Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

Re: Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

Mathew — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:38 -0000

That's a good point, Stan. And Franky, it's interesting that Russ would make a comment like that -- it seems obvious that they are unwilling to poke the elephant while they are trying to negotiate licensing deals. Which I suppose is a business reality that Last.fm has to face.

Re: Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

Nav — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:18:57 -0000

Rod from Techfold said something similar recently - that the sale of last.fm to CBS meant that the music service would have to relenquish control to the more traditional 'big business' concerns of CBS. While it's impossible to know if that was a factor in the decision, it's certainly well within the realm of possibility, despite the claim of a potential 'loss of royalties'.

Still, I too think that the day of silence is a bit much - seems a bit like teachers going on strike: the people in power aren't the ones who are ultimately put out.

Re: Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

franky — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:57:27 -0000

As a long term subscriber, I would have been very upset if last.fm would have switched off the stream today.
And certainly after weeks of server problems, I would have cancelled my subscription.

Is it a dubious move? Maybe, but I think there's an interesting comment from Russ in the by Duncan linked forum thread
We're unable to participate because it may compromise ongoing licensing negotiations. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, it annoys me too.

Could there have been a backlash for last.fm by participating? Last.fm since months tries to agree new deals with labels, deals to bring old features (such as combined tag streams) back. And also to obtain every song ever released.
Objecting royalties IMHO doesn't seem the good way to reach those goals.

Re: Last.fm’s non-silence speaks volumes

Stan_Schroeder — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:26:24 -0000

I've read that Last.FM post just now, and pity I haven't done it earlier, because I have something to say about it.

Their explanation of why they're not participating in the "day of silence" is satisfactory to me. They're a UK company, with a wider scope than just online radio, etc.

But, there's a big problem in that blog post. Nowhere does it say that the increase in price is a bad thing. In fact, they use the good old RIAA lingo: "artist make a living out of this; we want to pay the artists; it's only fair". Well, artists were paid before, too - now they're just paid more. Hell, why not triple the rates, then? Why not give all your revenue, and whatever change you have in your pocket, to the artist?

Because it's not about the artists. The RIAA has created an artificial economics of scarcity, and thus they can set the rules as they please. Why doesn't bread cost 100 dollars? Because no one would buy, that's why. And someone else would make cheaper bread. But the RIAA is arbitrarily setting the price of their "bread" and suing everyone who doesn't comply, while at the same time controlling the media which create the demand. It's all much better explained at the many great articles over at Techdirt.

My point is that Last.FM did not only fail to support their fellow internet radio companies; they fail to criticize RIAA's bullying and arbitrary price-setting; in fact, they seem fine with it, which is a much worse offense.