Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free

from the confusion dept

Dark Helmet alerts us to the news that our good friend Lily Allen is back in the news discussing file sharing again. Tragically, it does not appear that she's used her "time off" to better understand copyright issues very much. Unlike nearly everyone else who complains about copyright infringement, she's apparently "all for" infringing on her copyrights, just so long as you pay someone -- even if it's the guy on the street selling the counterfeit CDs. Seriously:

"If someone comes up with a burnt copy of my CD and offers it to you for £4 I haven't a problem with that as long as the person buying it places some kind of value on my music."

Yes, so while some musicians have said they're fine with non-commercial file sharing, but are against anyone selling their unauthorized works, Ms. Allen seems to have taken the opposite approach. Counterfeit all you want, just as long as you profit from it. Yeah. Someone should explain to her the difference between price and value, and also the benefits of word of mouth marketing. But, it doesn't seem like she's much interested in actually understanding this stuff, so if you want to help her understand, maybe go set up a shop selling burned copies of her CDs, and see what happens.

Of course, if we take this seriously, it shows how little she's thought this through. Her earlier complaint was that when people file share, they don't provide money back to the artists and the labels. Of course, when counterfeiters are selling on the street, the same thing is true, but suddenly it's okay? At what point does the world realize that Ms. Allen doesn't know what she's talking about?

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News

from the oooops dept

Just this week, James Harding, the editor of The Times (of London), a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, tried to explain why the news is worth paying for, as the paper starts to put up a new business model to get consumers to pay for news. Unfortunately, Harding apparently didn't get the message himself. As pointed out by Mathew Ingram, just days after making the case for paying for news, The Times has been accused of publishing an article that it copied without permission from a blog.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, just as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators (sites that simply summarize and link to stories) parasites (even as he owns a bunch of aggregators himself), one of his papers didn't aggregate, it flat out copied, without permission, a blog post that was written by Edgar Wright as a tribute to Edward Woodward, who recently passed away. The Times eventually put up a "clarification" online that had a link to the original site, but that hardly explains the original copying -- especially during the very week that they're trying to convince the world that news should be paid for....

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

It's Natural To Freak Out Over Someone Copying Your Stuff... But It Doesn't Make It Rational

from the getting-past-the-oh-shit-moment dept

Owen Kelly has a nice post up, where he basically admits that, even though he's not against copying, he had an initial visceral bad reaction when he recently saw his own work copied, but after taking a step back and thinking about it rationally, he realized it wasn't so bad. The problem is that most people, when they see their own work copied, never take that second step. They see it, they freak out and go negative (or, worse, call in the lawyers). But if you take a step back, you can ask yourself (1) if the copying really matters one way or another and (2) if there's any way to use that copying to your advantage, rather than freaking out about it. That's the point we've been trying to make for years. In most cases, freaking out isn't going to make the situation any better (and it has a better than even chance of making it worse). But embracing it, and figuring out ways to use the copying to your own benefit can be tremendously rewarding.

But, of course, that doesn't mean we don't recognize that normal impulse reaction. It's entirely natural, even if it's irrational. So, we're not necessarily surprised when people overreact to such things -- even if we think it's not a particularly smart long-term strategy. But, hopefully, as more and more people show how allowing more widespread copying helped rather than harmed them, this won't seem so counterintuitive to so many people.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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?

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]

from the missing-the-point dept

In my last post about Lily Allen's hypocrisy in uploading tons of songs without authorization, while saying it's good to cut off internet access for regular uploaders, one of the commenters made a good point: we should use this as a teaching moment, to try to show Ms. Allen why her position is wrong, rather than focusing on calling her a hypocrite. And, indeed, that would be great, but it seems like a difficult lesson for some -- including Ms. Allen -- to grasp. Her response to my post seems to come up with a variety of excuses, none of which actually touch on the actual point:

i made those mixtapes 5 years ago, i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then...

The point is that, thanks to today's technology, it's quite easy for people to infringe while doing what they think is a good and reasonable thing. Lily, you created these mixtapes to promote both your own music and the music of others you liked. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's infringing. Think of all the other people who are just like you 5 years ago. They don't have knowledge of the workings of the music industry, and they're trying to promote themselves or share music they like. But, based on the laws that you yourself now support, the Lily of 5 years ago might not have an internet connection. Even though the "infringement" you did was for entirely innocent reasons. How is that fair or just?

The point (and this was the same point we tried to make with our original post about copying a Techdirt post) is that incidental infringement is almost impossible to avoid. Everyone infringes in some way or another in the course of a day. One paper found that people infringe many times over in the course of a single day. Everyone does. And while your infringements are a bit more... um... blatant than most, it highlights the problem of having such a draconian action against file sharers. Cutting them off from the internet for something that everyone is doing all the time seems quite problematic, doesn't it?

So, a quick question for you, Lily: Is "well I uploaded those songs before I knew how the music industry worked" a reasonable defense to prevent Lord Mandelson from taking away your internet access or the internet access of anyone else?

As your article clearly states , lilyallenmusic.co.uk is an EMI run website, which is exactly why i don't acknowledge it (i think theres a link to it on my myspace(which i do run), thats purely because, my record contract states i cant sell my merchandise online anywhere else on the net . i don't post on there, i dont even look at it. the record company run it.

Fair enough, but really the fact that it's a major label owned site was a separate issue (having to do with EMI's claims in its lawsuit against MP3Tunes). It still doesn't change the fact that you created these mixtapes, and used them to advance your career. And now you are claiming that the very same tactics should not be allowed for others?

In your original post pushing back on the Featured Artists Coalition, you complained about how they were all big stars, and how their plan would hurt the up-and-coming artist. And yet, when you yourself were an up-and-coming artist, you used free music distribution to your own advantage. Now you're not only looking to take that option away from up-and-coming artists, you're looking to kick them entirely offline for a period of time. It seems like that's a much bigger "harm" to up-and-coming artists than people sharing their music and promoting them for free.

But just like you mocked the FAC artists for having an unfair advantage for being big, you seem to be in the same position. You want to take away tools from up-and-coming artists that you yourself used.

Anyway the snippets of songs you hear on those mixtapes are about 30 seconds to 1 minute in length, in traditional mixtape style, it is infringement, correct, but it's not my site, it's EMI's. i am not a hypocrite, i don't illegally download music, and i still think unauthorised file sharing is wrong.

But you were the one who created the mixtapes, correct? You were the one who infringed and uploaded them and offered them to the world. That they're now on a site controlled by EMI is quite besides the point.

If you truly believe that regular uploaders should have their internet access taken away, why not make an example of yourself? Why not take away your own internet access for a year to prove the point? Or do you not think the laws you want to apply to everyone else should apply to you?

Again, the whole point here is that what you did was entirely natural and made plenty of sense. Lots of people do it today. They do it because they love music. There's nothing wrong with that, and you know it (or, apparently, knew it at one point in the past). And, there are many ways to take advantage of that fact. Just as 50 Cent does. Just as you did. Going to war with the fans who made you who you are today, in part because of your own infringing behavior, just doesn't make any sense. You keep saying that file sharing harms artists, but it existed five years ago as well, and didn't harm you. It helped you. So why would you want to take that away from everyone else?

Update: Wow. In the half an hour or so that I took to write this post, Lily erased the blog post where she responded (I've got a screenshot if anyone wants to see it), and just added a note to Twitter, saying that she's shut down the entire blog due to too much abuse. Lily, it's not abuse if we're just asking you to rethink your positions that appear to not be particularly well thought out.

204 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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?

92 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some Questions For Lily Allen

from the once-more... dept

Lily Allen has continued to post statements from various artists on her blog against file sharing, and most are of the "yeah, file sharing, it's bad!" variety. While she still doesn't quite seem to realize what was hypocritical about her decision to copy a Techdirt post while claiming that copying was bad, she did recently post something where she tried to "answer some questions" that others seem to be having about her effort. The problem is that the "questions" she's answering aren't really the questions that people have been asking. Her explanation is that she's trying to show what file sharing is doing to new artists. Furthermore, she complains that comments about people getting cut off from the internet are misguided, since the proposals are no different than cutting someone off for not paying their bill. Then she attacks the concept that music could be free, saying:

"It's not free to make, so it can't be free, can it?"

And goes on to say that not enough people are paying for music, so that's "threatening new music." Anyway, her "answers to some questions" mostly raise more questions from me, so I'd like to present them here. If Lily Allen is serious about dealing with these issues (and serious about being "sorry" -- even if she apologized for the wrong thing), then it would be great to see her directly address these questions, rather than responding to some made up questions.

1. You claim that file sharing is harming new music. Yet, at the same time, a recent study has shown that more new music is being created today than ever before in history. Partly, that's because new tools have made it cheaper than ever to create and record new music. But those same technologies are also making it cheaper to promote and distribute that new music. All of those factors seem to outweigh the "piracy" issue. So, how can you claim that it's harming new music, when the evidence suggests more new music is being created than ever before?
2. You claim that "not enough people are paying for music." However, just a few months ago, the economists employed by PRS, which is a big part of the UK music industry, released a study suggesting that the music market was growing, not declining. They agreed that retail sales have dropped, but that live show attendance and other offerings (merchandise, etc.) have outweighed the decline in music sales. In other words, people are spending more on music, it's just going into different things -- just like 50 Cent said. Given that the economists who represent your industry are saying the opposite of what you claim must be happening, can you support the claim that not enough people are paying?
3. According to many reports, you benefited greatly yourself by promoting your music via MySpace, which allowed people to listen to your music for free. Other reports have suggested that you have complained in the past that your record label does not give you much, if any, money from CD sales. Given that you seem to have used "free music" to your own advantage in the past, how can you say that "music can't be free"?
4. You are posting your blog on a Blogspot.com domain, which is provided by Google to you, for free. It cost Google money to create this service, and all of its services, and yet it has been able to create a business model whereby it makes money by giving away certain aspects of its business for free. Google is one of the most successful companies in the world. Why do you insist with such certainty that using free as a part of a business model is a bad thing?
5. There are a growing number of artists -- big, medium and small -- who have learned to embrace file sharing, and have found that it has helped them to better connect with their audience, and when combined with a smart business model, makes them more money than in the past. Given that's the case, is it possible that the problem is artists choosing a bad business model rather than "piracy" being the problem?
6. Despite your shading of the issue, there have been and continue to be proposals in the UK that would lead to people being kicked off the internet -- yes, for a limited time, but still removed from the internet. Can you explain how that makes people any more likely to buy your music?

By the way, it's also worth noting that many of the ideas for these questions come from the comments to the post on Lily's blog. While there were some nasty and childish comments on some of the earlier posts (such as the one where she copied my post), going through the comments on this particular post show that the vast majority of them are well thought-out, well-argued and thought-provoking. And most of them disagree with Allen's statements.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lily Allen, Don't Apologize To Me, Apologize To Everyone Else

from the sorry,-but-that's-not-the-point dept

It seems that a few folks misunderstood the point of my post yesterday in joking about Lily Allen's double standard in ranting against unfair copying while copying blog posts from other sites. And Lily herself appears to be among those people. She's posted an apology, though, a bit petulantly, starting in all capital letters:

I THINK ITS QUITE OVIOUS THAT I WASNT TRYING TO PASS OF THOSE WORDS AS MY OWN , HERE IS A LINK TO THE WEBSIITE I ACQUIRED THE PIECE FROM . Apologies to Michael Masnick

While I appreciate the "apology," that's really missing the point. First, the reason TorrentFreak and I both brought it up wasn't because I was upset about her using the post. As I clearly said in my response, I thought it was great that she wanted to use our post, and I encouraged her to do so. The point, though, was that it was a bit hypocritical of her to be going on and on about how evil it is to copy another's work without their permission, when she went and did the same thing. Furthermore, the point is that when it's natural and easy for people to copy like that, it's time to learn to accept it and use it to your advantage. So, no apology is necessary to me. My post wasn't about you trying to pass off my words as your own, but recognizing that even you, Lily Allen copy other people's work all the time, even without realizing it.

And, yet, in the very same breath, you want to kick people off the internet for doing the same thing?

If anyone deserves an apology, it's all the people you've been blasting with this complaint that it's "piracy" that's somehow harming artists, when the actual evidence shows no such thing. Plenty of artists have learned to embrace file sharing and used it to their advantage, suggesting it's not piracy that's the problem -- it's artists unwillingness to adapt and put in place smarter business models. Running to the gov't and asking them to kick your fans off the internet isn't a new business model. So, don't apologize to me. We're happy for you to use Techdirt posts however you want. We just thought it was worth calling your attention to the fact that even you seem to have no problem copying stuff when convenient, so maybe you should think twice about blasting everyone else for doing the same thing.

92 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright... Unless It's Done By Lily Allen

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

The folks over at TorrentFreak alerted me to the news that singer Lily Allen, who made some news last week for speaking out against file sharing and against artists who have defended file sharing, has put up a blog, called "It's Not Alright," to talk about this particular subject. In one of her very first posts, she reposted an entire Techdirt post about 50 Cents' view on piracy and how it's part of the marketing. Allen goes on to then say that this is not alright and that 50 Cent is being selfish and isn't thinking about everyone else. But what's quite odd is that Ms. Allen, while complaining about such unfair copying, seemed to have absolutely no problem with copying my entire Techdirt post -- without credit or a link. As I said when asked by TorrentFreak for my response:

I think it's wonderful that Lily Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post that she decided to copy -- or should I say "pirate"? -- the entire post. The fact that she is trying to claim that such copying is bad, while doing it herself suggests something of a double standard, unfortunately. Also, for someone so concerned about the impact of "piracy" I'm quite surprised that she neither credited nor linked to our post. Apparently, what she says and how she acts are somewhat different. Still, Lily, glad we could help you make a point... even if it wasn't the one you thought you were making. Feel free to use any of our posts going forward as well. Unlike some, we're not scared of people copying our stuff. By the way, does this mean we can post her music to our site without crediting her now, too?

Enigmax, in his TorrentFreak post put it nicely as well:

Lilly, in isolation we don't think your copyright infringement is a big deal at all and neither does Mike, but in the arena of this debate it's still quite important. Infringing copyright these days is so easy to do, most people manage it every day in one way or another, and you are clearly no different. You probably didn't mean any harm or even give it a second thought but half a dozen clicks later and you're a pirate these days I'm afraid.

The next thing you know you've got God-knows-who accusing you in public of being an evil copyright infringer and telling you the sky's falling in. Oh, you're on your first strike now by the way. A couple more and it'll be off to Ofcom for disconnection for you young lady....

That said, I also think it's worth responding to Allen's attempted "point" in response to 50's comments:

this is particularly selfish in my view, he seems to only be thinking of how piracy effects him. What about the guys that work in the studio and the kids that run around town putting his posters up,the people that designed his artwork, the people that run his website. Is he giving them a cut of his live fee?

Wait... since when did any of those people get a cut of album sales? Really. None of them do. They all get paid regular fees for their work... and that doesn't change if 50 is making all his money from album sales or concerts. So, yes, they actually do get a cut of his "live fee." It comes in the form of regular payment for services... the same as if it were coming from album sales. And, if 50 is making even more money from those live shows, he can still afford to pay the studio guys, the street teams, the art designers and his web gurus more. So what point is Lily Allen making again? Because so far I can't figure it out...

84 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Just Copying Isn't Enough: Cargo Cult Science And Copycats

from the gotta-leapfrog dept

We've talked about cargo cults in the past around here, and Boing Boing points us to a great video of a talk by Jeff Veen, which argues that copycat innovators are a form of a cargo cult:

The point he's making is one that we've tried to make here many times in the past -- though his analogy is much better than most we've used. Basically, it's easy to just copy what you think is cool about a product, but that's rarely (if ever) enough to actually get people to buy. This is an issue we see all the time when people get upset about our position on patents. They say that, without patents, someone would just come in and "steal" the idea, and then where would you be? But, the fact is, just being able to "copy" the product isn't enough to get it sold.

If you're truly innovative, then you not only understand your product better than some random copycat, but you also understand what makes your market want your product.

That can't be copied. Not easily. Yes, the copycat may win over some customers, but it's not the same. And, by knowing the product and the market better than anyone else, you should also be able to stay ahead of the curve and keep innovating. The copycat just has to catch up -- they're running towards where they think you were, when you may already be well past that.

But the comparison to a cargo cult is quite accurate. The cargo cultists built up their faux airports, thinking that it would bring in the same wonders as the real wartime airports did. Companies make copycat iPhones because they think that people will suddenly rush to buy them like they bought the iPhone. But it doesn't work that way.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling

from the *sigh* dept

Well, there goes that one. Just a few hours ago, we were writing about how Judge Patel's district court ruling barring Real Networks RealDVD system seemed to conflict with a California state court ruling for Kaleidescape. It's true that there were some differences in the details behind the ruling, but it might not matter either way, as a state appeals court has reversed the lower court ruling and has basically said that Kaleidescape's DVD backup system likely violates the DRM found on DVDs.

Once again, we're seeing a fearful Hollywood, unwilling to innovate itself, using the courts and the law to stomp out anyone who innovates. The Kaleidescape product is clearly not for "piracy" purposes. It's a server that costs around $10,000, and is designed for high-end movie fans, who want to store all of their legally purchased movies on a server so they can watch it. It didn't serve any sort of "piracy" purpose whatsoever. But, thanks to Hollywood freaking out over the fact that anyone might make a copy of a movie, even for perfectly legal backup purposes, that device may now be dead.

Time and time again, we hear folks in the entertainment industry insist that they want to support technological innovation, but their actions show otherwise. They tried (and failed) to outlaw the VCR. They tried (and failed) to outlaw the MP3 player. But lately they've been succeeding in outlawing products just because they don't like them. Doesn't that seem like a massive problem?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Don't Newspapers 'Parasite' Themselves?

from the hello,-competition... dept

With all the misleading claims about blogs and other sites acting as "parasites" or ripping off the news, there's a really good question that the big media properties don't seem to want to answer. If these sites are really attracting so much traffic... why not build one yourself? Over at E-Media Tidbits, Amy Gahran discusses how that might work:

While many journalists are attached to long-form stories delivered in a traditionally detached and serious tone, that doesn't necessarily align with how more and more people actually consume media and news.

So why not offer both approaches on a news site? Rather than wait for (or actively solicit) popular venues such as Gawker or "The Daily Show" to imbue labor-intensive, in-depth reporting with mass appeal, news organizations could instead present their own briefer, more lighthearted takes on longer stories and increase the chances of driving traffic and engagement to the original stories.

If those other sites really get all the attention, then come up with a way to bring the attention back. That's what we normally think of as competition. If the car dealer across the street is having a blow out Labor Day sale, you don't complain about them "parasiting" your customers. You come up with a promotion yourself.

Now, to be fair, my guess is that the response to this is that would only add more expense on top of what's already being done, without a guaranteed payoff. Also, part of the complaint (at least from the Marburgers) isn't so much that these sites get all the traffic, but that they drive down ad rates for the long form journalism. Of course, if that's true (and it's not clear it is), then the answer is again to focus on coming up with creative ways to expand your audience/community or to make them more valuable to advertisers. And, certainly building a better community around more "webby" type content wouldn't hurt...

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mainstream Newspapers 'Rip Off' Blogs Too, You Know...

from the it's-not-just-one-way... dept

Last month, we wrote about a new study that basically showed that independent bloggers and the mainstream press had a rather nice symbiotic relationship, with different stories flowing back and forth across the two. Oddly, the NY Times misinterpreted the study to claim that it showed that bloggers were "behind" the mainstream press on stories, but the details showed a very different story. It's no surprise that a mainstream publication would portray the study this way, but it makes it even more amusing when that same publication is then caught using a story from a blog as well, without doing any additional reporting.

Now, before we get into the details, I want to be absolutely clear: I don't think there is anything wrong with this at all. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) copyright facts, and having multiple versions of a story written up from multiple perspectives is a good thing in my book. But with some, such as the Marburgers, insisting that its these independent sites acting as "parasites" and you have Ian Shapira and his editors at the Washington Post complaining about Gawker supposedly "ripping off" one of Shapira's articles, it's worth noting that this happens all the time in the other direction as well.

Eric Goldman alerts us to a blog post by writer/blogger Kashmir Hill, where she talks about how the NY Times did the exact same thing that Shapira accuses Gawker of doing to a blog post she wrote for the blog AboveTheLaw. The story is actually one that we blogged about as well (and linked to the AboveTheLaw version, along with two other blogs that led us to the original story), concerning a professor who gave his class an assignment to see what sort of private info they could find online about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (following Scalia's claim that there was no need to protect privacy online).

It was an interesting story that got plenty of attention, and involved real reporting by Hill, including talking to both the professor and actually getting a quote from Scalia via the Supreme Court. From there, a bunch of mainstream sources, starting with ABC News, but also including the NY Times wrote up their own versions of the story. They did no real additional reporting. They did cite AboveTheLaw as the source, but also used quotes directly from Hill's piece.

Again, this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do -- but according to Shapira, this is the NY Times "ripping off" Hill and according to the Marburgers, this is the NYTimes acting as a "parasite." Does it occur to either of them that this is just part of how news is written about these days? Stories originate in all sorts of places, and then go through a variety of different sources.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Because The Mainstream Press Never Copies Stories From Bloggers Without Credit...

from the parasites? dept

We've been hearing all sorts of stories recently about how aggregators and blog sites are apparently "parasites" on "real" newspaper reporting. For example, the CEO of News Limited (a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.) just went on a nice little rant against bloggers, claiming that blogs are "barely discernible from massive ignorance." In fact, the idea that blogs are somehow "parasitic" to "real journalism" has been around for years.

Because of this, we're suddenly seeing a revival of the nearly dormant concept of a "hot news" protection, that would forbid other publications from "profiting" from a news source that has a hot scoop. We're seeing proposals to ban even paraphrasing the news from a source that breaks it or making profits from a story broken by someone else.

So, surely, a mainstream newspaper would never "parasite" a story from a blog without giving credit, right? We've already joked that newspapers (by their own definition) are simply parasites of the people who actually make the news they cover, but newspapers have a long history of getting their stories from other publications and rarely given credit.

To be clear: beyond common courtesy, I don't think there's anything wrong with this, and I'm calling out the following example not because I think the LA Times did something wrong. I just find it amusing that at a time when so many insist that it's the ugly mass of "bloggers" who "parasite" stories from the professional reporters, that we see the opposite. Last week, I believe I was the first publication to write about Yahoo, Microsoft and RealNetworks getting sued by MCS Music over failure to license composition rights on a bunch of songs those companies offered via their music services. That story was sent to me by Eric Goldman -- who I believe sent it to some others as well. A few other online only publications wrote about the story and credited my post, which was nice.

And then, the LA Times wrote about it, calling it an important lawsuit. Now, there are many different places where the LA Times and its reporter Jon Healey could have found that story. Others may have sent it to Healey. He may have been watching the legal filings himself. Eric Goldman (who sent it to me) could have sent it to him as well. But... what's interesting is that in describing the case, Healey links to the version of the filing that I, personally, uploaded to document hosting site Scribd for the purpose of including it in the Techdirt post. That suggests, pretty strongly (and I'm willing to find out otherwise) that Healey found out about the lawsuit on Techdirt (I know that Healey has read the site in the past, though that doesn't mean he still reads it).

Now -- again, since this will be misinterpreted -- I have no problem whatsoever if Healey did find out about it on Techdirt and if he then wrote about it and decided not to link to Techdirt as credit for where he found it. I'm not complaining about it. It's a neighborly thing to do, but certainly not a big deal in the long run. I just found the fact that this appears to be what happened rather amusing, given the claims of so many that it's the blogs who "parasite" the pros, when it appears that the opposite happens sometimes too. If some of these proposals that are floating around ever got anywhere, I could argue that the LA Times was unfairly profiting off of my "scoop." That would, of course, be ridiculous, but that's the sort of world we'll live in if those who are trying to jump on the "hot news" bandwagon get their way.

And that is the important point. News is news. Facts are facts. No one owns either. A lawsuit is just a lawsuit and if anyone wants to write about it however they want to write about it, they should be able to do so. To claim that whoever wrote about it first somehow gets to "own" the story or reserve all the "profits" from it -- whether it's by a newspaper, a new media publication or some individual -- is simply pointless.

And, the newspaper folks who are pushing for such rules might want to remember that it's just as likely to come back and bite them if such laws were passed.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Could Someone Just Recreate The Pirate Bay?

from the bet-on-it-happening dept

As plenty of people have been pointing out, if The Pirate Bay goes away/changes/shuts down/whatever, there are a ton of sites ready and eagerly waiting to take it's place. But JJ King makes an even bigger point: the whole of The Pirate Bay is not a lot of data, such that it would be rather easy to just copy the entire site and recreate it. In fact, it seems likely that others are probably making use of this fact already, and there may be multiple "copies" of The Pirate Bay quickly being set up. So, even if the site goes away, all it will really do is further splinter the sites that upset the entertainment industry -- but it will hardly stop them or even slow them down.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yusuf Islam Forgives Coldplay For Copying His Song, Even Though They Probably Didn't

from the ockham's-razor-much? dept

When Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for copyright infringment last December, lots of people were quick to notice that a bunch of other songs shared the same melody, including some predating Satriani's tune. Last month, Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) made headlines claiming that Coldplay had "stolen" the melody from him, not Satriani. Islam's 1973 song was one of many that people had noticed which sounded similar, but Islam was sure Coldplay got the melody from him ("if you listen to it, it's mine!") and said he'd decide whether or not to take legal action "depending on how well Satriani does." Now, Islam is talking about it again, this time saying he's not angry with Coldplay:

I stand by what I said. They did copy my song but I don't think they did it on purpose. I can understand why they got so upset because they probably don't even realise they have done it. It happens all the time. I have even copied myself without knowing I have done it. I'll write down what I think is a new melody and then listen back to it and realise it's the same as something I have already done. It's just one of those things and I don't want them to think I'm angry with them. I'd love to sit down and have a cup of tea with them and let them know it's ok.

That's a step up from Satriani's "dagger through my heart" response, especially if he's suggesting the cup of tea instead of a lawsuit (though, TwentyFourBit notes that the Flaming Lips would be annoyed if Coldplay gets a tea settlement while they got a royalty split). But it's still odd that Islam is so convinced that the melody is his. What about all the other songs with the same melody? Islam doesn't even entertain the possibility that no copying took place, that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords. He's forgiving them for something they deny having done, and, although upset initially, Chris Martin actually said the claims are inspiration to write better songs. It's nice to see Islam recognize that this sort of thing "happens all the time" and that "it's ok" -- and hopefully that means he's given up on a lawsuit -- but he fails to admit even the possibility that Coldplay came up with the melody on their own. Regardless, this can't be helping Satriani's case.

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Fans And 'Amateur Musicologists' May Impact Coldplay/Satriani Copyright Battle

from the here-comes-everyone,-entertainment-law-edition dept

In the April 2009 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, three partners in the Intellectual Property Group at Kilpatrick Stockton LLP take a look at the role that "amateur musicologists" have played thus far in the copyright battle stemming from Satriani's lawsuit against Coldplay for copyright infringement back in December. I'll include relevant quotes from the article, since you need to register for a free account in order to read the PDF.

What makes this case unique is the lively debate that it has prompted, which will likely impact how this action and similar infringement cases will be prosecuted and defended going forward. Within days of the suit's initiation, the popular Web site YouTube was inundated with postings in which fans freely offered their opinions concerning the merits of Satriani's claims (or absence there-of). Some of these submissions were supported by surprisingly detailed analyses of the works.

We saw this in the comments on Techdirt, as there was a lively debate and people were quick to mention a variety of other songs with the same melody. The article also mentions a Canadian guitar teacher who uploaded some videos to YouTube with a detailed analysis.

The parties should take note of the prior art works that have surfaced as part of the public debate. Such works could prove to be helpful to Coldplay in defending against Satriani's claims, as they could reflect that Satriani himself may have "unconsciously copied" from an earlier work.

This was written before Cat Stevens claimed that Coldplay was actually infringing his song, the "Foreigner Suite," which was one of the similar sounding tunes people had noticed online. Anyone monitoring the online discussion about the copyright battle would have had this on their radar. Also, it was Cat Stevens' son who brought the song to his attention, my guess would be as a result of discussion about the similarities online.

Or [prior art] may simply reflect these oft-quoted words from the Second Circuit: "It must be remembered that, while there are an enormous number of possible permutations of the musical notes of the scale, only a few are pleasing; and much fewer still suit the infantile demands of the popular ear. Recurrence is not therefore an inevitable badge of palgiarism." Darrell v. Joe Morris Music Corp., 113 F.2d 80, 80 (2d Cir. 1940)

This quote reinforces the idea that there are only so many ways to combine chords.

What makes the Internet commentary regarding the two songs particularly interesting is that much of it replicates the type of expert analysis that both sides will likely use if the case goes forward. In music copyright infringement cases, it is rare for parties to rely solely on bare assertions of copying or independent creation. Instead, they frequently engage "musicology" experts to undertake detailed analyses of every element of alleged similarity between the two works and conclude whether all or portions of one work were copied from the other. The parties and their experts in [this case] should consider the analyses of the "amateur musicologists" that have weighed in via the Internet and other media, if for no other reason than they may be informative of how a jury might ultimately view the case...

While Satriani v. Martin may not go to trial for a variety of reasons, it is clear that user-generated content sites like YouTube have the potential to alter the way music cases -- and other types of copyright case -- are developed. Because advances in technology allow the public to participate in real-time infringement debate, future parties would do well to monitor this "chatter" as it could uncover evidence and theories that may be helpful to the case of the copyright owner, the alleged infringer or both.

The online discussion is largely what has made this case so unique. There have been successful copyright infringement lawsuits over melodies in the past (most notably Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs), but never has the public been able to participate so much in the debate. I think it's likely that Cat Stevens' son wouldn't have known of the similarity between the melodies if not for all of the other people who noticed and highlighted it online. If the case does go to trial, the internet commentary may influence the strategy on both sides and serve as a preview of the arguments. If it doesn't go to trial, the online discussion may influence any sort of negotiation as a means of assessing opinion on the merits of the infringement claim.

The melodies are undoubtedly similar, but the legal question is whether or not Coldplay copied from Satriani. It's not just Coldplay's word against Satriani's, but music fans and "amateur musicologists" are gathering evidence and providing theories which are having a noticeable impact on the proceedings.

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cat Stevens Claims Coldplay's 'Viva La Vida' Was Copied From His Song, Not Satriani's

from the hey,-the-lineup's-over-there dept

When guitarist Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for copyright infringement last December, Techdirt readers were quick to point out lots of other songs that sound similar (a great example of the importance of the conversation). Keyz noted that both songs sound a lot like a 1973 Cat Stevens tune.

Guess who else noticed?

Cat Stevens (whose name is now Yusuf Islam) has accused Coldplay of copying his melody from the "Foreigner Suite" (feel free to compare). He told the U. K. Sun, "there's been this argument about Coldplay stealing this melody from Joe Satriani, but, if you listen to it, it's mine! It's the Foreigner Suite, it is!" He claimed that his decision whether or not to pursue this legally will "depend on how well Satriani does" (this wouldn't be the first such lawsuit from Islam).

The problem is, once you think about this for 6-8 seconds (the length of the melody in question)... it's just insane. Is Islam threatening Satriani too? If Coldplay used his melody, isn't Satriani also guilty? Does Satriani still feel that dagger through his heart if the melody wasn't even "his" to begin with? What about the Creaky Boards, who also claimed the song as theirs a year ago? What about all the other songs that sound similar -- Pounding (Doves), J'en Ai Marre (Alizee), Honesty (Billy Joel), Frances Limon (Enanitos Verdes), Hearts (Marty Balin)? At what point does it become obvious that it's more likely that no copying took place than that everyone is guilty of plagiarism? If anything, this accusation strengthens Coldplay's claim that this was just a coincidence.

A cynic might assume these are just blatant money grabs or publicity stunts; Satriani is demanding "any and all profits," Islam is waiting to see how well Satriani does and the accusation comes the day before his latest album release. Also, a cynical approach would explain why Islam seems to be threatening Coldplay instead of Satriani (hint: which song has made more money?), unless Islam's just letting Satriani do all the work and planning to lay claim on whatever he captures. Unfortunately, I think there may be a little honesty (no, not the Billy Joel song...) to Satriani's "dagger to the heart" comment and Islam's exclamation of "it's mine!" (my precious...). The success of "Viva La Vida" has provided the incentive to actually make these accusations real, but they do seem to be rooted in some sense of actually feeling wronged; these artists really seem to believe some sort of injustice has occurred, that no one else would have come up with the same few notes over the same few chords except by "stealing" from them. Of all people, musicians ought to know there are only so many ways to combine chords. Worrying about who came up with the idea "first" is yet another case of favoring invention over innovation, of giving a rather meaningless importance to chronology when it's really the way in which people connect with the art that's most important.

There have been successful copyright infringement lawsuits over melodies in the past, but I'm not sure that there has been such a high profile case like this with multiple people claiming infringement. Hopefully, the overlapping accusations of plagiarism backfire and actually suggest there was no wrongdoing so that a silly and complex web-of-royalties scenario is avoided for what was most likely independent creation. Here's to hoping that another two or three artists add to the chorus of accusations, further demonstrating how ridiculous this all is!

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Remixing Is Creating And Original -- It's Not Just Derivative Copying

from the understanding-creativity dept

At the beginning of the month we were one of the first to write about the amazing Thru-You "album" created by a DJ named Kutiman, who took individual sounds off of YouTube and mixed them into a full album. I've always been a believer in the concept that remixing something is a creative endeavor in its own right, but I'd never seen the point driven home quite as clearly as in this album. Not suprisingly, Kutiman has received plenty of well-deserved attention for the project, and Wired is running a great interview with him that's well worth reading. The idea that what he's done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime.

But, again, there's this false belief out there that "remixing" is simply copying. But I defy anyone to explain how taking a simple kid playing a scale on a trumpet could become integral to an entire (great) funk song. Here's the trumpet bit:

And here's the full song: Or how about this basic trombone solo becoming such a haunting and compelling part of this dub reggae song (trombone comes in at 42 seconds). Here's the trombone: And here's the full song: To say that's "copying" or even just derivative is insulting to the amazing creativity and work of Kutiman to blend all these totally separate sounds into something amazing. Just as a musician plays notes on an instrument, Kutiman used YouTube as his instrument and created something amazing and wonderful... that probably breaks a ton of copyright laws. It's difficult to see how anyone could claim that's not a massive problem.

132 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Giorgio Armani Realizes That Fashion Copying Isn't A Bad Thing

from the good-for-him dept

For many, many years, we've pointed to the fashion industry as a great example of a creative industry that thrives despite widespread "piracy" and greatly reduced intellectual property rights. Contrary to what copyright maximalists claim will happen in the absence of such copyrights, the fashion industry is highly competitive, highly innovative and highly creative. Also, contrary to the maximalists' claims, it hasn't "devalued" the creators at all. In fact, it's only helped to increase the value of original works by the best designers. The copycats have actually pumped up their value, rather than decreased it.

Research has shown that it's because of this lack of IP that the industry has been able to thrive. That's because it does a few things: the copycats help spread the word about the designs, getting them spread to a much wider audience than the high end fashion designers would alone. On top of that, it increases the value of authentic works by those top designers, since the reputation increases the overall value. Finally, the rapid copying pushes designers to keep innovating and keep bringing out new things, so that they're always seen on the cutting edge -- ahead of the copiers.

Despite all of this, some in the industry have been pushing for special new copyrights for fashion, and have even found some politicians willing to support the idea -- despite clear evidence that it's not needed (the highly competitive, highly innovative industry that exists) and research suggesting such a right would significantly harm the industry.

That's why it's interesting to see this Time magazine interview with Giorgio Armani (sent in by an anonymous reader), which relies on questions submitted by Time readers. Two of the questions deal with issues concerning "copying" of designs -- and Armani seems to recognize quite clearly the value of copying, and laughs off the idea of suing anyone for copying a design. The only downside he sees is when his designs are counterfeited with the Giorgio Armani label -- which is something we agree with. That's what trademark is supposed to protect: consumer confusion over someone pretending to be a brand that they are not. Otherwise, he seems quite happy to recognize the benefits of copying in the industry:

Does the Armani brand suffer a lot of damage because of counterfeit products? David Remenyik, BUDAPEST

Personally, I think counterfeit products are good because their existence shows that we create something people want to copy. Professionally, it causes big problems because it creates products with your name on them that are not controlled by you.

You recently accused Dolce & Gabbana of copying one of your designs. Do you plan to pursue this claim in court? Alice Goodman, SYDNEY

No. This happened at the end of a small press conference. One of my colleagues brought me a photo of this pair of pants. I said, very nonchalantly, "Look--great designers like Dolce & Gabbana copy us!" I was joking, it was not serious, but naturally the press picked up on it and splashed it all over the headlines.

Hopefully, other designers will start to recognize that this view makes sense. Having someone copy your work is a good thing, and let's hope this recognition begins spreading to other industries as well.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..