4 ms·
That's a funny way of saying fraud. Do you also love companies that send boxes of sawdust or online store customers ?
by srtjstjsj 6y ago
That's a funny way of saying fraud. Do you also love companies that send boxes of sawdust or online store customers ?
- staticautomatic 6y agoI think this is more in the vein of Cards Against Humanity shenanigans.
- bombastry 6y agoIt's a lot more like the fraud attempted in Office Space (... and Superman 3). Spotify artist payments are not based on play counts directly. They are actually based on Spotify's total revenue and the proportion of global Spotify streams that the artist received. As a result of these extra plays, Vulpeck's stream rate increases, but Spotify gets virtually no extra revenue (especially since a user would have to be a premium subscriber to get a fully quiet experience listening to the album). Vulpeck gets paid a bit more, and everyone else gets paid a minuscule amount less. For reference, here's one article that mentions this model of how Spotify pays its artists: https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-artists-isnt-fair/ https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
- aidenn0 6y agoIt's not fraud unless they said that the tracks are not silence. If I buy sawdust from someone and they send me sawdust, and it's structured so that Amazon pays them some money for it, that's gaming the system, not fraud. Amazon can stop allowing them to do it (just like spotify did).
- barumi 6y ago> If I buy sawdust from someone and they send me sawdust The validity of your point depends on whether you can demonstrate that people do pay spotify to listen to silence.
- sarakayakomzin 6y agoNo, it doesn't. Spotify has a premium model but even for premium users, there was no way to insert any kind of delay or temporary pause in a playlist. These tracks were frequently inserted into playlists to make up for Spotify's lack of a basic feature -- that's why it got so many streams in the first place. There wasn't any kind of fraud from the Artist, Spotify just got salty because they realized a an album like this would mean they have to pay for a feature in their own software.
- aidenn0 6y agoMy understanding is that people would intentionally put these tracks in their playlist to get periods of silence scheduled ahead of time. If that's not the case, then my original comment was wrong.
- WalterBright 6y ago> It's not fraud unless they said that the tracks are not silence. It is fraud, and although IANAL you'd lose in court.
- 8note 6y agoI'd lean copyright infringement? Probably has no audible difference from a John Cage song
- TheDong 6y agoJust so you know, copyright infringement does allow independent development to be a valid excuse. Copyright infringement requires intentional copying without permission, and so if you independently produce the same thing without copying, that thing now has two distinct copyrights. Patents may be what you're thinking of, as they require zero knowledge nor intent to infringe upon, but patents do not apply to artistic performances.
- HenryBemis 6y agoThen get a computer, get a piano-playing-software, hit 2-3 random notes VERY softly in the beginning & middle & end of each song, and call it a day. No silence. No infringment.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoWhat precedent can you cite to justify your claim?
- DaniloDias 6y agoMaybe go learn Esperanto so you can bring joy to the lives of others.