3 ms·

I find it extremely unlikely that Last.fm is outright lying or trying to obscure the truth. That would be pretty stupid of them. But I also doubt Arrington wou

by dcurtis 17y ago

I find it extremely unlikely that Last.fm is outright lying or trying to obscure the truth. That would be pretty stupid of them. But I also doubt Arrington would be this direct about the issue if he didn't have some really, really solid proof. It's hard to decipher. The only thing that benefits from this stuff is TechCrunch, though, which is something to think about. Someone is committing PR suicide. I can't decide who yet.

dschobel 17y ago
I see the motivations line up as follow: TC reasons to lie: generate traffic, personal animosity TC risks by lying: libel lawsuit last.fm/cbs reasons to lie: cover up alleged activity which would be in violation of EU law last.fm/cbs risks by lying: bad PR (but compare that with an admission of guilt) Based on motivations alone, I think TC would have be insane to fabricate this story.
- palish 17y ago
  There's a third possibility here, which is that TC was tricked. The sources' information could be fake, because the sources want to make Last.FM look bad.
dgallagher 17y ago
I agree, it's impossible to come to a conclusion based on what we've seen from both sides thus far. I think it's best to wait-and-see on this one. Perhaps Techcrunch and Last.fm are "both" right from their perspectives, and we're seeing a confusing mess? Time will tell... For now, I think Techcrunch should name their source publicly. Or, if that source is worried the exposure will do them harm, have a neutral 3rd party verify the source's credibility while keeping their confidentiality. Is this a current or former employee? How high-up are they in Last.fm/CBS? How long have they worked there? Are they a current or former employee? etc etc... Last.fm's trust is potentially on the line here. Techcrunch's integrity as journalists is potentially on the line here as well.
- mikedouglas 17y ago
  From the 2nd article: "The person who first leaked the news was terminated from CBS for the leak, says our original source, and threatened with legal action." Even assuming that they were telling the truth and that TC would cover the legal bills, the source would have to be pretty brave to expose themselves any further.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
No need for outright lying. Just consider the wording of the denial: "Any suggestion that we were complicit in transferring user data to any third party is incorrect" Last.fm does not deny that information was passed to the RIAA. They're just saying we have nothing to do with it, and CBS refuses to comment. Now, to me, this looks very much like Arrington has got it right this time. If no information was passed to RIAA, Last.fm and CBS would issue a joint statement to that effect.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- russss 17y ago
  We do deny it. http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9525592 http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9525592
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    In that case I suggest you step up your PR and/or legal effort one or two notches _together_ with your parent company. If you are indeed the victims here, I'm very sorry for you.

by dcurtis 17y ago

dschobel 17y ago

I see the motivations line up as follow: TC reasons to lie: generate traffic, personal animosity TC risks by lying: libel lawsuit last.fm/cbs reasons to lie: cover up alleged activity which would be in violation of EU law last.fm/cbs risks by lying: bad PR (but compare that with an admission of guilt) Based on motivations alone, I think TC would have be insane to fabricate this story.

palish 17y ago
There's a third possibility here, which is that TC was tricked. The sources' information could be fake, because the sources want to make Last.FM look bad.

dgallagher 17y ago

I agree, it's impossible to come to a conclusion based on what we've seen from both sides thus far. I think it's best to wait-and-see on this one. Perhaps Techcrunch and Last.fm are "both" right from their perspectives, and we're seeing a confusing mess? Time will tell... For now, I think Techcrunch should name their source publicly. Or, if that source is worried the exposure will do them harm, have a neutral 3rd party verify the source's credibility while keeping their confidentiality. Is this a current or former employee? How high-up are they in Last.fm/CBS? How long have they worked there? Are they a current or former employee? etc etc... Last.fm's trust is potentially on the line here. Techcrunch's integrity as journalists is potentially on the line here as well.

mikedouglas 17y ago
From the 2nd article: "The person who first leaked the news was terminated from CBS for the leak, says our original source, and threatened with legal action." Even assuming that they were telling the truth and that TC would cover the legal bills, the source would have to be pretty brave to expose themselves any further.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

No need for outright lying. Just consider the wording of the denial: "Any suggestion that we were complicit in transferring user data to any third party is incorrect" Last.fm does not deny that information was passed to the RIAA. They're just saying we have nothing to do with it, and CBS refuses to comment. Now, to me, this looks very much like Arrington has got it right this time. If no information was passed to RIAA, Last.fm and CBS would issue a joint statement to that effect.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
russss 17y ago
We do deny it. http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9525592 http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9525592
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  In that case I suggest you step up your PR and/or legal effort one or two notches _together_ with your parent company. If you are indeed the victims here, I'm very sorry for you.