A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties.
-
@brucelawson Am I the only idiot who read this, and now wants to go hear some of these songs?
There are tons on YouTube. Fake music labels with identical looking AI video images and AI generated songs. Probably doing the same thing.
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
Cheap way to generate ad revenue.
-
@Amoshias @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson THE COURT SAID IT WAS. Why do you assume the corporation runs the court? What is your alternative to courts? Spotify is a shitty company but why defend this asshole just because the target was this company? What if the target was a small company instead?
@toriver @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson saying it in all caps doesn't make it true.
the court did not say this. if you believe I am incorrect, please provide a citation.
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
@brucelawson I can't prove it, but it's my deeply held belief that the tech bro social media sites use their proprietary AI to write bots in order to inflate traffic, and therefore ad revenue.
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
Maybe the computers liked streaming those tunes!
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
@brucelawson for the 8 million he got or potentially entitled to, you'd think he would hire a better lawyer than pleading guilty.
-
A man used LLMs to generate hundreds of thousands of "songs", then used bots to stream them billions of times, to collect $8m in royalties. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-man-pleads-guilty-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence-0 Is there a better metaphor for late-stage capitalism than burning resources to make songs that are never listened to, then steaming them to robots that will never hear them, ad infinitum?
@brucelawson -Questions I have: Did comrade (a pronoun for the ages if ever heard) have a righteous nickname because folk heroes do arise when needed. Not Babyface as that one is long ago taken. DJ Fugazi Ears. And considering early download court cases made some flowers of youth to suicide, and the streaming companies follow standard Corporate Corporati policy where business has always raped art, shouldn't comrade go free. Many countries escaping incarceration is deemed natural, not punishable.
-
@toriver @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson saying it in all caps doesn't make it true.
the court did not say this. if you believe I am incorrect, please provide a citation.
@Amoshias @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson The crime he was convicted for was "wire fraud". Which is usually used when someone commits fraud online. Seriously, are you angry the «business model» of siphoning what little Spotify gives artists into the fraudster’s pocket failed?
-
@Amoshias @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson The crime he was convicted for was "wire fraud". Which is usually used when someone commits fraud online. Seriously, are you angry the «business model» of siphoning what little Spotify gives artists into the fraudster’s pocket failed?
okay, I think I understand what you're getting wrong. you aren't American, are you? you are fundamentally misunderstanding some things about our legal system. if you are interested, I will explain to you what you're getting wrong. if not, feel free to continue thinking you are right when you aren't
-
okay, I think I understand what you're getting wrong. you aren't American, are you? you are fundamentally misunderstanding some things about our legal system. if you are interested, I will explain to you what you're getting wrong. if not, feel free to continue thinking you are right when you aren't
@Amoshias @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson No, I think you are worthy of a mute instead. You are basically trying to refute what the statement linked in the first post says. Trying to argue semantics when what he did is detailed there.
-
@Amoshias @WiteWulf @alessandro @brucelawson No, I think you are worthy of a mute instead. You are basically trying to refute what the statement linked in the first post says. Trying to argue semantics when what he did is detailed there.
I asked you a very simple question, which was to actually support what you're saying with a citation. Because you're clearly not actually reading it. the linked page is a press release from the department of justice, not a court document. No court ruling was made in this case. the defendant pled guilty.
but instead of trying to understand where you are wrong or be less wrong, you're getting angry and blocking someone who is making you feel bad.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
