Last.fm: RIAA Data-Sharing Charges Are "Slander"

Wanna watch a train wreck as it happens? Follow me.

Earlier this year, a TechCrunch blog post spanked Last.fm for allegedly handing over user data -- including IP addresses -- to the RIAA. The charges were a PR disaster for Last.fm, as outraged users deleted their profiles and jumped ship to competing services.

The fact that the RIAA supposedly requested the user data simply compounds the problem; if there is an organization that music fans despise more than this litigation-crazed bunch of dirtbags, I don't know about it.

Worse yet, the allegation implies that Last.fm, which is a UK-based company, violated EU consumer privacy laws by exporting confidential user data to a U.S.-based organization.

If the charges are true, the fallout could prove fatal to Last.fm. But are they true?

Both Last.fm and parent company CBS Interactive insist that the TechCrunch blog post is a bunch of bull. Last.fm co-founder Richard Jones denounced the charges as "utter nonsense" and said he was "pissed off" that TechCrunch saw fit to publish them.

CBS Interactive also denied the charges, albeit in a rather curious manner. Here is how a second TechCrunch blog post, published last week, reported the company's roundabout rebuttal:

Before posting Erick [the author of the original blog post] reached out to the RIAA, Last.fm and parent company CBS for comments. The only response was from CBS - “To our knowledge, no data has been made available to RIAA.” The CBS spokesperson, Katie Gunion, subsequently emailed us to say “would you please attribute the statement to Last.fm, it is currently reading as though CBS issued the statement” Gunion’s email lists her title as Public Relations, CBS Interactive, and her first statement did not name Last.fm (this is important, see below). A subsequent statement by Shannon Jacobs, VP of Communications at CBS: “this is a last.fm issue, as far as I am concerned. It is not a corporate issue. This is a last.fm issue, not a corporate issue. The posting represents last.fm’s response.”

TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington put the following spin on CBS Interactive's buck-passing PR tactics, based in part on an email from what he says is an anonymous inside source:

Here’s what we believe happened, based on our sources: CBS requested user data from Last.fm, including user name and IP address. CBS wanted the data to comply with a RIAA request but told Last.fm the data was going to be used for “internal use only.” It was only after the data was sent to CBS that Last.fm discovered the real reason for the request, say our sources. Last.fm staffers were outraged, say our sources, but the data had already been sent to the RIAA.

Arrington and TechCrunch aren't backing down from their original allegations. In fact, they're rubbing salt in the wound by suggesting that the EU should haul Last.fm into court and by offering to provide legal counsel for their inside source, who supposedly got canned after blowing the whistle on CBS Interactive and Last.fm.

Yet Last.fm and CBS Interactive aren't backing down, either. Last.fm system architect Russ Garrett insists that the service "wouldn't risk a lawsuit to pander to the RIAA's requests" and accuses TechCrunch of slander. Garrett also questions the veracity of Arrington's "inside source" at CBS Interactive, due to the fact that he would have to personally approve transferring user data to any outside organization.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal received yet another denial from CBS Interactive. If the company's last response was ambiguous, this one certainly isn't:

Both CBS and the RIAA have already stated quite clearly, for the record, that absolutely no individual user or listener information was supplied to the RIAA by Last.fm or any division of CBS Corporation in the past, nor do we plan to do so in the future. The story posted by the Web site was based on an unnamed tipster. No inquiry was made to CBS or Last.fm about the veracity of the anonymous source. Those who consult such blogs should be aware of the standard by which such postings are sourced and published

Keep two points in mind here: First, this is a life-and-death struggle for Last.fm, which simply cannot survive if it's tarred as a stool pigeon for the RIAA's file-sharing goon squad. Second, given the fact that UK libel laws are stricter than U.S. law, Last.fm is definitely throwing down the gauntlet when it describes the TechCrunch blog posts as "slander."

How will this nasty little fight end? Your guess is as good as mine. But if TechCrunch can't back up its allegations, Arrington's inside source won't be the only one looking for a lawyer.