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.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The butlerian jihad is missing the point here.

    The fraud is using bots (not AI just plain python with selenium or something like that. Sorry) for making fake listeners.

    AI here is just some coat to hide the fraud a little better, but nothing more.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 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!

    • Beacon@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Aside from “ai” it was just as possible 5 years ago. There have been algorithmic random music generators around for at least a decade, and click bots have been around since at least the 90s

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Of course it would have been possible. It would have been possible even like 100 years ago because we had the same alphabet and newspapers and headlines were a thing.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not money laundering, they were creating fake engagement and getting advertising revenue out of it.

        • HappyTimeHarry@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          getting bots to fake engagement for a profit is money laundering, believe it or not. its a pretty vague crime that basically amounts to getting paid in a way thats deceptive.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Hmm. If that’s true, the legal definition and the definition we typically use are very different.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Could be if the revenue was paid out to non existing aliasses and then transferred to himself.

          But getting paid royalties directly by Spotify would not need to be laundered as it’s legit money for the irs.

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The headline focuses on the wrong thing. Making a bunch of crappy songs and uploading the to Spotify and other streaming services is perfectly legal, AI or not.

      The illegal part is that he created lots and lots of fake accounts that constantly streamed his songs and masked them to look like authentic listens. So much so that he was making $110k per month. That is straight-up fraud, which is what he was arrested for.

      It has nothing to do with AI, but that makes more people click on the article.

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

      No.

      Spotify 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 bwcoming worth less. Its an absolutely disgusting scam and Spotify has been ignoring it happening for years.

      Adding AI generarion into the mix is barely an innovation.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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.

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

          Spotify is losing nothing. They take their cut either way.

          The only people getting their money stolen are real artists. Their share of the income shrinks as these scammers inflate the number of plays that the money is shared between.

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The solution, to me, would seem to be to divide the revenue up on an individual basis instead. Does some sort of licensing issue prevent this? I’d think that the legitimate record labels would want to fix this loophole ASAP so that they can get more money.

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

          AFAIK YT Music does this. The money from your subscription gets divided amongst whatever you listened to.

          That still wouldn’t address the stolen account problem, but yes, it’d be a huge improvement.

          I have no idea why Spotify still sticks to this massively exploitable model, except for the fact that it MASSIVELY inflates their stats for investors and advertisers.

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            exceot for the fact that it MASSIVELY inflates their stats for investors and advertisers.

            Ah yes, the Reddit strategy.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It seems like it would be super easy for them to close this loophole. If you use the model that free tier listeners (real ones) will listen to about the same distribution of songs as the paying listeners, then just stop counting all free tier listeners and multiply the amount paid out for the pay-tier listeners by an appropriate factor to make payouts the same as before.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Y’know this guy seems intelligent enough to come up with this scheme, but not intelligent enough to keep a low profile. I honestly don’t understand that.

      Personally, I’d do the math to pay myself a living wage with this so that my actual work salary is nothing but a cherry on top; manage it so it seems like hype is ebbing and flowing in a natural way. If you ever figure out a way to break the system like this, you should never act in a way that draws attention to yourself.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you ever figure out a way to break the system like this, you should never act in a way that draws attention to yourself.

        There was a guy who robbed banks and he wasn’t caught for decades because he just lived an ordinary working-class lifestyle. Cheap little apartment, no fancy car etc. etc.

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Once you have to put that amount of effort and attention in for a reasonable income… you are just doing a job… a job no-one benefits from. So it won’t be satisfying to do. No longer beating the system, just beating yourself.

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

        I imagine quite a few folks have done this. You don’t hear about everyone that got away with it but you definitely hear about those that get caught.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s like the person who figured out the free gas card hack and let her friends use it. If she’d kept it herself, she’d still get free gas.

        • person420@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Just like in this case, it isn’t straight forward. She wasn’t simply “letting her friends use it”, she was selling use of the trick.

    • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I thought the same, but it’s at the cost of real artists who are struggling to survive in a harsh market, so it still hurts. Sadly, this man isn’t unique. There are many Spotify listening farms listening to fake artists with AI generated songs just over 30sec which is the minimal listening requirement to get payed. And Spotify does nothing, as they get more money too.

      I can appreciate a well performed scheme or crime, but only if it steals from the rich and big corps. In this case, it steals from honest artists who give us amazing music while mostly being under paid on a regular basis, with the exception here and there.

      Stealing from the poor is really low. Only the biggest assholes are capable of doing that. (looks at all the billionaires)

      • laranis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        When I first read your comment about this scheme keeping money from artists I was skeptical. But, yup! It is right there on Spotify’s website:

        We distribute the net revenue from Premium subscription fees and ads to rightsholders.

        Now, granted a bunch of those “rightsholders” are likely big corporate record labels but your point stands. The little guy is getting screwed, too.

        Though, adding to your final thought, I bet if it was only the little guy getting screwed and not the corpos I bet DOJ wouldn’t have cared.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you’re confused about who got hurt by the scheme. Billion dollar streaming platforms fucking over artists don’t need to be defended.

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you read my comment again, you can see I noted that Spotify is in on it. They profit too from these schemes. All those bots listening to 30sec AI songs playlists are running on Spotify premium accounts so Spotify won’t do anything to fight fraud. They take 30%.

          I never defended any platform, I only defended the artists. So I guess the confused one is you, my friend.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Gonna miss having Zyme Bedewing on my Playlist.

    I’m weirdly creeped out about how this article refers to him as “the man”. Was this written by an AI?

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Indicted on three counts involving money laundering and wire fraud

    Oops. Picked on the big dogs by playing their own game.

    Seriously though, probably more going on than what we read here.

  • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t see how this is money laundering or wire fraud. I hope he gets off. Or the real best solution would to make it so the revenue just goes to the artists the AI is ripping off.

    • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My understanding is that the contractual agreement with advertisers is that they pay to reach ears. The ads did not reach any ears as promised which could be equated to fraud.

      • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        So are we committing fraud if we turn on Spotify and leave it playing in an empty, sound-proof room??

        That contractual agreement has nothing to do with the user or artist, its between advertisers and the platform. That can’t be what they got this guy for.

        • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not sure how all that can be separated out meaningfully as it is the platform being used and advertisers have expectations based on whatever agreement has been struck between them. Maybe I misunderstood. Perhaps the difference in your example is a user acting versus a bot? Intent probably comes up somewhere as well, but I am not a lawologist. 🤷‍♂️

  • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Unfortunate that he got caught. He was simply playing the same game the corps do but since he isn’t mega rich he gets punished.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    110K/mo was bound to attract attention. So, purely hypothetically, uhh, what would the lowest cutoff be before eyebrows start raising?

    • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Try 50k, with more realistic artist names, and more varied song names. Then you can bump the number up subsequent months, with the occasional drop sprinkled in for realism.

    • leds@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Spotify might as well be doing this themselves already to avoid having to pay all those annoying artist

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yeah, a streaming service with the hit songs like “Zyme Bedewing” from everyone’s favorite artist “Calorie Event”.