3 ms·
I understand your point but it misstates the issue: > For example, on or about December 26, 2018, SMITH emailed two coconspirators that, “We need to get a TON
by aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
I understand your point but it misstates the issue:
> For example, on or about December 26, 2018, SMITH emailed two coconspirators that, “We need to get a TON of songs fast to make this work around the anti-fraud policies these guys are all using now.
They are referring to anti-fraud policies as a general thing across all streaming platforms, not a specific named filter used by Spotify/Amazon/etc. Since they are referring to the policies by the intent rather than name or generically as ToS, this indicates an awareness that their behavior was ultimately fraudulent.
I understand it would be very different if the conspirators said “evade Spotify’s dumb ToS policies” and later Spotify said “actually those aren’t mere ToS, those are anti-fraud policies.” That’s not what happened.
- mjburgess 2y agoThey're naming those policies. That's what they are called by the platforms, and that's what "fraud detection" means in these cases. This is an "engineering" definition of fraud. In the legal sense of the term fraud detection is impossible, since these platfroms are not measuring the intentions of users.