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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: emi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
93 Comments
mertz says:

Re: This just gets better and better

and this is exactly what another commenter was pointing out in the last allen thread that because it’s her choice to make her or others music free it’s her choice.

what i kept waiting for that person to say was that it’s her choice so it’s okay or it’s fine or w/e the commenter’s point was because that what he/she was inferring anyways.

i don’t understand how people don’t get that they infringe all the time. they might not be doing it intentionally but that doesn’t mean that they are not infringing. i know i am speaking in generalities but this whole sharing information, likes, dislikes, music, art, whatever it’s been going on before the internet and even then people were fighting over it but it was commonly accepted. uhm copyright i think used to be more respected in the past, even without laws, but now we have laws that give consumers and creators rights, but that will not stop people sharing, stealing, whatever you call it mediums. people will always share, legally or illegally. so is the riaa going to go and punish everyone, because they feel like they are on the right side of the issue?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Wow, I have to say it...

Never have I been more proud of being a small, probably insignificant part of the TechDirt community than I am at this moment. This is a complete trouncing of either a full on bullshitter, or a farce ghost writer.

Either way…I’m a little bit in awe of what Peter has proved is possible of a relatively like-minded community can do on the web.

It’ll be fun to see what, if anything, comes of this in terms of reporting on other venues…

PeteProdge (profile) says:

Re: This might do it!

Meh, I haven’t got the time right now to launch that Ace Candy website – which has been on the back-burner for about 3 years, fully intending to be my web-design business one day! (I’m snowed under with lots of work anyway.) I am just chuffed at getting my first story submission published on TechDirt!

Really chuffed how this story has made it to torrentfreak.com, and is doing massively well on Twitter. I did do some commenting on Lily’s blog, but it’s things like Techdirt and Digg which can really propel revelations like this around the world, and hopefully make a difference. I love reading TechDirt, it’s pretty much bang-on 98% of the time!

Drew says:

The danger here...

The Danger (with a capital D) is that people use this as a “GOTCHA YOU HYPOCRITE!” moment instead of a teaching moment.

The way we SHOULD let this play out is to say, “Now, Lily, you see how easy it is to get caught up in this, even if you’re a good person. Should we go after the worst and most egregious violators of the law? Sure. But the casual fan or artist may accidentally or innocently violate the law with the best intentions. And they shouldn’t be persecuted.”

mertz says:

Re: The danger here...

i am with you. so i was saying i would make bets that she has infringned more than once in her life, and look oopsies there’s one incident. anyways she used myspace when no ne on this side of the world knew who the hell she was and that was even before myspace had their music focus area and before they started just previewing the songs instead of playing everything. i don’t understand how she can easily forget her beginnings and how she was a part of the community but because it’s her choice to make her products free she is then allowed to say we should be banned from the internets. ugh.

Ben in TX (profile) says:

You guys rock

This is so great… Allen is clearly out of her league on this subject and is only parroting what her industry colleagues tell her too (or write for her?). She just got owned so hard that she should just shut her blog down with an admission of guilt and shame, and never make another post critical of someone else. EVER.

I love what you guys do here. I read the site just about every day. This is one of the priceless moments which bring me back over and over. Keep up the great work!

mertz says:

Re: Re: You guys rock

yeah she writes it herself, but you can obviously tell she’s not well versed on the issue and is only speaking from one side as she easily forgets how she got started. i would love to hate her and mention some other things about her but i won’t and i can’t. i think it’s good she’s in the discussion. now she just needs to flesh out some ideas and keep the world updated. i mean if i was of her point of view i would say she’s not wrong but i simply don’t agree with her and i’m a creator too. i think the argument she’s making is the easiest one to make. it’s too simple.

mertz says:

Re: Re: +1 for Drew

lol lars who? man miss when metallica was still happening. it’s always nice to piss off your fans. apparently talent is what gets you everywhere yet people aren’t in the recording industry chasing the dream, chasing the limelight and looking out for that money. well apprently we fans, users, consumers, are so insignificant. no wonder the models are broken.

Crzen (profile) says:

Lilly who?

I’ve never heard of Lilly Allen except for reading about her here. Maybe its part of her business model to get her name out there by getting people to comment on how much of an id…err…hypocrite she is? After all, no offence but, shes gotten you to mention her, the fact that she is either a singer, songwriter, or something, and you even mentioned her website. Hmm…If its not part of her business model maybe it should be. FREE ADVERTISING. Name recognition is a big part of trying to achieve celebrity status. Send her and EMI a bill. They are the ones who keep saying nothing is free!!!

Michael Vilain (profile) says:

Now all we need is law enforcement

Some publicity seeking DA and police chief execute an arrest warrant to “take down a notorious file sharing pirate”. Lilly spends a week or so in jail while she’s trying to make bail after the judge levy’s a $10M bond to ensure this pirate doesn’t skip to Europe where file sharing is OK. And a great time is had by all.

Designerfx (profile) says:

here's the answer

Lily was never independent. She was under EMI the whole time!

That’s why the whole thing has been part of it. I doubt she even does anything outside of perform.

http://www.upstartblogger.com/meet-the-music-industrys-new-misinformation-puppet-and-learn-how-to-benefit-from-her-tricks

The woman probably is no better than Amy Winehouse. Maybe she’ll follow suit and start doing drugs more than they already do.

Reed (profile) says:

Let's all show Lilly some love

I hate hypocrites, but I think this argument is starting to turn into a logical fallacy.

Clearly Lilly is a hypocrite, but this doesn’t disprove her argument. Ad hominem attacks, while often sensational, do little to disprove the message. Besides, discrediting the speaker is almost always an underhanded technique.

Having said that, Mike has presented many compelling arguments about file sharing, economics, and freedom of expression that do more for this discussion than talking about Lilly and her underdeveloped understanding of the 21st century.

I mean seriously I am sure you could find out that the kids of many people associated with the RIAA are infringing and file sharing. This proves little though.

The real proof is the failure of the RIAA, MPAA, and all supporters of IP theory and law in general to show anything other than an opinion that is not backed by any evidence whatsoever.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am curious who is the rights holder for the listed songs. If not EMI or one of its subsidiaries, were rights for use secured?

Kinda hard to figure out if something wrong has happened without at least looking into the above.

Moreover, let’s not toss fair use to the side if it is applicable.

Using copyrighted music without the permission of the rights holder, if not fair use, is wrong.

Using copyrighted music with the permission of the rights holder is fine.

Not enough here to figure out one way or the other if the person is being fairly or unfairly pilloried.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sir, I believe you are the same person who called kids trading *single* tracks as being morally delinquent. In this case, she’s offering up somewhere around 40 tracks. And suddenly fair use is ok?

Taking something that is not yours to take is an important ethical issue. Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial. To then upload the copy so that it can be “shared” with the world is even more wrong.

As for “fair use”, it is a legal doctrine developed in equity by our courts and now codified into copyright law within the United States. It is always appropriate to note its existence as it marks a line of demarcation between lawful and unlawful conduct.

The point I raised here is limited solely to the your posted article. In it you appear to be making many declarative statements that are based upon speculation. Maybe the facts will bear you out. Then again, maybe they will not. However, based upon the information thus far presented, a definitive answer is not possible. You recite “evidence” as supporting many of the points raised in other posts on other subjects. “Evidence” should apply with equal force here.

A final note. I am not, as you say, an “IP lawyer”. That may be a term you choose to use, but it is certainly not accurate and not one that I use. More accurately stated, I am a lawyer who practices, in part, within the areas of law know as “patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related causes”.

ThePDW (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Internet lawyer, sir, you made quite a “declarative statement” when you said “Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial.” I bow to your superior sense of ethics. Thank your for ending this debate. Mod, please close the comments on this article.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If I may be so bold, I suggest if you ever engage in such activity as noted above (downloading and uploading where permission is needed) and then explain to a judge if the matter is ever contested in a lawsuit that you have done nothing wrong under the law. I daresay that the judge will be singularly unimpressed and bar the defense except in the most unusual of circumstances.

TechNoFear (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Another interesting ethical issue is insisting people to hold to standards you yourself do not adhere to.

Lily is clearly distributing free music while tell us it is wrong and harmful to do so.

Before we play semantics;
I am not a rock star, politician or lawyer, who it appears, can get away with this behavior.

I design safety systems for heavy machinery, so dishonesty on my part can have spectacular consequences.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Taking something that is not yours to take is an important ethical issue.

OK if we’re into “ethics”…
What do you make of Luke 6 1-3 then?

“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;”

Note that the issue here was no the fact that the corn was taken from a field that must have belonged to someone – but rather the fact that it was the sabbath. Everyone, pharisees included seemed to accept that it was OK to take a small quantity of corn without permission.

Downloading without permission an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for the actual CD is simply wrong, and anyone who argues to the contrary is either ethically challenged or in a state of denial. To then upload the copy so that it can be “shared” with the world is even more wrong.

Well to answer this ethical dilemma we need to step back a stage and ask whether it is morally acceptable to sell something to someone and then impose downstream conditions on what they can do with it, particularly when those terms are not individually negotiated but rather imposed by a government backed monopolistic cartel.

Personally I do not think that this is moral – although it is currently legal. Once viewed in that way the question becomes one of deciding when it becomes acceptable to break an immoral law. I guess most of us would do it to save someone’s life. It is difficult to see how downloading music could fall into that category but certain other pieces of the so called “intellectual property” jigsaw, such as medical patents certainly could.

Copyright did not exist in biblical times to there is a shortage of guidance there on it. However Usury did exist and was condemned. One of the reasons for this is that it enabled the lender to take an income for doing nothing. Insofar as copyright now does the same (since replication/distribution costs have dropped to essentially zero) I believe it would also have been condemned for the same reason.

bschmalz81401 (profile) says:

Dear IP Lawyer

If you have not figured it out DW was being sarcastic.

Nobody here argues that you should be able to download an entire copy of a CD in order to avoid paying for it. Maybe you don’t read Tech Dirt enough to know that this site never condones or promotes copyright infringement.

The point is that someone in the music industry says if you make copyrighted material available for download you should be kicked off the Internet. Then you find that the same person is making copyrighted material available for download.

She should kick herself off the Internet. In Fact I am sick of reading about her and wish she would be removed.

The music industry is starting to sound a lot like politics. Say whatever it takes to get your view to be fact even if the fact is your view is wrong or hypocritical.

enjaysee (profile) says:

I just find the whole thing amusing. I actually enjoy Lily’s music and up until she made her stance on piracy clear, found her antics to be quite refreshing. Here was a young artist, who through clever media manipulation and talent managed to become quite successful. She always somehow managed to keep her name in the gossip headlines without appearing to be a skank (eg Lady Gaga and her outfits). She embraced new technology such as myspace and twitter to connect with her fans and had built up a loyal fanbase. As far as I was concerned, that’s how I believe emerging artists should promote themselves. And then she went and ranted against music piracy, without appearing to have really thought it through. Who do you think her key demographic is? Of that age group where she would likely find the majority of her fans, how does her stance affect what they think of her? How would that affect future record sales/tour numbers?

I honestly think some pencil pusher from the music industry brainwashed her, because for any other young artist, this would be a death sentence. But then again, it appears Lily’s quitting the music scene:

http://www.mtv.com.au/news/38ac76d9-official-lily-allen-quits/

Monkey.B33 says:

Lily Allen

Lily Allen does have a point, but I don’t think she really knows what it is. Announcing that she had no plans of making new records (still gossip) – for lack of cash per effort presumably? (her blog seems to suggest so) – was the absolute worst thing she could do for the causeS she is defending.

Cause1
=> see fred in post Fed up, Some Questions for Lily Allen + Responses to fred for a coherent discussion on Piracy + New Music

Stuart Dredge (user link) says:

The whole Lily thing

The online monstering of Lily Allen might be fun, but aren’t there more serious issues here?

Like MP3 mixtapes – how DO you license them if they’re not a neutered collection of tracks from one label with the rights all sewn up? Not to mention the whole area of MP3 giveaways and publishing/songwriting payments.

But these are questions for the industry to answer – it’s not good at all for Lily that she’s infringing copyrights while attacking file-sharing, but isn’t the issue to chew over why licensing isn’t flexible enough to make these mixtapes legal in the first place?

It just seems too easy to stop at ‘Ha! She’s a hypocrite!’, which is what many commenters are doing.

This whole file-sharing debate is so polarised between ‘It’s evil!’ and ‘f*** The Man!’ – and one of the reasons I love Techdirt is that you dig much deeper, and show how artists are trying new things and developing models that turn file-sharing into a positive and often necessary part of this whole getting-music-to-fans process.

If Lily’s at the end of her label deal, she should spend a couple of hours reading Techdirt’s archives and get some good ideas for going it alone. It might even change her mind about file-sharing. Maybe you should do a post cooking up ‘What Lily Allen Should Do For Her Next Album’ and point her in the direction of Topspin etc ;o)

But what her blog is doing is showing that there are still a lot of artists who don’t think this way, and are angry about file-sharing. That’s surely an important part of the debate too – better that they voice their opinions rather than shut up and let the labels talk for them?

If nothing else, Lily’s blog has showed the spectrum of opinion among artists – and the importance of sites like Techdirt in getting positive stories out there of what’s possible.

Tor (profile) says:

Re: Subject = NULL

Ownership of a domain name doesn’t say anything about who’s responsible for the contents of the web site with that domain name.

For example, one of the Pirate Bay guys stood as the contact person for the domain name of a web site where a pedophile gave his view on things (only written thoughts, no illegal images or such), and people tried to use that to smear down the TPB guy’s image, although it probably was common practice at the web host he worked at to do this in order to protect the personal data of customers.

Anyway, it seems strange choice to put your domain name in the hands of someone else like EMI though. I mean, what if she decides to stop working with them in the future?

scarr (profile) says:

FYI, Lily responded

http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/2009/09/httpwwwtechdirtcomarticles2009092314090.html

When you respond, rather than calling “hypocrite”, I’d suggest simply pointing to the facts and examples of how it works. It makes a more convincing argument, and is more likely to allow real discussion. (Flies and honey and all that.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Silly Lily is a file sharer … Directly from her own site there are 2 mix tapes available for down loading which are unauthorised and in breach of copyright.

Still I guess this will be OK as its Silly Lily

Its just the same when some of these so called “artists” become drug addicts, its ok that their use help and support major international crime rings is it ? and what do they do to help stop this level of crime when they are found out ?

Nothing

Their musicians / artist so its OK to be involved in serious crime.

I.e.:-
A teenage fan downloads a few tracks and sends them to their friends who also may send them to friends, the musicians does not know this but likes to see the fans at their gigs =
The fan gets disconnection from the internet, A huge fine (many thousands). which they can never pay and will be hounded for life.
The musicians has 1 less fan at their gigs and is down by 1 ticket

A Musicians takes drugs, Drugs come from dealers in major crime gangs, The musicians use influences some fans into drugs that then can not afford or physically take =
The musicians gets help and support, a lot of press and Millions in the bank when their come back album comes out.
The Dealer get introduced to the musicians friends and get to push drugs
The Fan gets into crime to support the addiction and then dies penniless and alone

Who would you want next door ?

I think Silly Lily should take a look at the industry she is in and start kicking out at the real criminals

Stuart Dredge (user link) says:

Nice work

So, a blog that presented the views of a bunch of artists on file-sharing – and which could have been a great forum for arguments and counter-arguments around them – has been taken down.

Everyone who posted thoughtful comments should be disappointed that they now can’t be read. The people who posted abuse? Well, I guess they’re feeling pretty proud of themselves – they showed her. And, indeed, any musician who has views they don’t agree with.

That’s not to criticise this site for highlighting the disparity between Lily’s anti-piracy stance and her earlier use of mixtapes. It made an important point about the crazy parameters of this whole debate.

But the ugly tone of much of the Lily-baiting in recent days has been entirely unhelpful in the context of the wider and vital debate around how music gets distributed and discovered. Internet mob mentality FTW!

mertz says:

Re: Nice work

what the hell is her problem. the first time i heard about lily allen was because of mysapce a couple years ago and now she’s big time has the record deal, gets to do all her shit on her own time and live her dream doing her passion or what not. she’s been a free user.consumer for longer than that mixtape will show you. she’s also more than once spoken out (prior to this new blog on piracy or her most recent comments)about the future of the recording industry because she is now a part of it. she benefits directly from it, where before she was using an entirely different model. but apparently when it involves money that’s when people need to take matters seriously. i don’t mind that she’s speaking her opinions, whether they are unfounded, uneducated, not based in facts, w/e. i’m just glad that she’s finally manned up with all her mutterings, backtalking comments about her fans and her music and how like she gives so much out and she doesn’t get a lot back in return. lily allen has both good and bad to her. i can’t judge because i’m human. what i can do is judge her on her opinion and her statments. i don’t agree with her. i wish did, and infact i used to be of her perspective when i was younger (younger than she is even now), and yet when i made the decision to not download and stream and all these other things on the internet, while i was being diligent to make sure that if i copy or source something i credit, i realized that no matter what i do, no matter how i’ve grown up as an artist who sells her own art, that even i as careful as i am infringe, have infringed, will infringe on someone’s right. unlike consumers i think before i do something because i as an artist understand that pov, that protectionsim. i get it. you don’t even have to be an artist to get it. you don’t have to be signed to a record lable or be making lots of money, be damien hirst to understand this. this is so basic to people because it deals with all our commonalities. and the thing is i realized that i couldn’t surf the freaking internet without coming across products that will have me infringing on another creators rights. so i don’t hate the riaa and all these agencies looking out for artists (music or otherwise), but what scares me a lot, is that it seems like i the consumer doesn’t have a lot of voice when i say you know what i don’t buy records anymore. i don’t go to the big stores to buy them. i go to concerts and i buy directly from the artists. this is my experience and the way musicians have directly told me that they get more money, because when they are tied to the company they often get shafted. it’s sad hearing these stories but it’s been a long standing reality in the industry and until musicians started standing up for themselves and informing their fans, it was status quo. until teb tools were created on the sharing model that has been used for longer than the internet has been here, people were still sharing. people infringe all the time. they just don’t know it. lily allen is doing a good thing getting involved in the conversation. what is not good is if she continues to be uninformed. she can directly have opposing views to mine. that is fine, i am glad and better for it if she does, but if she is going to enter this conversation, which she already has, then she should just stick with it. she’s already risked her capital. she isn’t the most liked most talented uhm musician out there. that’s fine. whatever works for her, but let me just say (and it seems like other’s have said it) it really does seem like she is parroting a pov. i really want to hear what she thinks and not what she thinks based on what others have told her. she needs to do her own research…infact she can use herself as a prime case f’n study…but to actually make it good research she would have to cover both side legitamately. so it’s up to her. her shutting down her blog is beyond childish. all the people name calling her uhm is also childish, but she was hypocritcal like i pointed out(me and many others i guess because it’s very obvious, sometimes i even do the same thing, but i do it after i make sure i put in every effort to find the original content creators and credit them)in the other threads because she went forward without thinking. she just posted. did she even check it out, and when did it pop in her mind to credit the site, because she’s not a techdirt reader to know that mike isn’t going to have a big problem with her posting his entire post. it’s hilarious that she can use free with it suits her when she needs it to contact people, but when others do they need to be kicked off the internets. anyways i hope she comes up with some solid thoughts on this issue and that she can become a part of the larger community that is discussing this, whther on techdirt, or other blogs. it doesn’t really matter. not everyone knows who lily allen is, but guaranteed more people in the world know who she is more than people know about this website…which is sad because there’s many things covered here that would be of interest to consumers, but talking about serious things isn’t hip enough for some people. i mean i’ve never seen young people get as enflammed about somethiing like this. i think it’s good for everyone to care about copyrights, patents, consumer rights and keep track of laws, change, innovative technologies, etc…it’s good for us all. the riaa i feel are dragging their heels. it’s time to change. people don’t know what to change to but it’s not like the new space is devoid of some tests trials. it’s not that someone has seen into the future and knows how the record industry will end up. people like free, people share information all the time legally or otherwise, and people will spend money. i don’t understand what is so hard to get. geez.

NickJ says:

Re: Re: It was right there a moment ago

Hey, I had a similar (but obviously not original 😉 thought!

I notice that since this article went up, the links to the mixtapes on http://www.lilyallenmusic.com are now broken, suggesting that the content has been judiciously removed. Another own goal!

So I searched via the wayback machine and…they’re not there either.

I don’t think Ms Allen’s ‘campaign’ could be blown further off course. But I’m going to hang around and see.

Anonymous Hero says:

RE: RE: Subject = NULL

Ownership of a domain name doesn’t say anything about who’s responsible for the contents of the web site with that domain name.

Not sure about that, (if we believe Lilly) it is EMI that ‘runs’ the site. The content would have been put there by their staff, rather than uploaded by Lilly (or other parties) which would have protected (or more accurately defended?) EMI under the safe harbour provisions.

So would that no mean that while Lilly created it, EMI is making it available for distribution.

Sorry, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, if so can someone confirm how EMI could use the safe harbour ‘defence’ and prove they did not upload the offending songs?

Anyway, it seems strange choice to put your domain name in the hands of someone else like EMI though. I mean, what if she decides to stop working with them in the future?

Lilly confirmed (mentioning the wrong site unfortunately) that she has no control over LillyAllenMusic.com link, that could explain why they are the registrant.

flashback (profile) says:

stuart, cry me a fuckin’ river. SHE (or whoever runs her site) decided to take it down, it wasn’t hacked or taken down by force. That was her DECISION, probably because she didn’t like what people were saying – boo hoo. And even a lot of the negative comments were at least backed-up by her own statements & actions. She opened up this can of worms herself, stoked the fire til it grew out of control, and at no point did she ever address the LEGITIMATE questions that people were asking of her.

Either you’re a shill for her or for the industry. Smarten up.

Here’s some additional info for you guys – when an artist that is on a major label has a website, it is usually administrated by the label. I’m almost certain that is the case with Ms. Allen. Now, the decisions about what go up on the site usually come from the artist themselves, or their representatives and handlers. Occasionally the label will submit things to the website but they usually need approval from the artist / management first. I’m not sure how things went down with her site but that is how it usually works.

In the case of the mix-cd’s, it is possible that she got approval directly from the artists to use their material in her mixes. If that were the case though, I think they would have been quick to point that out.

Tom Davenport (user link) says:

Where have my comments to this post gone?

What kind of debate is this if you remove my posts? I was entirely supportive of the TechDirt debate, but you’re as bad as Lily if you’ve deleted my contributions to this thread.

If I am mistaken, please correct me, but if you have then this is quite audacious considering everything that has happened.

Michael says:

The fact is that without filesharing peoples musical exposure is severley limited. A&R men will only promote certain acts as evident by simon cowell who constantly states ‘but will he sell records’. There is just not the resources to push every single musical artist in existence. I gurantee that there are hundreds of hiphop rappers in america who no one in the uk will ever get to hear. There exposure and popularity is effectively led by the ordinary man posting their videos and sharing their music.

flashback (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Michael, what you’re talking about is a result of the LABELS insistence & focus on continued profits, growth, and market share, NOT file-sharing. They made a conscious decision not to prioritize artist development and instead sought to maximize profits. This is a fact. I myself work in the industry as management for a very successful rock band so don’t think for a second that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Everything else you mention can also be directly attributed to decisions made by the heads of the companies (radio stations, Mtv, big-box retailers) and they all go back to BEFORE file-sharing started.

Pete says:

Did whomever you check your facts with prior to posting this article say she or EMI did not get a gratis license? Just curious. It always seems when these articles are written that there is no responsibility to check facts, which is exactly why Lily Allen and others who don’t have all the information should not speak up. Problem with everything today is there is no responsibility by journalists or bloggers as they are not experienced or educated in the areas they are discussing online and have never learned how to be an actual journalist.

PeteProdge (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Lily did not get that music licensed, Pete.

They were literally .mp3 files put on her site. No way of tracking them via a third party, unlike legal downloads (iTunes, Amazon, Play.com) which are vetted by an indepedent agency. Ask yourself why they’re now deleted when TechDirt reported on them.

Don’t be angry that the blogosphere once again triumphed over the newspapers.

The newspapers are full of waffle about Lily “quitting music” – which turned out to be false, a deliberate lie from Lily/EMI which would get attention away from her illegal MP3s.

Blogs 1. Newspapers 0.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...