schlogel, then executive at Tidal, clarified their rates in an interview for the Hollywood Reporter

There was some confusion on the Internet about whether “royalty rate” was a percentage of Tidal’s total revenue. According to Schlogel, it is. The industry standard royalty rate, she says, is 70% (roughly 60% to record labels, roughly 10% to artists via publishers). Tidal pays 62.5% and 12.5% (which equals the 75% Jay Z is referring to).

This makes their base royalty rate going to artists 25% higher than Spotify. But Tidal also has about 45% of their subscribers on a $19.99 per month premium tier. This would make the share of revenue going to artists around 80% higher.

That’s a lot more! Artists should all be switching to exclusive deals with them, right? Well...not so fast. Spotify alone has 30 million paying subscribers. 100 million if you include ad-supported free tier listeners. Apple Music has another 11 million paid subscribers. Compare that with Tidal’s relatively paltry 3 million. Not to mention commercial distribution to YouTube’s 1 billion active users, or the dozen other streaming services out there.

Assuming those subscribers have comparable activity profiles, it wouldn’t make business sense even if they paid ten times the royalty rate -- at which point it would be more than total revenue. Although, artists can do whatever they want. It’s a free market (sort of).

But for Prince, his embrace of Tidal may not have been just about royalty rates. Rather, it may have been a reflection of his proclivity to assert tight control of his brand. As Vox’s Constance Grade writes:

It's classic Prince: Tidal is the best program not only because it pays better, but because it gives him the most control over his music and his persona. And Prince never let someone else control his persona if he could help it.

This was fully consistent with the character of a man who preferred to play small, intimate venues even when he could have been selling-out stadiums.

But making music less accessible poses serious challenges for artists and consumers alike. For one thing, as English singer/songwriter Lily Allen explains, it will reinvigorate incentives for piracy (notably, she has also had an interesting relationship with Techdirt):

I love Jay Z so much, but Tidal is (so) expensive compared to other perfectly good streaming services, he's taken the biggest artists ... Made them exclusive to Tidal (am I right in thinking this?), people are going to swarm back to pirate sites in droves ... Sending traffic to torrent sites.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, when Kanye West decided to release his album The Life of Pablo exclusively on Tidal, it was pirated over 500,000 times in its first day alone -- drawing fire for reinvigorating online music piracy.

A recent study by Columbia University (among other research including the Copia Institute’s “The Carrot Or The Stick?”) confirms that providing access to good legal alternatives is effective at reducing online piracy -- particularly among young people. To take another example, the rise of Spotify in Sweden was followed by a major decline in music sharing on the Pirate Bay. According to Copia’s study, “a similar move was not seen in the file sharing of TV shows and movies...until Netflix opened its doors in Sweden.”

During his career, Prince also flirted with various album release strategies, and explored ways to cut out the middleman by going fully independent.

Prince’s strategy was visionary, but ahead of its time. A solution that’s just now coming of age is blockchain-driven smart contracts for digital music consumption. If they catch on, they could cut out the middleman and transparently distribute revenues directly to artists behind a given work, according to pre-arranged terms. Prototype service Ujo is already doing it with artist Imogen Heap’s single “Tiny Human.” So, in actuality, perhaps Jay Z should be more worried about blockchain than Spotify.

Indeed, as streaming becomes the dominant revenue source in the music market, and consumers continue to shift away from physical media and digital downloads, the pressure from artists will only increase as they seek more transparency, and a stronger ability to renegotiate their share of revenues from all sides (but particularly from labels).

On Twitter, Allen echoed this sentiment, writing that rather than demonizing streaming services, artists should look towards the hefty cut of revenue taken by labels:

For Prince, online streaming services were just the latest challenge in his complex relationship engaging with evolving digital markets. Like Bowie, Prince was a digital pioneer -- among the first to embrace the Internet’s potential to create a direct relationship with his fans. In 2001, he opened one of the first music subscription services, NPG Music Club, which was open for 5 years. In 2009, this was succeeded by lotusflow3r.com. As the Wall Street Journal describes it:

LotusFlow3r.com, resembled a galactic aquarium, featuring doodads like a rotating orb that played videos. The promise: fans who ponied up $77 for a year-long membership would receive the three new albums, plus an ensuing flow of exclusive content, like unreleased tracks and archival videos.

It was also met with a mixed reception, and a year after its launch, it went dark.

Ultimately, as the Internet came of age, Prince met it with increasing resistance. Likely, he saw his ability to assert control slipping away. He wasn’t a fan of people repurposing his work in the analog era, so why should we expect him to embrace a digital one -- where it’s far easier to remix, edit, dub and repurpose? As Mike Masnick explains, Prince became a militant enforcer of his intellectual property, who played fast and loose with the law in his litigiousness:

He's also gone legal a bunch of times, suing a bunch of websites, threatening fan sites for posting photos and album covers on their sites, suing musicians for creating a tribute album for his birthday, issuing DMCA takedowns for videos that have his barely audible music playing in the background and 6-second Vine clips that are clearly fair use.

At one point, he even declared that the Internet is a fad, rebelling against a model that wouldn’t work on his terms:

The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it.

(At this point he could have styled himself “The Prince of Denial.” He even deleted his Facebook and Twitter accounts.)

Famously, Prince, via Universal Music, was responsible for the infamous “dancing baby” DMCA takedown over a video featuring Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” playing faintly in the background of a short clip as a toddler danced*. Ultimately our friends at EFF, who were representing Stephanie Lenz, prevailed on their fair use claim. In 2013, EFF awarded him their “Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award” for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”

Despite all the digital-copyright agitation Prince managed to generate in the steps he took to express his unhappiness with Internet distribution channels -- and despite his insistence, it doesn’t seem as if the Internet is “over” quite yet -- he will of course be remembered primarily for his genius as a songwriter, performer, and producer. And, also, as a visionary. Although he passed away just before the rise of virtual reality and mixed reality technologies, one can only imagine him as someone who would have embraced it. Even if imperfectly.

Ironically, given his virtuosity and lasting impact on pop music, limiting his digital distribution, and the ability of his fans to find new creative uses for his work, makes it orders of magnitude more difficult for fans to bring his music to new generations of listeners, who may never know what all the fuss about Prince was about. And that’s a shame.

* Post updated to reflect that while Prince/Universal sent the initial DMCA takedown, it was Lenz and EFF who brought the lawsuit for that takedown.

Filed Under: access, control, copyright, culture, exclusivity, fans, jay-z, kanye west, licensing, lily allen, music, prince, streaming
Companies: spotify, tidal, youtube

Lily Allen Said To Be Suing Apple Over Her Hacked Laptop... But Details Are Scarce And Hazy

from the huh? dept

Reader technofear was the first of a few of you to send over variations on the story that Lily Allen is allegedly suing Apple to force the company to help her figure out who hacked into her laptop. At least that's about all I can figure out from the various press reports. I've read about a dozen at this point, and all of them are incredibly vague. There's a hacked laptop. There's a request to Apple, which was refused, and then there was a "lawsuit." While I'm not sure how UK law works on this topic, if it were in the US, it sounds more like a situation where she's seeking someone's IP address, and is filing for a subpoena (or something like it) to compel Apple to reveal certain information which may identify who was involved. That's not quite "suing Apple," but again, the details are vague. It's also not clear what "hacked her laptop" means... or why Apple would have the details. Is there anyone out there who has actual details beyond the absolutely awful press reports?

Filed Under: hacking, lawsuit, lily allen
Companies: apple

Dan Bull Recaps How Home Taping Killed Music With His Latest Song

from the sing-along-everyone dept

Dan Bull, who wrote, recorded and made videos for his brilliant open letters to both Lily Allen and Peter Mandelson, was asked by UK ISP TalkTalk if he would be interested in creating a new song concerning the Digital Economy Bill. In response, Bull created this lovely song reminding us all about the old home taping is killing music argument: Make sure your sarcasm meter is properly tuned before watching... Best lines? "Home sewing's killing fashion, Home cooking's killing fast food, Home sleeping's killing hotels." Enjoy.

Filed Under: dan bull, digital economy bill, lily allen, peter mandelson
Companies: talk talk

Dear Peter Mandelson... Dan Bull Sings His Opposition To Kicking People Off The Internet

from the go-dan-bull dept

Musician Dan Bull seems to be carving out a nice space for himself responding to UK efforts to make copyright law more ridiculous than it already is, by voicing his opposition in song. A few months back, we wrote about his awesome open letter to Lily Allen (full disclosure: I get a brief mention) and now he's informed us that he's back again with an open letter (in song) to Peter Mandelson, called Dear Mandy: I wonder if someone rich and famous has to buy Mandelson dinner before he'll actually listen to it.

Filed Under: dan bull, lily allen, peter mandelson, songs

Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free

from the confusion dept

Dark Helmet alerts us to the news that our good friend Lily Allen is back in the news discussing file sharing again. Tragically, it does not appear that she's used her "time off" to better understand copyright issues very much. Unlike nearly everyone else who complains about copyright infringement, she's apparently "all for" infringing on her copyrights, just so long as you pay someone -- even if it's the guy on the street selling the counterfeit CDs. Seriously:

"If someone comes up with a burnt copy of my CD and offers it to you for £4 I haven't a problem with that as long as the person buying it places some kind of value on my music."

Yes, so while some musicians have said they're fine with non-commercial file sharing, but are against anyone selling their unauthorized works, Ms. Allen seems to have taken the opposite approach. Counterfeit all you want, just as long as you profit from it. Yeah. Someone should explain to her the difference between price and value, and also the benefits of word of mouth marketing. But, it doesn't seem like she's much interested in actually understanding this stuff, so if you want to help her understand, maybe go set up a shop selling burned copies of her CDs, and see what happens.

Of course, if we take this seriously, it shows how little she's thought this through. Her earlier complaint was that when people file share, they don't provide money back to the artists and the labels. Of course, when counterfeiters are selling on the street, the same thing is true, but suddenly it's okay? At what point does the world realize that Ms. Allen doesn't know what she's talking about?

Filed Under: cds, commercial use, copying, copyright, counterfeiting, infringement, lily allen

Grammy Winner: If You're A Good Musician, You Have Nothing To Fear With Piracy

from the but-if-you're-bad... dept

Last year, we wrote about Grammy award wining singer Joss Stone and her opinions on file sharing where she said she "loves it" and thinks "it's brilliant." More recently, Stone was asked about her EMI labelmate Lily Allen's recent misguided attack on file sharing (even as she, with the help of EMI, was file sharing a ton of tracks). Stone's response, as noted at Freakbits, is basically that musicians who are good have nothing to fear, but she could see why musicians who aren't very good (apparently, she means Ms. Allen) do have reason to fear:

"She [Lily Allen] needs to sell records because she's not a singer, and that's not an offense to her because I think that she knows that too," says Stone.

"...when musicians are really making real music people come to the show and that's what we make our money from, from playing live. And I think it's probably harder for an artist like Lily and many other pop acts. It's really about the track and about their personality and their celebrity and that's how they make their money is selling those records."

Stone says that Lily cannot win a fight against music piracy, and for that matter, neither can anyone else.

"So let's just accept it and let's see it as something that can be beautiful and it might change music for the better," she says pragmatically. "It might sort the weeds from the flowers."

Filed Under: joss stone, lily allen, piracy

A Song For Lily Allen... And A Little Conversation

from the but-no-abuse dept

All weekend, I've been inundated via email, Twitter, the submission page and more, from people all pointing me to musician Dan Bull's brilliant musical "open letter" to Lily Allen in response to the whole kerfuffle last week concerning Lily Allen's decision to speak out against musicians who said they disagreed with plans to kick file sharers off the internet. I wasn't sure if it was worth posting, because I began to feel like some might view it as piling on -- and the purpose here was never to drag anyone down or abuse anyone. I thought I had been clear about that in each and every one of my posts -- and, for the most part, all of the conversations and discussions I'd seen on the topic were quite reasonable and fair. My posts never attacked Ms. Allen, but tried to raise the level of discourse, asking her to respond to certain questions -- and at the same time highlight how her position was, in fact, a bit hypocritical, seeing as she had been doing many of the same things that she said were destroying the industry.

And yet, with Ms. Allen shutting down the blog, and claiming it was because of "abuse," some people have started accusing me of "bullying" Ms. Allen. An IP lawyer in our comments insists that I am somehow bullying her in simply asking questions. One recording industry lawyer accused me of "leading" my "internet army" of "hackers" to "attack" any artist who agreed with Allen (what?!?). Then there was the major publication that claimed that Techdirt was upset about Allen copying our blog post and that we had "suddenly discovered the power of copyright." Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong point there, seeing as we made no copyright claim at all, were happy that she copied our post, and merely used it as a teaching moment to show why everything wasn't nearly as clear cut as Ms. Allen believed. Suddenly, just because Ms. Allen cried "abuse," despite no evidence of any actual abuse, her supporters started assuming that it must be me who was doing the "abusing."

The whole thing has become rather insane, frankly. But I'm not afraid to respond to folks who raise reasonable questions. I don't shut down and hide when someone brings up points that weren't addressed. Ms. Allen kicked this whole thing off and claimed she was just trying to start a discussion. And we responded, by pointing out the inconsistencies in her position. That wasn't an attack. Plenty of people who first jump into a debate on copyright or file sharing don't fully understand the issues -- and the best way to help them get past those initial misconceptions is to ask important questions, and highlight how the issue is a lot more complex than it may appear at first blush. The fact that Ms. Allen was distributing others' copyrighted music on her own, and used that to help build her popularity -- while now claiming that the same activity by others was destroying the opportunity for new artists made little sense -- and the double standard seemed worth calling out. And, despite her deleting her blog, some actually saved many of the comments on her blog. And, again, they don't show "abuse," but thoughtful, reasoned argument along these lines -- none of which Ms. Allen has responded to as of yet. That post, by the way, also highlights numerous factual errors in Ms. Allen's earlier responses.

So, yes, I'm going to post this video, because I think it's great (and catchy) and because I think it does further the conversation, just not in the direction that Ms. Allen intended. It's from a fan of Ms. Allen's work, and is endearing, not attacking. It's entertaining. It's free... and it got me to go and buy Dan Bull's first album, even though he's offering it up for free, too. Ms. Allen wanted a conversation and she claims she wanted more new music. Well, here's both in one shot: This isn't "abuse." This isn't an "attack." This is, as all of my posts on this subject have been, an attempt to get Ms. Allen to actually think through these issues and answer some questions which it appears she has not considered. If reaching her by song is the way to do it, then that would be wonderful. However, I fear that she's decided to declare victory and walk away, rather than address any of the points raised.

While lots of people have picked up on various aspects of the song, the two points that I think are most relevant are pointing out that downloads don't equal sales, so stopping downloads (or kicking people off the internet) doesn't make people pay up. This is a point we've been raising for ages, and no one ever responds. The industry seems to think that magically people will start paying. And yet, there's no evidence of that whatsoever.

The second point is sarcastic, but is really a good one. Dan Bull jokes that using the same logic of people who think that stopping piracy (as if that's possible) will make people buy more music, perhaps we should ban CDs, because (according to this logic) "then people would have to pay to see bands for real." There's a huge disconnect here. The people who think that blocking activity online (and, remember, study after study after study has shown that "pirates" end up spending a lot more on music) will drive more of some other buying activity have no sense of economic history.

Taking away what fans want to do doesn't drive them to paying you more money. It drives them towards others who actually treat fans right. Like Dan Bull.

Filed Under: conversation, copyright, dan bull, lily allen

Lily Allen No Longer in Favor Of Kicking People Offline... Just Cutting Back Their Bandwidth

from the um.-ok. dept

Well, this is getting particularly silly now. Despite claiming that she wasn't going to the meeting of various musicians in the UK to discuss Peter Mandelson's "three strikes" proposal, Lily Allen apparently did show up and said that kicking people offline was too draconian. This is, at least, a modest victory for those of us who questioned her stance. Still... it wasn't a wholesale shift. The musicians instead still agreed to support a similar three strikes plan, that just had a slightly less onerous "final solution," involving taking away most of a user's bandwidth:

"Our meeting voted to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter, and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringers' bandwith to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic e-mail and web access functional."

That's still a pretty big overreaction to such things -- especially since none of these artists have been able to respond to the basic questions posed by many of us, asking for any evidence that the problem they face is actually unauthorized file sharing, rather than a shift in technologies and business models. Again, as we've pointed out countless times, the size of the overall UK music industry is growing, not shrinking, and those who have put in place business models that embrace file sharing have seen their own markets grow, not shrink. So, it's hard to see how the claim that "file sharing" harms the industry squares with reality. Instead, it sounds like a failure to adapt a business model is harming some artists, while other, smarter artists are doing just fine.

The group also condemned the vitriol that Allen had faced on an internet blog that she had set up to argue against music piracy.

Now, I certainly condemn any such "vitriol" as well, but again, nearly every comment I saw on the later posts on her blog were quite well thought out and well-argued. There was a lot of silly and condemnable comments on her earlier posts, but later posts brought up very good questions -- all of which Lily refused to respond to. So, I'm still having trouble believing that she shut down the blog due to any vitriol -- even if the press seems to be accepting that claim uncritically. It's also quite telling that she shut down the blog just after attention was brought to the fact that Lily herself was sharing a ton of music in the form of mixtapes.

It still seems a lot more likely that she shut down her blog not because of any vitriol, but because she was unable to respond to those questions. In fact, the brief response she had up, claimed that the mixtapes only used 30 seconds to 1 minute of songs. However, those who downloaded the mixtapes claim this is not true, and most of the songs appear to be complete versions. Furthermore, she claimed she made the mixtapes five years ago, but her own blog posts suggest it was more like three years ago... So, again, this is not vitriol, and while I'm sure there are some vitriolic commenters out there, I find it rather weak that Lily and these other musicians are refusing to respond to some very serious questions by hiding behind a claim that she was somehow unfairly "attacked." Playing victim when you were caught doing the very thing you condemn isn't particularly convincing.

I will say that I hope that many of those reasoned, well-thought out and carefully argued comments on Lily's blog before she erased it were part of what convinced her that her original support for cutting people off of the internet entirely was wrong. At least that was a small victory for reasoned debate. It's only unfortunate that once the debate started to reach more serious questions, she stopped participating. And, once again, given that she, herself, appeared to have shared a large amount of music, I have to ask if she's willing to accept the same limitations on her internet access that she came out in support of tonight. Will she accept limited bandwidth, so she can do basic web surfing and email, but no more? If not, how is that fair?

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: fac, featured artist coalition

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