Last.fm, which presents its website as a platform which will benefit independent music artists looking for a better experience in the music industry, is, in reality, an unethical company that has no regard for the rights of an independent music artist. It is a bit unclear exactly how the company thinks it will benefit from violating the copyright of an independent music artist by continuing to publicly display his or her original music tracks without a license, but whatever the reason, they are standing directly in opposition to the rights and concerns of the small artist. At this point, the only reason I can imagine for this unscrupulous behavior is cost-cutting. Evidently they believe that they will save time for their support representatives by refusing to honor the rights of the music artist and comply with copyright law, and refusing to simply take the time to remove music that an artist has not licensed to this company. In other words, it would be very simple for the company to assist an artist in this way, and prove to be a service that really favors the artist...but the company refuses to do this.
To be specific, in 2011, I uploaded an original music track to the Last.fm platform. At the time, I was able to control the artist web page they were hosting for me through a separate "manager" page also available on the platform. Sometime in 2015, the company overhauled their platform, and in the process, removed the ability for a manager to alter the website of his/her music artist. Recently, when I went to update my page as a part of a re-branding strategy, I contacted their support team and asked them how I could access my artist website in order to update it. They referred me to their help menus showing ways to promote oneself as an artist.
Seeing that they are no longer allowing the artist to control his/her web page - including the copyrighted musical content shown on it - and seeing that they had no intention to assist me with my particular situation, I immediately decided to terminate my agreement with the organization. According to section 3.1 in the company's terms, which I downloaded in 2011, an artist can terminate his/her agreement by either removing his/her content, or giving 7 days written notice. Since the company has taken away the ability for an artist to remove his/her own content, I took the other approach that was offered - I told them I was terminating the agreement, and politely asked them to remove the page with my photos and music on it. In their response, I was told, "Unfortunately, no content will be removed."
This puts the company directly at odds with copyright law, which states, very simply put, that copyrighted material cannot be used without permission. For anyone considering uploading his or her music to this website, I would strongly advise: do not do it. This behavior on the company's part took some real audacity, and speaks volumes about the character and operations of a company that would conduct itself in this manner.
I am not able to hire an entertainment attorney at this point, but I will be investigating any and all options available to me to secure my right and bring this company to justice in the process. I am 100% confident that any other artist in my position would feel the same way, and it is only a matter of time until I find the support I need.
I have informed myself about copyright law through the years... I do not claim to be an expert, however, according to the law, what this I will say without reservation: what this company is doing to me is wrong. Discussion of "legal loopholes" would be futile. Any reasonable, "plain truth" analysis of the situation would hold that if someone owns 100% of the copyright in a music work, he/she is the one who should be in control of "whether," "when" and "where" it is used or displayed. This does not need to be complicated: any party that chooses to display or make such material available for play without my permission is infringing on his/her copyright. This is precisely what Last.fm is doing.
Last.fm Ltd. Reviews
Last.fm, which presents its website as a platform which will benefit independent music artists looking for a better experience in the music industry, is, in reality, an unethical company that has no regard for the rights of an independent music artist. It is a bit unclear exactly how the company thinks it will benefit from violating the copyright of an independent music artist by continuing to publicly display his or her original music tracks without a license, but whatever the reason, they are standing directly in opposition to the rights and concerns of the small artist. At this point, the only reason I can imagine for this unscrupulous behavior is cost-cutting. Evidently they believe that they will save time for their support representatives by refusing to honor the rights of the music artist and comply with copyright law, and refusing to simply take the time to remove music that an artist has not licensed to this company. In other words, it would be very simple for the company to assist an artist in this way, and prove to be a service that really favors the artist...but the company refuses to do this.
To be specific, in 2011, I uploaded an original music track to the Last.fm platform. At the time, I was able to control the artist web page they were hosting for me through a separate "manager" page also available on the platform. Sometime in 2015, the company overhauled their platform, and in the process, removed the ability for a manager to alter the website of his/her music artist. Recently, when I went to update my page as a part of a re-branding strategy, I contacted their support team and asked them how I could access my artist website in order to update it. They referred me to their help menus showing ways to promote oneself as an artist.
Seeing that they are no longer allowing the artist to control his/her web page - including the copyrighted musical content shown on it - and seeing that they had no intention to assist me with my particular situation, I immediately decided to terminate my agreement with the organization. According to section 3.1 in the company's terms, which I downloaded in 2011, an artist can terminate his/her agreement by either removing his/her content, or giving 7 days written notice. Since the company has taken away the ability for an artist to remove his/her own content, I took the other approach that was offered - I told them I was terminating the agreement, and politely asked them to remove the page with my photos and music on it. In their response, I was told, "Unfortunately, no content will be removed."
This puts the company directly at odds with copyright law, which states, very simply put, that copyrighted material cannot be used without permission. For anyone considering uploading his or her music to this website, I would strongly advise: do not do it. This behavior on the company's part took some real audacity, and speaks volumes about the character and operations of a company that would conduct itself in this manner.
I am not able to hire an entertainment attorney at this point, but I will be investigating any and all options available to me to secure my right and bring this company to justice in the process. I am 100% confident that any other artist in my position would feel the same way, and it is only a matter of time until I find the support I need.
I have informed myself about copyright law through the years... I do not claim to be an expert, however, according to the law, what this I will say without reservation: what this company is doing to me is wrong. Discussion of "legal loopholes" would be futile. Any reasonable, "plain truth" analysis of the situation would hold that if someone owns 100% of the copyright in a music work, he/she is the one who should be in control of "whether," "when" and "where" it is used or displayed. This does not need to be complicated: any party that chooses to display or make such material available for play without my permission is infringing on his/her copyright. This is precisely what Last.fm is doing.