7 ms·

Spotify's Spam War

82 points by iamben 11y ago

chrisgd 11y ago
Aren't the PROs (ASCAP and BMI) collecting a % of revenue from Spotify and Pandora and then distributing that money based on streams to the artists? Understanding this side of the music business makes no sense to me
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Those would typically be for major label signed artists. Some independent artists might be affiliated with ASCAP and/or BMI, but not always. It's my personal guess that most acts who upload via services such as TuneCore, CD Baby, or DistroKid are not members of those societies, and thus get their payments directly (through the service used).
lostlogin 11y ago
>> A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. << This isn't exactly a new problem, and I'd argue it's harder to do now than before, and a large reason why is because skipping a track is now possible.
buckbova 11y ago
>> Removing songs suspected of fraudulent plays is just one example of the power that digital storefronts like iTunes and Spotify have over how we listen to music, and the music itself. These services are slowly writing the rules of what is and isn’t considered a song, or an acceptable song title. This just doesn't seems like a new problem. Media outlets have been doing this since the beginning. Play along or make your own way. If you become big enough, they'll beg for you to come back into the fold.
deweerdt 11y ago
> Other musical spammers simply upload the same song thousands of times with different titles that are purposely similar to major hits Reminded me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP)
- m6w6 11y ago
  Oh, I thought that was a joke about U2 on iTunes ;)
6stringmerc 11y ago
>My anonymous source was testing how long they could get away with constantly streaming their own 45-second track on Spotify, to see whether the company had mechanisms in places to restrict artists from playing their own songs on repeat, and whether those micropennies per play would add up to some real cash. They racked up about 45,000 plays over a month before receiving this takedown email. So what did this "annonomous source" do with the monies received from the 45,000 plays? Because describing it as a "test" is pretty generous to the person trying to game the system. A less flattering perspective might call it "attempted fraud" because it sure sounds self-serving. >Sure, that's dirty play, and in a general sense, the action taken by Spotify in this case is justified and correct. But on closer inspection, the notice reveals a few troubling issues that could forecast a dark future for music fans. No, it means that people trying to scam retailers won't be allowed to scam retailers. What is so difficult to understand? >For one, Spotify took the extreme measure of removing the song entirely without any kind of probation or appeal process. A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. Oh, I see, this author has an ingrained perspective of entitlement. Right. Well, I don't share their opinion. Frankly I think DistroKid should ban that "testing" jackass and cite this specific article as why it happened. Mostly I think this as a happy DistroKid client. >Take the case of Matt Farley, who released some 14,000 original songs on Spotify and iTunes, some with celebrity names in the title enticing people to play the tracks to earn some revenue for his efforts. Yeah, DistroKid now has a checkbox hoop to jump through exactly because of this kind of shithead, counter-productive behavior. That's not engaging in art. That's being a shyster abusing the market for art. Every time one of these "clever" little stunts gets pulled, I have to do more work on my end to prove I'm legit. It's not terribly difficult to work with, but it means DistroKid is having to adjust and spend time and effort in areas not primary to their service. That makes me pretty ticked off, both for the sake of DistroKid, and the potential jeopardizing of being able to maintain storefront access as an independent when clowns keep trying to steal from the "Take a penny" tray.
- uremog 11y ago
  How many times is an artist allowed to play their own song before it's considered fraud though?
felixbraun 11y ago
I fear it is not possible to prevent people from setting up computers/virtual machines that play certain songs 24/7; and I'm surprised that there aren't services yet that offer to do that on scale. This might mean that Spotify's current business model can not work longterm?
- noxToken 11y ago
  > and I'm surprised that there aren't services yet that offer to do that on scale How hard have you looked? I don't say that to be snarky, but that sounds like a service with a bit of overhead for startup with little maintenance to run. I don't think it would be openly advertised, however, for fear of legal action from music services.
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    This story was linked in the parent article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-built-a-botnet-that-could-destroy-spotify-with-fake-listens http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-built-a-botnet-that-could...
shkkmo 11y ago
>For one, Spotify took the extreme measure of removing the song entirely without any kind of probation or appeal process. A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. My concern here is quite different from the author's. If it is easy to trigger takedown on tracks with no appeals process, this can be used by non-owners of the track to troll artists or censor tracks they don't like
- wallacoloo 11y ago
  Well, the author did consider that possibility further down: > If I wanted to seek revenge on a relatively unknown artist that I had a personal vendetta against, couldn't I simply repeatedly stream one of their songs in an effort to get their work removed from the service? And this type of thing has been a problem in related industries. Things like this (used to?) happen with internet ad agencies, wherein a competitor will try to hurt your business by emulating click-fraud on your website's ads. Or a really passionate fan will think, "I'll support these guys by clicking their ads a hundred times!".
bachmeier 11y ago
> Spotify seems to be intensifying its efforts to combat fraud with actions that could leave the door open to censorship. Unless the government is planning to get involved somehow, censorship is the wrong word. Even setting that aside, though, it's hard to understand what that sentence might mean. Best guess is that the author means Spotify would remove spam. I can't imagine any justification for using a word like censorship to describe an action like that.
drostie 11y ago
The insane thing here is that Spotify could just change the incentive structure and then it wouldn't have to take drastic action. "You will gain 0.00x cents per listen, up to a maximum of 100 listens/day for any individual user" and "Your songs must all sound like distinct pieces, as judged by our testing team" seem jointly sufficient to rule out the two biggest forms of abuse here: sure, let someone stream 30-second clips of silence; after 50 minutes stop paying for it. Multiple silent clips are a violation only because they both sound the same.
- Eridrus 11y ago
  It could be even easier: don't count every listen the same; split each user's subscription fees among the songs they listen to each month.
  - gdsimoes 11y ago
    Why don't they do that?
    - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
      In any given period of time some people are going to listen to the same tracks multiple times. For example, on many radio stations the selection of music is really quite small, and the majority of airtime is occupied by less than 100 songs. If people are repeatedly listening to those songs then why shouldn't the artist that created them receive compensation proportionate to the number of plays the song received? I couldn't find data on Spotify users' listening habits, but here's my own, sorted descending by track plays, for example: http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks
      - Eridrus 11y ago
        If everyone listened to the same amount of tracks, they would receive the exact same amount of compensation as they do now. My suggestion (which has been raised by others many times), is that if a user listens to 1000 tracks/month, their listens should be worth 10x less than a user who only listens to 100 tracks/month, since they are both paying Spotify the same amount. I'm not sure if it would result in very meaningful distinction in how much artists are actually compensated (maybe it would negatively harm smaller artists because, hypothetically, they are listened to more by people who listen to lots of music). I'm actually pretty curious about why they have chosen to stick with this model, since the alternative I've described is pretty obvious and has been proposed many times. I would say that there is more value in songs that are actively selected vs just played automatically (e.g. I often go to an artist's page, select a specific song, then let the playlist play without me paying much attention), but I don't know if that's really an economically meaningful distinction.
pud 11y ago
DistroKid founder here. When people generate fake streams on Spotify (ex: put a 45-second track on repeat all week, volume on zero, for the purpose of fraudulently extracting money from Spotify...), said people are actually stealing from legitimate artists. That's because Spotify pays artists a pro-rata share of Spotify's revenue, based on how many times an artists' music was streamed. Math: If there's $10 in the pot and my band has 5 (real) streams, and your band has 5 (fake) streams--I'm getting $5 instead of the $10 I deserve. Spotify's fraud detection system is a very good thing for artists. The system exists solely to protect artist, and has no other obvious upside for Spotify.
- dave2000 11y ago
  I can't help but think that there's no difference between good streams and bad streams. The system should automatically track and handle abuse so that it's not possible; as soon as you say things like the purpose of this or that tracklisting is fraudulent whereas another selection isn't and you've sort of lost me. I also can't help that this whole model - of artists getting fuck all money from their music being streamed - is going to end up where it belongs, in the toilet, eventually and the internet will be used to allow the creators to profit by selling their stuff directly to the consumers without all the suits, parasites and hangers-on taking their cut.
  - Litost 11y ago
    Surely if all the bad streams are coming from the same small number of accounts, or maybe many accounts that don't pay much/any subscription, this problem is simply neutralised by rejigging the payout formula? Assuming this is still the case: http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula-pay-artists/ http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula... then by calculating revenue more fairly as per the formula in the above link the problem goes away. e.g. Instead of calculating the amount an artist gets as total revenue * (their plays / total plays) it was individual account revenue * (their plays / total plays) summed over all accounts. This would then penalise the gym/bar or bot accounts, that either aren't paying any money or are generating huge numbers of plays. Though, cynically you could probably say there's a reason the formula has been done that way so it would be unlikely to change???
xivzgrev 11y ago
I felt the author didn't like what happened to his friend and grasped at everything possible to rile people against spotify. Spotify is a music distribution platform that works in a free market. If you dont want to listen to a track from them, look it up on many of the other platforms. Given musics ugly history with piracy, I doubt we will ever find ourselves in a world where spotify has a monopoly and we would see the effects the author is describing. If you have legitimate fans, you and your fans will find a way to connect, with or without spotify.
fnordsensei 11y ago
Spotify doesn't pay artists anything. They pay the rights holders, and they in turn pay artists whatever is in their contract.
awjr 11y ago
I'm very confused by this approach. You have two types of users "free and ad-supported" and paid subscribers. For the subscribers, it's easy. Take the amount they pay, take a service fee, and the rest is allocated between the artists they play that month. The "free" users, take the ad revenue generated by the user (up to a cap) and allocate to the artists they play during a month. Pay on play really does not seem to work when you have two different revenue streams and you're trying to balance both.
brownbat 11y ago
Ryan Walsh wrote this version for Vice, but I found his original for BDCwire even more compelling. http://www.bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-makes-23k-musically-spamming-on-spotify/ http://www.bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-makes-23k-musically-spam... It's all focused on an artist who sits halfway between legitimate music and spam. It raises questions about what counts as art, and what artists need to do to avoid obscurity in a world with more content uploaded every day than anyone could stream in their lifetime.

82 points by iamben 11y ago

Aren't the PROs (ASCAP and BMI) collecting a % of revenue from Spotify and Pandora and then distributing that money based on streams to the artists? Understanding this side of the music business makes no sense to me

6stringmerc 11y ago
Those would typically be for major label signed artists. Some independent artists might be affiliated with ASCAP and/or BMI, but not always. It's my personal guess that most acts who upload via services such as TuneCore, CD Baby, or DistroKid are not members of those societies, and thus get their payments directly (through the service used).

lostlogin 11y ago

>> A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. << This isn't exactly a new problem, and I'd argue it's harder to do now than before, and a large reason why is because skipping a track is now possible.

buckbova 11y ago

>> Removing songs suspected of fraudulent plays is just one example of the power that digital storefronts like iTunes and Spotify have over how we listen to music, and the music itself. These services are slowly writing the rules of what is and isn’t considered a song, or an acceptable song title. This just doesn't seems like a new problem. Media outlets have been doing this since the beginning. Play along or make your own way. If you become big enough, they'll beg for you to come back into the fold.

deweerdt 11y ago

> Other musical spammers simply upload the same song thousands of times with different titles that are purposely similar to major hits Reminded me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP)

m6w6 11y ago
Oh, I thought that was a joke about U2 on iTunes ;)

6stringmerc 11y ago

>My anonymous source was testing how long they could get away with constantly streaming their own 45-second track on Spotify, to see whether the company had mechanisms in places to restrict artists from playing their own songs on repeat, and whether those micropennies per play would add up to some real cash. They racked up about 45,000 plays over a month before receiving this takedown email. So what did this "annonomous source" do with the monies received from the 45,000 plays? Because describing it as a "test" is pretty generous to the person trying to game the system. A less flattering perspective might call it "attempted fraud" because it sure sounds self-serving. >Sure, that's dirty play, and in a general sense, the action taken by Spotify in this case is justified and correct. But on closer inspection, the notice reveals a few troubling issues that could forecast a dark future for music fans. No, it means that people trying to scam retailers won't be allowed to scam retailers. What is so difficult to understand? >For one, Spotify took the extreme measure of removing the song entirely without any kind of probation or appeal process. A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. Oh, I see, this author has an ingrained perspective of entitlement. Right. Well, I don't share their opinion. Frankly I think DistroKid should ban that "testing" jackass and cite this specific article as why it happened. Mostly I think this as a happy DistroKid client. >Take the case of Matt Farley, who released some 14,000 original songs on Spotify and iTunes, some with celebrity names in the title enticing people to play the tracks to earn some revenue for his efforts. Yeah, DistroKid now has a checkbox hoop to jump through exactly because of this kind of shithead, counter-productive behavior. That's not engaging in art. That's being a shyster abusing the market for art. Every time one of these "clever" little stunts gets pulled, I have to do more work on my end to prove I'm legit. It's not terribly difficult to work with, but it means DistroKid is having to adjust and spend time and effort in areas not primary to their service. That makes me pretty ticked off, both for the sake of DistroKid, and the potential jeopardizing of being able to maintain storefront access as an independent when clowns keep trying to steal from the "Take a penny" tray.

uremog 11y ago
How many times is an artist allowed to play their own song before it's considered fraud though?

felixbraun 11y ago

I fear it is not possible to prevent people from setting up computers/virtual machines that play certain songs 24/7; and I'm surprised that there aren't services yet that offer to do that on scale. This might mean that Spotify's current business model can not work longterm?

noxToken 11y ago
> and I'm surprised that there aren't services yet that offer to do that on scale How hard have you looked? I don't say that to be snarky, but that sounds like a service with a bit of overhead for startup with little maintenance to run. I don't think it would be openly advertised, however, for fear of legal action from music services.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  This story was linked in the parent article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-built-a-botnet-that-could-destroy-spotify-with-fake-listens http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-built-a-botnet-that-could...

shkkmo 11y ago

>For one, Spotify took the extreme measure of removing the song entirely without any kind of probation or appeal process. A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music. My concern here is quite different from the author's. If it is easy to trigger takedown on tracks with no appeals process, this can be used by non-owners of the track to troll artists or censor tracks they don't like

wallacoloo 11y ago
Well, the author did consider that possibility further down: > If I wanted to seek revenge on a relatively unknown artist that I had a personal vendetta against, couldn't I simply repeatedly stream one of their songs in an effort to get their work removed from the service? And this type of thing has been a problem in related industries. Things like this (used to?) happen with internet ad agencies, wherein a competitor will try to hurt your business by emulating click-fraud on your website's ads. Or a really passionate fan will think, "I'll support these guys by clicking their ads a hundred times!".

bachmeier 11y ago

> Spotify seems to be intensifying its efforts to combat fraud with actions that could leave the door open to censorship. Unless the government is planning to get involved somehow, censorship is the wrong word. Even setting that aside, though, it's hard to understand what that sentence might mean. Best guess is that the author means Spotify would remove spam. I can't imagine any justification for using a word like censorship to describe an action like that.

drostie 11y ago

The insane thing here is that Spotify could just change the incentive structure and then it wouldn't have to take drastic action. "You will gain 0.00x cents per listen, up to a maximum of 100 listens/day for any individual user" and "Your songs must all sound like distinct pieces, as judged by our testing team" seem jointly sufficient to rule out the two biggest forms of abuse here: sure, let someone stream 30-second clips of silence; after 50 minutes stop paying for it. Multiple silent clips are a violation only because they both sound the same.

Eridrus 11y ago
It could be even easier: don't count every listen the same; split each user's subscription fees among the songs they listen to each month.
- gdsimoes 11y ago
  Why don't they do that?
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    In any given period of time some people are going to listen to the same tracks multiple times. For example, on many radio stations the selection of music is really quite small, and the majority of airtime is occupied by less than 100 songs. If people are repeatedly listening to those songs then why shouldn't the artist that created them receive compensation proportionate to the number of plays the song received? I couldn't find data on Spotify users' listening habits, but here's my own, sorted descending by track plays, for example: http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks
    - Eridrus 11y ago
      If everyone listened to the same amount of tracks, they would receive the exact same amount of compensation as they do now. My suggestion (which has been raised by others many times), is that if a user listens to 1000 tracks/month, their listens should be worth 10x less than a user who only listens to 100 tracks/month, since they are both paying Spotify the same amount. I'm not sure if it would result in very meaningful distinction in how much artists are actually compensated (maybe it would negatively harm smaller artists because, hypothetically, they are listened to more by people who listen to lots of music). I'm actually pretty curious about why they have chosen to stick with this model, since the alternative I've described is pretty obvious and has been proposed many times. I would say that there is more value in songs that are actively selected vs just played automatically (e.g. I often go to an artist's page, select a specific song, then let the playlist play without me paying much attention), but I don't know if that's really an economically meaningful distinction.

pud 11y ago

DistroKid founder here. When people generate fake streams on Spotify (ex: put a 45-second track on repeat all week, volume on zero, for the purpose of fraudulently extracting money from Spotify...), said people are actually stealing from legitimate artists. That's because Spotify pays artists a pro-rata share of Spotify's revenue, based on how many times an artists' music was streamed. Math: If there's $10 in the pot and my band has 5 (real) streams, and your band has 5 (fake) streams--I'm getting $5 instead of the $10 I deserve. Spotify's fraud detection system is a very good thing for artists. The system exists solely to protect artist, and has no other obvious upside for Spotify.

dave2000 11y ago
I can't help but think that there's no difference between good streams and bad streams. The system should automatically track and handle abuse so that it's not possible; as soon as you say things like the purpose of this or that tracklisting is fraudulent whereas another selection isn't and you've sort of lost me. I also can't help that this whole model - of artists getting fuck all money from their music being streamed - is going to end up where it belongs, in the toilet, eventually and the internet will be used to allow the creators to profit by selling their stuff directly to the consumers without all the suits, parasites and hangers-on taking their cut.
- Litost 11y ago
  Surely if all the bad streams are coming from the same small number of accounts, or maybe many accounts that don't pay much/any subscription, this problem is simply neutralised by rejigging the payout formula? Assuming this is still the case: http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula-pay-artists/ http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula... then by calculating revenue more fairly as per the formula in the above link the problem goes away. e.g. Instead of calculating the amount an artist gets as total revenue * (their plays / total plays) it was individual account revenue * (their plays / total plays) summed over all accounts. This would then penalise the gym/bar or bot accounts, that either aren't paying any money or are generating huge numbers of plays. Though, cynically you could probably say there's a reason the formula has been done that way so it would be unlikely to change???

xivzgrev 11y ago

I felt the author didn't like what happened to his friend and grasped at everything possible to rile people against spotify. Spotify is a music distribution platform that works in a free market. If you dont want to listen to a track from them, look it up on many of the other platforms. Given musics ugly history with piracy, I doubt we will ever find ourselves in a world where spotify has a monopoly and we would see the effects the author is describing. If you have legitimate fans, you and your fans will find a way to connect, with or without spotify.

fnordsensei 11y ago

Spotify doesn't pay artists anything. They pay the rights holders, and they in turn pay artists whatever is in their contract.

awjr 11y ago

I'm very confused by this approach. You have two types of users "free and ad-supported" and paid subscribers. For the subscribers, it's easy. Take the amount they pay, take a service fee, and the rest is allocated between the artists they play that month. The "free" users, take the ad revenue generated by the user (up to a cap) and allocate to the artists they play during a month. Pay on play really does not seem to work when you have two different revenue streams and you're trying to balance both.

brownbat 11y ago

Ryan Walsh wrote this version for Vice, but I found his original for BDCwire even more compelling. http://www.bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-makes-23k-musically-spamming-on-spotify/ http://www.bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-makes-23k-musically-spam... It's all focused on an artist who sits halfway between legitimate music and spam. It raises questions about what counts as art, and what artists need to do to avoid obscurity in a world with more content uploaded every day than anyone could stream in their lifetime.