Sorry, I guess I was thinking of this reply: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ but that woul

Sorry, I guess I was thinking of this reply: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ but that would have been to the post I linked to above. Back: http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 and forth: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-l... Since Arrington wrote two of the three articles, I guess I just figured he wrote the original too.