Last.fm Ltd. CBS Entertainment, Last.fm, CBS Interactive music group Last.fm Forcefully Infringes On Artists' and Bands' Rights to Control Spam and Non-Related Messages Posted On Artists' and Bands' Hosted Pages London, Internet

Karen- what were the things I said which gave you the impression I was saying "like-it-or-go-to-h**l"? 

Regarding the 'unpaid moderators'.  I might have jumped to the wrong conclusion but there are two separate web pages, one listing mod's and one listing staff(a much bigger one I'm pleased to say); I'm pretty sure I've seen it mentioned by a mod' somewhere too but, no, I can't prove it. Could be we're getting the verb/noun confused, as staff do 'moderate' and reply to things too. Appologies if I compounded it by mentioning pay.

I get the impression the moderators have less access to things than staff but they do have the advantage that they tend to be around out of office hours. If they (or the staff) are being rude then that is obviously bad. I haven't looked at what recourse anyone has.

Karen, could you clarify one point for me? You mention two ultimatums but only one contains an 'or else'

"Upload a main pic to you band page, or else someone else will do it for you."

What is the 'or else' for 
"upload your music and we'll play it (free of charge) to users who may or may not be interested."?

On my "... enlightening(/healthy? /honest?)" comment(I was struggling for the right words) -I might be wrong about not having stronger censorship at an initial stage.

My gut feeling is that peer pressure and education might be a better way of doing things though... till someone steps in to illegality. I'll have a think about it.  

-btw Karen I feel a bit hurt about you calling me an idiot. It is considered quite an insult over here. (A few weeks ago our Prime Minister used it in Parliament and was sternly rebuked! -google : prime minister idiot ).  But I do also note AnetteTurunen's contribution

"...So says the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11, "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. " ;)

I came across the first report, where the representative of a band is attempting to point out some key issues which may or may not make the LastFM experience a troublesome one, from the perspective of an artist, label and band.

My comment for him/her is that this does seem a bit unfair that, regardless if a band/artist/label wants one or not, more times than not a band/artist/label page is going to eventually be made on the Last.fm website. And from what I understand, this page is best to be "claimed" by the proper representative, or else it will become something like a unchecked bathroom stall where every childish person, with nothing better to do with their time, will leave a lot of nonsensical markings (sh*t prints?) for all to see that they were there. This--all the non-moderated virtual graffiti left in a place which is supposed to represent someone or something--could be an aggravating thing to come across if the one whom the page represents would rather not have a band/artist/label page on a particular site. The argument here, I suppose, is that most artists/bands/labels usually are in the business to sell their works. So, having the want to claim-title to the page which fans or non-fans have already created for you would only be a natural one. And, seeing to it that all off topic matters (like the problem with not-related-to-the-band images and comments about everything except what is going on with the band or their music) sounds like it would be natural for the artists/bands/labels to want to be in control of this aspect of their pages as well. To skip to the response of the MODfather: who states that that if bands/artists/labels don't like the way things are ran (not ran) on Last.fm, then those representatives should go elsewhere for some iota of promotion.

If I were an artist/band, then I would want to choose whether or not I even want a page, period, on a site where the like-it-or-go-to-hell attitudes (such as the one which the authors: MODfather and headey of Macclesfield, UK) attempt to convey through their personal comments. Maybe, by British law, someday bands/artists/labels will find a way through courts to tell sites like Last.fm that it is their rights to choose. And if the bands/artists/labels opt out to be associated in any way, whatsoever, with Last.fm, then by legal authorities this shabbily ran website will have to take down all pages of all bands/artists/labels who don't want anything to do with their site.

It sounds like the ultimatum Last.fm.com gives bands/artists/labels at the moment is: upload your music and we'll play it (free of charge) to users who may or may not be interested. Users of LastFm.com will be allowed to link your music and bands to groups which have offensive, non-related-to-your-music-or-band titles and subjects. Upload a main pic to you band page, or else someone else will do it for you. It may not be an image which is representative of you and your band, but it will bring a few stray, or in some cases, a multitude of idiots who will leave a lot of nonsense. If you, the bands/artists/labels do not like the nonsense left on your page, then go away. Ignore it.

Meanwhile, paid-for-ads, and IP tracking/malware software will be the mainstay of our (Last.fm.com's) reason for being. The ideal of Last.fm.com being a place for musicians and their fans is just a lure to get unsuspecting internet users to arrive at a website where hackers and their malicious counterparts do what they do best: which is to gather IP addresses and wreak havoc to users and their computers.

My last comment is in response to what headey of Macclesfield, UK said to Kim L/the girl who made posted in her rebuttal how she was personally treated by Last.fm.com's users and moderators:

Headey of Macclesfield, UK states: the moderators (unpaid btw).

How would he/she know about who is or isn't paid by Last.fm.com? And, if this is a fact, that the moderators--the ones who are, basically, calling the shots on the Last.fm.com website--are unpaid, then what does this say about Last.fm.com? Answer: To me it says that this company (Despite the CBS name and logo which is behind it) is a cheap, unethical company who are too irresponsible to ever hire a professional team to maintain their site. So, if this is the case--that Last.fm.com does not care enough to act in a professional manner--then this company should be taken down and not allowed to act as representatives/hosts to bands/artists/labels who do not want a page on their website.

Another comment I want to leave here, under these rebuttals:

Headey of Macclesfield, UK wrote to Kim L. of the UK: 
I couldn't find any discussion on groups promoting sexual violence so it might be worth Kim L bringing that up again. But I would argue  that it is probably more enlightening(/healthy? /honest?) to allow ANY  group to be created out in the open and allow comments; rather than to  have every potential group vetted by a moderator before it could come  into existence.(?)

Obviously, I cannot answer for Kim L of UK. My common sense compels me to leave a comment of my own to Headey of Macclesfield, UK's idiocy.

I don't believe that there is anything enlightening, nor healthy, nor honest about a website, like Last.fm.com, who ignores and allows racial bigotry and sexual predatory behavior even in the smallest degree. In this modern internet age, there is a lot of automated software which a website can use to cut down on extremely offensive content, if the website is interested in keeping a decent appearance--and keeping their site 13-years-old-and-up user-friendly. But this company, Last.fm.com, obviously are not interested in any appearances of being decent or all-races/all-sexes-welcome-here mentality.

In my experience the moderators(unpaid btw) do delete accounts and even light hearted abuse.
http://www.last.fm/forum/21713/_/2053231/_/18184621.
I did a google search for ~~ "Go lynch yourself" site=last.fm ~~ and didn't get any last.fm hits so presumably that has been taken down too; but blocking yourself from seeing another user does seem a rather weak tool.

The www.last.fm/group/Virgins does seem odd but if you look at one of the discussion pages (http://www.last.fm/group/Virgins/forum/149666/_/598478) you can see that many comments are from deleted accounts.
I'm pleased to see that the other groups mentioned no longer exist.
(((REDACTED))) so presumably the moderators and staff DO respond to complaints sometimes.

There are indeed some bizare groups on last.fm but fortunately they do not seem to be very active. The page to check out lastfm groups is http://www.last.fm/community/groups/search 

I couldn't find any discussion on groups promoting sexual violence
http://www.last.fm/forum/search?q=promote+sexual+violence&forums=21713
so it might be worth Kim L bringing that up again. But I would argue that it is probably more enlightening(/healthy? /honest?) to allow ANY group to be created out in the open and allow comments; rather than to have every potential group vetted by a moderator before it could come into existence. ?



CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

I have got a few comments about my own experience on the last.fm website. Those who moderate this website are the ones who troll the hardest, and are the ones to get away with the most harassment. On my account I have decided to list my age, my sex, my name. And because I am a young female, I am targeted every time I attempt to leave a comment on a band's page that I like. The person who started this report is not lying when they say that last.fm is not there for musicians or their honest fans to discuss music. It is not funny or acceptable in my opinion that a website like last.fm allows so many off-topic rants, targeting the fans who are trying to discuss the music.

I recently reported an individual user who was calling me out, by name, on band shoutboxes; saying (and I quote word by word here): "I'm going to rape you, n*g*er girl" "Shut up, angry n*g*er girl" "Go lynch yourself n*g*er c*nt."

The response I got back from last.fm moderators was this exactly:

If this user is posting things offensive to you, you can block the user.

This means that I block the user, so that I don't see what the user is posting. But the user's racial bigotry garbage is still there for everyone else to see. I will also mention that the user, like a lot of other ill-natured users, is proud that last.fm allows them the freedom to have groups with titles like: We rape young virgins, Kill Black Girls 4 Fun, Bitches must die, etc,.

And if you, as an honest user, ask the moderators of this site why such groups are allowed to blatantly promote sexual violence towards the female race (not to mention the black race of peoples), the response is that this is every users' right to start-up groups such as these.

Here is one of the groups you can join, if you are mentally off, a sexual pervert: http://www.last.fm/group/Virgins. This is one of the groups which the said member (I mentioned above) is a part of.

If last.fm is not there for any other reason, they are there for young females like myself to be stalked and harassed by (old or young) perverts and bigots. And according to the behaviour of the moderators who work for last.fm, sexual harassment and bigotry are acceptable. And if anyone who doesn't like to be treated this way has a problem with what the bigots and pervs have to say, then that user had better go someplace else to enjoy music and social net activity. Because these users who are there to be nothing except negative towards everyone and everything are obviously what the company is all about.

I am an artist who has had a few issues with the way the site is ran.  The biggest concern to me is the way that the moderators of last.fm do not respond half of the time to emails sent through to support. I don't pay much attention the shout box area on my band page, to be honest. So if it is unfair to me or not that I do not have a way to control who says what about me or my band.

I have had many times where last.fm has taken more money than they were supposed to from out of the funds I have loaded into the pay play thing that they have available to artist who want to pay their company to help promote songs. There is no good way to ever talk to anyone who gives a d**n about those sorts of issues at this website. I have gotten to where I don't make use of last.fm as a way to promote my music because of how blatantly rude the employees are when you do finally get an email or call back in response.

It is like this company wants artists to pay them well for small scale promotion. But they do not want to hire professional people for customer service or site moderation. It may very well be a site that is just there for a lot of kids to waste their time. All I know is that I don't waste my own time, as a grown adult, looking at this website as a serious place to gather interest in my music. And, once, the greedy b***ards at last.fm have drained my payment I pre-loaded to my artist's bank, I know that I will never spend my
money on their site.

While I understand you distress; fear not O naive one for there is a simple solution to your problem. 

Do not use the site if you don't like the way it is run. There are plenty of other ways/websites to promote your band.

I'd just first like to say that I have contacted last.fm in the past about spam and "trolling" as you defined it, to my personal account and I have seen results. The user which was harassing me has since had their profile deleted. While this is different from your situation, as I am not a band nor label, I think it provides evidence that last.fm will respond with more than an impersonalised message. 

Second, I'd like to go through your claim and point out reasons why I think last.fm, while not necessarily being "right", is not infringing on artists' rights.

Last.fm operates under UK law. So says the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11, "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

You have the freedom to write your own artist information, as do visitors to your profile, as last.fm has a wiki-type information page set up. Blatant trolling or insults by any user are prohibited in this wiki. If you see something that is incorrect, you can simply rewrite it. You do not, however, have the freedom to control other user's speech. This is also reviewed in  Last.fm's terms of use. Last.fm owns the website on which you are being advertised, so it is up to them to decide whether or not the user is spamming or trolling.

You stated,  "For any band, artist, or label who makes use of social networking sites, there are advantages to promoting your music " 

As with anything, there are advantages and disadvantages. You can use Twitter to promote your band, but you can only write 140 characters per message. It's just how the site works. 

"But beware if you imagine for a second that the website, last.fm, is there for you to promote your music or image. "

Last.fm grants the ability to upload music solely to the artist and label. Users cannot upload music and claim it as another band's.

As quoted in Last.fm's terms of use: "When you use Last.fm and all of its software and services, you accept it as is. " Which basically means if you don't like the way it operates, then don't use it. Yes, it's harsh, but as you said, Last.fm is a corporation whose goal is making money. They know that users who decide to cease their use of the site won't affect their bottom line too much.

I also don't think what users write in the shoutbox affects an artist's image. A listener who enjoys your music will enjoy it no matter what has been written about you. It is disheartening to see users spam the shoutbox, but they have their username clearly next to their message, so no one is thinking it is an official message from the band.

"This company has the "ability" to give sole users and group leaders control over shoutboxes and pages which are owned by themselves. But the same company does not have the "ability" to give bands and labels the same type of moderator's control?"

Like the other rebuttal said, Last.fm cannot distinguish between bands with the  same name. For users and groups, they are the only one with that name.

I think the best solution for your problem at this time is to make a Last.fm group, one that clearly states in the description that it is under control of a member of your band, and that way you will have as much control as you like. You get to choose the band picture, set up privacy restrictions, and have forums in which to hold discussions.

I have been an avid Last.fm user for almost six years, and while I can't definitively answer why the site works this way, I think I know why. The first, probably biggest problem which the site has had since its creation is that there is no way to distinguish between artists with the same name - this is a very common problem on this global database, with sometimes as many as a half dozen or more people or bands of the same name all being listed under the same page. (Look up "Red" as an example.) Lastfm must therefore be reluctant to give page control to any one artist when a past or future artist of the same name could have a claim to that same page. Years ago we used to expect a solution to the multiple artists issue, but now I don't know if it will ever be solved.

User pages and groups are exclusively user-created, as opposed to artist pages, which are created and owned by the community, so to speak.  Many artists create a group for fans to join, and they will have complete control over that group. I run a couple of fan groups, and have consequently had the bands give me announcements to send to all the members of the group.

There is some contradiction, though, in that artists and labels are allowed to select an official image for an artist page. This often leads to outrage from fans who don't like the picture and want to vote up another instead.

In my experience, the vast majority of on-topic posts in an artist shoutbox consist of "[song title] <3," endless reposts of someone's comment followed by [2], [3], etc (because there is no comment voting system), complaints about the song charts and featured artist picture, and negative criticism of the music, followed by endless arguments if there has been any severe change in musical style or band lineup. The amount of thoughtfulness depends on the size and demographics of the artist's fanbase, of course.