"It is a fundamental problem that we have been facing in that online music licensing is getting more complicated and more expensive. We pay each time one users listens to a song or watches a clip and, while that is more accurate because it makes sure the more popular songs get paid more, it is also very expensive. Terrestial radio pays a fixed minimum and that works out a lot cheaper - we have to find commercially workable rates otherwise illegal services will win and take over."Last.fm currently relies heavily on YouTube for its video content, so it has a vested interest in keeping the service going. The service has Last.tv in the works for the future, though, as a way of serving personalized music television to people. That could be interesting when it happens. PRS and Google are due to meet over the next few days to see if they can find a resolution to the crisis. Last.fm (via BBC)
I'd like to issue a full and categorical denial of this. We've never had any request for such data by anyone, and if we did we wouldn't consent to it.
Of course we work with the major labels and provide them with broad statistics, as we would with any other label, but we'd never personally identify our users to a third party - that goes against everything we stand for.The RIAA followed that up, with:
"[We're] not sure where that rumor came from. It's not true."So you're probably safe for now, but given how much personal data many people share on Last.fm, if you're one of the first with a copy of a leaked album, then you might want to be careful about scrobbling that fact. Just a thought.