yes, calling it a heist specifically is extremely colourful in the wrong way
Comment on FBI busts musician’s elaborate AI-powered $10M streaming-royalty heist
ravhall@discuss.online 1 week ago
I don’t see the crime. Man games system. Man makes money. No crime.
hades@lemm.ee 1 week ago
otter@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
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
ravhall@discuss.online 1 week ago
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.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
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, it 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.
sanpo@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
That’s a very… capitalist way of thinking.
ravhall@discuss.online 1 week ago
Is it? Taking money from big corporations, using their own machine? Sounds like you don’t know much about capitalism.
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
the only good form of capitalism is the type that confuses idiots