The crime isn’t in publishing AI music. The crime was that he setup fake listeners streaming his songs so he could get royalties and inflate popularity. Initially he published his own songs, but to scale up and avoid detection he started creating music at scale - That’s where AI Comes in.
Smith’s scheme, which prosecutors say ran for seven years, involved creating thousands of fake streaming accounts using purchased email addresses. He developed software to play his AI-generated music on repeat from various computers, mimicking individual listeners from different locations. In an industry where success is measured by digital listens, Smith’s fabricated catalog reportedly managed to rack up billions of streams.
This is basically the same way you get on the NYT bestseller list - buy your own books.
The times doesn’t pay you royalties for your book sales, and it doesn’t cost you anything. They also detect if someone is messing with the system and display a dagger symbol if you are found to inflate your numbers.
True, but if you are a politician and you pay a ghost writer then political groups can bulk purchase your book as a way of laundering bribe money
The times doesn’t pay you royalties for your book sales, and it doesn’t cost you anything.
Of course they don’t pay, but getting on the list is fantastic advertising for your book and that pays.
They also detect if someone is messing with the system and display a dagger symbol if you are found to inflate your numbers.
Jack Rhysider’s research on this indicates otherwise.
Was this on Darknet Diaries? I must have missed that ep. Sounds interesting.
Yes, it’s the link in my comment above.
Isn’t this basically how Taylor Swift got her start … her millionaire father just buying thousands of her debut album at the beginning.
I don’t see the crime. Man games system. Man makes money. No crime.
yes, calling it a heist specifically is extremely colourful in the wrong way
That’s a very… capitalist way of thinking.
Is it? Taking money from big corporations, using their own machine? Sounds like you don’t know much about capitalism.
the only good form of capitalism is the type that confuses idiots
It does help set a good precedent. When companies try to do the same thing, further hurting smaller artists, we can point to this case
But corporations rarely get punished. So, I see a small fry taking advantage of a loophole to make money.
Granted, this person really should have quit before they got noticed. You get caught when you get greedy.
It’s not a loophole, though. Their ToS specifically prohibits creating artificial streams. The guy isn’t going to get away with it. The AI generated music isn’t a problem, but spinning up bots to give it streams is the same as using click bots to farm ad revenue. If the man catches you, the man’s gonna win.
Vulfpeck made a silent album and asked fans to stream it nonstop. THAT was a loophole, because there wasn’t anything spotify could do, there wasn’t anything in their agreement that said they couldn’t do that, and that’s awesome. Spotify (and the others I assume) has since plugged that hole, but I applaud them for taking advantage while they could.
Yeah, I have to think there are others out there doing this same thing at a smaller scale, being more subtle about it, and not getting caught. This guy just got a bit too greedy.
TOS is not law.
ToS was the wrong term. Artists agree to a contract when they monetize their content on Spotify. The contract specifies exactly what the artist will be paid for. If the artist was misrepresenting facts in order to be paid more than the contract would otherwise stipulate, it’s called fraud, and that is a crime.
Artificial streams are not new. Spotify has many articles dedicated to describing the problem of artificial streams, and the penalties for artists engaging in it. Here are One, Two, Three of them just from a single search.
This is a loophole in the same way that taking stuff when the owner isn’t looking is a loophole. In other words, it’s just called a crime.
I provide places with my name misspelled all the time. That’s misrepresenting, but not a crime.
A billion dollar company got played. Change the code and pay out the money. Are they going to refund advertisers? Doubt it.
You’re not entering a contract with those people, let alone being paid. If you believe you’re getting paid in an untracable way, your govt would like a word with you.
I don’t know why you think the company got played, did you read the article? Dude is busted. Best case, they’re going to garnish his income for the rest of his life.
