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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:23pm

    Obviously not...

    She uses a Ghost Writer!

    (ba-dum-bum)

    ...

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:28pm

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

    Haha, nice.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    David Gerard, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:30pm

    The plot gets ficker an' ficker, innit

    Oh deary me. I have updated my post accordingly.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    How about some math?

    Can someone do some quick Jammie math and send this idiotic broad a bill, please? RIAA, I'm looking at you on this one...

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    I think this post should have been written in light gray or light blue text in honor of Lily's blog and never-ending source of simultaneous hilarity and stupidity.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:36pm

    Re: How about some math?

    That'd be approximately 1,520,000 USD.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:38pm

    It's not her music, so that's ok.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:39pm

    owned.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    slackr (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:40pm

    This just gets better and better

    It makes me want to weep and laugh at the irony and how incredibly screwed up the whole copyright and music industry is on this issue.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:43pm

    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...

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:46pm

    This might do it!

    Maybe, finally, Lilly will be forced to actually respond directly to something. Also, I second that Dark Helmet - I quietly cheered the moment this post went straight to Peter's website (which is unfortunately just a holding page for now)

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:50pm

    Re: This might do it!

    the moment this was posted, then went

    I am tired apparently...

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    BullJustin (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:51pm

    Cease and Decist

    Where's the C&D letter when you want it?

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Drew, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:52pm

    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."

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:55pm

    Re: The danger here...

    Seconding that notion.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Ben in TX (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 2:56pm

    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!

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:00pm

    Re: This might do it!

    I'd like an actual statement from Lily Allen - their RIAA writer isn't doing too hot.

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:03pm

    Re: The danger here...

    uh, promise them some sunshine and rainbows too. I'm sure that teaching method will go over quite well.

    Or then again, we can laugh at it, and wait for the press to cover it, and give Lily the scorn the earned. Count me as someone who's never buying her music or ever sharing her info to anyone I know.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    SteelWolf (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:08pm

    Re: The danger here...

    Well said, Drew. Far more important than her hypocrisy, amusing as it is, is the ridiculousness of the "three strikes" laws that she purportedly supports. When even the law's supporters are accidentally falling afoul of its rules, how can anybody reasonably expect to impose this on the general public?

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    BulmaRO, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:29pm

    now u mention on the last block of text.. its interesting it doesn't that dificult to happen i mean musicians should care about the fans in some level.. and lets hope effectively isn't allen speaking but someone else, not even in behalf of her.

    lets hope.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    PeteProdge (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:37pm

    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!

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    kryptonianjorel (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:47pm

    Re: You guys rock

    I'm sure she writes it herself. They're WAAAAAY too many grammatical and spelling errors for it to be someone intelligent writing

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    mark, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 4:07pm

    +1 for Drew

    don't drag Lily through the dirt, get her to aboutface

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    Misanthropist (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 4:13pm

    Re: +1 for Drew

    don't drag Lily through the dirt, get her to aboutface

    She chose to enter the Lars Ulrich path... Now she's going to burn in it.

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Crzen (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 4:20pm

    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!!!

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Michael Vilain, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 4:43pm

    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.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    That Guy, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Lilly who?

    Yeah, but anyone with half-a-brain won't bother to listen to or purchase her goods...wait, dammit.

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 5:02pm

    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-lea rn-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.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Reed, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 5:23pm

    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.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Probably Sucks, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 5:57pm

    LOL!

    Just found this article through this pretty severe rant against Lily Allen here: http://beatsmash.com/2009/09/24/file-sharing-does-not-damage-artists-ffs-lily-allen/ A few words were said about her.

    I think personally she's doing all of this to get publicity. Or she was paid under the table.

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 5:58pm

    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.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 6:49pm

    Re: Re: How about some math?

    Actually using RIAA math its closer to $32,175,982,648,108.33 USD (And That Is 32 Trillion Dollars) plus or minus the US national debt.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 6:59pm

    Re:

    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?

    EMI has said that it does not offer MP3s for promotional purposes. So, that would suggest that the rights were not secured.

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

    Really? I recognize that you have been siding with copyright holders in every post about Lily Allen insisting that you don't understand our complaint, but even you can't be this confused.

    She has gone on and on saying that giving away music for free -- even by choice -- is bad for new artists.

    How can you not see that as hypocrisy?

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

    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?

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

    Wait. How so? She clearly stated that 50 Cent in CHOOSING to let his music be given away for free was harming the industry. And here she is giving away a ton of music for free -- and most of it *appears* not to be licensed. Even if it was licensed (and, again, EMI has denied doing such things), it still goes against what she said.

    I pointed this out earlier -- as I believe I know who you are -- but it's no wonder you, who promised to no longer post anonymously, have chosen to do so. Since you are, I believe, an IP lawyer, apparently you realize the harm it would do to your credibility to be saying the type of things you're saying here under your own name.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 7:46pm

    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".

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    ThePDW (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 8:48pm

    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.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 8:58pm

    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.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Trails, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 9:13pm

    Re: The danger here...

    I agree, but it will be turned into that by those who she represents, because their fundamental position is taken as a priori. All other positions, arguments, etc... are designed to hang off the idea that their position is correct.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    bschmalz81401, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 9:53pm

    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.

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 10:13pm

    Re:

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

    You mean copying, right? There is no taking being discussed.

    And I have had this discussion with you in the past, yet you seem unable to understand the concept: if many musicians are able to use such things to their own advantage, and the market is pushing others to recognize that fact as well, I'm struggling to understand the ethical issue. It's a situation where everyone can be better off: the fans can enjoy more and better music, and the artists can make a better living.

    So... please help me and explain how a situation in which all parties are better off is somehow ethically bad?

    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.

    That's a very strong statement. I don't argue that it is against the law -- and I do not engage in the practice myself. Yet, morals are an individual thing, and I find it incredibly elitist and, frankly, rather disgusting, that you presume to tell others what their morals should be.

    To then upload the copy so that it can be "shared" with the world is even more wrong.

    Providing the world with more access to beautiful music and culture, sharing wonderful sounds that make the world a better place, so that others can experience it. Yes. Downright evil, I see.

    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.

    Indeed. And yet you were just claiming that any such sharing is *worse* than ethically challenged. Odd.

    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.

    Declarative statements based on speculation... such as "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." Oh wait... that was you.

    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".

    And yet, I note, you still seem entirely unable to explain WHY you no longer sign your name. I speculated that it was because you know all too well that actually associating the silly statements you have made here with your actual name will do significant harm to your reputation.

    I saw elsewhere a claim from you that it is a "cookie problem." And yet... (1) no one else has the same problem (2) it is not difficult to sign your name (or even, as you have done at times, your initials) in the name box on each post, or at the end of a comment and (3) I have noted that on other sites -- mainly ones where you make personal attacks on me and my writings, your ability to sign your name and promote yourself as being a "kindred spirit" to those who legally attack fair use and free speech, you suddenly have NO PROBLEM figuring out how to append your name to those posts.

    Gee... I wonder why...

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    TechNoFear (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 10:13pm

    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.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Looks like the poster is just trying to get your goat.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 12:00am

    You went full retard, Lily. Never go full retard!

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Tor (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 12:22am

    Re: The danger here...

    +1 for taking a constructive attitude towards this matter.

    Namecalling isn't very interesting really.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    enjaysee (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 12:40am

    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/

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Monkey.B33, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 1:01am

    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

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Steve, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 1:09am

    Wikipedia

    This article is now referenced on llilys page on wikipedia.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    enjaysee (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 1:21am

    Re: Lily Allen

    I agree with you there.

    It just seems that someone whispered into her ear some general "music piracy is bad" talking points, and she went off and threw herself into the arena without properly educating herself. Sound like any other teenagers/young adults you know?

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Stuart Dredge, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:01am

    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.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Hero, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:17am

    Subject = NULL

    WHOIS says that the registrant (ie. owner) of the domain www.lilyallenmusic.com containing the 'offending' material "EMI (IP) LIMITED" does that not mean that while Lilly may have created the mixtape (own personal use?) EMI is making it available for download.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:19am

    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.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:25am

    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.)

     

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

  52.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:40am

    Re: FYI, Lily responded

    And an odd note from her Twitter:

    "hello, there is a meeting today in london where artists are meeting to discuss Piracy. my job done."

    Multiple requests to answer the questions in the other thread have been made my different people, myself included.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:44am

    Re: Re: FYI, Lily responded

    And she blanked her blog.

    (And now I'll stop updating you.)

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Matt, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:47am

    Re: FYI, Lily responded

    Damnit, I was just about to screengrab the page as I had a feeling it'd get blanked, but my firefox crashed. Did anyone else get it?

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    DiGRem, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:50am

    Quote from twitter...

    and i've shut down the blog, the abuse was getting too much.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    Tor (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 3:09am

    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?

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 3:16am

    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

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Ballbag, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 3:58am

    Blog shut down

    She has shut down her Blog citing "abuse was getting too much" on twitter, maybe she just realised that:

    1) Pissing off your fans is not good for business
    2) She knows very little about copyright law.
    3) She was losing.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Valter, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 5:21am

    Very funny letters to Lilly

    This is very funny letter to Lilly from runner at recording studios.

    http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/dear-lily-allen/

     

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

  60.  
    identicon
    Stuart Dredge, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 5:43am

    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!

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    Enrico Suarve, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 6:00am

    It was right there a moment ago

    Is it just me or has Lily's blog gone offline?

    On purpose or in error - only time will tell, in the meantime I think we should all be preserving her via the Google way back when machine to ensure that such valuable thoughts and responses do not go astray....

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    DG, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 6:44am

    She quit

    I heard she has quit making music all together now. We win!

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Enrico Suarve, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 7:04am

    Re: It was right there a moment ago

    Dammit - 2 people already mentioned this - I need to learn to hit F5 more often!

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Hero, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 7:38am

    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.

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re:

    If I may offer some final points.

    At no time have I staked out a position that the individual engaged in either a lawful or unlawful activity. I have merely noted that she apparently engaged in some activity for which critical information is missing in order to positively state what she did was legal or illegal. Despite the fact such critical information is missing, it seems to matter not to those prepared to jump on a bandwagon of accusations proclaiming that she engaged in something unlawful. It is easy to accuse someone of having violated the law, but proving it is a much more difficult matter. These posts have taken the easy path of accusation without proof.

    You are quite adept at making your points on other subjects by reference to academic studies and the like, i.e., what we as attorneys label as "evidence". This matter should be treated no differently, and to pillory someone without evidentiary support is putting the cart before the horse.

    Based upon subsequent posts there does appear to be an admission by the individual that she did do something wrong. Importantly, however, at the time of my comments no such admission had been forthcoming. I am curious what would have transpired had it been shown all of the remix tracks were authorized by the rights holder(s), or if some uses were unauthorized it was demonstrated that such uses without any reasonable argument to the contrary were fair uses. If this was the case all of the criticism would have been unwarranted. However, by that time all the damage would have been done and attempts at remediation largely ineffective.

    Feel free to criticize, but at least do so with relevant facts in hand. Otherwise, discussions become little more than an uninformed/premature lynching.

    If I may make a simple request. Please discontinue your constant deprecation of my professional qualifications as a lawyer. You do not know me. We have never worked together in any professional setting. You know nothing about any matters I have handled in my representation of clients, be they individuals, small businesses, or large corporations. Your apparent assumption that I am squarely aligned with advocates calling for a strong patent and copyright system is plainly wrong. You know nothing about my behind the scenes activities associated with proposed legislation and agency regulations.

    In all fairness, I readily admit that I am not the only lawyer you treat in such a manner. You have directed many of the same criticisms to others having the temerity to offer comments on posts. We mention the "idea/expression" dichtomy regarding copyright law, and it is readily dismissed. We mention the contrast between "ideas and invention" under patent law, and it too is readily dismissed. We mention that many of the issues associated with judicial decisions are significantly more nuanced than you would have others believe, and it is readily dismissed. Likewise, you continually discredit our judicial system and readily dismiss court decisions with which you happen to disagree, even when persons knowledgeable with such decisions attempt to explain the reasons underlying them. In the process you loose a real opportunity to engage in the very type of discussion upon which you profess this site is based and encourages.

    Let me extend an invitation. If at any time you believe it would be helpful to contact me and delve in greater detail concerning any of my comments, feel free to give me a call. I would be pleased to take the time to further elaborate. I happen to believe that sitting at a keyboard is a poor substitute for one-on-one discussions. Otherwise, it is all to common for persons to talk "past" and not "to" each other. If you ever decide to accept my invitation, I can be reached at (407) 876-4543. Alternately, though I seldom use it, I can be reach by cell at (321) 217-6102. By the way, each of these are listed numbers and can easily be found on the internet.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I have other work that requires my attention.

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    flashback (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 9:48am

    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.

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    Tom Davenport, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 10:07am

    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.

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Monkey.B33, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re: Lily Allen is not to blame

    I was on her side all along, but she crossed the line when she mixed the debate with not doing records anymore.

    Last time I checked, she was also 24, right? Not 16, 24... lifetime experience in the music industry, bright girl - you're actually insulting her in your defense.

     

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

  69.  
    identicon
    Tom Davenport, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 10:36am

    Re: Where have my comments to this post gone?

    Please excuse me, this was entirely my own stupidity checking back at the wrong post for a response to my comment.

     

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

  70.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 10:58am

    Re: 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.

    Stuart, I'm not sure I understand this comment. We were having a debate and a great forum for arguments and counter-arguments was already occuring. She took it down because she seemed unable to respond to *valid criticisms*

    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.

    Again, the vast majority of the comments were well thought out and not abusive at all.

    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!

    I saw your post on this and I have to admit that I really haven't seen much "Lily baiting" at all. We've been having a serious conversation and rather than deal with it, she's taken her blog and gone home.

    The debate continues. She stormed off as soon as the details of her own activities became clear.

     

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

  71.  
    identicon
    alien species, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:00am

    lilley allen

    totally agree...she should be fined...taken off the internet...and off cd...forever

     

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

  72.  
    identicon
    Louis freind, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:13am

    She'll be happy to see that everyone's stopping seeding her.
    or will she?

    also, im not buying the ghost writer. IT WAS HER BLOG imo.

     

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

  73.  
    identicon
    Michael, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:21am

    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.

     

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

  74.  
    identicon
    Paulo, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:32am

    Re: The danger here...

    Right on the spot.

     

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

  75.  
    icon
    flashback (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 11:59am

    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.

     

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

  76.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 1:56pm

    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?

     

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

  77.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:00pm

    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.

     

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

  78.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:04pm

    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.

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:06pm

    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.

     

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

  80.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:37pm

    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.

     

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

  81.  
    identicon
    mertz, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re: Where have my comments to this post gone?

    lol. atleast you're polite.

     

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

  82.  
    identicon
    F., Sep 24th, 2009 @ 4:30pm

    YO, I'MMA LET YOU FINISH

    BUT JOEL TENENBAUM HAD ONE OF THE GREATEST MIXTAPES OF ALL TIME
    http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9418/mixtapesu.jpg

     

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

  83.  
    icon
    TechNoFear (profile), Sep 24th, 2009 @ 8:22pm

    You again obsfucate the point.....

    This all started because Lily said 50c was harming the music industry by distributing his work legally for free (using TechDirt without a ref).

    It is therefor a mute point as the the legality of the downloads Lily was offering.

    Lily was, in her words, harming the music industry to promote her own sales (while telling others to stop).

     

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

  84.  
    identicon
    PirateMyMusic, Sep 24th, 2009 @ 8:34pm

    Re:

    Hmm... Trent Reznor didn't seem to mind when I downloaded The Slip for free.

     

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

  85.  
    identicon
    Adam King, Sep 25th, 2009 @ 4:37am

    I especially like this comment from the Mixtape #2 page, from one of her fans...

    "Rick said...

    thanks, love the free music you are sharing with your fans! glad to see someone doing it..."

     

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

  86.  
    identicon
    Kenny, Sep 25th, 2009 @ 7:58am

    Re: Very funny letters to Lilly

    Been Getting a lot of hits through Valter's link. Just wanted to point out that we actually have a separate post on the topic now...

    http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/its-not-alright/

    Thanks

    KennyX

     

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

  87.  
    identicon
    Kenny, Sep 25th, 2009 @ 8:00am

    In responce to Valter's link

    Been Getting a lot of hits through Valter's link. Just wanted to point out that we actually have a separate post on the topic now...

    http://kickupthefire.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/its-not-alright/

    Thanks

    KennyX

     

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

  88.  
    identicon
    Pete, Sep 25th, 2009 @ 8:20am

    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.

     

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

  89.  
    identicon
    NickJ, Sep 26th, 2009 @ 5:47pm

    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 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.

     

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

  90.  
    identicon
    Tiziano Ventura, Sep 28th, 2009 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Sir, do you realize that posting your phone number in the Google era is equivalent to posting your full name?

    http://www.google.com/search?q=(407)+876-4543

    Then why bother being anonymous here?

     

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

  91.  
    icon
    PeteProdge (profile), Sep 28th, 2009 @ 3:57pm

    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.

     

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

  92.  
    identicon
    daveypants, Oct 7th, 2009 @ 2:43am

    mix cd.....

    if u look at her site you still get a "free mp3 mix" when you join the mailing list.... i cant be arsed getting it, but if anyone can, wouldnt mind knowing whats on that...?

     

    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