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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4834 months ago

    So why arrested? This is what AI is for right? Oh, he screwed over the wrong people didn’t he?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      187
      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.

    • finley
      link
      fedilink
      English
      494 months ago

      it’s because his name isn’t NVidia

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      He was arrested because he faked a ton of information related to his accounts to make it look like many people were doing it. I love that he gamed the system, but also it sounds like he totally committed financial fraud while doing so.

      There are other people who have gamed the system without also committing fraud

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      20
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      He didn’t get arrested for AI generated music. He got arrested for faking multiple accounts to upload music and using bots to generate fake listens, thus stealing millions of dollars. If he did the same thing with music he actually wrote and played, he would still be arrested.

  • magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    3054 months ago

    Fuck it. This scam was clever enough that I appreciate and sorta admire it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        274 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            234 months ago

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

            Ah yes, the Reddit strategy.

            • @person420
              link
              English
              14 months ago

              Google has been doing it with YouTube for as long as there has been a paid version of it. If you’re a premium subscriber, the creators you watch get a portion of your subscription based on how much you watch them. It’s why premium subscriber views are worth more than free views.

              That’s why IMO YouTube premium is worth it. My subscription supports the creators I watch and I get no ads.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        144 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.

      • magnetosphere
        link
        fedilink
        54 months ago

        I didn’t realize it was a thing. Thanks for taking the time to explain!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      234 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        284 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        94 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
          link
          English
          24 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 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.

    • Lord Wiggle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      194 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)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        74 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 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.

      • magnetosphere
        link
        fedilink
        44 months ago

        Ah. I thought this was an isolated incident. I understand, and agree with, your point.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 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.

        • Lord Wiggle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          See this video for more info about these scams and how Spotify is enabling them and protects them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1104 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      614 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      194 months ago

      I’m not a lawyer but this sounds like a pretty textbook definition of fraudulent business practice to me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      184 months ago

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

      What law is being broken here?

      Not curious enough to actually read the article, eh?

      Indicted on three counts involving money laundering and wire fraud

      One may argue about money laundering but it’s pretty clearly fraud.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        144 months ago

        That’s just a generic indictment. And it’s allegedly. How do you perform wire fraud if a corporation legally paid you for a service?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Yeah I read another article on this and it’s very unclear what was illegal. If I had to guess they’re getting him on the technicalities of the process rather than on the actual streaming.

          Edit: so I looked it up and realized wire fraud is “electronic” fraud, not bank wiring - Online definition

          Which given the way the guy did it definitely seems to meet that definition.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      44 months ago

      What law is being broken here?

      The law of “don’t take money from the rich and powerful; only they take their your money”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      4 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      334 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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        274 months ago

        Nah he is saying the streaming services should fix their flaw / the guy shouldn’t have consequences for what he did, as it was all inputted in a legal way it seems.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          234 months ago

          Yeah but he is messing with rich people’s money and that is a #1 no no. If he was scamming poor people no one would have cared.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            64 months ago

            I mean hopefully they’ll drop the case, and fix the underlying issues to ensure the artists get paid, and the scams don’t continue. The world isn’t that nice though is it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            This is what fucked Bernie Madoff.

            If this person had gone to VC’s with a pitch for ‘AI listening model’ with the explanation that “Now musicians can up load their songs to streaming services and AI will listen to make sure their pitch and tonality is accurate and that the beat is correct.” or some bullshit like that. Then it would have been ‘legal’

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              54 months ago

              That would be a completely different piece of software. It didn’t check their pitch or their tonality or their beat. It was barely an AI.

              All it did was listened to the music.

              So yes if he had written a completely different piece of software that did something completely different he could have pitched it completely differently and the outcome could have been completely different.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            104 months ago

            I think you’re missing the key part of the problem. It isn’t the AI that’s the issue.

            The problem is that he was being paid for how many listeners his AI songs got. But he used bots to “listen” to the songs. Nobody actually listened to his AI music.

            The flaw in the system was that they couldn’t detect his bots. (And the bots are not AI)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              If money is people ( citizens united ish ) , Then playing this music 9ver speakers to your dollar bills would legally be a listen?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        I mean I also agree that this seems like it shouldn’t be illegal, but as per what you’re saying, obviously people can use python for malicious intent, what do you mean?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          I mean that creators of a tool shouldn’t be liable for a crime committed with that tool. Unless the tool was purposely made for doing crimes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Only if Guido developed Python with the specific and exclusive intent being that it should be used for that purpose, and even then it wouldn’t be an open-and-shut case. And since it was developed over 25 years ago, that’s more than a bit unlikely.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    834 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      174 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 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!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      4 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        44 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 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!

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    804 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!!!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      334 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        224 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          4 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)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            54 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.

  • Bappity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    73
    edit-2
    4 months ago

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

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    724 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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 months ago

      but totally fine when so many other media companies do it?

      Do other media companies create fake streams?

      Fraud is the crime of obtaining money or property by deceiving people. He deceived streaming platforms, as he botted his songs in order to earn royalties.

      The whole “AI” thing is irrelevant; it’d be the same situation if he manually produced all his music.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        84 months ago

        Other media companies use bots to boost streams all the time. Hence the mostly shitty popular music of today. The kind of music you make does not matter today, how you market it or ‘boost’ it does.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        he botted his songs in order to earn royalties.

        So if the listens were natural there would no case?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          104 months ago

          At least, not this case. AI music is its own can of worms that hasn’t been decided on in court or law yet.

          But the main issue in this case is that he was scamming listens from the music services. So if he’d just let people naturally discover the AI songs somehow, and he earned money just like other Music publishers, then he would’ve been fine.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      4 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        84 months ago

        Exactly, I don’t think there was anything illegal here. At best it’s breach of contract with Spotify or whoever, and they could get sued. MAYBE there’s some interpretation of fraud that could apply? But it’s not like he sold anything and misrepresented it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        74 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      624 months ago

      People who are not part of the wealthy elite stealing profits is illegal. Doesn’t matter what the method was.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        224 months ago

        And yet Xitter, Farcebook and similar platforms still publish their stats as if all their users are real human beings. So why isn’t that fraud?

        • shuzuko
          link
          fedilink
          English
          224 months ago

          Because it’s only fraud if a normal person makes money from it, duh 🤪

    • Jojo, Lady of the West
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Probably against the TOS, though, meaning the money paid was never owed, could get it into fraud

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      uh, yes? it’s at the least fraud fs? the article says the doj is charging mike smith with three money laundering charges and one count of wire fraud. obviously the wire fraud charge comes from an argument that smith defrauded the distribution companies into illegitimately paying out royalties for false streams. note that the artificial intelligence solution only comes into the argument for the purposes of how he committed the crime, it really had nothing to do with the crime itself, at least intrinsically. if you read the press release from the doj, you can see that they make a pretty airtight argument that, quote:

      SMITH made numerous misrepresentations to the Streaming Platforms in furtherance of the fraud scheme. For example, SMITH repeatedly lied to the Streaming Platforms when he used false names and other information to create the Bot Accounts and when he agreed to abide by terms and conditions that prohibited streaming manipulation. SMITH also deceived the Streaming Platforms by making it appear as if legitimate users were in control of the Bot Accounts and streaming music when, in fact, the Bot Accounts were hard coded to stream SMITH’s music billions of times. SMITH also caused the Streaming Platforms to falsely report billions of streams of his music, even though SMITH knew that those streams were in fact caused by the Bot Accounts rather than real human listeners.

      SMITH’s hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs were streamed by his Bot Accounts billions of times, which allowed him to fraudulently obtain more than $10 million in royalties.

      it is not illegal to lie. it is absolutely illegal to lie for the purposes of financial gain. sure, i’m not disagreeing that what he did could not somehow be construed as something of a robin hood character arc (even tho he most certainly did this for the purposes of his own personal enrichment). but he almost definitely is guilty of the wire fraud charge and i do have a strong feeling, based on the prosecutorial level of this case, the involvement of a specialized division of the fbi, and his purported co-conspirators; that the money laundering charges are ironclad as well. frankly, i’m hoping his co-conspirators actually do end up going to trial and we get to learn what the company that aided in his fraud actually was. on fucking god it’d be one thing if he ran this grift machine for a little while, paid off a lil bit of his debts and all, maybe even lived off of it. but to steal $10 million fucking dollars with it, even when he knew he was committing fraud and had to explicitly hide his criminal activity??? no shit the fbi was hot on your trail. what an absolutely, colossal dipshit michael smith must be. i respect the ingenuity but it is so blindingly obvious that 10 million dollars was egregiously too many times to press a “free money button” you just invented in a capitalist autocratic hellscape.

      QUICK EDIT: i do just wanna say also i did not downvote u/shani66 and i just wanted to contribute to discussion. just noticed after i posted someone had downvoted them which is kinda goofy of whoever that is.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        Just wanted to add something. Lying for Financial gain isn’t illegal it’s how you do it. Like people lie for Financial gain all the time.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          that’s fair, my absolute statement doesn’t reflect the exclusive way anti fraud laws are written. you certainly might find and successfully exploit legal ways to lie for financial gain, but at best it’s unethical and at worst you’ll have to defend why your deceit isn’t criminal fraud in a lawsuit. it kind of depends on who you piss off the most, imo.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            I would not just say unethical. You have to consider multiple facets and situations. While yes it may not be best. Sometimes they have to feed children or otherwise. To put it simply most things aren’t black and white.

    • Lev_Astov
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      According to the article, they’re going for multiple counts of money laundering and wire fraud with 20 years each.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    544 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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    524 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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      384 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        294 months ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          424 months ago

          The difference is he was a poor trying to pull himself up. Corporations are glorious entities that can do no wrong in American law.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        44 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      194 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        154 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          104 months ago

          Its not wrong when a corporation does it its capitalism. When an individual does it its crime.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    514 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      Do they insert advertisements?

      If so then the real fraud is false viewings of advertisements.

      Which upsets the advertisers of course.