6 ms·

LastFM removing some ability to personalize listening experience.

28 points by timmaah 16y ago

samps 16y ago
This doesn't seem to affect the (free) "My Library" station.
jdp23 16y ago
Unless there's something I'm missing, the headline here seems a little exaggerated.
- timmaah 16y ago
  I guess it is. They appear to be removing all the reasons I signed up for lastfm and the main way I use it. * Library and recommended stations remain
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Yeah from the article it really looks like one of those "screw you our long-time customer" actions disguised as a bland update. Are other people irritated too? "last.fm removing all the reasons I signed up" would have been a great headline.
    - anedisi 16y ago
      you are right. i loved last.fm and was gladlly paying my month subscription. Now that they are removing useful functionality im not standing behind that company. i guess grooveshark deserves a chance.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bobf 16y ago
From the last.fm post: "Why is this happening? Licensing music is a complex and labour intensive process." Interestingly, Dalton Caldwell said the same thing at Startup School, except he added "Don't start a music startup." If you're interested in the expanded "why" behind last.fm's change, its probably somewhere in his talk. Video at http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272178844 http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272178844
omlu 16y ago
Not all ability, you still have tags and artists. But not personal tracks you have tagged and your loved tracks radio, i will miss my loved tracks.
Delts 16y ago
I'm a heavy lastFM user and yet used none of these functions that they are removing. For me my iPod/netbook fills the role of loved tracks and playlists. I'd rather not waste bandwidth streaming tracks which I already have on various devices.
- jtth 16y ago
  Scrobbling isn't very heavy. Unless you're paying, I wouldn't call you a heavy user.
metabrew 16y ago
DMCA compliance, or at least DMCA-as-interpreted-by-various-labels compliance. Shame about loved tracks, but the "my library" station is the best, and that will still work.
- jbail 16y ago
  It's sad, but record companies destroy any potential for Internet based music. Music apps last only so long before they get sued or need to restrict your listening freedom in some way. The other thing that happens to the cool little music upstarts is that they get bought by a big parent company (like CBS buying Last.fm or Apple buying LaLa), who inevitably either makes horrible changes at the expense of existing users or re-purposes the app to suggest only major label artists.
- samstokes 16y ago
  I think it's more likely just an attempt to reduce their license fees. The music licensing societies (at least in the UK) have different classes of license, at different price points, and licenses which allow "interactive use" are much more expensive. The distinction is (IANAL) about whether or not the user has detailed control over what tracks they listen to, and in what order. The features they're removing sound a lot like "interactive use": * Loved Tracks Radio: streaming your list of loved tracks * Playlists: streaming a list of tracks you've chosen for a playlist * Personal Tag Radio: streaming a list of artists, albums or tracks that you have tagged
  - russss 16y ago
    Yes, it's an interactive/non-interactive distinction in play. (DMCA has become a synonym for "non-interactive" in the industry.) Last.fm has always argued that these radio modes were non-interactive, but the labels have clearly got the better of them.
  - timmaah 16y ago
    Those also used to be their main selling points for folks subscribe to lastfm. Their revenue from subscriptions must not be enough to affect their decisions with regards to license fees
wanderr 16y ago
Groooveshark employee here, so excuse me for the shameless plug. ;) We love last.fm but I've always thought it was more for learning about artists and discovering new ones...and of course tracking everything you listen to and seeing what your friends are listening to. They aren't primarily a streaming music service and cutting those features probably makes it easier for them to cut streaming and licensing costs by being counted purely as a online radio service. Grooveshark, on the other hand, has the primary focus of letting you search for and listen to whatever you want, but frankly our radio feature isn't as good. So if you want radio with limited control, use last.fm, if you want to listen to what you want to listen to and notghing else, use Grooveshark. :)
- joshfinnie 16y ago
  I have found this out with my experiments with Grooveshark. The radio feature is TERRIBLE! It takes about 15 minutes before it starts repeating songs; there have been multiple instances where there's no suggestions; it plays bands that you already disliked (or frowned, I guess). </rant> Make your radio feature better and you would have a KILLER app! sincerely, a paying grooveshark user
  - wanderr 16y ago
    I agree, radio is probably our weakest area. We try very hard not to play duplicates, but our underlying data is very messy since most of our content comes from users. Better recs and better deduping are high on my wishlist.
- jbail 16y ago
  Excuse my cynicism, but what prevents this exact thing from happening to Grooveshark in the future? Wikipedia says Universal Media Group sued you and that's why Apple took your app down from their App Store just two months ago. It also says you got sued by Pink Floyd and had to take down their tunes. It starts small, but using major label music will be death by a thousand cuts.
  - wanderr 16y ago
jtth 16y ago
Paying lastfm user here. Won't be come November 17th. The only reason I pay is for my loved tracks, to stream anywhere on anyone's laptop.
storm 16y ago
My understanding is that anything that allows the user to choose what specific tracks they want to hear is deemed "interactive" by the industry, and costs an awful lot more than "non-interactive". "Non-interactive" appears to mean streams which the user can only broadly determine the content of (i.e. genre or like-artist 'stations'), can't allow skipping over tracks too aggressively, and who knows what other restrictions. I don't have any idea as to how big of a difference in licensing fees we're talking about here, and I know it's very hard to make a buck in this sphere with so many vampires in the picture. But not paying up for interactive seems like a really bad call on last.fm's part (and/or suggests that they are in pretty rough shape as profits go). The list of things they're removing is essentially a list of "all the reasons why I might be interested in using last.fm".
mustpax 16y ago
See also: Caldwell's talk from Startup School on the challenges facing music startups http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/20/imeem-founder-dalton-caldwells-must-see-talk-on-the-challenges-facing-music-startups/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/20/imeem-founder-dalton-caldwe...
lhnz 16y ago
It's odd that they would do this. They should have ramped up the price of the subscription for some of those features instead.

28 points by timmaah 16y ago

samps 16y ago

This doesn't seem to affect the (free) "My Library" station.

jdp23 16y ago

Unless there's something I'm missing, the headline here seems a little exaggerated.

timmaah 16y ago
I guess it is. They appear to be removing all the reasons I signed up for lastfm and the main way I use it. * Library and recommended stations remain
- jdp23 16y ago
  Yeah from the article it really looks like one of those "screw you our long-time customer" actions disguised as a bland update. Are other people irritated too? "last.fm removing all the reasons I signed up" would have been a great headline.
  - anedisi 16y ago
    you are right. i loved last.fm and was gladlly paying my month subscription. Now that they are removing useful functionality im not standing behind that company. i guess grooveshark deserves a chance.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

bobf 16y ago

From the last.fm post: "Why is this happening? Licensing music is a complex and labour intensive process." Interestingly, Dalton Caldwell said the same thing at Startup School, except he added "Don't start a music startup." If you're interested in the expanded "why" behind last.fm's change, its probably somewhere in his talk. Video at http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272178844 http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272178844

omlu 16y ago

Not all ability, you still have tags and artists. But not personal tracks you have tagged and your loved tracks radio, i will miss my loved tracks.

Delts 16y ago

I'm a heavy lastFM user and yet used none of these functions that they are removing. For me my iPod/netbook fills the role of loved tracks and playlists. I'd rather not waste bandwidth streaming tracks which I already have on various devices.

jtth 16y ago
Scrobbling isn't very heavy. Unless you're paying, I wouldn't call you a heavy user.

metabrew 16y ago

DMCA compliance, or at least DMCA-as-interpreted-by-various-labels compliance. Shame about loved tracks, but the "my library" station is the best, and that will still work.

jbail 16y ago
It's sad, but record companies destroy any potential for Internet based music. Music apps last only so long before they get sued or need to restrict your listening freedom in some way. The other thing that happens to the cool little music upstarts is that they get bought by a big parent company (like CBS buying Last.fm or Apple buying LaLa), who inevitably either makes horrible changes at the expense of existing users or re-purposes the app to suggest only major label artists.
samstokes 16y ago
I think it's more likely just an attempt to reduce their license fees. The music licensing societies (at least in the UK) have different classes of license, at different price points, and licenses which allow "interactive use" are much more expensive. The distinction is (IANAL) about whether or not the user has detailed control over what tracks they listen to, and in what order. The features they're removing sound a lot like "interactive use": * Loved Tracks Radio: streaming your list of loved tracks * Playlists: streaming a list of tracks you've chosen for a playlist * Personal Tag Radio: streaming a list of artists, albums or tracks that you have tagged
- russss 16y ago
  Yes, it's an interactive/non-interactive distinction in play. (DMCA has become a synonym for "non-interactive" in the industry.) Last.fm has always argued that these radio modes were non-interactive, but the labels have clearly got the better of them.
- timmaah 16y ago
  Those also used to be their main selling points for folks subscribe to lastfm. Their revenue from subscriptions must not be enough to affect their decisions with regards to license fees

wanderr 16y ago

Groooveshark employee here, so excuse me for the shameless plug. ;) We love last.fm but I've always thought it was more for learning about artists and discovering new ones...and of course tracking everything you listen to and seeing what your friends are listening to. They aren't primarily a streaming music service and cutting those features probably makes it easier for them to cut streaming and licensing costs by being counted purely as a online radio service. Grooveshark, on the other hand, has the primary focus of letting you search for and listen to whatever you want, but frankly our radio feature isn't as good. So if you want radio with limited control, use last.fm, if you want to listen to what you want to listen to and notghing else, use Grooveshark. :)

joshfinnie 16y ago
I have found this out with my experiments with Grooveshark. The radio feature is TERRIBLE! It takes about 15 minutes before it starts repeating songs; there have been multiple instances where there's no suggestions; it plays bands that you already disliked (or frowned, I guess). </rant> Make your radio feature better and you would have a KILLER app! sincerely, a paying grooveshark user
- wanderr 16y ago
  I agree, radio is probably our weakest area. We try very hard not to play duplicates, but our underlying data is very messy since most of our content comes from users. Better recs and better deduping are high on my wishlist.
jbail 16y ago
Excuse my cynicism, but what prevents this exact thing from happening to Grooveshark in the future? Wikipedia says Universal Media Group sued you and that's why Apple took your app down from their App Store just two months ago. It also says you got sued by Pink Floyd and had to take down their tunes. It starts small, but using major label music will be death by a thousand cuts.
- wanderr 16y ago

jtth 16y ago

Paying lastfm user here. Won't be come November 17th. The only reason I pay is for my loved tracks, to stream anywhere on anyone's laptop.

storm 16y ago

My understanding is that anything that allows the user to choose what specific tracks they want to hear is deemed "interactive" by the industry, and costs an awful lot more than "non-interactive". "Non-interactive" appears to mean streams which the user can only broadly determine the content of (i.e. genre or like-artist 'stations'), can't allow skipping over tracks too aggressively, and who knows what other restrictions. I don't have any idea as to how big of a difference in licensing fees we're talking about here, and I know it's very hard to make a buck in this sphere with so many vampires in the picture. But not paying up for interactive seems like a really bad call on last.fm's part (and/or suggests that they are in pretty rough shape as profits go). The list of things they're removing is essentially a list of "all the reasons why I might be interested in using last.fm".

mustpax 16y ago

See also: Caldwell's talk from Startup School on the challenges facing music startups http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/20/imeem-founder-dalton-caldwells-must-see-talk-on-the-challenges-facing-music-startups/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/20/imeem-founder-dalton-caldwe...

lhnz 16y ago

It's odd that they would do this. They should have ramped up the price of the subscription for some of those features instead.