POSTED BY

Rob Beschizza

AT 3:03 PM
Sunday May 24, 2009

Industry • Media

CBS • last.fm • TechCrunch

How TechCrunch turns the screw

2663498086_1717d6589a.jpgPhoto: Joi Ito.

TechCrunch's strategy is brilliant: Publicly accuse a company of misbehavior knowing that the claim is possibly false, hoping to reveal a larger truth through controversy. When this happens, run a followup admitting the earlier mistake as part of an aggressive move to shift focus to the bigger picture.

This weekend offers the perfect example. Last.fm tracks the music listened to by its users, and the RIAA sues people who listen to it. A few weeks ago, on the slimmest evidence, TechCrunch accused Last.fm of revealing user data to the RIAA. The claim was false. Now, however, it reports that Last.fm's parent company, CBS, did in fact make the RIAA disclosure, having gained the data itself by lying to staff at its last.fm subsidiary.

Here's what we believe happened: 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. Last.fm staffers were outraged, say our sources, but the data had already been sent to the RIAA.

Techcrunch's fresh attack on Last.fm is utterly ruthless: in the headline, it demands that Last.fm deny this, knowing full well that Last.fm cannot speak for CBS, the real villain of the piece. Forcing last.fm to bear the brunt lets TechCrunch portray its earlier mistake as reflecting an "underlying truth," which Last.fm omitted, rather than Techcruch's own propensity for premature accusation. But it also puts the pressure on last.fm to do something--anything--to burn its parent company in efforts to exculpate itself.

While everyone else enjoyed a holiday weekend, Last.fm kept its cool and TechCrunch kept hounding it.

What's interesting is how it circumvents expectations of journalistic proprietry to get to stories that others can't. People don't seem to understand that Doing Good Work isn't necessarily the arbiter of success. TechCrunch didn't even bother to contact Last.fm before the latest piece. But why would it?

This is what its critics think: "Techcrunch will eventually go too far and get sued for libel. Ha! And that will be the end of TechCrunch."

No, it won't. The part that critics miss is that many publications have paid their dues under relentless legal fire. Britain's Private Eye, for example, is a scurrilous satirical mag that has been sued for libel more times than I've had hot dinners. Florida tabloids have budgets to settle their errors: eventually, it results in spectacular success. If John Edwards were president, the Enquirer could have sent him into abdication faster than a dozen Deep Throats. This is why tabloid journalism is worth it.

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.

But it'll be fun to see them try.

22 Comments

Dean Putney

#1 – 4:03 PM May 24, 2009

As interesting as this situation is (especially given that I read the first article, the denials, and now am reconsidering the accusations made here), I'm not sure if I like the ethics of the point you make here. Sure, TechCrunch can make accusations on meager evidence and just see how they pan out, but is that really good for their business? You make it seem almost as though TechCrunch wrote these articles just for the publicity. That may be the case, but I should hope that as a leading online publication they take their position a little more seriously. They'd be damaging themselves as well as the medium they're writing in.

I guess your point is that they don't need to worry about that too much. It still bothers me though. I don't care what TechCrunch does on their own, as long as they don't bring similar publications down to the supermarket checkout counter with them.

Zandr

#2 – 4:21 PM May 24, 2009

I realize you were attempting to give some credit to TechCrunch, but honestly, you just confirmed my low opinion of Arrington, et al.

Seriously, this Last.fm thing was a brilliant stunt to come up with something that could outshine the buzz of Arrington declaring handshakes to be barbaric.

I'm sure BatBoy is next.

Teufelaffe

#3 – 4:36 PM May 24, 2009

FYI Rob, your John Edwards link is broken...it has a closing quote, but not a leading one.

sworm

#4 – 5:23 PM May 24, 2009

Isn't this basically the same tactic as the RIAA used?

Accuse someone even if you have no real evidence, in the hope of finding something incriminating.

inkadinka12

#5 – 6:46 PM May 24, 2009

Sounds like TechCrunch is scum, but in my eyes so is last.fm. Last.fm screwed up royally. I don't care that they gave the data to CBS rather than the RIAA, but the net is the same. If last.fm can't erect a strong firewall between themselves and CBS, there is absolutely zero difference between last.cm and CBS. Last.fm can cry all they want that they didn't give the data to the RIAA, but they did. They are part of CBS, and need to accept responsiblity for what happens to their data within their overall corporate environment. If last.fm wants to protect their customers, they need to delete any IP data immediately; the fact they they don't delete this data indicates that customer privacy is not a big deal to them.

obo

#6 – 7:10 PM May 24, 2009

Agreed with Sworm. TC can invent "leaks" all day and night, but they can't produce copies of the leaked data? Documents showing the leaked data in use? How embedded are their sources, that they can confirm these details but fail to produce a smoking gun?

Even if TC is right, they're putting CBS and last.fm on notice in time for both companies to lock down on any actual leaks - if there really is a smoking gun, TC is making sure last.fm/CBS keeps moving it or cleaning up after it.

@Inkadinka12: According to last.fm, they delete IP data, and CBS's operations staff doesn't have access to it unless last.fm allows it, which they say they haven't.

Without some form of authentication from TC, it's TC's word vs. Russ Garrett's. Last.fm can't prove a negative, that data wasn't transmitted to CBS, certainly not to TC's satisfaction.

Meanwhile, TC just amasses inbound links and pageviews, and forwards that data to their advertisers.

Anonymous Anonymous

#7 – 8:51 PM May 24, 2009

Isn't that the kid from Arrested Development?

Marcel

#8 – 12:41 AM May 25, 2009

CBS might take a hint from Berlusconi and simply buy TechCrunch.
It's the cheapest solution in the end.

Matt J

#9 – 4:43 AM May 25, 2009

Everyone here seems to be assuming that there is something to TechCrunch's accusations, and that Last.fm gave up data to CBS, but Arrington has presented no evidence whatsoever, beyond his anonymous source. TechCrunch is full of shit.

annoyingmouse

#10 – 5:02 AM May 25, 2009

I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed to see this on BoingBoing. Techcrunch's strategy is in no way "brilliant". It's just shoddy journalism. The mere fact that they got called out on the first item by the RIAA, who eat cute baby's first pet kittens (no source, sorry), should tell you who is more trustworthy here. (Not to mention the fact that I find it hard to trust a grown man who still grins when he sticks his finger up like a little school boy)

Nothing about TechCrunch's accusations makes any sense. This data would be practically useless to the RIAA. Last.fm doesn't record illegal actions it records the claims (no matter how wild) of it's users - not what a person is playing but what a person claims to be playing. I can't see why anyone would think a group as court-experienced as the RIAA would want to go to all the trouble of trying to use these IP addresses and supposed fingerprinting (which is also unreliable and not always present in scrobbling) when they could just stick to their current practise of just blaming anybody without evidence... you know a bit like TechCrunch. I understand that a breach of data laws would be something newsworthy but I can't see why Last.fm would break the law in such a way, and I doubt the RIAA would want to lower their profile further by forcing them. Fair enough, I could be wrong and perhaps Last.fm have transferred this data but it just seems very unlikely and I think people should give them the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping to conclusions based on the say so of an article that just doesn't ring true.

acb

#11 – 5:13 AM May 25, 2009

Last.fm doesn't record illegal actions it records the claims

If you have possession of an unreleased recording, and no reason for having such, that is certainly illegal enough to get you sued by the RIAA. If you have such a recording (and the case was about an unreleased U2 album) and you listen to it, and scrobble it via last.fm, the last.fm client sends over not only the track name and artist but a fingerprint of the track in question. That is: cryptographic proof of your possession of it.

It's not quite a signed confession, but it's as close as the RIAA could get to one.

Blue

#12 – 6:12 AM May 25, 2009

Does Audioscrobbler actually (or whatever you call it) send a fingerprint of the tracks, ACB? I was reading on slashdot a comment by a maker of scrobbler plugins who said that they never bothered with hashing the tracks, only basic track/album/length data from the ID fields.

Anyhoo - the RIAA is a trade body comprising of many major (and minor) record labels. CBS is therefore a part of the RIAA, which is to say that CBS *IS* the RIAA.

And that's why I closed my account with last.fm as soon as CBS took over.

CraziestGadgetsdotcom

#13 – 7:26 AM May 25, 2009

is there anyone who really thinks TC is interested in anything besides generating pageviews? bad publicity is just as useful as good publicity.

Alex Stapleton

#14 – 8:31 AM May 25, 2009

@#11 So what if the RIAA have cryptographic proof of me having listened to an unreleased U2 album? Even if I the RIAAs lawyers actually did have a signed confession from someone that they listened to an unreleased album it wouldn't matter. Listening to leaked music is not against the law.

Downloading copyrighted music is in fact entirely legal in most countries. You only get sued if you distribute it, for example by uploading it to other P2P users or burning it on CDs, sticking it jewlcases and selling them on a street corner.


O_M

#15 – 11:02 AM May 25, 2009

"by the RIAA, who eat cute baby's first pet kittens (no source, sorry),"

...Funny. I heard the MafRIAA *raped* those kittehs before they slow-roasted them live over an open fire. Guess it's always good to check your sources before spreading a true rumor about a bunch of choadsters, eh?

devolute

#16 – 2:33 PM May 25, 2009

All very well, but please don't compare the lovely 'Private Eye' to Techcrunch ever, ever again.

Rob Beschizza

#17 – 3:08 PM May 25, 2009

Looks like TC is losing confidence in its story: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/#comment-2764577

Felix Mitchell

#18 – 4:59 AM May 26, 2009

Seconding request to not compared Private Eye with TCs rapists of journalistic integrity.

muteboy

#19 – 10:49 AM May 26, 2009

A classic example of Private Eye's style, a cover featuring the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard:
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=918

Andy Davies

#20 – 11:29 AM May 26, 2009

The other factor you miss is the way TC are busy deleting comments that question their position and approach - there's plenty of examples of this in the last.fm forums...

Bernie B

#21 – 7:24 AM May 27, 2009

Techcrunch gets thousands of page views with their unethical journalism, meanwhile Last.fm loses thousands of users. CBS has responded:

UPDATE, 3:25 p.m.: CBS responds: “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.”

From: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/26/lastfm-denies-data-sharing-accusations-again/

Ian Betteridge

#22 – 7:18 AM June 2, 2009

inkadinka12 says: "I don't care that they gave the data to CBS rather than the RIAA..."

They didn't.

"If last.fm can't erect a strong firewall between themselves and CBS..."

There is one.

Please try and keep up with the story if you're going to start accusing people of things which are, in fact, illegal in the country they operate in.

Leave a comment