1) CBS has denied this yesterday:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/26/lastfm-denies-data-sharing-accusations-again/

âoeBoth CBS and the RIAA have already stated quite clearly, for the record, that absolutely no individual user or listener information was supplied to the RIAA by Last.fm or any division of CBS Corporation in the past, nor do we plan to do so in the future. The story posted by the Web site was based on an unnamed tipster. No inquiry was made to CBS or Last.fm about the veracity of the anonymous source. Those who consult such blogs should be aware of the standard by which such postings are sourced and published.â

2) The RIAA denied it back when it was originally a story:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/02/riaa-denies-rumors-that-lastfm-turned-over-data.ars

The RIAA has finally chimed in as well, categorically denying that any such request was ever made. "[We're] not sure where that rumor came from," RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth told Ars on Saturday. "It's not true."

3) Last.fm has denied this:

"Nobody at Last.fm knows anything about such a leak. We didn't when they last wrote an article, and we don't now. Any suggestion that we were complicit in transferring user data to any third party is incorrect."

"...transferring personally identifiable data from the UK to the US is against data protection laws. We wouldn't risk a lawsuit to pander to the RIAA's requests."

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/8#f9525592

"Last.fm has never given data linking IP addresses and scrobbles to any third party."

---------------

And 4) TechCrunch posts an article with anonymous sources claiming everything they say to be fact.

Every single party involved has denied it, all we have is the babblings of someone who has in the past been proven wrong on his attacks, and for some reason has a personal vendetta against last.fm.

To the people who were stupid enough to believe him, and deleted your accounts, good. You don't belong on the internet much less last.fm for believing everything you read as truth.

Congrats for taking stuff you read on the net (from an unreliable blogger) at face value.

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9521312 [www.last.fm]

Russ, a founder of last.fm and much more reliable than that National Enquirer-wannabe TechCrunch, has denied everything.

Showing nothing to hide, you'll see in that thread noone ever had a post deleted there, no matter how irate or against last.fm it was.

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9522388 [www.last.fm]

Starting there, and continuing reading a couple pages, you'll see the truth about TechCrunch. Every message at TC in response that was against Michael Arrington's (shoddy) reporting has been summarily deleted. Several screenshots were even posted of people's responses that were deleted.

Now, who is more trustworthy again, a site that allows open discussion, or one that whittles down the discussion to make it look like everyone agrees with them?

Anyone believing this drivel... I got some 419 e-mails for you.

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9521312

Russ, a founder of last.fm and much more reliable than that National Enquirer-wannabe TechCrunch, has denied everything.

Showing nothing to hide, you'll see in that thread noone ever had a post deleted there, no matter how irate or against last.fm it was.

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/_/9522388

Starting there, and continuing reading a couple pages, you'll see the truth about TechCrunch. Every message at TC in response that was against Michael Arrington's (shoddy) reporting has been summarily deleted. Several screenshots were even posted of people's responses that were deleted.

Now, who is more trustworthy again, a site that allows open discussion, or one that whittles down the discussion to make it look like everyone agrees with them?

Anyone believing this drivel... I got some 419 e-mails for you.