Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    iNtrigued (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:39am

    Futile efforts...

    I always get a kick out of people who have the misguided idea that they can have even the slightest effect on illegal downloading.

    On a side note, thought this quote from Albert Einstein was relevant, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." That man was truly a friggin GENIUS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:40am

    I think it's "ovious" that Lily Allen needs a spellchecker (or a brain, but I think the former is easier to obtain).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:44am

    Jammie, are you listening?

    All she has to do is apologize in all caps and that ridiculous judgement goes away, no?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    hank mitchell, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:51am

    Check out the comments on her site about the issue, some are quite insightful -- for instance "ephesus" -- ephesus said..." I think it's quite obvious that I wasn't trying to pass off those downloaded CDs as my own. Here is a link to the torrent site I acquired the piece from..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:51am

    Only an idiot doesn't know how to graciously accept an apology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:52am

    Another "Reason to Buy"

    Mike's new Video-On-Demand system is definitely top of the line. It has joystick controls, and zoom functions.

    I am watching Mike on the feed right now, and thinking about calling the health department because that slice of pizza with the white fuzzies on it has to be at least three weeks old.

    Bravo. I'll let you know when it gets out of beta.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Only an idiot apologizes for something that does not need an apology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Actually, I found one that I thought was even funnier, and one that was a bit alarming.

    1. Bas said "First warning. 2 more and you'll get cut off from the internet, Lilly ;-)", which I thought was effing hysterical.

    2. Some commentor pointed her to www.ip-echelon.com and offered her free IP conulting services. Mike, have you ever done any posts on this group? Or heard of them? They have some truly frightening literature on their website, and I find the Echelon reference to be rather ominous...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:56am

    Re: AC comment #5

    Graciously accept an apology?? What the heck kind of apology is shouted (all caps). She didn't even bother to spell check or use proper grammar. Besides, she didn't even apologize for the correct thing. She didn't need to apologize for the quote, she needed to apologize for being such a hypocrite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 10:57am

    Re: Another "Reason to Buy"

    Oh dear. I just realized this wasn't Mike's "Video on demand" system, and that wasn't pizza.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    R4ltman, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:11am

    enough already

    key words to contextualize the internet and its inherent promotional ramifications

    rear view mirror, horseless carriage, to paraphrase: people have this idealized version of the past and apply it to the present.

    the people are content commodifiers (big media)
    the idealized version, is basically, BN (b4 napster)
    marinate and your welcome

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Eo Nomine, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:14am

    "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."

    Again, how is re-posting a post from TechDirt "copying another's work without permission" when Mike has given open permission for anyone to copy and use TechDirt posts as they see fit? If someone posts material that they did not need permission to copy, how is expressing frustration at those who do use material without permission "a bit hypocritical"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:16am

    Re:

    But Mike never wanted an apology, he just wanted her to see the irony in what happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:18am

    Anyone else notice how she apparently doesn't even know how to make a hyperlink, and just pastes the address in?

    I'm getting the impression that she is just another person with only the faintest understanding of what the web is and how it works. The only thing exceptional about her is that she is slightly younger than most people who are that ignorant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:19am

    Yeah but...

    "1. Bas said "First warning. 2 more and you'll get cut off from the internet, Lilly ;-)", which I thought was effing hysterical."

    Funny, yes, and ironic, but you DO realize that, according to the big copyright conglomerates that this ONLY applies to individual file sharers, those scum "pirates", and not to anyone actually IN those industries? You see, the double standard applies, and until or unless you understand that, your well thought out and logical "good for the goose, good for the gander" points will fall on deaf ears. Hypocrisy only goes one way, after all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:29am

    Arguing like a 1st grader with a celebrity doesn't make your ideas right. It just makes you look like a spoiled brat like Lily.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:31am

    'Again, how is re-posting a post from TechDirt "copying another's work without permission" when Mike has given open permission for anyone to copy and use TechDirt posts as they see fit? If someone posts material that they did not need permission to copy, how is expressing frustration at those who do use material without permission "a bit hypocritical"?'

    She didn't attribute it, though. It is common courtesy to attribute the source of a quote, especially if you are a copyright maximalist.

    And remember, the post in question was talking about 50 Cents attitude toward file sharing. He said he was OK with it, and she said that this was selfish of him, and that he shouldn't be OK with it. So even if the copyright owner is OK with people infringing, she was saying it is still wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:37am

    Lilly, how do you think Joe Strummer would react to your anti-fan/pro-recording industry behavior?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:39am

    Re:

    BTW, go ask Lars Ulrich how that kind of attitude worked out for him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    mobiGeek (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:40am

    Re:

    I'm getting the impression that she is just another person with only the faintest understanding of what the web is and how it works.

    I'm getting the impression that she is just another person who doesn't really understand how the world works. Knee-jerk reaction to a situation, likely couldn't explain why she thinks "piracy" is bad other than "because" and "OMG" and "like, like".

    Yes, piracy is bad like the record man says it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:44am

    Funny

    Just laughed so hard I soda up my nose .....

    "I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT I WASNT TRYING TO PASS OF THAT SONG "FUCK YOU" AS MY OWN , HERE IS A LINK TO THE TORRENT SIITE I ACQUIRED THE PIECE FROM . Apologies to Lily Allen"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:45am

    Re:

    You're being pedantic. You know damn well what gist of his post was saying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:45am

    Re:

    His point is that she's guilty of the "crime" she's criticizing. That's the hypocrisy.

    I don't think any of the pro-sharing side is frustrated either. I think we all just think it's funny that in a post about not copying, she copies. The 2 more strikes and she's off the internet is comment is hilarious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:50am

    Re: Futile efforts...

    I always get a kick out of people who have the misguided idea that they can have even the slightest effect on illegal downloading.
    It reminds me of a tale from long ago (well the 70s actually).

    The operators of the University's mainframe computer kept a number of lineprinter picture files, they were used as a quick way of testing the full width of the drum and the character set. The older ones among you may remember the Mona Lisa, Snoopy etc etc. Users would print them out from time to time to put on their walls.

    At some point the authorities decided that this was a waste of paper and put the pictures into a protected directory where users couldn't get them. Of course a few people had made their own copies already and these copies quickly multiplied as people shared them around. So now file storage space (then an expensive commodity) was being wasted as well as paper.

    Of course the authorities didn't stand still, they started looking at all the large files on the system and deleting any picture files that they found. As you will probably have guessed they couldn't complete this process before the word got around and people quickly encrypted their files to look like innocent experimental datasets. These files were of course bigger than the original pictures so now paper, even more file store and CPU (then expensive) and man hours were being expended and the problem wasn't fixed.

    Everything they do will make the file sharing "problem" worse and more expensive, When will they learn?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:56am

    Re:

    The apology isn't even apologizing for the right thing. A proper apology would have been about how in a previous post she neglected to reference her material properly. The statement "I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT I WASNT TRYING TO PASS OF THOSE WORDS AS MY OWN" is quite the aggressive stance to take at the start of an apology and doesn't even bother to address anything relevant. "I think it's quite obvious that I wasn't trying to break your vase mother, here I have replaced/fixed it." Sounds kind of strange doesn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    Yes cause first graders say "Don't apologize to me because none was warranted in the first place apologize to everyone else that you have truly wronged!" on a normal basis. Exactly how many first graders do you know that speak like this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Josh - To common a name. This is me. (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Another "Reason to Buy"

    OMG. I just spilled my soda trying not to laugh and drink it at the same time. Nice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    brent (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:01pm

    "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."

    In all fairness I don't think she did the same thing, because she always has and always will have your permission to use your blog posts Mike. I think you misstated that and meant that she probably should have at least referenced your article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Lily Allen is a dumbass. She probably didn't even realize you were calling her a hypocrite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Michael Talpas (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:07pm

    Re:

    According to copyright law, however, even if you have a blanket statement on your website saying, "Please, take this content and do what thou wilt with i," it doesn't matter. The material is still copyrighted and you did not request permission to use it.

    On the other hand, using any material, even material you have been given permission to use, without attribution is plagiarism. Even though Mike has given permission to do that, it doesn't matter much.

    The point here is, Lily Allen was criticizing a man for letting other people 'steal' or copy his material. She accused him of being selfish for not demanding that his material be bought, because it hurts everyone else in his distribution chain. While making this argument, she 'stole', or copied the material of someone who was also saying that anyone could take his stuff.

    This is hypocrisy. Stating a belief or ethic while violating that ethic is rank hypocrisy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    iNtrigued (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Futile efforts...

    Well, that is very interesting story that explains the idea perfectly.

    Those poor poor fools, they will NEVER learn. All we can do is wait until the day the current generation of kids growing up with technology assumes control. Until then, nothing will every change, because too many in power now have no idea how the internet works or how to even use it to their advantage.

    On a side note, I do give our President props for being able to utilize technology so effectively, embracing youTube... Good choice. Although, I am still waiting for the website that lists the 5 W's for our tax money being spent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Commentors just don't understand..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Michael Talpas (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:11pm

    Re:

    Actually, Brent, his point is sound.

    The point of the article is not that she did anything wrong in quoting Mike. It was that, while criticizing someone else for allowing other's to take their material, and saying that no one should ever allow others blanket permission to take their stuff, she took Mike's stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:13pm

    Let me see if I understand this correctly.

    A musician is not happy with people who download/upload her music without her permission.

    Techdirt gleefully calls her a hypocrite because she used quotes from at least techdirt, even though techdirt has made it only too clear one using its content does not need permission.

    Must be fun to lambaste a person, all the while ignoring a rather important factual distinctions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    See that? That's the point, going way over your head.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Commentors just don't understand..

    Lets simplify things a little for those who don't get it.

    Joe says I like Cake and I like to share it.
    Mike says I like Cake and I like to share it also.

    Lily says I like Cake, but Joe wanting to share his Cake is just WRONG, he isn't thinking about how sharing Cake is going to end up destroying the whole world. While she's saying this she is sitting there eating a piece of cake that she took (borrowed, shared, whatever term you want to use) from Mike without asking or even acknowledging the fact (which he's fine with).

    If you can't see the hyprocracy, then I'm sure the MPAA/RIAA have a great job waiting for you in their PR department.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Misanthropist (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:21pm

    In the past two days...

    In the past two days, I have come to the conclusion that Lily Allen is actually not smart enough to understand any issues approaching the complexity of copyright.

    As such, it's rather obvious that Lily Allen has just accepted whatever her label has told her without even attempting to think about the issue for herself.

    She's just not intelligent enough for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Comboman (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Futile efforts...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:23pm

    Re:

    "Must be fun to lambaste a person, all the while ignoring a rather important factual distinctions."

    TechDirt gives permission to use their articles as long as they are credited. They do NOT give permission to use them uncredited, but their policy is NOT TO PURSUE any violations of this nature.

    What Lily Allen did violated copyright law, regardless if a lawsuit is pursued or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    TriZz (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:26pm

    I'm not coming here anymore...

    because I can get the content from Lily Allen's blog. Thanks Lily!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:26pm

    Re: In the past two days...

    "She's just not intelligent enough for it."

    Judging by her blog, she's barely intelligent enough to use the English language.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    TriZz (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    Actually, Mike...I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second. I hope you don't mind:

    I agree with you 100% on your views on piracy, suing to sustain failing business models and the like...

    ...but this isn't comparable to her point. The theory is the same, or the crime rather...copyright infringement. But that's as far as the analogy can go, logically.

    Lily copying your post would not cost you any viewers/subscribers/page views. It could, however, cost you new viewers/subscribers/page views since someone may have been like "oh, that's brilliant" and came here to read more from you...but beyond that, you're not losing any *money* (I transitioned from viewers/subscribers/page views to "money" as I assume that's one source of income for bloggers).

    However, filesharing does take money that the artist was previously making and turns that into a loss (fans who would've have paid before are now not paying for the music).

    Now, like I said, I with you on your views...I believe the music should be a business card for the artist, but the analogy here is not so linear...

    ...but I could be missing something. I'd never challenge you on anything business related (I'm just a geek who finds this stuff interesting to help pass the day) -- but the logic in this analogy seems a bit flawed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    william (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Futile efforts...

    that's a cool story! I have never heard of this one.

    Don't mind if I pirate it and make it my own from now on... mwahahahaha. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    ChronoFish (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    She may be a hypocrite...

    ...but I still dig her music...

    -CF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    I've never heard of Lily Allen before

    But I can tell you one thing's for certain. She is definitely one of those girls who was put on this earth to be looked at, not listened to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Xander C (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Futile efforts...

    Ted: Fred, do you have those results from the last experiment?
    Fred: Why yes Ted! Go ahead and unencrypt that file over there, and print it out...

    Printer: . . . *Prints out a Duck on Wheels*

    And thus 4chan was born

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Commentors just don't understand..

    Lily Allens music (and opinions on exactly how we should further our distaste of her art) is dreadful. I'd rather pay for her silence, or is anyone who makes that scheme work thieving it from TD :)

    The cake is a lie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    ChronoFish (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:49pm

    I love the use of scanned newspapers

    Wow - could you violate a newspaper any more egregious than this?

    http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-coverage.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Guilherme, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 12:57pm

    Lilyallen pwoned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    "However, filesharing does take money that the artist was previously making and turns that into a loss (fans who would've have paid before are now not paying for the music)."

    Your problem is right here. The fallacy of this is assuming that:

    1) Every downloader would have paid without the free access.
    2) No filesharers bought the music after downloading.
    3) Every downloader had heard of Lily Allen before.

    You say that Mike is not losing money because people who had never read his articles have been pointed to them.

    That's the same point for music sharing. The percentage of the population (and even the population of internet access) who have heard of Lily Allen is small, and the same can be said for the majority of artists. No one buys something they don't know exists, and that's the case for the majority of music - people aren't even aware of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 1:15pm

    Re:

    "Must be fun to lambaste a person, all the while ignoring a rather important factual distinctions."

    You mean like the fact that she lifted the entire post, rather than "quoted" as you attempted to portray it. Oh, we are just RIFE with hypocrisy today, aren't we?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    cvpunk, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 1:18pm

    and Joe just rolled in his grave....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re:

    No...like the fact she apparently wants to be paid for her work and techdirt does not.

    A rather important distinction in the eyes of the law, but apparently irrelevant to those with the mindset "I want it free and I want it now!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    Lily apparently argued that 50 cent should not permit downloading of his music, because it undermined other people in the music business (namely, his roadies and producer). Since the roadies and producer do not get paid from royalties, she must have meant that to the extent the music industry loses business due to filesharing, it will be unable to recover production costs and producers will lose their jobs.

    Presumably, TD recovers production costs (like CPU cycles, bandwidth, sys-admin time, etc.) through a revenue stream driven by page views. Allen unquestionably took some page views. Same same.

    Admittedly, the _amount_ of harm is likely much smaller. But that is a distinction in degree, not in kind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    indeciSEAN (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:05pm

    I've seen more than a few people point out that they had checked out Lily Allen (via a forum wherein she wasn't necessarily making any money from them) but how they "definitely wouldn't support her, now".

    That's easy to say but it ends up being a wash -- your "word" that you were going to buy something probably doesn't resonate with someone like this - she'd probably just roll out with "actions speak louder than words"...

    I don't necessarily think she'd see me in any different light but regardless, I'm someone who HAS purchased her music. And I won't, ever again. Even if I was to suddenly be able to look past her personality and enjoy the stuff for what it is (fun pop), I'm not going to buy it. Period. Not now. I'm not supporting nonsense like this, I just wouldn't feel good about it.

    So there you go, Lily. It goes both ways, moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    indeciSEAN (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    "However, filesharing does take money that the artist was previously making and turns that into a loss (fans who would've have paid before are now not paying for the music)."

    Maybe. MAYBE. But I'd also garner to bet that a) a lot of people downloading her shit NEVER would've checked her out had they had to pay b) a LOT of people who heard about her did so via torrents, downloads, sharing, burned CDs, etc, and wouldn't otherwise have been buying her future releases, concert tickets, merch, etc.

    And like I just posted, I HAVE paid for her music before and now never will again because of her ignorant, poorly-informed, stupid ideology that hearing/having music "for free" doesn't make any money for her at the end of the day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:08pm

    Re:

    Only an idiot would view an all-caps tantrum like Lilly's as a genuine apology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:17pm

    Re:

    Actually, you missed the point of Lily's whole original article. She was not ranting about people downloading HER music without permission. She was inelegantly criticizing 50 Cent for saying that he does not care if people download HIS music for free. Her entire point was that it is wrong to allow people to use/take your copyrighted stuff for free. And then she used/took someone's copyrighted stuff for free. If you can't see the hypocrisy, you're blind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:18pm

    Hmm, apparently Lily has benefited greatly from free music

    I found this gem on rolling stone article about her regarding Lily's early career:
    "Allen began working on music in earnest in 2002 and with her father’s help she was signed to Warner Bros. for a short time but released no music. In 2005 she began posting demos onto her MySpace page which was getting thousands of hits and eventually led to her signing with Regal Records."

    Amazing isn't it? Early in her career she gave away her music for free (although she used a poor distribution tool) and gained fans and popularity through it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Coughing Monkey (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:20pm

    apology accepted

    can;t we all just move along? rubbing her nose in this will eventually give her a face without a nose and that will give all a painful vision. I myself do not want a painful vision. let Lilly keep her nose. She is easier to see this way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    "However, filesharing does take money that the artist was previously making and turns that into a loss (fans who would've have paid before are now not paying for the music)."

    Wrong. Your statement makes no sense. At worst, it takes money the artist was previously making and returns it to zero. It cannot possibly turn previous profit into a loss. Here's an illustration: I have no money in my wallet. Somebody offers me five dollars to go run an errand for him. Someone else runs that errand for free, and I don't get five dollars. How much money do I have in my wallet?

    Answer: Zero, NOT negative five dollars. I am no further ahead, but it is not a loss.

    Besides, the distribution of that copy cost the artist no more than the distribution of Mike's articles cost Techdirt. Less, in fact, since Techdirt actually hosts the articles in question, and the artist does not. The artist stands to gain the same possible benefits that Techdirt does: increased exposure, expanded listener base, greater potential market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "No...like the fact she apparently wants to be paid for her work and techdirt does not."

    Putting aside for the moment that I was looking beyond the literal and labeling Lily as one of the "sharing w/o paying is bad no matter what" people, I don't remember Mike EVER complaining about not getting paid.

    What I DO remember is he jovially pointed out that she had lifted his entire, albeit brief post without so much as a link back to Techdirt nor a mention of where she got it. She did absolutely NOTHING to distinguish Mike's writing from hers, which would lead all non-TD readers to assume that SHE wrote it. That is unethical at best, and plagarism at worst, and it cuts to the heart of the debate we're having here: hypocrisy.

    She copied w/o doing what is ethical in order to complain about people who are copying w/o doing what is ethical.

    And that is pretty fucking stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    nastybutler77, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:34pm

    An old joke

    What's the difference between a Cirque du Soleil show and Lily Allen?

    One is a display of cunning stunts and the other...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:38pm

    Re: An old joke

    ...is Cirque du Soleil.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Only an idiot

    Can you read or is comprehension your problem
    ?
    Mike didn't ask for an apology, he wasn't offended.
    The offended people are all the ones she wants to kick off the net for doing what more or less just what she has done.

    And yes, it DOES compare, Her actions are actually worse, I am not taking credit for creating music I have downloaded, I am just listening to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm quite curious to know what distinction the law sees in this matter.

    Please, explain further.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    DavisPrime (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 3:56pm

    Apology Comment

    I found this comment to her blog apology amusing: love said... Also funny: The use of the word 'acquired' as opposed to the word COPYING. Is it 'acquiring' when someone downloads a Lilly Allen album from BitTorrent? :) September 22, 2009 2:21 AM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 4:28pm

    Re:

    That and the black-on-black text makes me giggle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 5:13pm

    Ok, maybe one of the better posts on that Blog cemment section by "Scott":

    "LILY, I'M REALLY HAPPY FOR YOU, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT KANYE IS THE BEST CAPS LOCK USER OF ALL TIME!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    kar457, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Re: I'm not coming here anymore...

    Well said!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 6:07pm

    Re:

    No, you're not understanding this correctly, at all.

    A musician is not happy with people who download/upload SOMEONE ELSE's music WITH that SOMEONE ELSE's permission. Because she thinks he's selfish. Or something.

    Learn to read.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    ..., Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 6:13pm

    Re: Re: Commentors just don't understand..

    She wanted her cake and eat it too ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 9:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Plagiarism, as been noted repeatedly on this site, is not unlawful activity. I may not be nice to do, but as a general rule is a matter of personal ethics, and not illegal conduct.

    In this particular case we appear to have a rights holder who does not want third parties to violate her rights under copyright law. This is her legal right, and she has perfectly understandable and valid reasins to complain.

    In the case of techdirt, it has specifically authorized third parties to "have at it" with its articles. The rights holder, just like all third parties, is thus free from legal restraint.

    Thus, in the case of the rights holder she has indicated that she requires permission, as is her legal right. In the case of techdirt it has indicated that it does not require permission, as it is likewise free to do.

    To call her a hypocrite is inaccurate and little more than a gratuituous insult without any foundation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Nick, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 9:43pm

    File sharing no problem?

    Well you must be high if you think file sharing is not harming artist. That is an obviously ignorant statement.
    I have worked in the music business for 30 years, with all the greats...Michael, Whitney, Tina, Barbra...on over 200 albums.
    Our business has been DESTROYED by file "sharing."

    What a stupid word for "stealing."

    We spent hundreds of hours and thousands upon thousands of dollars creating music, and then it is STOLEN. It is SHARING only if the OWNER decides it's sharing.
    I don't give a shit whether you think that's "right" or not, 'cause you should have a choice too! If YOU want to work on your "articles" for FREE, that should be your CHOICE, just as if I DON'T want to give my shit away, that should be MY choice! I don't care if you think I'm an asshole, it's MY stuff.
    This kind of thinking really pisses me off.

    On top of it, it's just morally wrong. I know that probably doesn't mean much to most of you out there, as you've justified this in your mind.
    "Music is too expensive."
    Well so are BMW's, why don't you go steal one of those?

    You thieves don't deserve good music, and in another 5 years you won't get it, as there will be no industry left. All the great players will get jobs, all the great, legendary engineers will retire...and you'll finally get the shit that's worth what you're paying....NOTHING.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Nick, Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 9:44pm

    File sharing no problem?

    Well you must be high if you think file sharing is not harming artist. That is an obviously ignorant statement.
    I have worked in the music business for 30 years, with all the greats...Michael, Whitney, Tina, Barbra...on over 200 albums.
    Our business has been DESTROYED by file "sharing."

    What a stupid word for "stealing."

    We spent hundreds of hours and thousands upon thousands of dollars creating music, and then it is STOLEN. It is SHARING only if the OWNER decides it's sharing.
    I don't give a shit whether you think that's "right" or not, 'cause you should have a choice too! If YOU want to work on your "articles" for FREE, that should be your CHOICE, just as if I DON'T want to give my shit away, that should be MY choice! I don't care if you think I'm an asshole, it's MY stuff.
    This kind of thinking really pisses me off.

    On top of it, it's just morally wrong. I know that probably doesn't mean much to most of you out there, as you've justified this in your mind.
    "Music is too expensive."
    Well so are BMW's, why don't you go steal one of those?

    You thieves don't deserve good music, and in another 5 years you won't get it, as there will be no industry left. All the great players will get jobs, all the great, legendary engineers will retire...and you'll finally get the shit that's worth what you're paying....NOTHING.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 11:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    To call her a hypocrite is inaccurate and little more than a gratuituous insult without any foundation.

    Ok. Since you seem to be especially dense in figuring this out, let's write it out for you (though others have already):

    1. Ms. Allen claimed that it was bad for 50 Cent to say that it was ok to share his music because it harmed all the others in the value chain.
    2. Like 50 Cent, I am perfectly find with having my works shared. Thus, but Ms. Allen's own standards, what I am doing is bad.
    3. Still, she had no problem taking the content, posting it without attribution.
    4. Her "apology" showed she had no clue that our content is free for the taking.
    5. Thus, she had no problem taking another's content, despite claiming it was bad

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:37am

    Re: File sharing no problem?

    "You thieves don't deserve good music, and in another 5 years you won't get it, as there will be no industry left. All the great players will get jobs, all the great, legendary engineers will retire...and you'll finally get the shit that's worth what you're paying....NOTHING."

    Based on what I see coming out of the music industry lately that would be a blessed relief!

    Bring it on!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:47am

    Re: File sharing no problem?

    Well you must be high if you think file sharing is not harming artist.

    No sir. I don't do drugs. But I do look at the actual evidence, and it shows no harm. I don't rely on anecdotes from people who can't adapt.

    That is an obviously ignorant statement.

    Except that the evidence suggests otherwise. As we were just discussing, the music industry's own experts have said the industry is increasing in size. Ditto for a recent study at Harvard. At the same time, artists who have embraced file sharing by using smart business models have reported making much more money than using other means.

    It ain't file sharing that's the problem. It's having a bad business model.

    Our business has been DESTROYED by file "sharing."

    For an industry having its best year yet, that's pretty amusing.

    We spent hundreds of hours and thousands upon thousands of dollars creating music, and then it is STOLEN. It is SHARING only if the OWNER decides it's sharing.

    You can't steal something if someone else has it. We agree it may be infringing, but that's different than stealing. It's tough to discuss this with people who insist it's something it is not.

    I don't give a shit whether you think that's "right" or not, 'cause you should have a choice too! If YOU want to work on your "articles" for FREE, that should be your CHOICE, just as if I DON'T want to give my shit away, that should be MY choice! I don't care if you think I'm an asshole, it's MY stuff.

    No one has said otherwise. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It should be the artists' choice indeed. But the market is changing and those embracing file sharing are doing better. So... the *smart* choice is to embrace it.

    The dumb choice is to... well, never mind.

    On top of it, it's just morally wrong.

    What is?

    "Music is too expensive."

    I've never said that in my life, so I don't know who it's directed to.

    Well so are BMW's, why don't you go steal one of those?

    Well, firstly, I'm not a BMW fan... but more importantly, if you steal a BMW, the original owner is missing it. That's a bit different than file sharing. But, I don't engage in file sharing of unauthorized works myself, so again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

    All I said was that file sharing is no killing the industry. That doesn't mean I engage in it.

    You thieves don't deserve good music, and in another 5 years you won't get it, as there will be no industry left.

    Again, the industry is larger than it's ever been and significantly more music is made today than ever before in history. Can you explain how that squares up with your statement above?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 6:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Plagiarism, as been noted repeatedly on this site, is not unlawful activity. I may not be nice to do, but as a general rule is a matter of personal ethics, and not illegal conduct."

    Ah, I see the conflict. You want to talk about what is legal and illegal, where as I want to talk about what is right and wrong. Those two aren't even close to being the same thing. For instance, I believe that bad laws ought to be broken. That's how you get them changed.

    As you stated, she is well within her rights under our legal system to want to control how her music is distributed. AND it is unethical to pirate that music that she doesn't want freely downloaded. AND it's unethical to plagarize someone else's work.

    So, she is NOT a hypocrite for doing something illegal to complain about people doing something illegal, because that isn't an accurate description of what she did.

    But she IS a hypocrite because she did something unethical to complain about people doing something unethical. Bingo! Hypocrisy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Futile efforts...

    That was an awesome story man. You have my genuine appreciation for posting that!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 8:05am

    Re: File sharing no problem?

    """
    Our business has been DESTROYED by file "sharing."
    """

    If this is true (most evidence suggests it is not), then there is a very simple and effective solution: find a new business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 9:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    At last I understand. Copying something without permission (e.g., an unlawful download/upload) is now being equated with plagiarism. In fact, some commenters appear to view plagiarism as even more pernicious.

    When I read the linked post it was abundantly clear that the "plagiarized" comment was not something she wrote. The entire theme of her blog is precisely to the contrary of the "plagiarized" comment. Did she give credit to the source of the comment? No. Should she have identified the source? Probably, if for no other reason than to cite its origin.

    Suddenly, however, the tenor of the debate changes from unlawful downloads to one of "plagiarism" being an ethical and moral matter that should not be tolerated in any form.

    I am constantly struck by the proclivity of persons who are adamant supporters of P2P, including downloading and uploading content that is so obviously illegal, to rationalize that what they do is somehow a noble endeavor for which artists should be grateful. And yet, the replication of content that is entirely lawful is now an ignoble endeavor and must be criticized at every opportunity.

    This is little more than a tempest in a teapot and hardly worthy of even a mention. Of couse, P2P apologists for illegal downloads and uploads miss no opportunity to salve their consciences by trying to portray someone else as a hypocritical miscreant.

    Sorry, but the self-satisfying "hysteria" by those looking for any opportunity to criticize is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

    Color me singularly unimpressed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 9:08am

    Re: File sharing no problem?

    "You thieves don't deserve good music, and in another 5 years you won't get it, as there will be no industry left. All the great players will get jobs, all the great, legendary engineers will retire...and you'll finally get the shit that's worth what you're paying....NOTHING."


    Well, firstly, I don't engage in copyright violation. But I also don't buy RIAA label music. I purchase music directly from independent artists, after having been introduced to it via file sharing (authorized by the artists involved, not illegal). I havemore truly excellent music available to me than I will ever be able to listen to in my lifetime.

    I truly hope that the traditional music industry goes away -- either out of business or begins doing business in an ethical and sustainable way. Because the traditional music business is a den of thieves and vipers, and the hypocrisy of hearing them make any attempts at ethical arguments is astonishing.

    In any case, if the traditional music business died tomorrow, it would be of benefit to the music scene, not harm. The industry makes it very difficult for most artists to see a dime in income, and the internet (and so forth) is showing a way they can make music and money at the same time. Before, they were only making music.

    Artists will still make and distribute excellent music. Not the same artists, perhaps, but ones of at least the same caliber. The traditional music business ensures uniformity and mediocrity, not excellence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are aware that there is a difference between P2P and copyright infringement, right?

    Or, do you call people who speed "Road Apologists?"

    Also, since every creative work is instantly covered by copyrights, wouldn't copying word for word someone's written creation be the same as copying an mp3? (someone's musical creation) Can I put up a link of a song, add three sentences criticizing it and it's all legal?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    At last I understand.

    Clearly, you do not.

    Copying something without permission (e.g., an unlawful download/upload) is now being equated with plagiarism. In fact, some commenters appear to view plagiarism as even more pernicious.


    Uh, no. The issue is hypocrisy. Try to get this straight. It's not complicated.

    Suddenly, however, the tenor of the debate changes from unlawful downloads to one of "plagiarism" being an ethical and moral matter that should not be tolerated in any form.

    No. That was not the point. The point (already explained to you in GREAT DETAIL) was that the hypocrisy was in claiming copying was bad, and then DOING COPYING YOURSELF. It had nothing to do with an ethical statement.

    I am constantly struck by the proclivity of persons who are adamant supporters of P2P, including downloading and uploading content that is so obviously illegal, to rationalize that what they do is somehow a noble endeavor for which artists should be grateful. And yet, the replication of content that is entirely lawful is now an ignoble endeavor and must be criticized at every opportunity.

    Again, look up. Way up. No, higher. See that? It's the point. Way way way over your head. No one is saying that replicating content itself should be criticized. We're saying that claiming one thing (copying is bad bad bad, destroying the industry) and then DOING IT YOURSELF suggests hypocrisy and no understanding of the issues.

    Of couse, P2P apologists for illegal downloads and uploads miss no opportunity to salve their consciences by trying to portray someone else as a hypocritical miscreant.

    I am no apologist and do not use P2P other than for legal purposes. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy, even if you appear to have trouble connecting the dots.

    Color me singularly unimpressed.

    Obviously. Though, your inability to understanding basic logic suggests the problem may be on the receiving end, rather than the sending end. Might want to get that checked out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    nastybutler77, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: An old joke

    Really? Have you seen one of Lily's shows? What cunning stunts does she do exactly? I doubt she has the brains to do anything I'd consider cunning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Tomer Guez, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 12:23pm

    Re:

    OK. Not to be cruel. There is a good spell check program Spell Check Anywhere (SpellCheckAnywhere.Com). It works in all programs, including web, and blogs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    brent (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: Commentors just don't understand..

    yes, i do see the point. thanks for clarifying. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    enjaysee (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "To call her a hypocrite is inaccurate and little more than a gratuituous insult without any foundation" Looks like there's still some horses who haven't finished the race, despite it being over quite a while now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:27am

    Re:

    please. don't tell me that lily allen frequents this website enough to know that it's okay for her to used something from this website that someone has forwarded to her. when someone emails me something from 2 points of contact, like when i am emailing someone a tip for their blog but it has been posted already and exists somewhere, i give credit. i give credit to the sources. so in this instance even if lily allen didn't know where this information came from she should do her due dilligence and try and get the person who emailed her the information to provide the details on where the information originally came from. anyone who has been to school and has done any kind of research knows all about crediting sources. so the funny thing is that although it's ironic after the fact, because if mike hadn't reposted the fact that copying the info from this website is a good thing for him and this website, even without credit, that she wouldn't have known what she had done, right or wrong. yet lily allen is an artist just like i am a fine artist, albeit she is IMMENSLY more popular and wealthier than me. she should know what to do already especially given the fact that this is a serious issue for her and her livelihood and the fact that she's passionate or taken up the cause about copyright and copyright infringement. she is discussing this with us all because this is public and on the web. she did that and she didn't even realize WHAT SHE WAS DOING, wrong or right. when i'm working on something that directly sources another persons work, but the original piece is so old and obscure i can't find the original creator and i have a hard time finding where it came from, i research like hell, because i don't want that, if my piece gets published or receives recognition, to come and bite me in the ass. i learned that from school. it can happen to anyone. one girl at my school got sued by disney because she had drawn a disney character and it ended up being selected to go in our school calander which is handed out to the student body and anyone who comes to our school, which is an educational setting but also an unoffical gallery and meeting place, etc...and somehow this stupid school calender ended up with some random person's cousin in california who worked at disney and notified the copyright department/lawyers about this student who isn't even in the united states. copyright is crazy because it exists not really in the public sphere (let me tell you people don't even read the back or insert pages of cd's or books or whatever. people don't pay attention) but people aren't EDUCATED about it. people infirnge on copyright ALL THE TIME, more than they think. but honestly some of them don't know because they are not aware. it's not all the case to do with the music industry but it's a little portion of it. i think people now, because of the publicity all this riaa cases have been having in the mainstream, now more people are aware. i don't support the riaa, but i remember them putting in a lot of money to run ad campaings on what consumers shouldn't be doing and saying it's illegal. once people hear something is illegal their mind will be alert...but all this uhm circus that has happened with the riaa and the music and film industry (they've also put in a lot of money to inform their consumers that films cannot be reproduced and bought without certain informations, etc...) suing people for money those people do not have hasn't endeared anyone to their case at all. they have turned people off because they are not adapting to what is happening. they held their heels...no dragged them even when time and consumers were passing them by and yet they still held out. i mean those idiots let apple come and control them. it's hilarious. it's mostly of their own doings that they are feeling this sea change and i am unsympathetic to their plight, whether i am an artist or not. they need new models. i don't understand why that's so hard. it's obvious to everyone else. these riaa people and record people, musicians...please. don't tell me that they haven't ever infringed on copyright intentionally or unintentionally before, same with their lawyers. people do what lily allen did all the time and for some of them it's normal because it has become the norm and what's accepted. they can try to change it, but they are behind the tide. they didn't play their cards right. despite all my efforts to credit everyone i source and credit where i find the information from, i'm not a flipping super computer. i can't always err on being morally right. it's not entirely possible, but i'm just one person. every artist at my arts school, dancers, musicians, visual artists, etc. know all about infringement. you don't even need to go to an arts school to know that. if you've ever been in a english class and read a book or read or written a paper, uhm same with math class, science, music class, you should know all about copyright, infringement, and giving credit where credit is due. it is funny that mike's comment about her hypocrisy some people found hypocritical or ironic. w/e. the fact remained (until she changed the fact and righted what she probably should have done in the first place) is that she didn't give any credit(s). it should be almost primary nature, never mind secondary, for people to recognize this. she's an artist. she should know. if she's been to school she should know. you don't need to be in the riaa to be passionate about coppyright or patents. creativity is what keeps people going and i am thankful for all the people before me and after me who will create. and i will still be a consumer because i love practical and impractical art. but that doesn't mean i can go around stealing things. people live in a society where the community has decided to apply moral and that why we have laws in many places in the world. but the law hasn't progressed in tandem with time. it takes time to reform laws or introduce new laws that is widely recognizable by people. and by the time a new law gets introduced or ammeded, people have moved on to the next thing. it's really a matter of keeping up. i'm not saying that for some meduims their higher ups or groups haven't done a good job of implementing law that is still applicable and is not limited by time and new innovations, but some laws are. there was a problem with copyright and music even before these internet tools came about. but now it's more prevelant, prolific, in your face. you know because everyone and their mother is doing it. but the funny thing is that people are doing it and aren't aware of what's going on. so i guess unless you're gonna educate every single person in this world, then goodluck groups like the riaa and others of their perspective. i don't hate them. i just think that they are stuck. i haven't heard anything from them that would make me stop infringing copyright (not that i do). i mean what are they doing for me that i should be aware of that would make me return that provider consumer relationship. i don't have contact with the riaa when i buy a product. what i do notice, because i do read, is that there is information provided on the product about copyright and publishing, and other informations. if i didn't read it would i know about riaa or publishing funds for authors and all those other groups who represent the original creators? i'm not saying that all consumers are stupid, ignorant, and unknowledgable, but there are people who just do not care. like this issue could be the furthest thing in their mind on their list of what actually matters to them today. i think uuhm someone comments here/maybe in last thread about how people aren't realizing the effect these changes will have on users, and that is true because some people are not thinking this the whole way through. it's easy for consumers to think about this in a tuck manner or one dimensionally like how the record industry had for a long long time. it's great that lily allen is discussing. i like that she put her foot in the ring, and i think more artists from all meduims, infact all creators should really have an opinion about this. i know some people that don't care about infringement and will create just because, but i also know some people who are very proprietorial about their creations and feel that if someone is using it they should get credit and that credit some people feel should be mandatory and uhm monetized. like if mike had used a pic or a clip from one of lily allens releases and hadn't given credit you know who would be issue that cease and dessist...the record company maybe...anyways the whole issue is just one that more people need to be discussing...i really don't care how long the discussion will be going on, because i've been talking about it since i was in kindergarten and i started creating art, but i'm also fully aware that some people will go buy in their life copying things and using things without realizing that people, like living breating creators, just like living breathing consumers, have created an art that you are consuming. so you know although i am not sympathetic to what lily allen is saying because i don't think she has been thinking about this for a long time (my opinion and i could be very wrong about it), it's more with what she's saying than any personal problem i have with her. i don't have an issue with her. with these discussing we will learn, and we will create and make new models, new plans, good or bad. what i feel these trolls are doing is stiffling the discussing and trying to leave consumers out of it. and the funny thing is that now they cannot afford to leave us the consumers out. they can't even afford to leave the creators that they so dilligently represent out of the final decisions. we can always try to go back to the way things were...but time doesn't go backwards. so my advice to those people in the industry would be to learn from the past and to maybe be a lot more honest about what goes on instead trying to game the system and presuming that all consumers are idiots that must be mass marketed and targeted by advertisement because believe it or not people are turned off and it's not working. that veneer that coats the company apple and apple products and google and all these new companies are all starting to wear. just like the veneer that shielded the riaa and the record industry, the copyright industy of all mediums has worn off. for every 50 stupid people there are 50 more who are learning all about the system. people have been infringing on creators creations before the internet, some were well known and some or most weren't because of the decentralization of communication. you couldn't hear everything that was going on in another local away from yours...but now the information flows much more fluidly and people are consuming even more than in the past. so goodluck to all the people who don't want to embrace change. that's fine. but if i was betting i would bet on people to bring up new ways, evven quicker than industries, on how to circumvent law. apparently there is a law that prevents kids from buying products like cigarettes and drugs and god knows what else, weapons maybe...yet when i go out, i see lots of kids selling and buying drugs, smoking and killing other kids. laws are fine. but for every law made another is being broken. you know the mind works faster and i for one although i might not support uhm stealing cutting in to my livelihoo, am very happy about all these things because it just proves that people aren't dead. innovation, creating is here you know and i don't really understand why we have to advocate to stiffle it all. i mean what makes lilly allen a better intenet user or consumer or artist than me. what makes her think that it's her right uhm to say that because i might be a byproduct in his stealing-consumer culture that i need to get kicked off the internet or that my ip needs to be banned or whatever bs they're coming up with. really. like if i was determined to make a killing on stealing what makes her think she can stop me? i guess laws right, that's why people are in support of law and a code that binds all people. well then why are her rights more important than mine because as a consumer i would like to say that i don't want to buy her product for whatever it's being sold for (i don't own anything by lily allen so i don't know how much her records are being sold for but i will say anywhere between the 7.99 range to 12.99 maybe unless it's a double disc and has a dvd or some of those limited releases you have to spend $20+)and would rather go and either buy it online for cheaper or have some random person who has the cd rip it and send it to me. if she or anyone else was smarter about the way they did business they would figure out ways instead of suing people up the ying yang, to circumvent my illegally owning prducts she's created. it woudl do them more of a service if they could engage me as a consumer into a provider-consumer relationship that benefits both sides instead of me the consumer being treated like shit. i understand that life isn't gravy for new artists and the way of the creator is often a lot of suffering and schleping for even the barest minimum...but if you haven't heard lots of people although they consume art (things created)directly and indirectly don't care about art. people don't care or think about the engineers, the planners, uhm the musicians, the dancers, the illustrators and designers, programmers, etc...they don't give you that extra mind space. but yet they will gladly use your product, free or at cost. haha and they don't even think about how it was made. they just consume. i understand that this isn't the case for a lot of people...but for every person who does care there's another one who doesn't give a shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:42am

    i can't believe someone in the music industry actually responded to the comments. thanks nick.

    i don't really understand why this is so hard to get. she didn't know that the information here was free even though the creators of this website and it's content work very very hard like her as an artist but don't even make any kind of money like she does. she doensn't understand that she didn't give credit to the creator of the content or the website or the emailer, but she just did it. i don't understand how you can act or just do something and not know what you are doing, but then to go and preach about how we are infringing on her rights and how she's protected by copyright because that's one of the ways she makes money as an artist and that all those not like her or in agreement with her need to get kicked off the internets. man. i hope people are looking at what she's doing and discussing it. i love that she has put up her capital and backed her opinions with statments that people can now referr to from her pov, but that doesn't mean she's right. you know there has to be a middle ground and there has to be a sea change, which is already more than here. the riaa and people like lily allen cannot keep dragging their feet. people infringe every day and they just simply are not aware of what they do and it's effects. i mean if i don't buy your record but i go on a website that has uploaded all your content and i the visitor can listen to it, not even download, but just listening to it...just for that fact i need to be reprimanded because there are riaa trolls who feel so threatned because their business model that stood for so long but needs to be ammended, is faulty. something needs to happen. this discussion has been going on for longer than the internet, now the internet has exacerbated the riaa and it's pain and also other creators of content. fine. but i'm just saying that for all the rights creators have, don't forget the rights of consumers because consumers buy your products and all the time you make them feel like thieves and slander them and question their morals and make them feel like second rate. it's funny that when an industry needs me to buy something from them then they feel they need to target me through various means...but when they don't need anything from me they don't care and with that ambivalence you get a lot of angry consumers. consumers are not happy. we want to be at the table. we will buy, free or not free, but we expect these copyright protection agencies to keep up with what we the consumers are doing and change while we're changing. the model needs to be ammended. we're sorry that we, consumers, have changed and that you the industries haven't. but i have faith because not all consumers and artists are idots. we can coe-exist and change in tandem and that is what needs to happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Graham Barker, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 3:21pm

    Lily Alan, don't apologise...

    So piracy doesn't harm musicians? That reminds me of the tale about the horse owned by a tight-fisted peasant. He discovered that if he fed it a little bit less each day, it still functioned perfectly well. Then one day it dropped dead. The peasant couldn't figure out why.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This