Lily Allen, copyright pirate
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- France is once again trying desperately to do the bidding of the corporate entertainment cartels by implementing a law which would see `illegal` downloaders thrown off the net without proof of wrong-doing, as it’s defined by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, on the one hand, and Time-Warner, Fox, Disney, Columbia, Paramount and MGM on the other.
And that`s the way to go, implies Lily Allen, a UK singer whom nobody outside of the UK had heard of until she started shouting the odds about file sharing.
Elton John also jumped on the bandwagon, but the wheels had started turning when Britain’s The Times, a prestigious newspaper until it was snapped up by Rupert Murdoch, ran a whiny Allen OpEd which, by an amazing coincidence, had previously appeared in Allen’s MySpace thingy, MySpace also being a Murdoch possession.
Now, “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,” blogs Mike Masnick in TechDirt, continuing »»»
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 (
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. and
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. ) 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?
“I’m beginning to wonder if the blog and the statements from Lily Allen are really from her,” says Masnick, adding:
“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?”
Stay tuned.
(Cheers, David)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
without proof of wrong-doing – France okays Three Strikes censorship bill, September 23, 2009
TechDirt – Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes, September 23, 2009
jumped on the bandwagon – Elton John joins anti-P2P brigade, September 23, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Indiana Gregg 2.0
September 24th, 2009 at 8:38 am
She’s just deleted all her blog posts (a few minutes ago).
ROFL!
http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/ – it’s now completely empty of posts.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am
lol, what a bitch.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Another PR own goal, hahahahahaha.
What a bitch, indeed.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:30 am
not quite what you would expect but: http://indianagregg.blogspot.com/2009/09/pirate-party-versus-musicians.html
September 24th, 2009 at 9:30 am
You’re falling behind, Jon. There’s already a lengthy follow up to this story at Techdirt.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:31 am
you’re all in a kindergarten and someone has come to take away your favorite toys.
you all will have to go work and get paid to be able to buy your favorite music or movie. Will be a whole new experience for you and you will even get to talk to a real live person!
September 24th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@ RW: “Youâre falling behind, Jon. Thereâs already a lengthy follow up to this story at Techdirt.”
On TorrentFreak as well, as Ernesto informs me.
*sigh* What to do? What to do?
Sadly, there’s only me here and I’m working on other stories, Lily’s being only one of them.
But thanks for pointing that out …
Cheers!
September 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Your stories are more balanced Jon, so keep it up. And you’re less afraid of free speech.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I think a pirating pro-copyright singer is equally silly as a creative commons millionaire who says that there’s a need for copyright.
Joi Ito, chief executive of Creative Commons: Creative Commons is a tool that is built on top of copyright, so in order for Creative Commons to exist, copyright has to exist, and in fact in countries where they have little or no copyright enforcement we’re actually not that interesting, and Creative Commons is the most interesting in regimes where copyright is very complicated, yet people, some people, want to share, and then Creative Commons becomes a very important tool. (â¦)I was on board of icann, but they make a bazillion dollars, they make $50m or so. From registration, and I’m on board of Mozilla, which gets about $70m from Google.. so business models are possible. Having said that, Icann has a business model that is a cause of a lot of their problems. (â¦) We’re kind of stuck actually between two extremes, where there are certain people who are what I would call abolitionist and certain people who are pro-piracy, basically want to abolish copyright; and there are people who want to not allow any sharing because it destroys their business model and want everything to be controlled. But most of the people are sort of in between, and we enable everybody in between. On another tack, you’re a venture capitalist, you were an early investor in Last fm, you’re an early investor in Twitter. A lot of people are interested by It’s rumoured it’s going to get some extra investment. Is that true?
JI: Yes, there is that rumour (laughs). (â¦) I think that when you look globally the infrastructure for e-commerce isn’t available in a lot of of countries, so while you may have a lot of traffic, you don’t necessarily have al lot of money
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/23/joi-ito-interview-creative-commons
September 24th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@Gheldi, my understanding is that the idea of creative commons isn’t based on copyright. It’s based upon the author or creator’s right to allow their work to be used after they have exercised their right of first release, etc. There’s a difference. I thought the blog was interesting enough, but, goes too far into the pirate party opression. This is what Gregg is lobbying for:
She writes: “1) The Internet needs a Compulsory global license for Music. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/compulsary_worldwide_digital_mus/index.html
This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions for the use of music and other media would become more standardized… , which essentially reduces costs, and create a fair playing field. It would take some of the âcontrolâ out of the hands of the music industry, but, the result would be hugely beneficial and rather than oppressing artistic culture financially, it would help stimulate and compensate.
2) A levy on the ISPs needs to be introduced. The Internet needs to be levied at its access points. Telecom companies are your Internet passport. They are the gateway between you and the media on the Internet. Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. People have become very dependent on this âinternet passport.â The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. They are selling connections and bandwidth based on the premise that people want to access culture. We are paying for access. A portion of their revenues should be allocated to the media that people are accessing. A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of âfree cultureâ on the Internet whereby piracy could become obsolete. This levy could be introduced without raising the cost of Broadband to the end user if you lobby hard enough. Simply, it could come out of the ISPâs profits.
3) Government subsidies: At the moment, at least in the UK, government is ironically concerned with the economics of the music industry rather than âcultureâ. The government wants to see jobs being created. As the impact that a levy on the ISPs combined with a compulsory license for music on the Internet would essentially help create a cultural expansion on-line, so would the impact on job creation and artistic development. Theoretically, less law suits and lobbying would result in the creative industries focusing on music again. This would help free up government resources into the regeneration of music at the grass roots level rather than the seizure of resources that has been wasted on fighting piracy.”
end of quote
I think that it would work if it was for all media. In this case, there would be no more copyright or creative commons necessary at least as it applies to the internet.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
the links are downloadable through the internet archive wayback machine.
the internets is 4eva.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
oops, they’re gone too. damn rupert has his hands in everything.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Here as well:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/23/lily-allens-copyrigh.html
September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 am
It’s OK folks – I’m undeleting as fast as I can…….. HINT – there are lots of caches around the Internet……
September 25th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@ omg
Very interesting ideas. Much better than ‘everything should be free’ and ‘piracy is good for the economy and cultural development blah blah’
September 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
” @ omg
Very interesting ideas. Much better than âeverything should be freeâ and âpiracy is good for the economy and cultural development blah blahâ
Oooh look. A troll talking to himself.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
” Very interesting ideas. Much better than âeverything should be freeâ and âpiracy is good for the economy and cultural development blah blahâ ”
Please show us where someone says, ‘ everything should be free’ .
Please provide a link to a credible source where an educated person has suggested that
‘everything should be free’ .
Hyperbole and distraction is simply another form of industry lapdog bullshit.
I hope they aren’t wasting too much money on your services.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
la de da