Last.fm User Data Was Sent To RIAA By CBS

suraj.sun sends in an update from TechCrunch on a story that generated a lot of controversy a few months back, "Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?" "Now we've located another source for the story, someone who's very close to Last.fm. And it turns out Last.fm was telling the truth, sorta... Last.fm didn't hand user data over to the RIAA. According to our source, it was their parent company, CBS, that did it. Here's what we believe happened: CBS requested user data from Last.fm, including user name and IP address. CBS wanted the data to comply with a RIAA request but told Last.fm the data was going to be used for 'internal use only.' It was only after the data was sent to CBS that Last.fm discovered the real reason for the request. Last.fm staffers were outraged, say our sources, but the data had already been sent to the RIAA. We believe CBS lied to us when they denied sending the data to the RIAA, and that they subsequently asked us to attribute the quote to Last.fm to make the statement defensible. Last.fm's denials were strictly speaking correct, but they ignored the underlying truth of the situation, that their parent company supplied user data to the RIAA, and that the data could possibly be used in civil and criminal actions against those users."

Comments

The death of Last.fm?

[alienunknown]

If this does turn out to be true, who is going to use their service ever again? Even if someone doesn't have any pirated music on their computer, who wants their music collection data sent to the RIAA? What about legitimate purchased songs being flagged as being pirated?

I guess one could simple turn off scrobbling, but that is one of the main features of the service.

Wait

[portforward]

So it is not "legal" to listen to music on last.fm? Can I get sued by the RIAA if I listen to songs on last.fm? If it is "illegal" to have music on last.fm, then why doesn't the RIAA send a cease and desist to CBS/last.fm? If it is legal, then why would CBS release that information? Is it so that the RIAA can have a list of IPs with names to go after if they think someone is pirating music?

Re:Wait

[ubernostrum]

You're looking at it the wrong way.

User listening data is not really that useful as a tool for filing lawsuits. It is useful as a tool for tracking and potentially identifying leaks. For example: suppose User X listened to a new album ten days before it was actually released, and is friends (on the site) with User Y who listened to it twelve days before the release date, and User Y is friends with User Z whose profile matches up with an intern at the studio. Odds are that User Z -- the intern -- is the source of the leak.

Re:Breaking News

[Creepy Crawler]

It's the pirates first, but when will it be "Dear Ol Auntie" who gets bit with malware or extreme mistrust by a company (surprise). An attack on "Dear Ol Auntie" has already been done by Sony with little to no real punishment.

We'd like to think that a music recommendation engine would be impartial and fair. The engine is, but the people arent. And aside from that, they most likely broke laws when they handed out identifying information to their corporate owner. There's a lot of laws regarding data security in places like California and throughout the EC.

I can't help but wonder

[xXShadowstormXx]

... If this has anything to do with the fact that Tech Crunch is sponsored by a competitor of Last.fm.

I hope this did happen...

[s0litaire]

...Think about it (well people in the UK anyway). We could all club together and take CBS, Last.FM and hopefully the RIAA to court over breaking of the: Data Protection Act of 1998.

Take them through Criminal Courts rather than Civil courts...

Re:No more Last.fm for me

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I cancelled my Last.fm account immediately after I read this article. Fu** them for this.

I shouldn't have done this from the start. I feel stupid. I should've seen something like this coming.

Talk about over-reacting. Don't you think you should give it a few more days or weeks to see how it really plays out?

I cancelled the day they announced the CBS buyout myself. But you waited through the buyout and the first variation of this story, maybe its true, maybe its false, but since you gave them the benefit of the doubt then, why are you cancelling now when there is really no new evidence, just a new variation on an old story?

Re:It comes down to this:

[RegularFry]

Oh, for mod points.

The one thing that surprises me is that Russ Garrett says that legal action isn't possible. That surprises me. You have an entity suffering real, quantifiable damage (count the "I'm unsubscribing RIGHT NOW" posts upthread) as a direct result of libellous, allegedly incorrect information being published, when that entity exists in a country with some of the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the world.

WTF?