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

from the um.-ok. dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: fac, featured artist coalition

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 No Longer in Favor Of Kicking People Offline… Just Cutting Back Their Bandwidth”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
mertz says:

finished reading bbc write up…and got so they are right and they have figure out ways that file sharers should be reprimanded -_-‘

you know i love music but if this is what they want to do then fine. i will be willing to go back to the days before napster and before sharing was invented where i would never have heard about and would not have the access to contact bands and artists from all around the world because someone posted about them online. you know what really i don’t care because artists have lost so much money that it has really hurt them and i should go back to the days when i bought even less music than i do now. such is life.

finished reading the times write up and thinking why does the user need to be punished? is it because users/consumers are punishing artists where it hurts, $$$$?

i wish i could agree with what ed o’brien from radio head said. somehow i don’t think educating consumers about how things work will get them to stop sharing leggally, or illegally.

geez i was about to get to reading what you posted but found this on twitter, and i thought he made a good point about stopping the childishness, but lol he ends it off with people need to stop hating on lily allen, etc…

i wish we could use consumer and artist experiences as a mid point in this discussion.

anyone know anywhere, aside from here that is tracking all of these discussions and actually using research?

okay maybe this is the answer they are looking for. relax artist, people will still buy and want to buy your products. really. people still support lots of new music from all around the world. now you do me the favour and before we enter a customer provider relationship where you make music, market it to me, i buy your music, i go to your shows, etc…before we start this journey please tell me exactly what you think your art is worth in $$$$ and i’ll tell you what i expect of your and your people before i buy into your plan. i want to know what i’m getting into. i understand that my rights are secondary to yours, but still i can have a voice and place at the table. i contribute to your livelihood so lets really embark in a useful conversation. while we’re at it do tell me how illegal downloads has impacted you as an artist, as it will help me decided on whether i decide to join this sympatico relationship and whether it’s important that i contribute my capital to you.

Enrico Suarve says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Nah don’t stop, most of your posts make a kind of sense; perhaps they aren’t the best expressed ever but that’s no reason to type nothing.

Worst case scenario – people don’t understand them and move on.

I get what you were highlighting – that “The karmanis guy” is stating that somehow because the opinions expressed on Lily’s blog are mainly from a certain demographic they are somhow invalid, whilst forgetting that that demographic may be music consumers too.

Fair point.

mertz says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

yeah i was thinking about this while i was on the train today and it still made me confused that he mentioned it like there is a point. i mean he is stating the obvious (kermanis) and setting context to this, but he reveals it like the ONLY people commenting about this-lily’s poc-are male tech bloggers. why does he bring it up? is it because these male tech bloggers aka tech dirt and mike which is one persone really (but i can’t make that correction since i type like an ass)are bashing lily allen and if so are they criticising her because she is FEMALE? i understand that i might be projecting my own bias onto his words but i don’t think i’m making up some sort of conspiracy extrapolation. i think there is a reason that kermanis specially said that those who are opposed to the position lily has taken, not to the fact that she has an opinion to which everyone has a right to, but maybe to the words she used or the information she used, are MALE tech bloggers. man.

thanks for the comment. i basically just write what is opposite of what i’m really thinking because i don’t understand how people can argue these same points in this unending discussion about change. the future is change. things change all the freaking time yet people don’t want to move with it. that’s fine. it’s not my fault that the stupid business model failed. i am only one person who participated in that entertainment provider-consumer relationship. the consumers are moving at a different speed and the providers don’t seem to understand, but really they are consumers too. there’s no us and them discussion you know like how the riaa tries to make it seem. to be free or not free and people taking sides on this. this really isn’t a split issue the way i see it. it’s about market and people who chose not to be apart of the market and not realize it’s facts. it’s not the end of the earth. music will always be created. people will always discover music. people will always share because it is human. i don’t understand why that is sooooo difficult to get. okay so lets talk about $$$ because that’s what this really is. people are using/have used their art to create a livlihood for themselves. i am a visual artist so i am there. you know i’m not famous but i definately live the life of a struggling artist, but i also have other means of moinitizing/making money. i love art, and i work within the community, but i’m not going to make my art everything (wish i could but i’m not the next damien hirst or banksy)and then expect my art to seel for millions because i’m such an amazing commercial artist or w/e. that’s not my perspective and it will never. i completely understand that not everyone will think like me. so lets get back to the discussion about money and maybe control because these are the underlying issues of free and at x cost. it’s not about those more established than me, or me being less established than those in the industry (hear publishing industry is really suffering as well…so many broken models. funny that on the first page of this site is a new post about authors realizing that their publishers aren’t marketing for them so they need to take that extra step and connect with people. DUH!). artists create and people consume these creations. we have allowed it to be so that people can create livelihoods out of their passion (despite lily allen’s whinning about her being a musician)which already gets a lot of flack from the general community. same as athletes. anything people view as recreational that isn’t studious (the arts are just as important as practical uhm subjects like math and science and english/whatever but isn’t english now considered an art? anyways you get what i’m saying. like there’s a disconnect with how people view right brain professions and left brain professions. there’s an english author who has taken it upon him to make the case for arts being important for things like science and math, and apparently where i live there’s a renewal to emphasize creative jobs within the arts but also when it comes to industries affected by this recession. you create, and by creating you design. when you figure out a formula you are using the part of your brain that is used to design. left brain and right brain people-i don’t really like describing it in those terms but i don’t have the words so i’m trying to say this in a way that is understandable-aren’t indifferent really)is apparently beneath them and that’s why people come (i’ve heard, i’ve said it myself, i’ve seen people post these things online, it’s everywhere)with these statements like “you’re an artist (implying like it’s such an easy thing to do or is less relevant or is a hobby)while i work x hours as a policeman or a nurse or uhm a doctor or a scientist, and I DON’T GET PAID AS MUCH AS YOU DO. what do you do? you go around and tour and have fun and drink and party and sing or paint or dance or play music or whatever your mainstream art genre is, and i am stuck in my job. what are contributing. if only i could make that much money acting and doing nothing instead of going in to work and taking care of people, saving lives, helping to make sure society is run appropriately (and all the other reasons people come up with)” really? yeah i’ve heard b.s. like that, b.s because the place it’s coming from, that emotion, isn’t good. artists create apparently for a reason. some artists make their creations for value because it is accepted that arts are improtant in this world and that you can monetize your art because we don’t want all the professions to be the same. okay fine. so therefore art doesn’t just have impartical or sentimental valaues but it also has uhm practical and $$$$ value. not all art but some art, that’s what we’re discussing because some people (artists/creators/whoever, engineeers,entreprenuers etc…) have applied a money value to what they make. i’m okay with that. i’m not against pay. what i’m really against are people who tell me what i’m supposed to do. there are rules that have been applied because i guess collectively we have deemed that artists get paid x amount for their creations and that’s why there are set costs to their products. okay. i have a next part i want to say but i think if i do it will piss people off (because it’ll come off as a rant, and i don’t want it to seem like that. about the rules, i am not against all authority because i am a productive contributing member to society so i guess, actually more like i know that at more than one point in my life i have respected rules, authorities and laws. i love law…i might not know all the laws everywhere in the world but i try i to keep up and you know educate myself. this is important to me not because i’m looking to be a commercial artist, but because i’m thinking about this issue too. i have been for a long time, before filesharing. i actually think it would be useful if they would just say how much they think their art is worth, and they can’t say pricless because they are taking on this entire cause to protect their livlihood for control and for money. lets keep it real. i don’t hmm what’s the word, i don’t envy that money because i make money myself and i understand the anger, but i don’t think this is something about anger, emotions, feelings really. i think this is a numbers issue like they can say how much people should pay them for their arts uhm for x amount of time and people will then respond and tell them how/what they are willing to do to recognize these arts and make it valuable as opposed to invalubale in terms of $$$$).

i pay for things. i also infringe. i’ve tried to go without infringing and i am very very very very careful about sourcing because i know exactly how it is to be ripped off, but this us vs them oh uhm consumers are wrong we’re right, f this that artist, all these emotions getting involved isn’t really what i want to concetrate on. i know it’s personal because uhm it deals with things that impacts everyone and people have rights and ownership over things, but i sometimes think that we should just have someone do a valuation on behalf of artists and consumers but allow for the valuation to change based on what’s going on at that time, but to maybe change gradually i guess or fluidly…i don’t think it would change anything except that there would be an end game so that everyone involved in the artist-consumer/creater-consumer relationship knows the x amount for the past, present and future. i don’t think it would work but it wouldn’t hurt to try.

mertz says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

and like i mentioned before i don’t download. if people do fine. i have family memebers who do, but i don’t because i haven’t come up with definitives on this issue of consumption and devaluing creators products, but then again who sets these costs on what something should cost…who does that and how is that explained. i remember discussing this and we used uhm cd actually, but also sales from an art fair we had conducted and we had at the end a list of where all the money goes. people (well i guess anyone above the af 14 who works)know how money works (even with this recession and the financial industry and their shadow economy and fake money but real products bs), and if you (riaa and the people at this uk meeting)to focus on education then maybe it would benefit to add on to all the physical and digital products out there that are created, attach information to it all. before you release something make sure that whatever is important about the creative process and who was invovled that needs to be compendsated is written there. i read the information attached to cd’s so i can figure out who is invloved in the projects and i often think about where my money is going. but what information is attached to mp3’s? some have information but probably a good amount is missing a lot of valuable information. when people know who’s impacted by their “illegal” downloading then maybe then they will give a shit. otherwise how can you expect them to know what is going on, if you only keep saying uhm the industry is feeling ill impacts but you don’t provide uhm faces and names to these large statements. i mean if they (riaa and other agencies representing creators from all meduims) want to embark on a mass education worldwide campaign they could do that can’t they…they have a lot of money and power (lobbying). i’ve been reading people’s comments sayingn “boohoo lily allen and all these musicians. if they didn’t want me to get their music then they should stop creating and releasing their products, infact if the riaa thinks downloading is killing the industry then maybe all people should stop listening/buying to music.” music will always be created, but it will be interesting to see what people will do when music is no longer being shared over the web or books, films, tv, just things for entertainment. would it mean all entertainment is dead (probably not) or that a form of recieving such entertainment has been modified/nullified.

PinballLes says:

It's probably management

Judging by Lily Allen’s actions, I’m not convinced that she is as anti-piracy as she is made out to be.

She’s only a young girl really. She probably has all sorts of management types brain washing her point of view, forcing her to do all these things. She is still an emerging artist she probably feels that she has no other option but go along with what her management and record company etc want her to do.

In couple of years when she is a bit wiser and a bit older she might form a totally different opinion than the one she publicly has now.

Sheinen says:

Re: Re: It's probably management

Yeah, but the tv show got pulled because it was complete and utter shit! I saw the first one, where she interviewed Cuba Gooding Jnr – she asked ‘is it true what they say about black guys?’ To Cube Gooding Jnr! The legend! WTF???

She doesn’t even KNOW what emerging artists go through, or what musicians trying to break through have to do to get noticed – she was spoon fed it!

That’s why there was more publicity on her, because she’s even more of a twat than James Blunt!

Anonymous Coward says:

Is it just me, or does there appear to be an ever so slight shift from the labels making such arguments to the artists themselves?

Artists, and all of the support personnel needed to produce musical content, are not ensconced in executive suites and wearing pin stripe suits. They are in the trenches working day in and day out to make a living (some obviously much more successfully than others). To some illegal downloads and uploads do have a direct and negative financial impact. To others perhaps the opposite is true and illegal downloads and uploads are of no moment. And to still others downloads and uploads are the lifeblood of their attempts to get noticed. I have as yet to read any criticism by those who decry illegal downloads and uploads directed towards the latter group.

These people who are concerned about illegal downloads and uploads could give a tinker’s damn about economic theory. They care about their pocketbooks and the ability to make a living.

If this is contrary to a greater societal good so be it, but try telling that to one who sees his/her personal financial future going down the tubes.

lulz says:

Re: Re:

These people who are concerned about illegal downloads and uploads could give a tinker’s damn about economic theory. They care about their pocketbooks and the ability to make a living.

The two are forever linked. The economy of the music industry is a greater part of her record label’s slice of the pie. Blame the middle men who takes their cut of the artist’s money, not the people who give new artists exposure and distribution, for free, so they gain new devoted fans who will purchase their concert tickets and buy their merch. Don’t blame those guys.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Too young

Pretty much, yeah. The RIAA / EMI basically told her to go out and support anti-filesharing legislation because “it takes money out of your pocket!” or something like that.

And that’s despite the fact that it’s the record companies – and not her fans – that’s actually taking money out of her pocket with every sale of her music.

Silly Lily.

enjaysee (profile) says:

I actually saved one of the pages on Lily’s blog. The one titled “Yo, some questions answered, I hope”. I was halfway through reading the comments when I found out she deleted the blog. From what I’ve read so far, there weren’t all that many ‘vitriolic’ comments at all. Maybe earlier in the blog’s life, but definately not later on. The majority of the comments are very well thought out.

I just think Lily couldn’t handle the backlash. After all, the majority, if not all of her fanbase probably would’ve been affected by this law. PinballLes is right, she is still a young woman and likely to have studio execs whispering in her ear. Hopefully she’s learned something from all this. I also find it quite telling that one of her reasons for quitting music is “The days of me making money from recording music has been and gone as far as I’m concerned, so I don’t (at this point) stand to profit from legislation.”……ummm..what happened to doing it for the love of the music?

Enrico Suarve says:

Re: Re:

You are aware you are talking about an artist who emerged during the advent of filesharing (and appears to have used it to her advantage to get free promotion in her recent past).

You are aware you are talking about an artist who has stood on stage before and announced that she “doesn’t care” about people downloading her stuff as she makes no money from album sales anyway.

She is now in a position where money means so little to her she bought a £4000 watch without checking whether it fit then tried to flog it for £3200, she manages to maintain a happy coke habit and is regularly in the papers for other daft purchases.

So she’s not exactly being forced to do it purely for “the love of it” (unless it’s the money she’s being forced to love).

She’s a well off artist who is apparently (according to her) doing this for all the new artists who are struggling in the face of file sharing.

It didn’t hurt her while she was emerging, or her friend Mr Blunt who also seems quite vocal; it apparently (according to her) doesn’t hurt her now.

I’m struggling to see how her examples show it hurts artists at all. For years they’ve told us they don’t make much money from album sales and make most from merchandise and tours, yet all of a sudden the lack of CD sales is kiiling them?

Sorry I don’t buy her argument at all. It seems to me she is arguing out of misinformed opinion at best or pure greed at worst. It seems to me that in order to get her hands on yet more cash she is willing to force regular people to pay for this in the form of increased ISP costs, and quite willing to set dangerous legal precedents that erode yet more of our civil liberties in the process.

All things combined I’m amazed at the low levels of vitriol on her site – the more I think about it the more I think a bit of vitriol is required.

mertz says:

Re: Re: Re:

but didn’t you read what she said (micheal k on dlisted just quoted her entirely so i could read it instead of relying on her blog or her twitter)? she said that she isn`t taking this on because of money. she said she isn`t renegotiating her contract as of now with emi because she`s taking a step back or a brake or w.e word she used. she also said something like she`s alright, uhm doing okay in terms of money because this isn`t something she needs to do for money. lily allen loves music. i happen to like her music (not a lot but a little) and her aestheticness…what i don`t like about her is her attitude and unfortunately that was enough to turn me off of her entirely, but i`ve been listening to lily allen since 2005 on mother f`n free myspace and when it suited her when she needed it because she needed to go another route because she was being rejected by lables and when she needed fans to actually recognize her musical outlet/talents, when she needed to make a livelihood for herself, money or otherwise, she went to a community. i only found out about her because of myspace. i really couldn`t tell you what is motivating her to do this because i`m not against her being a part of the conversation…but she better not be making statements (like she already does) that alienate her fans. her fans are still lily allen fans, despite her personal problems, despite her public problems, despite her music, despite her personality. they will stay lily allen fans and pay for her products if they are good. if lily allen is actually losing fans (not talking about cash cows like how the riaa seems to look at fans/consumers)it`s not because of freaking file sharing. it`s because of her and her products and the stupid lables. the industry. it`s not her fans that are making her lose anything. what she is losing is $$$$$$$ because the revenues have shifted. it`s like banging your head on a rock.

Aging MBA student says:

Critical thinking skills 1, Mass media 0

Huge Techdirt / Mike Masnick appreciation from me. I’m completing my MBA at the moment and recently had an assignment based around EMI / Radiohead and changing business models. I referenced Mike in my work, (no copyright breached!) but I am so pleased this recent spat has emerged. Too much of the “official” media is looking for the simple story – its really excellent to have someone with critical thinking skills able to argue against the spin and hyperbole.

Its not really a fair fight though – most musicians are good at music but not about business and that’s before the recreational drugs take hold!

Keep doing your thing Mike!

Sambo (profile) says:

Techdirt going mainstream

I have been an avid reader of the site (and very occasional commenter) for the past few years. As a budding music producer I have always thoroughly enjoyed the ongoing discussiond on Techdirt regarding the new frontier of music.

I could not believe my eyes when I logged onto my local newspaper in Melbourne, Oz and it may have taken Lily Allen but who do I see but to see Mike and Techdirt being quoted (and correctly linked to!).

Great work as always Mike. Your arguments are always fluid and well backed up with strong evidence and/or measured opinion. I hope that this ‘stoush’ with Ms Allen draws more and more people to Techdirt, not only to read but to also contribute to the ongoing and evolving discussions.

The more healthy, informed public debates like this the better for all.

mertz says:

Re: Techdirt going mainstream

yeah. see what happens when lily allen is involved with something? i just googled techdirt to come here instead of typing in the adress bar, and via google news in my search results, this whole thing has been written up in the times india. lol. it’s worldwide. i wish we could get visual of all the websites and actual physical mediums have written about this. it’a little bit lily allen but more so about the actual issues i like to think.

Anonymous Coward says:

oh SHUT UP already, kick me of f the internet, slow me down, Ill just go to another provider and do it again. I got an Idea, When someone shows they are complete idiots and do not understand biz, they should be ” Kicked off the PLANET” , or their life just slowed down, maybe by a bat to the head?

Go to hell all you groups sueing for control over what you have NO control over.

RIAA, MPAA among others, GO TO HELL!

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Secrets and lies?

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

Wait a second, on that super awesome blogorama she was writing, did’t she say that they were going to go after UPLOADERS? Why are now going after downloaders again?

Raybone (profile) says:

My how times have changed

I was thinking about how crazy this whole situation is….with people getting sued for helping to promote artists and just being normal fans…

I remember starting college in late 80s and thinking how lucky my first girlfriend there was. Somehow she got on some list where the labels actually would mail her new albums, merch, posters…all kinds of swag…every week for free. In return she was supposed to let them know what she thought of various music by filling out forms and expose her friends and get their reaction. I remember wishing that i could get a free Whitesnake, or Prince tape. What a different attitude than today. Perhaps because it cost them nothing.

You see, in those days the labels actually gave about a third of everything they manufactured media, fan clubs, reviewers and people like my g-friend at the time. Oh and it cost them nothing. They still charged 100 percent of that back to the artist who had no say on the amount or abuse of the promotional giveaways they were being charged for. This among other fraudulent practices usually left the artist in debt to the label. the artist could not make any music or profit until this was paid back which effectively, in many cases, ended the artists career. Meanwhile, the label has another tax write-off.

mertz says:

Re: My how times have changed

the good thing is that not all musicians have forgotten that, and still use it today, and even NEW artists, you know the one’s lily is defending. a lot of local bands here do the same thing that they would do when they are touring. fortunately for them they aren’t so dumb and their fans respond in kind. i don’t know how so many so-so bands from here have launched into something bigger using this same model. it’s hilarious that the record industry is dying because of file sharing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just a few Links

finished reading 200 plus comments on the nme blog. i don’t mind reading because i do it all the time, but i need to stop reading about this whole thing. it’s doing my head in. i’ve moved on to reading the other posts that’s been posted on the main page. the nme one is a good place for a discussion because it seems like not too many of the commneters are taking a piss out of the situation or being narks. it’s good comments, some really good points, some counterpoints, etc…people should click on the link. i don’t nme but i guess it’s good to try something. haven’t seen anything nme in a very long while if never. i read rolling stone 🙁

Sheinen says:

South Park!

I just watched South Park Season 9 episode 3 – download it if you haven’t seen it 😉

The boys decide to become Music Producers, their tag line is basically: “You do the performing, writing, singing and shows and let us handle everything else…for 10%”

My actual point:
Shouldn’t musicians have to buy their own recording equipment/pay studio fee’s, handle their own distribution and publicity and figure out the industry they intend to live through themselves anyway?
What other job IN THE WORLD could you set up shop in and know fuck all about?

Free Capitalist (profile) says:

This poor, naive girl should really bow disappear from the debate and restore her sense of integrity. Someone close to her should have pointed out that history shows no matter WHAT she does for them, the record companies will never pay “straight” royalties on her work, especially when her fame diminishes.

Now where is that lawyer tool who claims debate counter-point is bullying? (profile) says:

Dumb little girl gets caught out

This is my first comment here as I have been a long time reader but never a commenter, but after reading this for a few days… just cant resist to throw my $0.02 in .

I think Silly Lily is exactly like the people she is trying to “protect”.
Once caught she simply backtracks with more lies, when backed into the corner a final show of lies then… lets clear all evidence that it happened and finally: lets put a spin on it and blame others for “abuse” so that i dont look like a complete moron. Exactly like the labels who she represents.

Lily, i know you read on this site, after all you copied a whole article from here… oops sorry, “acquired” without giving the proper credit due.
I know no one would do that to your music, “acquiring” it and then pretending they made it… because, it stinks anyway. I “acquired” your music to see what the fuss was about, and discovered it was a waste of hard disk space… then threw it out of my trashbox as well. Contemplating a format of my harddisk as it kind of has a stench now.

Lily you silly, it really is a shame that when god asked you what would you like you opted for cellulite ( a big belly and saggy unattractive tiny breasts ( and a moronic brain. It would have been the gutters for you but i guess god took pity on you and gave you something that a few people would consider talent. I am not one of the people who fall into that category – if your little pea brain has not figured it out already.

You might consider what i wrote above as a personal attack, but its no more of a personal attack that what you are/were advocating against people when you know nothing of the subject except the disinformation that had been fed to you by people with deep vested interests. I guess they really lucked out when they found a ninny like you to swallow their BS whole.

I hope this experience has taught you not to open your mouth before actually knowing what you are talking about, at least thats my hope, but in recent light of your moronic scribblings, i fear hope just wont cut it and neither will prayers.

Hope you have a horrible day for a couple of years.
CJ –

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: The Register Mentions TechDirt

Mike. Thought you might like to now that professional Troll Andrew Orlowski is talking smack about you over on The Register.

Heh. Amusing. And, as a good professional troll does, he seems to have purposely misstated my position, and claimed we “discovered the power of copyright”. Say what now? I guess when you’re someone like Orlowski, reading comprehension is not part of the job description.

Captain Kibble (profile) says:

Re: Re: The Register Mentions TechDirt

I doubt he actually read your posts in any great depth. You hold a different opinion to him on this so he will label you a ‘freetard’ and proceed to attack you. The Register rarely elevates itself above the level of a UK tabloid these days.

Anyway I have so enjoyed reading techdirt (both your posts and the comments) during this Lily Allen kerfuffle that I have added it to my RSS feed and registered here. I didn’t know about this site until I started following the story elsewhere. I guess Ms. Allen did you a favour by sharing your content. In fact her attempt to gather support for an aggressive stance against file sharing seems to have worked better at bringing people who disagree with her together.

mertz says:

Re: Re: Re: The Register Mentions TechDirt

nope it’s not just you. i noticed that too. that wa safter i was done reading the whole thing and was at the bottom of the page, before i went and looked around the site’s layout. i don’t actually (never have) read anything from the register and i don’t know the author but the first part he did post where he does mention this website i thought was funny because he obviously has a problem but even his being a writer (his profession i guess…don’t know anything about him)couldn’t hide his feelings. what’s his deal? he has a problem with this site or mike or the commenters?

640k (user link) says:

compare to Jammie Thomas

Note the obvious comparison to Jammie Thomas’s situation. Looking at the two mixtapes, Lily is in for 38 cases of willful infringement, for commercial gain. Jammie got hit with damages of $80k each for 24 tracks for just private listening. So Lily’s in for at least $3 million in statutory damages, but likely more. I explore it a bit at my blog in Comments on the Lily Allen Mixtape Fiasco.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...