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.

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Or screwed everyone over too little; if he had screwed everyone for ten billion he would be heralded as a genius.

        • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I hate ads but their designed to be shown to people and intentionally using bots to inflate ad views is very clearly fraud. Silicon valley had something similar with bot farms to fake user engagement to take in VC funding. You take money in exchange for some kinda engagement metric which you’re faking.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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.

  • JIMMERZ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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.

    • Ruxias@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      America’s darling Jeff Bezos exploited a flaw in his book suppliers policies to gain an unfair edge on competitors in the early days of Amazon. Best business man ever: give him the key to the city and a dick-shaped rocket ship.

      He also got rich daddy and rich friend money to get money for his totally original and non-derivative idea of “selling things online”. Maybe that’s where this guy went wrong? No rich daddy?

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The “selling things online” idea had been tried repeatedly before Amazon, and always failed. What Bezos did was find a way to actually (eventually) make money at it. That was a business strategy tour de force that was quite impressively executed. That’s not to say that Bezos is a good employer or a nice person. But it’s often the case that it’s not the originality of the idea that matters, as much as how it’s executed.

        • Ruxias@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Umm… eBay was around before amazon and was largely successful. So no, he isn’t a ground-breaker, nor am I suggesting eBay was either. And yeah you can talk about differences between their platforms but my point still stands.

          All of these types “stand on the shoulders of giants” as they say. Except the giant is the taxpayer money that created the fertile ground that allowed their wealth in the first place. (E.g. the internet) And when they’re sufficiently successful, they love pulling up that ladder you and I and everyone else paid for.

          Private profits, public losses. Same as it ever was.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No.

      Music play-farming has been a thing for probably almost a decade by now.

      Spotify divides the huge amount of money they get from subscribers each month, evenly among all the plays during that month.

      Someone figured out ages ago, that since spotify has a free tier, that means that if you can get some tracks on spotify as an artist, you can then create an army of free-tier bot accounts and massively inflate the share of the money you get paid as an “artist”.

      Of course, this comes at the cost of everyone elses legit plays becoming worth less. Its an absolutely disgusting scam and Spotify has been ignoring it happening for years.

      Adding AI generation into the mix is barely an innovation.

      Edit: And if you’re wondering how it works with services that don’t have a free tier, it is done by hijacking peoples real accounts, then having them stream the relevant tracks over and over. Either by stealing entire accounts, or infecting devices that are already logged in with malware that will open the relevant app/website and play the tracks over and over.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Fuck Spotify, they can eat a bag of dicks after renewing Joe cum-guzzling Rogan for $200million. They deserve to have all of their money stolen.