Lily Allen proves she has no clue

Lily Allen via last.fm

The argument against P2P and file sharing of music is the people who need to get paid don't... or something akin to that (any further into this line of thinking and it's an artist vs record label discussion instead).

Lily Allen, the RIAA's poster girl for non-illegal downloading activities has done a complete howler. According to the NME, it's not piracy or illegal downloads she actually cares about - it's someone placing a value on her music.

In what has to be one of the biggest gaffs in recent history, Allen has gone on record saying, "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."

So don't pirate songs for free, charge your mates for the privilege and Lily will back you all the way. I wondered at the outset of her crusade whether she actually "got it" and this really just confirms she didn't.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free (techdirt.com)

There's more to the music industry than the record industry

Image via CrunchBase

As bands are proving time and again, the future of the MUSIC industry can be forged without the RECORD industry.

Of course this must scare the living daylights out the RIAA who must know their paycheque is a few months away from being an historical footnote. I guess that's why they're suing so many people.

The NY Times recently ran an op-ed piece by Charlie Blow (you couldn't make some of these names up) which talks about the death throws of the music industry. However, as TechDirt rightly point out however, it's the obit on the recording industry that needs to be written, not the music industry. For the music industry, the evolution is only continuing.

Sales for the recording industry may be down due to piracy, access vs ownership and single track purchase vs albums, but bands are thriving, finding new and amazing ways to make money. From live albums available moments after the gig, to "pay what you like" payment models, to harnessing the money making power of Twitter, the symbiotic relationship of technology and music has never been closer.

While the RIAA is suing fans out of existence, the rest of the music world seems to be moving on. When they've blown the smoke from their lawsuit guns, ready for the next victim, the RIAA may find that not only has the last person left the room, but they've also turned out the lights.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How the Record Label Business Model Died and Why it's Changing Music Today (evolvor.com)

£1.92 million for 24 songs

In what can only be called absurd, music pirate Jammie Thomas-Rasset this week was found guilty, during a re-trial, of music piracy... or more to the point, having songs available for others to download on Kazaa.

Normally, a judgement would be found in replacement value plus cost. So 24 songs, that's about $20, plus a couple of grand in costs. Nope, the RIAA pushed for a much more lenient $80,000 per song, amassing a whopping $1.92 million in damages.

The smack in the face here isn't against Thomas-Rasset, it's against the artists she pirated. You think they've ever seen anything CLOSE to $80,000 for the song they had pirated? Nope. You think they'll see any of the $80,000 per song the RIAA is claiming in damages? Nope. Basically, these 24 songs have facilitated the RIAA to claim an absurd amount of money from someone who couldn't feasibilty pay it off, so they can do what with it?

Update: Apparently Capitol Records were in on the suit with the RIAA. Of course, Capitol's artists - who receive a pittance in songwriting and mechanical royalties will never see a penny of this.

According to an AP report, EFF's Fred von Lohmann believes the verdict may hurt the recording industry, bolstering the argument that the copyright system is broken if it can impose such huge penalties for noncommercial activity.

I understand that breaking the law is wrong and you must pay, but shouldn't you pay against those you wronged, not some shadowy out of touch with reality organisation that doesn't seem to act on behalf on anyone but themselves?

This is just another lit pitchfork in the "down with the RIAA" movement. Good going guys.