Man Arrested for Scamming $10,000,000 from Streaming Services by Creating Fake Bands and Streaming with Bots

[Anderton]

Doncha just love AI-generated music? Here's an excerpt from a Department of Justice release: 

 

"Christie M. Curtis, the Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the unsealing of a three-count criminal Indictment charging MICHAEL SMITH in connection with a scheme to create hundreds of thousands of songs with artificial intelligence and use automated programs called “bots” to stream the AI-generated songs billions of times.  SMITH fraudulently obtained more than $10 million in royalty payments through his scheme.  SMITH was arrested today and will be presented before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in North Carolina."

 

For more information about the scam, I highly recommend you read this article in Futurism. Here's a fun quote:

 

"When reached by the New York Times regarding the extremely well-documented allegations of fraud and streaming platform manipulation, Smith issued a hilariously affronted statement. 'This is absolutely wrong and crazy!,' the NC man rebutted. 'There is absolutely no fraud going on whatsoever! How can I appeal this?'"

 

Well, admittedly there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't defraud people by creating fake bands that are listened to by fake people and then pocketing the money, so he might get lucky on appeal.

 

Thankfully, Spotify is taking this seriously, and prioritizing the problem with an all-hands-on-deck effort. According to a Spotify representative, "We see this as a serious breach of trust with our listeners. We are putting all our available resources into rooting out this music that not only does not deserve a platform, but makes it just that much harder for legitimate musicians to be heard and recognized."

 

Haha! Fooled you!!! I made that up. Here's what a Spotify representative really said, according to an article in The_Byte:

 

"Spotify does not have a policy against artists creating content using autotune or AI tools, as long as the content does not violate our other policies, including our deceptive content policy, which prohibits impersonation." Apparently, they have a history of not taking down fake music.

 

Also from that article: "With Spotify seeming to have no problem with AI music, it's up to the labels of the bands whose work is being covered by computers to get them taken down."

 

But how do you get to take down music from fictional bands? I hope the judicial system sends Michael Smith (if that's really his name) to jail for 50 years, gets back all of the 10 million bucks, and gives it to MusiCares.

 

I've never done binge drinking before, but maybe it's time to start. 

[ProfD]

Similar thread is running on Keyboard Corner.😎

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Similar thread is running on Keyboard Corner.😎

 

Not everyone plays keyboards. A lot of people bookmark this forum because they assume this is the proper forum for this kind of topic. Besides, when I saw the keyboard thread, the Times article was behind a paywell, there was no link  to the DOJ documents, and I didn't see anything immediately regarding what Spotify's representative said (which I thought was a really big deal). When I hit J.F.N.'s comment "But this is another conversation out of scope for this thread," I felt we needed a thread where there would be no conversation out of scope for the topic.

 

I also looked at the 100% otherwise keyboard-centric front page, and felt the thread looked a bit like a fish out of water, so I guessed it would drop off the page in a couple of days as new, keyboard-related threads were introduced. This forum is slower-moving, so people who come back in a week will have a more easily found place to participate, and I can also update it as more information develops.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

Not everyone plays keyboards. A lot of people bookmark this forum because they assume this is the proper forum for this kind of topic. 

Gotcha. Makes sense too.😎

 

[Thethirdapple]

4 hours ago, Anderton said:

gives it to MusiCares

😇

 

Hope springs eternal

 

 

 

 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, Thethirdapple said:

Hope springs eternal

 

Actually, I asked ChatGPT "when the FBI recovers stolen money and can't identify the source, what happens to it?" Here was the response:

 

The funds typically go through a legal process called forfeiture. This process allows the government to seize and retain the money. Here are the general steps involved:

 

1. Seizure and Forfeiture: The money is seized and a forfeiture action is initiated. If no one claims the money or if the claims are not substantiated, the money is forfeited to the government.

2. Use of Funds: Once forfeited, the money can be used in various ways. It might be allocated to law enforcement agencies to support their operations, including funding investigations and other activities.

3. Victim Compensation: In some cases, if victims of the crime are later identified, the forfeited money can be used to compensate them. This process ensures that the recovered funds are put to use, often supporting further law enforcement efforts or aiding victims.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I'd try to make a case for (3) that the victims are all musicians, because the fraud has not only denied them of potential income but damaged the reputation of streaming as a service for all musicians. I would argue that because MusiCares addresses all musicians and is a 501(c)3, that's where the ill-gotten gains should go.

 

I also wonder if Spotify not doing anything would be in the same category as a web site not notifying the authorities of illegal activity occurring on their site. If Spotify knows there's fraud going on and they don't make a good faith effort to stamp it out, perhaps Spotify's management personnel are essentially accessories to the crime because they provided the means for the crime to take place, and didn't do anything to prevent it.  

 

[Anderton]

I also think that as this type of thing proliferates and you end up being served AI crap that no one actually listens to because it has billions of streams, it's only a matter of time before the current streaming model for audio or video becomes more trouble than it's worth, and something else replaces it.

 

I still think my "celestial jukebox" concept for audio (and the equivalent for video) with micro-payments instead of subscriptions is the way to go. I first proposed that even before Napster existed. People universally thought I was a moron for believing that physical media would go away and people would download music from servers. 

[ProfD]

I believe steaming royalties will continue to shrink as more content becomes available.

 

Recorded music will become more  business card than commodity for most. 

 

Artists and musicians will have to perform live in order to make any real money with their music.😎

[Anderton]

36 minutes ago, ProfD said:

I believe steaming royalties will continue to shrink as more content becomes available.

 

It depends on how fast streaming services reach their ceiling of subscribers and advertisers putting money into it. If that grows faster than the content, streaming royalties will increase. And simultaneously, monkeys will fly out my butt. 

 

 

[Thethirdapple]

6 hours ago, Anderton said:

perhaps Spotify's management personnel are essentially accessories to the crime because they provided the means for the crime to take place, and didn't do anything to prevent it.  

RIGHT?

 

i am often leery when “accessories” to a potential crime could be extended out to engulf “innocent” people. The notion that this “fraudster” was doing this on the platform for sooooooo many years reeks of “good for me as long as I win more” 

 

How much of the “streaming” metrics were skewed to enhance the platforms performance to investors and advertisers, make the platform more attractive and lucrative based on a scheme the platform knew it could “shut down” anytime it wanted.

 

I cant fart a dollar sideways “outside of my usual spending habits” without my bank or some institution wondering if its really me!

 

And regarding Spoty in other news from Uproxx  : the courts be courting

 

Quote

In the decision, Judge Aleta A. Trauger shut down Eight Mile Style’s claim that Spotify “deceptively” asserted that it had the “proper licenses” for several Eminem tracks.

“While Spotify’s handling of composer copyrights appears to have been seriously flawed, any right to recover damages based on those flaws belongs to those innocent rights holders who were genuinely harmed,” she said. “Not ones who, like Eight Mile Style, had every opportunity to set things right and simply chose not to do so for no apparent reason, other than that being the victim of infringement pays better than being an ordinary licensor.”

Instead, Trauger ruled that Kobalt Music Publishing, another royalty collection agency, was seemingly at fault, a declaration Spotify’s legal team previously made.

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

[Notes_Norton]

16 hours ago, Anderton said:

Well, admittedly there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't defraud people by creating fake bands that are listened to by fake people and then pocketing the money, so he might get lucky on appeal.

Milli Vanilli

 

When I was working for Motown, they had 3 or 4 Temptations, Marvelettes and others touring the country.

We had a learn a song by Confederate Railroad decades ago for a party. Bought the cassette (that's how long ago it was), it listed the members of the band, songwriters, and musicians on the tape. None of the band members wrote the song or appeared on the tape. I guess that was full disclosure after the Milli thing.

 

Just how many people were in The Clovers, The Coasters, The Drifters, and other fictitious groups with names owned by the record company and a constant rotation/replacement of singers.

 

I worked with a guy who was once in one of the 4 touring bands called The Platters. None of the folks in his group recorded as The Platters. He was a great singer/entertainer on his own when we did our cruise ship era gigs.

 

Today we have groups with zero original members touring like The Kingston Trio, Kansas, Skynyrd, and others. Seems to me people are paying top dollar for a tribute band.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of the AI thing at all, just pointing out that the only thing new is the technology.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[ElmerJFudd]

The AI music he was posting and streaming was provided by Boomy AI music. 
 

https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-streaming-fraud-case-boomy-ceo-listed-co-writer-songs/

 

Smith’s efforts to go undetected were his downfall.  It required falsified identities for making and receiving payments on a grand scale across borders via the internet.  

[Anderton]

8 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of the AI thing at all, just pointing out that the only thing new is the technology.

 

I think it's apples and oranges. You're talking about acts that at least show up, and where people actually listen. This would be more like a situation where no one actually comes to hear the act, but the manager hacks the venue's ledgers to show 1,000 people showed up, and then steals what 1,000 people would have paid as a cover charge.

[ProfD]

On 9/8/2024 at 9:24 AM, Notes_Norton said:

Seems to me people are paying top dollar for a tribute band.

That begs the question....do the original artists, musicians, composers, writers and producers get royalty checks from Tribute bands using their music, image and likeness.😎

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

That begs the question....do the original artists, musicians, composers, writers and producers get royalty checks from Tribute bands using their music, image and likeness.😎

 

This is why I'd like to see the remaining members of original bands license an approved tribute band. "Hi, we started Foreigner, and we think these guys do a good job keeping our music alive." But at least there are some performance royalties coming in from a venue's blanket licenses, yes? I don't know for sure.

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

But at least there are some performance royalties coming in from a venue's blanket licenses, yes? I don't know for sure.

Performance royalties from licenses are collected and distributed.

 

Still, Tribute bands are getting free money from playing someone else's music.

 

I won't get started on millionaire DJs getting to spin records with a few cuts and scratches.😁😎

[Anderton]

Just now, ProfD said:

Still, Tribute bands are getting free money from playing someone else's music.

 

Yes, but it's kind of a slippery slope. Steve Winwood did a Nina Simone song. I'm sure she got royalties, but he got money for playing it. I guess it comes down to interpretation vs. imitation. 

 

Then again, what are symphony orchestras, other than tribute bands? 🤣

 

But I don't want to derail this too far, because to me, the problem isn't so much about AI creating fake bands and fake songs. What bugs me is the creation of fake people to do fake clicks that  put real money in the pockets of the people who created the fakery. I'd have the same problem with real bands that do real songs, but create fake people to do fake clicks. It's the fake clicks, and making money that's not earned from the actions of real listeners, that epitomize the fraud.

 

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, Anderton said:

But I don't want to derail this too far...

 

It's the fake clicks, and making money that's not earned from the actions of real listeners, that epitomize the fraud.

Sure. The fraudulent aspect of it isn't cool. 

 

Now, I'm curious to see who legitimately makes $10 million using an AI generated artist. 😎

[Anderton]

I can't believe some people think Smith is "sticking it to the man," with the man being Spotify, but here we are. They have no clue how Spotify distributes revenue. Smith is screwing you, me, and our fellow musicians, not Spotify. 

 

As Spotify says in How we calculate and process royalties, "We distribute the net revenue from Premium subscription fees and ads to rightsholders." Net revenue is FINITE. The more streams an artist's music gets, the larger their share of that FINITE amount of revenue. No one can obtain revenue beyond the FINITE net amount that Spotify allocates for payments.

 

Here's a simplified explanation of how it works:

 

Suppose there are 10 artists on Spotify. Spotify has net revenue of $10 and they pay $1 per stream. If each artist has 1 stream, then the net revenue is distributed evenly, and each artist gets $1.

 

But if one of those artists uses bots to get 20 streams, now there's a total of 9+20 = 29 streams. Because the net revenue hasn't changed, is still $10, and how that's divided up is based on the number of streams, each stream is now worth about 34 cents. Nine of the artists will get 34 cents instead of $1 for their stream, and the artist whose bots generated 20 streams will get $6.90 for the 20 streams.   

 

Spotify does not pay a fixed rate per stream. Payments vary based on total revenue and the number of streams over a specific amount of time (of course in addition to other factors, like the leverage of various artist agreements and rightsholders). If some con artist is fraudulently siphoning off a disproportionate amount of net revenue, Spotify is not being screwed over. They were going to spend the net revenue anyway, who it goes to doesn't matter. The other musicians who have a legitimate claim to the FINITE amount of net revenue are being screwed over.

 

/rant. There, I feel better now.

 

 

 

[Thethirdapple]

Quote

 along with some other things like sales commissions. 

I’ll see your rant and raise you with some snark… with all due respect

 

The convoluted “calculations” to achieve a “net revenue” pool of money which is then somehow divided amongst all the convoluted agreements which right holders may have with agents and all the etc… yuk, sounds like Spoty created a “slush fund” to distribute “revenue” which is outside of its protected profit stream. Meaning Spoty makes money even if artist don’t and in-fact Spoty makes more money as artists make less because Spoty provides the opportunity for artist to fight amongst themselves for 0.0033 (maybe)… have fun revenue sharing and competing against swifties…

 

The more people stream, which IS the golden metric, Spoty makes more money from investors and advertisers, but pays out less to an individual artist !?!? WHAT EVEN IS THAT 

I am clearly missing something crucial to the whole: this is normal attitude

 

Although I must in all truly self deprecating realities applaud the “creators” of Spoty for literally implemented a modern day version in full corporate glory of : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche !

 

Thankfully this specific case study is all so out of my wheel house of lived experiences which is a foreseeable cesspool regardless of which art market one might participate in. It is to be avoided as an artist and thankfully so far so good. Although I’m not in the “music” industry myself, staying “in control” of ones own creations is paramount when money and contracts are considered.

 

ITS BUSINESS

 

The “fixed revenue” marketing terminology  reeks of corporate victimhood. I am certain Spoty is a FOR PROFIT endeavor not a charity for musicians.

 

How much did Spoty profit by selling itself to advertisers and investor with inflated AI streaming numbers it KNEW to be false. Oh right poor little Spoty had no responsibility to do its own due diligence as is expected by a “consumer or content creator”!!! (According to the courts)

 

Any individual company is not “the man” in this era. It is the Corporatism which is “the man”. Being a company is not evil, its the why and how along with collusion (market making, price fixing etc…). I started and run a corporation, its been a bumpy 5 years so far, but I am proud of our work and yes dare I say ethics!!!

 

“I can’t believe people are slurping up the crocodile tears of corporatism run amok”, actually I can… Laissez faire capitalism is a guaranteed road to human greed and exploitive behavior sanctioned by the courts. How about a bit of free market capitalism with some socialist ideals…

T.Boone Pickens once, sarcastically, called me: “americas last great socialist”. I carry that attempted “dis” with great pride. We had a bit of a disagreement regarding the rising of all ships with the tide…

 

Capital creation and Social responsibility are not opposing goals or ideals!!! These are complementary realities which WE create everyday. Nothing which we are discussing HAS to be this way, WE have made our world in our image over and over again throughout history.  
 

humans be humaning

 

ok, ok, thats definitely more rant than snark… doh

 

Did someone mention a “celestial jukebox”?
Now that is something worth hearing more about!!! (all puns intened)

And I should just go back to making furniture with my head in the stars…
 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

 

 

[Anderton]

5 hours ago, Thethirdapple said:

The “fixed revenue” marketing terminology  reeks of corporate victimhood. I am certain Spoty is a FOR PROFIT endeavor not a charity for musicians.

 

Spotify lays out exactly what they do in the link I provided. Yes, they take in gross revenue, pay themselves, and distribute what's left. But my rant has nothing to do with Spotify's business model. That's a separate topic. It has to do with a con man taking advantage of that business model to screw other musicians. Period. End of story.

[Thethirdapple]

Agreed that the Guy is stealing. No doubt about that. And fully align that it is stealing from legit artists doing what they can (choose) to make ends meet. 

😶

 

Edit: And agree that companies are transparent with provided services…

 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_
 

[MathOfInsects]

Spotify makes 30% of whatever revenue they bring in. That revenue is based on ad sales, which are higher if they can prove higher impressions. So an alternate argument is that all those clicks made everyone money, including Spotify. 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, MathOfInsects said:

Spotify makes 30% of whatever revenue they bring in. That revenue is based on ad sales, which are higher if they can prove higher impressions. So an alternate argument is that all those clicks made everyone money, including Spotify.

 

There's no way to sugarcoat Mark Smith doing anything other than screwing over legitimate musicians. Ad sales are only a small percentage of Spotify's overall revenue. In 2023, revenue from subscriptions exceeded revenue from advertising by approximately 7:1 (see graph below). Furthermore, many if not most Spotify ads are interactive. Users can often click through to the advertiser’s website or landing page, especially with display ads and some audio ads that have a call-to-action. Advertisers pay major attention to click-through and engagement. Looking to the future, if a service becomes filled with junk that creates no significant engagement, and therefore no click-throughs for the advertisers, it's likely that both advertising and subscriptions will fall off.

 

[Notes_Norton]

22 hours ago, ProfD said:

That begs the question....do the original artists, musicians, composers, writers and producers get royalty checks from Tribute bands using their music, image and likeness.

 

If the venue is legit, the songwriters, and publishers get money. I don't think the performers get anything unless they are the songwriters and/or own the publishing rights.

I've played in enough clubs with ASCAP licenses to know that.

 

But if there is no playlist reported, the people who wrote the actual songs played don't get compensation, there is some formula where the money is distributed.

 

16 hours ago, ProfD said:

Still, Tribute bands are getting free money from playing someone else's music.

 

Not free money, they are working for it. And if the royalties are being paid, they are making money for the songwriters and publishers.

 

IMO playing other people's music is something that can't be stopped. If a song becomes popular, people will sing it.

I've been playing in bars since I was 17 years old. People come in because there is music there. The bartenders, owners, wait staff, musicians, and others make a living. The ASCAP dues are paid, and a portion of the money goes to the songwriters and publishers. The ASCAP agent comes around every so often making sure the payments are being made.

 

Years ago, before they banned this practice, I used to eat lunch at a pizza place. Small, family owned, a dozen booths for dining. They played the radio. The ASCAP agent came in and demanded an exorbitant monthly fee for playing the copyrighted songs on the radio. The owner refused and started playing nothing but classical music, because Beethoven and Tchaikovsky are in the public domain.

 

18 hours ago, Anderton said:

This is why I'd like to see the remaining members of original bands license an approved tribute band. "Hi, we started Foreigner, and we think these guys do a good job keeping our music alive."

 

I think that's a good idea. But I don't know if it will happen. Sometimes they are as dead as Garcia.

 

16 hours ago, Anderton said:

Then again, what are symphony orchestras, other than tribute bands? 

 

And when I was growing up, some musicians played in what they called "Ghost Bands", Glenn Miller Orchestra, Count Basie Band and others when the leader and namesake was playing in the great gig in the sky.

 

Or bar bands. Our band covers songs by The Beatles, Adele, Chris Stapelton, Jimmy Buffett, Duke Ellington, Aretha Franklin, Blondie, Elvis Presley, Bob Marley, Arrow, George Strait, Donna Summer, ABBA, Metallica, James Brown, Pharrell Williams, Tears For Fears, Bruno Mars, B52s, and hundreds of others. The tribute bands who cover one artist has it easy by comparison. Why should they make more money? We have to sound like hundreds of others. 

 

13 hours ago, Anderton said:

But if one of those artists uses bots to get 20 streams, now there's a total of 9+20 = 29 streams

 

Whatever system is developed, someone will figure out an unethical way to beat it.

 

Everybody is out to exploit the artists, Spotify, Record Labels, Radio Stations, and anyone else who can make a buck off them.

 

Back in the early 1970s I was in a band. We started out playing college bars (before the DJs took that business), show clubs, and so on. Eventually we started warming up for major stars while they were on tour, Kingsmen, Four Seasons, Association, and eventually Motown Artists like Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Supremes, Four Tops, and many others.

 

At the time, Bob Seger was getting #1 records on Detroit Radio, so Berry Gordy figured he needed an all-white band on his roster. It wasn't a racist thing, but a profit angle. We were the first choice.

 

Actually, we were the first choice to be exploited.

 

The final offer was 2 cents per record or track on an LP. But before we got one penny of the royalties, Motown first deducted:

• Inflated recording costs
• inflated distribution costs
• inflated management costs

Our manager figured our first LP would have to be certified Gold to pay off our debt to Motown. If we didn't, and wanted to make another, we'd have to put the money up front. This is why there are so many one-hit wonders (or one LP/CD wonders).

 

Besides for that, Motown wanted

• To change our name to something we could choose, but Motown would own (Every wonder why Prince was the symbol?)
• Since Motown owned the name they could hire/fire anyone, and run 4 road acts with the name (something they typically did back then)
• Since Motown owned the name, they would get royalties for any Merch sold, and would have first approval/rejection rights
• Motown would get all the publishing royalties
• Motown would assign a ghost writer who would do absolutely nothing but get half the songwriting royalties of anything we wrote ourselves. Even if there were 4 writers, Motown would get half, and the 4 would split the remaining half.

Now if the first LP happened to go viral not only paid off the deductions, but made more money for the label, you could negotiate a better contract for the next release. You attained the level called "automatic". You'd be like the Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift and have a very profitable career.

 

Our manager pressed for 2.5 cents a record, figuring he could get a bit more, and then one day, they quit talking to us, quit hiring us to open for their big acts, and the band broke up.

 

Everyone who can wants to exploit the artist, and as I said earlier, nothing changes but the technology.

 

So if I'm playing in a multi-tribute band, covering songs from hundreds of different songwriters, I don't feel like I'm hurting the original singer/players. In electronics, we learned anything under 10% is the same as zero. What we gain, is not even a zillionth of a percent.

 

AI is here to stay. Most of us who play live don't like it. But we can't stop it.

 

I dislike auto-tune. I worked for years to sing in tune, and some soft-core porn person who can't carry a tune in a bucket can now make records that sell a million bucks because of his or her bum. But I can't stop it (and my bum won't sell a million records, those days are long gone if they ever were here).

 

I don't like repetitive loops.

 

I don't like Rap being marked as music. Music needs melody, rhythm, and harmony. Rap is a poetic art-form, but it isn't music any more than the beat poets of the 50s reciting poetry over jazz records. No Grammys for rap, instead give them poetry awards like the Griffin Poetry Prize if they are good enough.

 

I don't like playing to backing tracks, but I do. I make my own backing tracks from scratch, others use Karaoke tracks, but I think it's cheating. 

 

I don't like a lot of other things, but that doesn't matter. The industry is not here to please me. So I have to adapt to the changes in order to keep working. Evolution favors the adaptable, not the fittest.

 

So if AI is invading our turf, we need to learn how to adapt

 

(sorry for the extra long post)

 

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

 

 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:

Whatever system is developed, someone will figure out an unethical way to beat it.

 

Everybody is out to exploit the artists, Spotify, Record Labels, Radio Stations, and anyone else who can make a buck off them.

 

True, but we all knew that. What upsets me so much is that the guy who's posting BS AI music is ripping off other musicians, yet some of those other musicians consider him a kind of Robin Hood who's sticking it to Spotify. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

[Anderton]

From the MusicAlly newsletter:

 

This morning, there's a very interesting development. Spotify has gone on the record to say what its share of those royalty payouts was.

"Spotify invests heavily in automated and manual reviews to prevent, detect, and mitigate the impact of artificial streaming on our platform," its spokesperson told Music Ally.

"In this case, it appears that our preventative measures worked and limited the royalties Smith was able to generate from Spotify to approximately $60,000 of the $10,000,000 noted in the indictment."

"As Spotify typically accounts for around 50% of streamshare, this shows how effective we are at limiting the impact of artificial streaming on our platform," continued the spokesperson.

Well then. The streaming service that claims to account for 50% of streamshare only paid out 0.6% of the royalties in this alleged case of streaming fraud.

(And yes, we only have Spotify's word for this, but given the seriousness of the matter – charges of wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy – it's unthinkable that it would put out such a specific figure unless it was sure of its facts.)

The indictment itself seems to outline Spotify taking an active role in calling out the alleged fraud. Early on it refers to an unnamed streaming service ('Streaming Platform-1') whose user guidelines prohibited "artificially increasing play counts or follow counts, artificially promoting Content, or other manipulation including by (i) using any bot, script, or other automated process".

[Anderton]

So my takeaway is that Micheal Smith is still a crook, but Spotify is being more active about this than previous quotes would indicate. There's more to what's quoted above, but I didn't want to take too many liberties with fair use. 

[Notes_Norton]

Theoretical situation:

 

So you have a friend, who put a song on Spotify. You like the friend, believe he is a good musician, but really don't like his style of music, and you definitely dislike song he uploaded.

But as a friend, you go to Spotify 2 or 3 times every day to play but ignore his song.

 

Is that ethical? Are you cheating the system?

 

Just some random thoughts generated by this thread.

 

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:

Theoretical situation:

 

So you have a friend, who put a song on Spotify. You like the friend, believe he is a good musician, but really don't like his style of music, and you definitely dislike song he uploaded.

But as a friend, you go to Spotify 2 or 3 times every day to play but ignore his song.

 

Is that ethical? Are you cheating the system?

 

Just some random thoughts generated by this thread.

 

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Yes, actual humans in action. No false identities, no machines or software replicating human behavior x 100,000.  All acts have friends and family who support them whether they love the music or not.