
Another Blanket Denial By Last.fm - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/
======
dcurtis
I find it extremely unlikely that Last.fm is outright lying or trying to
obscure the truth. That would be pretty stupid of them.

But I also doubt Arrington would be this direct about the issue if he didn't
have some really, really solid proof.

It's hard to decipher. The only thing that benefits from this stuff is
TechCrunch, though, which is something to think about.

Someone is committing PR suicide. I can't decide who yet.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
No need for outright lying. Just consider the wording of the denial: "Any
suggestion that we were complicit in transferring user data to any third party
is incorrect"

Last.fm does not deny that information was passed to the RIAA. They're just
saying we have nothing to do with it, and CBS refuses to comment. Now, to me,
this looks very much like Arrington has got it right this time. If no
information was passed to RIAA, Last.fm and CBS would issue a joint statement
to that effect.

~~~
russss
We do deny it.

<http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9525592>

~~~
fauigerzigerk
In that case I suggest you step up your PR and/or legal effort one or two
notches _together_ with your parent company. If you are indeed the victims
here, I'm very sorry for you.

------
chime
Maybe it's just me but I don't like seeing speculative crap like this on HN.
I'll read it once there's an actual incident with some proof but this is just
drama and it's the same reason I don't watch soaps on TV. Flagged even if it
is not spam/fake.

~~~
dschobel
"I'll read it once there's an actual incident with some proof"

TC is claiming that there _was_ an actual incident, they're claiming the data
already _was_ handed over to the RIAA and they're basing this on an anonymous
source (a technique which has broken some of the most famous stories in
journalism).

TC would be insane to make it all up as this surely would meet the standard
for libel.

~~~
alexfarran
Not many people read techcrunch compared to real newspapers, so it might be
hard to prove any damage to reputation.

~~~
ig1
Readership of the NY times: 1 million Readership of Techcrunch: 2 million+

~~~
GHFigs
You're comparing paper circulation to web page views. Don't do that. A more
valid comparison is daily web visitors: nytimes.com with 12 million and
techcrunch.com with 1.6 million.

Source: Alexa
([http://www23.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=techcrunch.com+daily+...](http://www23.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=techcrunch.com+daily+visitors+compared+to+nytimes.com+daily+visitors))

------
danw
Looks like TC are aggressively deleting comments that disagree with their
opinion.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
How can you tell?

~~~
daleharvey
<http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/7>

a lot of screenshots and quotes, they seem to literally be deleting anything
that might be in favour of last.fm

I know who I trust

------
zain
Let's assume last.fm did indeed provide information to the RIAA. Won't we find
out the truth once the RIAA starts suing people based on that information?
Surely last.fm would plan for something like that instead of issuing denials.

This leads to one of two conclusions: either (1) last.fm isn't guilty, or (2)
the RIAA doesn't intend to act upon the information they got. If (2), why did
they request the information in the first place?

Personally, I'm inclined to believe the TechCrunch story is nothing more than
linkbait, and last.fm is trying to give them as little attention as possible.

~~~
newgameplus
For (2), the RIAA could act upon data from last.fm without mentioning that
they were using the data from last.fm

Examples: RIAA uses last.fm data to find IP addresses of people they suspect
of filesharing, and then tries to find other evidence on those IP addresses
breaking copyright etc. The filesharer gets busted based on the additional
information and the last.fm data never gets mentioned.

------
DannoHung
I like the part where he takes a screenshot of an email and suggests that this
makes it more... proofy, I guess?

------
wavesplash
Arrington is the master of the weekend drama.

------
jrockway
I forgot that last.fm was in the UK. Why would a company in the UK give a
rat's ass about some US lobbying group?

~~~
dcurtis
Edit: I am totally wrong in this comment.

<strike>Last.fm is owned by CBS which is part of the RIAA.</strike>

~~~
russss
CBS is not part of the RIAA
([http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_mem...](http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members))
and has not had a significant music recording arm since it sold CBS
Records/Columbia to Sony in 1988.

------
newgameplus
This is fundamentally a legal problem - namely, that our virtual and physical
privacy are treated much differently. Our online data is often held by third
parties who need not respect our wishes about how our private data is handled
and cannot necessarily be trusted to act in our best interest. And this
problem isn't limited to last.fm, it spans multiple classes of private data,
from webmail to credit card transactions.

Hat tip to <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0905.html#3>

------
jonursenbach
Yet another hit job on LastFM late Friday night before a 3 day weekend.

------
paul9290
Us types go crazy over this stuff, while this back and forth hurts a start-up,
a company, peoples' livelihoods they put their blood, sweat and tears over.
Years of work possibly down the drain because of a start-up's blog insatiable
appetite for drama(traffic). This start-up blog is supposed to be on the side
of start-ups; nurture and report on them. While they are reporting on them
it's out of a tabloid magazine reporting! Why wait til a holiday weekend to
report on this?

If you were listening to a leaked album you were breaking the law and should
not be so dumb to flagrantly share it on a network with your friends. The law
sucks, but it is law!

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
You assume that one is breaking the law by listening to an unreleased album. I
do not believe that is the case.

The primary assumption is that you will (or have) copy(ied) and thus violated
copyright. That's only true in cases you actually copied them. If somebody
else handed you copied discs, then it is they who broke copyright, not you.

Listening to them would be perfectly legal, as long as you dont copy them.

~~~
axod
So if someone steals a car, then gives you it, it's fine?

(I'm just talking morally, not legally).

~~~
cabalamat
So if someone makes a copy of a car, and gives it to you, it's not fine?

~~~
axod
That wasn't my point. My point was, that if someone commits a crime, and then
"gives" you the product of that crime, it doesn't mean you're innocent if you
knew a crime was committed.

If someone breaks in to Google and steals some trade secrets, copies them to a
memory-stick, and gives them to you, etc

I should have known better to compare stealing music to stealing cars ;)

