Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Last.fm Strongly Denies Sharing Data With RIAA

Posted by kdawson on from the he-said-she-said dept.

bonch writes "Last.fm and CBS vehemently deny sharing any user data with the RIAA, contrary to previous reports. One anonymous party calls it 'irresponsible journalism,' and Last.fm goes so far as to suggest it is a target of slander. Carla Duckworth of the RIAA confirmed, 'We've made no such request for this information.'"

17 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. RIAA also says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Thanks for the good idea!"

    1. Re:RIAA also says by sopssa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm actually siding with Last.FM here, just for the reason that TechCrunch deleted mine and many others comments if it was about *anything* against their view or if you defended last.fm. The most recent article about last.fm downtime was also hilarious try to make bad comments about them (and see the writers comments in that article :). Now, I do not know anything about which side is valid. But by far last.fm has answered questions and what they have been accused of, while TechCrunch keeps removing comments that dont side with them. For me that says something.

    2. Re:RIAA also says by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      subsystem posted this down in the comments, but everyone should read it. Guardian has actually done some fact checking with it unlike TechCrunch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/28/not-safe-for-work-last-fm

  2. Smells fishy by Tanktalus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wasn't so sure before, but when the RIAA denies even making the request, well, now I'm paranoid. Methinks [they] doth protest too much.

  3. Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like the company is going to come right out and tell people.... "we fuckin sold you out to make a quick buck! hahahahaha!"

    Is it logical that the RIAA would want that data? Yup. Would CBS really cooperate with them? Yup.

    I have no problem believing they really did it. And have no problem believing that they would LIE about it. Both are really in their best intrests.

    1. Re:Sure! by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suddenly, everyone accused of rape fits the bill too!

      Is it logical that Tom would rape the supermodel Tina? Yup. Would her friend Sheri cooperate with the police? Yup.

      I have no problem believing Tom really did it. And have no problem believing he would LIE about it. It's really in his best interest.

      With your logic there's no way for Last.fm to win. Simply because they were accused of it, and because the accusation was plausible, they are guilty. I know these are liberal times and all, but let's not jump the gun.

  4. Irresponsible Journalism?? by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TechCrunch? I refuse to believe that.

    1. Re:Irresponsible Journalism?? by subsystem · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's an article with some actual fact checking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/28/not-safe-for-work-last-fm (sfw). I didn't like the fact that comments on TechCrunch that offered any opposing viewpoints were promptly deleted.

  5. Uhm... by agnosticanarch · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's a Duckworth?

    --
    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
    1. Re:Uhm... by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno, but when I find out I'll send you the bill.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:Uhm... by machine321 · · Score: 5, Funny

      *ducks*

  6. So, did they get the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The RIAA says that they didn't request the data, but note that there is no denial that they received it.

    1. Re:So, did they get the data? by putch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah also note that cbs/last.fm only deny handing over "user info" which is seems like a carefully constructed statement. how exactly do they define "user info?" it implies that they have handed over some info.

      --
      just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
  7. Re:From the Article: by InMSWeAntitrust · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read slashdot to stay informed of current events in the tech world, and I want the articles to which it links to have factual accuracy and to be researched. This accusation sounds a lot like the wrong person twittered the right thing and now the people involved are knocking some sense into us.

  8. Hmmm, Credibility.... by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, who do I trust more:

    1. The RIAA PR person, the CBS PR person, and the Last.fm PR person.
    -- or --
    2. A completely unverifiable source who may have an axe to grind or other nefarious motive for completely fabricating the story.

    Frankly, it's a tough call.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  9. TechCrunch and Pandora by meehawl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pandora's main competition for mindshare is Last.FM. There's also a bit of a US/EU rivalry, with Pandora so strongly identified with the US and, with the Valley in particular, while Last.FM came out of a Euro milieu. I think I've noticed a very pro-Pandora coverage pattern at TechCrunch. Lots of the "Web 2 - Me Too" AdSense spam sites, sorry, gadget/tech blogs, take cues from TechCrunch, and among the iPhone-toting, US-centric crowd, Pandora is a darling.

    Before I'd believe anything TechCrunch said about Last.FM, I'd want to know more about the personal and financial connections between the people running TechCrunch and the people running Pandora.

    Personally, I've tried Pandora every years and it fails, epically, to even know about many of the artists I am interested in hearing. Plus, Pandora's Flash interface is just aggravating, user-hostile, and screams hipster-designer-marketroid-douchbags-in-control.

    --

    Da Blog
  10. Re:From the Article: by Allicorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whilst I must salute some quality semantic pedantry there - hats off! - if you read the extensive statements, blog posts and forum messages of the Last.fm team in response to this issue you'll see that there is no "wiggle room" in their wording. They have emphatically denied this in absolutely every sense that some data might have gone somewhere.

    So, Last.fm have denied it. CBS have denied it. The RIAA have denied it.

    TechCrunch have provided no evidence of any kind. What they have come out with is a long-running stream of unsupported, often transparently vitriolic whinges, whines and allegations about Last.fm with never a scrap of evidence or a hint at how they'd have access to it if there ever were any.

    Add to that the fact that the original allegation makes no sense anyway since scrobbler data (containing a list of the track- & artist-name ID3 tags of the media files you've played... tags which are freely editable) would seem to be of no value as either evidence of "theft" or probable cause for further discovery of evidence. This data doesn't say where the track name came from - only that you played a media file with that label. Bought/resold/leant/borrowed/mislabelled... the genuine explanations are endless and nothing in the data should be grounds for any suspicion of "piracy".

    What you end up with is a picture that seems to suggest there's whilst there's definitely a lying douchebag of RIAA-standard involved in this story... it's probably not the RIAA for once.

    --
    OMG!!! Ponies!!!