The songs that the AI CEO provided to Smith originally had file names full of randomized numbers and letters such as “n_7a2b2d74-1621-4385-895d-b1e4af78d860.mp3,” the DOJ noted in its detailed press release.

When uploading them to streaming platforms, including Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube Music, the man would then change the songs’ names to words like “Zygotes,” “Zygotic,” and “Zyme Bedewing,” whatever that is.

The artist naming convention also followed a somewhat similar pattern, with names ranging from the normal-sounding “Calvin Mann” to head-scratchers like “Calorie Event,” “Calms Scorching,” and “Calypso Xored.”

To manufacture streams for these fake songs, Smith allegedly used bots that stream the songs billions of times without any real person listening. As with similar schemes, the bots’ meaningless streams were ultimately converted to royalty paychecks for the people behind them.

  • @jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1278 months ago

    Not sure how this is a crime… breach of TOS, sure, but a crime?

    What law is being broken here?

    If his fake bands are being paid for bot clicks, that’s a problem for the platforms to figure out. They need to examine their TOS.

    • @Tire@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      958 months ago

      Try to overthrow the US government? You can still be president. Break a companies arbitrary TOS? Police are at your door to take you away for a long time.

    • @Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      508 months ago

      What law is being broken here?

      He stepped onto the rich people’s turf. We plebs are supposed to stay in our thatch huts beyond their line of sight.

      Straight to jail.

    • @sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s fraud by false representation the U.K. Fraud is basically whenever you misuse a system for undue profit. The terms are very broad. “You know it when you see it” kind of thing.

    • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      Its theft, which is against the law to do against a company or person. Its similar to trading in empty boxes at GameStop or sending back boxes full of rocks to amazon.

      Although most people seem to just pick a side based on whether they think that company should exist or not.

      • @LinusSexTips@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        There are far too many loopholes for me not to hate companies be they small or large.

        In Australia, “family trusts” are a sure way to write off a good chunk of your expenses (groceries, fuel and so on) while paying yourself a wage. If you really want you can cook the books taking cash sales for yourself too.

        Don’t forget about “taking” whatever you want from the company, and writing that off as a loss.

        Maybe I should hate people, but in a vacuum people are reasonable, logical and honorable. But once we introduce a “well maybe” or an “but what if I were to purchase fast food and disguise it as my own cooking?” my view of people becomes skewed.

        I guess, I wanted to vent about how fucked everything seems to be and that I feel powerless to do anything about it. GameStop as a company probably deserve the rocks in boxes, Amazon deserve them too, all because people are running those companies.

        I’m not above greed, but I’d like to think / feel that I put out more than I take and it seems quite uncommon in our modern society.

        • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          People will use whatever tools available to them. If their community supports it they will do it publicly, if not they will hide it. Drug use is a great example in some cases.

          If Australia allows people to convert their families to a company just to avoid taxes, then thats on the government to fix, not the people to stop doing.

          As long as there is no UBI there will always be pressure to use all tools available when things get hard.

    • @futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Gaining money from someone else by lying and/or deception. The legal term for that is fraud-- in this case, wire fraud.

  • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1138 months ago

    This is what Spotify was made for so I dont really see the issue. He made the music and the listeners, just look at that engagement you love so much!

  • @JIMMERZ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    858 months ago

    He found a flaw in the system and exploited it. Although he didn’t do anything particularly wrong, the tools he used allowed him to do it. Yet, somehow he has to pay the consequences and the companies that made the tools to exploit the system are not liable. Got it.

  • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    728 months ago

    Wow. I’m a hobbyist musician. I have ~12 million listens across various streaming services and have made a whopping $45 in the two years since I finally released ~25 years worth of material. (Which is a lot of why it’s my hobby and not a living.)

    I can’t imagine the numbers this guy had to pull off to make that much.

      • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        Searching my username should do it. Not sure what streaming services you’re subscribed to. It’s all on YouTube, too.

        • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          Me? Honestly, I think it would be obvious to any discerning listener what music is actually made by a person, and what music is AI generated, but really, there’s so much music out there of wildly varying quality thanks to accessibility of production tools these days, it probably is literally impossible to tell the difference anymore.

          • @can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            48 months ago

            I think it would be obvious to any discerning listener what music is actually made by a person

            I’m not so sure anymore. Udio’s output is more obvious but Suno has gotten scarily good. I’ll still always crave the human element though and I make my music for myself.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      148 months ago

      I have ~12 million listens across various streaming services

      The great thing about bots is that they can listen to every song on file, 24/7/365, and you can spin up as many of them as you like. 12 million is nothing.

      • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        I have to wonder about the logistics. He can’t be running them on his own single Internet connection. Or could VPNs handle it so it would appear his listens are coming from all over the world? $10M is a lot of money. How long did it take to amass that?

    • @lemmyingly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Based on your numbers, ~260k plays per dollar. The person in the submission would have to get ~2600 billion plays to get $10 million.

      Something doesn’t seem right with those numbers.

      There are people on forums doing the same thing as the person in the submission. 1 person with ~30 phones can generate about 15-20k streams in a day doing it manually.

      • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        Maybe some kind of increasing scale for revenue depending on larger numbers of listens.

        My break down by track is pretty inconsistent, too. I’ve got a single track with over a million listen that made me 36 cents. My most popular track has over 4M listens, and it’s responsible for half that $45. Distrokid doesn’t say which streaming service that revenue comes from, either. Some pay more than others, I imagine.

        • @lemmyingly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          Do you pay them any money to have the songs on the platforms?

          If not, I wonder if they charge you a fee but only deduct their fee from your earnings. So if you don’t get plays then they don’t ask for money. And the break even point is at around 1 million plays. Just a theory of course; I’m sure it’s all stated in the fine print.

          • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            I pay Distrokid ~$20 a year to distribute my music to a lot of streaming services, but I do not pay individual streaming services. I never really expected much return. I wasn’t disappointed! Haha!

            • @lemmyingly@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              28 months ago

              I was just curious about why 4 million plays is ~$20 and 1 million plays is less than a dollar.

              • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                18 months ago

                The best I can figure is that the 4M$20 track was popular on a streaming service that pays better, and vice versa for whatever reason.

      • @Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        58 months ago

        A little bit, for sure. Tempered harshly by the fact I’ve spent thousands of hours and thousands of units of cash on a hobby that paid me back $45. Good thing I don’t do it for the money!

        • @NineMileTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I was just kidding. I’m very jealous. I’ve spent thousands and have nothing to show for it. Maybe a hundred bucks from live shows 20 years ago.

          • @basskitten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            The most money I ever made in the music industry was being part of a class action lawsuit against MTV. Record sales and live shows are nothing.

  • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    688 months ago

    How is this illegal? Sounds legit to me.

    I use AI to answer ai generated emails at work all the time. I also use AI to design buildings that will never house people, but computer systems. It’s all a shell game folks!!!

    • @Scolding7300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      308 months ago

      Probably the bots listening part. The point for the royalties is to get people to use the software and pay for it

      • @JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        188 months ago

        Guess they’ll have to shut down reddit since they have their analytics boosted by large amounts of bot activity.

        The whole point of advertisers paying reddit for ad space is so people will see the ads.

        • @Scolding7300@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          If the ad agencies don’t like that then yeah they should fine Reddit or get compensated for Reddit claiming they’re more popular than they are. I don’t see the counterpoint

          (Unless it wasn’t a counterpoint)

          • @JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            58 months ago

            It was more or less a throw away comment pointing out that rich people and corporations don’t get legally held accountable for the same transgressions the same way normal people do.

            Rules for thee but not for me with this crap is getting tiresome.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    588 months ago

    Honestly, what did he do wrong? He made crappy cheap music and listened to it using AI and bots. listening to it must have cost him subscription money, so I guess he just listened enough to get the songs popular enough so that other would listen, and they did and everyone made money.

    Yeah, it’s all cheap shit but it’s wrong when he does it but totally fine when so many other media companies do it?

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah, it’s an exploit but it doesn’t seem illegal. It seems like the issue is with whatever service. They need to fix their contract or their software. Maybe it is in the contract or EULA that you can’t do this sort of thing already though, in which case it’s fair game.

      • @futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        78 months ago

        Maybe it is in the contract or EULA that you can’t do this sort of thing already though

        Then that would be a civil matter and he wouldn’t have been arrested for it.

        • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I mean, being arrested doesn’t mean a crime was committed. It means he’s accused of a crime. I’ll be interested to see if there is actually a conviction in the end.

    • @_edge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 months ago

      The bots faking real users’ streaming to gain profit is the questionable part. AI generated cheap content (created en masse for profit) will be the norm soon. If you think about it, quality content is already the exception.

  • Bappity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    oh look they care about it now it’s affecting them

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    English
    508 months ago

    i mean this is the system we got set up isnt it?

  • @figaro@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    458 months ago

    Can you imagine how exciting it would be though when this actually started to work? This probably started as a side project, with a dude saying like, nahhh this could never work.

    Until suddenly it did

  • @tomkatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    428 months ago

    Maybe a stupid question but… what exactly was illegal about this? I’m sure there were ToS or EULAs violated, but what law is he being charged on?

    • @hayes_@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      368 months ago

      3rd sentence of the article:

      Indicted on three counts involving money laundering and wire fraud, the Charlotte-area man faces a maximum of 20 years per charge.

      If you follow the article to the press release:

      SMITH, 52, of Cornelius, North Carolina, is charged with wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and money laundering conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

      • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        228 months ago

        Those are the charges yes, but how is this any different than what all sorts of corporations do

      • @tomkatt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        Ah thanks. I didn’t follow to the release page and just skimmed the article, should have read closer.

    • @DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 months ago

      It’s fraud I’m assuming. They fake “plays” for Spotify to reward by sending payment, but these plays were people that did not exist. Spotify was paying for ghosts to essentially steam music

      • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        08 months ago

        Facebook and other social media corporations use AI bots to generate “views” to inflate their traffic numbers to entice advertisers. They also use bots to piss people off and drive “engagement.”. Which is also fraud.

  • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    30
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If your business model allows somebody to game you like that, you kind of deserve it tbh.

    It shouldn’t be based on plays. It should be based on money made from a customer and divided between what they listened to/watched. But then you wouldn’t make as much money from the people that forget to use their subscriptions, which is probably a huge chunk of their revenue.

    • Bakkoda
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      Song names sound a lot like brands in the first three pages of an Amazon search results.

      😐

  • @BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    298 months ago

    Maybe he broke terms of service with the streaming companies but they should be pursuing him in civil courts. This feels like abuse of the criminal justice system to retrieve money for companies that were negligent in how they were running their streaming businesses.

    This guy produced music and he alsp streamed the music even if it was bots at industrial scale. He seemingly met the criteria needed to get money from the streamers. I’m not a lawyer at all but on cursory look at the definition and elements of wire fraud, I guessing this will hinge on whether this was a “material deception” - but he produced actual music and he streamed it, so is it?

    Also i wonder whether it can be proven that the intent was to “defraud” rather than take advantage / game a system.

    It feels like the tax payer is bearing the cost of prosecuting someone for a dispute between a person and the multi billion dollar music industry.

    Also the music industry trying to paint this as theft of money from other artists is a bullshit - the streaming fees are supposedly divided out proportionately from overall streaming. He caused more streaming so the pot was bigger, and he took a proportionate share of that bigger pot. And any disproportionate sharing reflects the shitty practice’s of the streamers and the big music rights holders who are essentially monopolies squeezing out the smaller competitors from the system.

    • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 months ago

      Dude, the music industry was accusing the US public of theft of music worth hundreds of trillions of $$$ back in the early 2000s. They started mailing random people with $250,000 fine PER SONG PIRATED. I had a friend with like half the Amazon music library on his home computer.

      They do not fucking care and yes, have lobbied every politician and AG to be in their pockets.

    • @WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 months ago

      I don’t buy that. I think it’s fraud. Yeah, the victims of the fraud are not nice people, but the law is supposed to protect all, not just the nice people. This isn’t “gaming the system,” it’s fraud. Uploading the AI-generated songs is fine. The problem was the fake listeners. That’s where the real fraud is.

      My city has a modest bus service they contract out to a private company to operate. At the front of the buses, there are scanners that count the number of people that enter the bus. These passenger counts are then baked in to what the company is paid for their services to operate the city’s bus system.

      In theory, the contractor company could park a bus somewhere, set up a conga line of people, and just have thousands of phantom passengers board a bus, and then try to bill the city based on these inflated statistics. If they did that, I would absolutely hope they would be charged with fraud.

      The law isn’t stupid. There’s a reason laws are enforced by judges, not algorithms. What this person did was little different than hacking a bank account and just stealing money from it. Yes, you could say, “they didn’t do anything wrong, they’re just gaming the system!” You could just as well call guessing someone’s password and stealing their money “gaming the system.” After all, is there anything on the bank’s login page that explicitly tells you not to enter someone else’s account and transfer their money to yours? No judge in a million years would buy that.

      This was effectively just a hack. This guy had to create thousands of phantom people to pretend to listen to songs. He was clearly not making any good-faith attempt at making music and was just trying to exploit a weakness in their system design to extract money from them that he didn’t earn. The law thankfully doesn’t work on a standard of “well, they never told me I couldn’t.” Cases like this take into consideration the totality of the circumstances and weigh whether it is fraud or not. And this? This wasn’t some clever technicality a legit artist used to boost their earnings. This was unambiguous fraud.

      I really don’t see how this is any different from pretending to be someone else to access their bank info, conning someone out of money by pretending to be a person in need, deep-faking someone’s voice to get their relatives to send money to you, or a hundred other scams involving fake identities. Yes, the victim in this case is a villain themselves, but that doesn’t make it any less a crime.