CBS handed over USER DATA (including IP addresses) to the RIAA

Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/28/not-safe-for-work-last-fm

LOL@jotakoi perfect video!

Yeah this seems to have imploded on itself, with all eyes looking at TC for some sort of response. However the moment the RIAA was mentioned alarm bells started ringing, but after reading torrentFreak's article about it, it was a lot clearer.

junto said:
Firstly, this issue is about data that links IP addresses to Last.fm user names and listening data.

My information presented on Last.fm is shared voluntarily. I'm an active user, I have nothing to hide and I have no problem sharing that information. I also have a large legally purchased music collection and I don't download. I still haven't listened to the new U2 album (which is where this all seems to have started), because I don't own it.

The underlying point I was trying to make was that I think that Last.fm needs to stamp out the rumour, but to date they seem to have made a bit of a fudge at doing so. I like the site and I like that they are British. There's a game afoot and TC are doing a better job at playing it than Last.fm. Last.fm has a blog, but since the latest TC post there is has been no attempt to contradict TC's claims. Last.fm staffers have made comments in the forum, but that doesn't seem particularly official to me.

It's just my opinion here, but Last.fm should sue TC in the British courts for libellous defamation. TC will either have to cough to the fact that they made it all up or they have got something and Last.fm would need to make an apology.

You've dodged exactly what I was saying, which would be a convenient thing for you to do. I directly answered your main point, as to whether or not personal data (to use the correct term for the sake of it if anything else) was in the hands of the RIAA. Last.fm can't deny anything so strongly on the basis that it's just ambiguous to the max. Last.fm has denied what it needs to deny and that should be the end of it.

You are the one who never mentioned the links between data and IP addresses, in fact you never even mentioned IP addresses, on the presumption that "data" refers to blueprints of songs or scrobbles.

Your underlying point is outdated. I'll play along, as if Last.fm do need to stamp out this rumour. They've posted about it, with Russ specifically stating that anything like this goes through him... and it hasn't. As I said earlier, Last.fm can't win. If they produce a corporate statement they get blamed for not talking to the users and if they talk directly to us to reassure us, then people (in this example, you) say it's not "official" enough. Because apparently, in the modern age, it's not true unless someone gets paid to say it in a proper voice on a little glass podium in front of the media. You've got your denial and for most people there was no "fudging", you're just being difficult.

Now, back to reality. I'm going to call you a cheater. I'm doing this because your bit on the side e-mailed me this thing but she said not to actually identify her by name. Don't try and deny it because I've still got that PM you sent me "off the record" where you accepted it.

Do you even see the similarities here? We live in a country where we thankfully are innocent until proven guilty and, this bit's funny, TC haven't proven anything. In fact, it's even better because if you read what they actually say (and latterly backed up by your Guardian link), Last.fm is completely innocent. This is about CBS.

About this "game". Just like two fans can watch a game and see two entirely different games, you've seen a different one. From where I'm looking, TC have successfully looked like mugs but from where you're sitting they're playing well. All I'll say is that the general consensus is with me here, everything else is opinion and you're more than welcome to yours.

The last bit is your opinion. Personally, with further thinking time, I don't even think it's worth it. The world of media is hilariously biased these days and all the trial will achieve is more publicity for TC. Even if Last.fm wins there will be some people who will never be convinced and I highly doubt it'll be a high-paying case.

junto said:
Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/28/not-safe-for-work-last-fm

I like the Guardian, but it's not always correct. From where I'm sitting the journo isn't an idiot but he's letting emotions cloud his article and then sitting on the fence. Either way, you've linked to an article that doesn't really prove much.

~ AVARiCE

Babs_05 said:
I appear to have walked into a discussion with the author... (of the Guardian piece)...

I saw that. Babs, you are our secret investigation agent and our media relations person too boot. To think this all began because you had already done you hair and decided not to do your nails.

I do agree with you about the article. I'm not a huge fan on the whole of that style.

Edit - typostastic

Babs_05 said:
I just left a comment for that Guardian article. I wasn't so impressed.
Me neither. I haven't read the article and the comments enterily, but I saw that you mentionned the criticizing comments being censored at Techcrunch, which is an important fact, that wasn't mentionned in the article. Thanks.

Babs_05 said:
haha! :D actually, it was one of the mods who noticed the censoring. I just had time to kill and went to see for myself.

It's so bizarre. We had official statements published in the Wall Street Journal blog and we have this opinion piece filed under news. Something ain't right...

I won't comment anymore in the Guardian. Make room for someone else. :)

Hehe, there still might be a need for some popcorn yet.

WichitaQ said:
he might have not said everything, especially the comment-hiding thing, but maybe he just wasn't aware of it? good point. he called me on the gaps in my knowledge.

I don't think it is fair because TC's reputation and past conduct are valid. he glossed over all that.

anyway, that's what I think. I'm sure you or someone can decimate that with one hand tied behind your back. :)

WichitaQ said:
Babs_05 said:
anyway, that's what I think. I'm sure you or someone can decimate that with one hand tied behind your back. :) ?hehe, nothing personal. just meant that just because I think history is relevant doesn't mean someone else will.

Hello,

Babs_05 said:

I don't think it is fair because TC's reputation and past conduct are valid. he glossed over all that.


Just wanted to comment on here too (I mentioned in the piece that I use Last.fm daily but this is my first forum post - huzzah!) - I figure those here commenting on my column deserve the courtesy of a reply on their own turf ;-)

Sorry if anyone thinks I glossed over TC's past conduct. My column is supposed to be <1000 words each week and this week it was over 2000. There are about a dozen details I was forced to exclude; some negative towards CBS, some towards TC. I wanted to present a balanced piece that reflected both sides equally, given my fully disclosed admiration for both sites. In fact that conflict formed the backbone of the piece, but it also allowed me to actually get a few bits of info that have eluded others.

Not only did I refer to TC's conduct over the Feb piece but I also linked to my previous column in the subject where I called out Erick Schonfeld over it. Repeating all that would have pushed the word count over 3000 words and, frankly, only about eight people would have read to the end. Believe me, my credentials in calling out TC and supporting Last are solid.

I take your point about my column being opinion but the very first paragraph made it clear that's what I do. If you think this week's was opinionated, you should look back at the archives. Last week I invented an app that helps you bury dead hookers. And a few weeks ago I wrote about Erick S being killed by a roadside Googlebomb.

Anyway, don't want to get into a protracted discussion, not least because I'm as loyal a Last user as even the most harsh TC critic. I just happen to know the facts from TC's side as well and wanted to present them equally. I should make it clear, though, that at no point did I criticise Last - I think almost everyone agrees now that they are entirely in the clear. Any non-TC negativity in the piece was aimed squarely at CBS. Unless you count me telling Felix to pick up the phone to Michael A. Which he should.

Anway, happy to respond to other comments on the piece if you make it clear you're addressing them at me. Otherwise I won't -because there's nothing more dull that a journo invading your forum to defend himself on every point. You have every right to bitch about the column without me getting huffy.

Saying that, the forums are not my natural habitat and I wouldn't want you to think that I was ignoring a valid point because I didn't notice it. For that reason, if you want to say something for me to see, Guardian comments are probably your best bet.

Lots of love - sorry for invading the discussion - and viva Last.fm

Paul

@ junto - great post. btw, looking at it from the outside, it didn't seem like Avarice was criticising you for posting the Guardian article, it looked more like he was telling us what he thinks of them. Anyway, just wanted to nudge in a little and say that. And by sheer coincidence, I was already half way through reading it when you posted here. How do I know that? Because I was about to post it myself!

After I read the story I came straight to Last.fm expecting to read what Last.fm had to say on the matter. I failed to find an official news release section on the site, which is traditionally where you find official comments on issues concerning important company issues. I managed to find the corporate blog, but I couldn't find anything there either. That's important. I kept checking the official blog too. We know a lot of users don't even know there is a blog and they're unaware of these support forums, so they wouldn't have known where to look. How users respond is critical and it's essential Last.fm learn how to manage this, because how we respond is also picked up and reported on. We need something else in place, both to inform us and as source material for journalists to copy + paste from. News stories snowball into a world of mistakes and errors, lazy journalists (mis)quote each other, so the first few news articles are the ones to watch

Russ made a edit ... small correction - Russ posted here and one of the mods copied it and added it to the first post in this thread, for those who don't read beyond the first page before commenting. Russ's post came on page 5 and was being overlooked.

Companies like TechCrunch might think differently about making accusations if they were slapped with a libel case, whether they won or lost. At worst, slapping them with a writ certainly would make them think twice next time. It might seem heavy-handed for a global site to go after a blog that until recently, was run from someone's living room, but when you consider the fact that the words of that blogger resulted in a direct hit to the site, causing however many people to leave, then it's serious and such an action might be deemed appropriate. Criticism is one thing. Causing unwarranted damage for the sake of self-promotion is another.

I've already agreed with you but as this person points out "Mike Arrington isn't afraid of lawsuits. What could energize him more than being attacked? With every carefully-measured payload of pious abuse, he practically begs his targets to sue him or fuck off. And there's nothing anyone--least of all CBS's rattled and wheedling lawyers--can do about it."

Hope you didn't mind me chiming in and spring-boarding into my own points.

oh look! I'm being stalked by The Guardian! Is it cos I'm from Manchester? (hehe)

paulcarr said:
Anway, happy to respond to other comments on the piece if you make it clear you're addressing them at me. Hello. Fancy seeing you here. :)

Thanks for posting and clarifying some of our points. As far as I know, this is a first.

I take your point about my column being opinion but the very first paragraph made it clear that's what I do. I think there's something else at issue here. Yours is the first large publication to pick up the story after The Wall Street Journal. As there isn't a news page here in Last.fm and there's nothing in the official blog, people are looking elsewhere. The fact that yours is an opinion piece rather than a straight story isn't helping anyone. What you said matters, because it's not just what you said, it's what The Guardian said. That's how we see it and that's how other publications will report it when they eventually get round to the story. It's almost irrelevant that it's one of a series of opinion pieces, it's the subject matter that's of interest.

If your article had appeared after the other papers had reported the story and people had had their fill, we probably wouldn't have noticed you so much. It's the timing that's unfortunate on this occasion.

It's a bit hard for me to comment on the balance and fairness when, in my eyes, you / The Guardian are defending the indefensible. So I'll stay off that. ;-)

Hope you don't mind, I've posted here because I don't want get spammy over at yours.

http://www.last.fm/group/Bring+back+the+old+Last.fm
DON'T SAY WE DIDN'T WARN YOU!
http://www.last.fm/group/Bring+back+the+old+Last.fm

That is irrelevant to the thread, LoreDANEgerous.