"We didn't decide to ban the artist," a spokesman for the BPI told the INQ. "Not only is it untrue that we made a decision to ban her from the campaign - she was never in the running in the first place."
Rather, it would have been the girl's record label that applied to be part of the initiative, said the spokeman, not the artist herself.
And, since Flowerburger Records has come out and said: "We think the public should be free from prosecution for downloading and sharing music," a stance somewhat at odds with its own view, the BPI says it declined the application.
"It it is untrue to suggest she was banned after "snoops" discovered to what label she is signed," said BPI communications manager Matt Phillips.
"We don't know what her views are on downloading, and even if we did, we don't condone censorship. Since we did not ban her, it's untrue to suggest we did so on the basis of her personal views."
Publicists for Flowerburger records claim Amy was ousted because of her support of downloading.
The company organised a demonstration outside the BPI's offices yesterday, and, while they took photos of a bunch of kids outside the organisation's front door they never rang the doorbell.
"We don't believe that there were 50 children outside the BPI. In fact we were not even aware they had come to the offices until we were contacted about the press release - which falsely claimed we had refused to comment," said Philips.
"For the record," he added, "the BPI has brought cases against individuals for illegally distributing significant quantities of music over the internet without permission. We have always maintained that an artist is at liberty to give their music away for free, but they and the rightsholders deserve to be paid for the consumption of their music should they wish."
"It is strange, he said, "that a record company would chose to publicise music sales by advocating that people don't buy music. µ
Sign up for INQbot – a weekly roundup of the best from the INQ