If this rumor is false and spreads widely doing appreciable financial harm to last.fm, this could very well be the end of Michael Arrington's TechCrunch. In that event, last.fm will have a very strong libel case and claim to very substantial damages.
I think last.fm would be forced to sue if this rumor does enough damage. I wonder how long TechCrunch's resources can hold up against a phalanx of CBS attorneys.
I think they need to fire Erick Schonfeld. When he wrote an article about last.fm layoffs on TC, he published a screenshot of the private status updates of last.fm employees, which - although he had the legal right to do so, was a pretty pathetic move which went against journalistic standards. He refused to upload a new screenshot which blurred out the pictures and names of the employees (which would have had the same effect without needlessly invading others' privacy).
Now he has published a full article, complete with a picture merging the RIAA and last.fm's logos, based on an unsubstantiated rumor which last.fm apparently denied before the story was published.
He seems to have something against last.fm. It makes me wonder if Schonfeld has a stake in one of their competitors, or if he is simply an incompetent journalist.
One thing that really angers me about TechCrunch in general is that they almost never retract articles, post new retractions, or change the text to reflect the truth. I could understand if TC was a print publication, but come on, they have an edit button. They can change the article text in 5 minutes.
The NYT, for example, not only edits the text of the article, but leaves a note a the bottom explaining what the incorrect text said and how they changed it. This means that the old readers can see the notes upon re-reading, and the new readers will not be mislead (and will still know it's been changed so that they can update people who read the old version)
What TC does instead is keep the misleading title intact, the misleading first 5 or 6 paragraphs intact, and then publish a small note at the very bottom of the article. Guess what? Most people only read the headlines, and most of the rest only read the first few paragraphs. It's so wrong. I hope last.fm gets a full retraction for this crap.
This is a pretty bold claim that TechCrunch has made, they need to do some more fact checking.
I don't know if Last.fm can sue, but if the article causes some significant damage (high loss of users) then I believe they have the right to some reimbursement.
Perhaps TechCrunch has little to worry about. Last.fm will not likely sue if it is not in their best interest.
Of course if the rumor withers and dies today, it would not be prudent for last.fm to draw attention to this ugly possibility by sueing. (Now that I am aware of this possibility, I stopped my last.fm client from calling home.)
But if this drama spreads widely enough (which is not improbable on digg and reddit considering this is a pretty interesting story), last.fm may want to make a strong statement refuting the idea by sueing.
In the end, I think you are right. If last.fm sued, it would invite the mainstream media to report on the libelous claim because of the public proceeding exception to libel laws.
Oh yeah, because Last.fm is going to say "Oh, drat! You got us! Yep .. fair and square, game's up boys."
Ha! There is only one response Last.fm can give, and that is to deny. If they didn't do it, that's the truth. If they did, people knowing will cause massive damage to their business, so they deny. Later the CEO can blame it on a rogue employee if necessary, or whatever.
Of course they'd lie. I'm not saying they are lying, but if they're guilty, they'd be crazy not to. Lying is not illegal and, if it turns out the data sharing story is true, it will seem like nothing compared to that black mark.
Last.fm are not a lovable plucky young upstart anymore. They're owned by CBS. They will do whatever CBS lawyers tell them to. The story is plausible but unproven, and the denial entirely predictable and meaningless. Hopefully the truth will come out soon. I think a lot of people are very interested in what that turns out to be.
I could say the same about TC. TC has grown to be a news source that many people reads, so they need to improve their standards. If they are going to play journalists, they should at least include a response in the article (even if it is just a denial)
That seems like it could be the case, but it is not.
I am drawing from this annual talk the lawyer gave at a small paper I worked at...
TechCrunch published a potentially false statement of fact: last.fm recently provided the RIAA with a giant dump of user data to track down people who are scrobbling unreleased tracks. It doesn't really matter that they are just quoting someone else or even quoting someone who is quoting someone.
You will not be able to find libelous quotes in newspapers. Everyone in the business is very careful about this.
Proving malicious is a necessary factor in libel situations -- if you're a public figure, at least. I don't know how the "public figure" qualification applies to corporations.
Not in the UK it isn't; the libel laws there are heavily skewed in favour of the claimant. It's why so many celebrities choose to have libel trials at London High Court if at all possible. Last.fm operates from London, so it's definitely an option for them.
Of course, then you're in the whole other deeply problematic waters of international law, and what ability UK courts have to enforce judgements on TechCrunch, but such moves aren't entirely without precedent.
Last.fm is not likely a public figure. Most people considered public figures are celebrities or politicians. If you are interested in learning more, check out NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN from 1964.
If you feel as I do. Above is link to writer at DownloadSquad. I have no affiliation with any party, just enjoy Last.fm and feel this rumor could prove harmful.
So, you oppose all negative reporting that could potentially "cause harm to a site [you] enjoy"? I presume your attitude would change if they proved to be true? Well how are we going to know unless the story comes out and is investigated?
If last.fm gave the RIAA that information, they are toast. I think a very great number of people are interested in the truth coming out. Stock denials are utterly routine and mean nothing.
"Give a digg to the counter story"
Does "digging" things increase their truthiness, or something? Does the side of the story that gets more "diggs" get declared the winner?
If this rumor is false and spreads widely doing appreciable financial harm to last.fm, this could very well be the end of Michael Arrington's TechCrunch. In that event, last.fm will have a very strong libel case and claim to very substantial damages.
I think last.fm would be forced to sue if this rumor does enough damage. I wonder how long TechCrunch's resources can hold up against a phalanx of CBS attorneys.