Slashdot Mirror
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."
Media companies lie! Film at 11.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
I promise I didn't tell on you!... my mom did.
I guess one could simple turn off scrobbling, but that is one of the main features of the service.
If last.fm sold out to CBS for 140 million pounds, why should anyone be outraged if CBS is using the last.fm user info like this? CBS is one of the major labels controlling the RIAA actions. Why wouldn't they do this? Or to put it another way, why would a user stick with last.fm after it sold out to a CBS?
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?
Stop buying CDs and movies. It's the only way to stop RIAA and MPAA abusing our rights. Fund the artists, not these corrupt organisations.
Artists: Go direct to the public via the web.
RIAA/MPAA: Evolve or die. Stop attacking and threatening potential customers, or like me, they will stop buying your product.
AC
the data could possibly be used in civil and criminal actions against those users
Except that
(1) There is no way to tell whether music on last.fm is from legal or illegal copies.
(2) "Listening" to music you don't own is in no way illegal. Even if the RIAA can prove you are listening to music you didn't purchase, they have presented no evidence that a crime has occurred.
(3) The tag data sent to last.fm is self-reported and unverified. Basically, there is no more evidence that you actually listened to the music than if you said you listened to it on facebook. In fact, due to incorrect tags, I'm quite sure that I have reported listening to music not in my collection on a number of occasions.
So while the RIAA may have a bit of a tip-off in looking at high-volume listeners, I don't think they could even get a warrant for more information, since they distinctly lack evidence of any kind of crime.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Last.fm collects listening data from the ID tags of mp3-files and the likes, right? ID tags can be modified to say anything. It's even possible to send completely bogus information to Last.fm without listening to any music files at all. So what does the collected data actually prove?
There's a reason Craigslist, for example, has never gone public or sold a controlling stake to a major media company: because Craig Newmark knows exactly what would happen to the site if he did. He could get more money, sure, but he's very wealthy as it is, so he doesn't need more money. Not enough to sell out the site he spent so many years building, anyway.
Remember, folks, free-market capitalism is about your right to control your own business, taking responsibility for it and running it as you see fit. If you sell out to some large, bureaucratic entity, greedy bastards with no vision will run your life's work right into the ground. Is the payout worth it? Maybe it is, but at least make sure you realize what you're doing: you cannot both sell out to CBS and retain your integrity. The freedom to choose not to sell something is as important as free access to markets is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Boy howdy techcrunch are going to make a lot of ad $ from hits on this unsubstantiated story from scared last.fm users who have one or two dodgy mp3s though - of course - there's no chance that that consideration entered into their decision to publish it.
How could anyone be sued for last.fm data? The only data you supply to last.fm when using their 'scrobbling' client is the tags of the currently playing song. Tags can be anything. I can take any song by any artist, or even just random noise, and give it any tags I wish. That doesn't magically make that song the song that I've tagged it as. I seem to recall data about U2's then-unreleased album being spoken about when the last.fm data news story came about. The album wasn't released yet, so anybody listening to it obviously got it through unofficial channels. The problem with that line of thinking is, getting a hold of the track names before its release wouldn't exactly be rocket science. I'm sure a tracklist would have been made public long before its release. It's a trivial matter to take any random songs and give them tags that correspond to the upcoming release and then play them back in your media player. And since you're running the last.fm 'scrobbling' client those tag names would be uploaded to your last.fm account as what you're currently listening to. That doesn't mean that the tags your files have are actually what your tags claim them to be. They're just tags. Tags that can be set to any arbitrary value by anyone, anytime. How anyone could possibly think this could be used as evidence of being in possession of officially unreleased material ahead of the official release is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense at all. And the people that think this data could be used for anything to do with the legal system is downright hilarious.
Track listings of unreleased albums, along with accurate track length information (which the Audioscrobbler protocol provides), could be used as probable cause for a search warrant.
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.
This news shows that TechCrunch was basically correct with its first article. I recall that many people were ready to believe the denials of last.fm and of CBS; I don't know why. Those who dumped all over TC last time owe it an apology. Last.fm is unsafe. Period.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
... If this has anything to do with the fact that Tech Crunch is sponsored by a competitor of Last.fm.
I see dead pixels!
I'm currently listening to a future Eminem track. I got it by running bittorrent through a time-machine. The evidence is plain for all to see (or my playedlist)
Good grief.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Take them through Criminal Courts rather than Civil courts...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
If you read the Terms of Use when uploading, you basically give Last.fm the right to do ANYTHING:
"When you upload Your Upload Information via the Website, you irrevocably grant to Last.fm, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and partners, without any credit or compensation to you, a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, unrestricted, irrevocable, royalty-free and fully transferable, assignable and sub-licensable right and licence to use, reuse, modify, adapt, alter, display, archive, publish, sub-license, perform, copy, reproduce, disclose, transmit, communicate to the public, post, sell, translate, create derivative works of, distribute, make and export Your Upload Information (in whole or in part), or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, software or technology of any kind now known or developed in the future, for any purposes whatsoever including, without limitation, for advertising, marketing, publicity and promotional purposes, such as developing, manufacturing and marketing products and targeted advertisements using such Uploaded Information. You hereby waive any moral rights (or any similar rights in any jurisdiction) you may have in and to any of Your Upload Information, even if such material is altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you."
You're not uploading music files unless you're a musician. Users are primarily 'uploading' the song play data that their media player generates. This is not entrapment.
http://transformativeworks.org/
Who do you trust more... Michael Arrington, or Russ Garrett?
Russ' rebuttal is here. He's no PR flack... he's one of the founders and one of the original developers of Audioscrobbler.
It's very interesting that so many Slashdotters are taking the Techcrunch report at face value. Given Mr. Arrington's history with regard to responsible journalism, I'm with Russ on this one.
Arrington has last.fm in his sights for some reason. Somebody pointed out that TechCrunch takes advertising money from a last.fm competitor. I don't think it's as simple as that, but Arrington has an agenda here, and I don't think it's the noble pursuit of truth.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Why doesn't someone ask CBS and the RIAA if this happened?
They'll either say no, or no comment. Then we'll know.
Does it really matter if it was CBS, the owner of last.fm, that did it, even though the people who run last.fm might not have done it if asked? They're still the same company, just a different level. If my boss decides to put some DRM in our new game that sniffs around on your machine and sends it back your data to our servers, do you really give a crap that the Jeff the leader coder thought it was a sucky idea?
This whole idea that they're not the same thing is a farce. It's just sleight of hand to get you to feel good about a company that you would never have given a chance if it was directly marketed by parent company Evil, Incorporated.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Bullshit. Universal Australia was the one who sold the album accidentally for two hours.
Most, but not all would be illegal.
Ezekiel 23:20
Giving any company a window into your day-to-day activities is very dangerous. The possibility of this kind of thing happening must run through the mind of any vaguely security-conscious person who considers their business model. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I never signed up.
That being said, however, there are a couple things to remember, though.
1) You give much more information to Google. If you have done ANYTHING illegal in the last couple years, Google could be used to help convict you.
Think about it. All of your searches, page views, chats and emails can be tied to a single account. You could probably establish where I've been every day with hour resolution just by examining the IP addresses I access email and search from, to say nothing of actually reading the contents.
2) Last.fm's innocence or guilt has no bearing on this issue
The problem is that this accusation plays perfectly to the fears a user might have about sending such detailed information to Last.fm. Whereas there are endless accusations about Google being in bed with the FBI and so forth, I'd imagine nearly every user of Last.fm considers the RIAA a credible threat. It's plausible that the RIAA would ask for the data, and it's plausible that a big company like CBS would be willing to side with the cartels on this one. They're being tried in the court of public opinion, and as far as I can see, they are losing.
Bottom line, if I had a bone to pick with Last.fm, this would be the perfect way to take them down.
3) This is only going to get worse
As the number of online services we use on a daily basis increases, our exposures are only going to multiply. Until we demand *true* anonymous use of internet resources (as distinguished from services that offer the illusion of privacy but are still subject to subpoenas, backroom deals, compromised network admins, etc), the misuse of our private information will only worsen.
http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9521312
Russ, a founder of last.fm and much more reliable than that National Enquirer-wannabe TechCrunch, has denied everything.
Showing nothing to hide, you'll see in that thread noone ever had a post deleted there, no matter how irate or against last.fm it was.
http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9522388
Starting there, and continuing reading a couple pages, you'll see the truth about TechCrunch. Every message at TC in response that was against Michael Arrington's (shoddy) reporting has been summarily deleted. Several screenshots were even posted of people's responses that were deleted.
Now, who is more trustworthy again, a site that allows open discussion, or one that whittles down the discussion to make it look like everyone agrees with them?
Anyone believing this drivel... I got some 419 e-mails for you.
You think the RIAA is going to let a silly little thing like possibly mistagged music stop it? Hasn't stopped them before, won't stop them next time.
And it is not about winning from the RIAA in a court case, it is about being able to afford to win. US legal system means you got to have the money to pay the lawyer up front and I am fairly sure the RIAA got more money then you.
Last.fm commited a major error in judgement and CBS showed its colors. Anyone who is smart is going to stop the service. No wait, anyone who is smart NEVER used the service. Giving your music data to a media company in bed with the RIAA? Exactly what part of that sounds like a good idea?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If the packets know how to get to your house, then so do the authorities.