streaming fraud
“I feel like that guy in Don’t Look Up,” says Andrew Batey, co-CEO/co-founder of streaming fraud detection company Beatdapp. “I’ve been yelling about the comet coming for years, and so many people haven’t taken it seriously. Now, I think it’s arrived.”
On Nov. 4, Universal Music Group sued TuneCore and its parent company Believe in a $500 million copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming that TuneCore’s “business model” of letting users upload a massive volume of songs for a low flat rate is powered “by rampant piracy” and that TuneCore “makes little effort to hide its illegal actions.”
According to the lawsuit, some of these uploads are remixed or sped up versions of UMG hits and titled with slight misspellings of the artists or works they are infringing — like “Kendrik Laamar,” “Arriana Gramde,” “Jutin Biber” and “Llady Gaga.” UMG also alleges that TuneCore has “taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to record labels.
Trending on Billboard
The nine-figure lawsuit serves as a searing indictment of the way one of the world’s largest DIY distributors is allegedly conducting its business. It’s also being viewed as an indictment of the business model of DIY distribution as a whole because, as Jamie Hart — founder of publishing administration company Hart & Songs — explains, “These problems are definitely not unique to TuneCore.” Throughout her career, Hart has spent time at SoundCloud and at Downtown’s YouTube royalty collection service AdRev (now part of FUGA), learning about the intricacies of rights management online, and why it can get so messed up. “This is happening across all self-upload distribution companies at a big rate, and it has been happening for years.”
Along with users profiting from content containing copyrighted material that doesn’t belong to them (sometimes colloquially referred to as “fraud,” “fraudulent content,” or “modified audio” in certain contexts), experts say DIY distributors are also usually the pipes that let in an excessive amount of songs that will be used in “streaming fraud” schemes — a term used to describe the process of artificially juicing stream counts to siphon money out of the royalty pool.
Batey and fellow Beatdapp co-founder/co-CEO Morgan Hayduk see this is the start of a serious crackdown on distribution companies like TuneCore, with “a small window for [distributors] to get on board” and clean up their issues with infringement and fraud before it leads to serious consequences. For those unwilling to put in the extra effort to prevent much of the illegal activity on their services, the Beatdapp leaders fear the financial penalties from streaming services or lawsuits from rights holders, like UMG, could be harsh enough to put some of the small players out of business and lead to consolidation.
“We don’t want to see consolidation,” Hayduk says. “It’s healthy to have a lot of distributors in the market, for users and for our business, too. We want to see them clean up their act, but they need to start now.”
Over the last few years, there have been a number of efforts made to address the growing problems in DIY distribution — from streaming fraud to copyright infringement to sheer volume. Last year, TuneCore, Distrokid, CD Baby, Symphonic, Downtown and more joined together to form the Music Fights Fraud coalition, an attempt to self-police these issues through a shared database. (Since then, Beatdapp alleges that there has only been an increased amount of streaming fraud across the industry.) Spotify also announced new amendments to its royalty payment models in an effort to curb these issues, including financial penalties for distributors and labels that perpetuate fraud.
But this fall, a number of high-profile instances of anti-fraud regulation have started popping up in quick succession. In September, federal prosecutors indicted a North Carolina musician in the first ever federal streaming fraud case, alleging he used two distributors to upload “hundreds of thousands” of AI-generated tracks, and then used bots to stream them, earning him more than $10 million since 2017.
Then, in October, TikTok cited issues with “fraud” as its reason for walking away from renewing its license with Merlin, a digital licensing coalition representing thousands of indie labels and distributors. Instead, TikTok reached out to Merlin members individually — something which TikTok says could help them curb fraud from specific members, but which Merlin calls an excuse to “fractionalize” its membership and “minimize” TikTok’s fees for indie music.
Experts are torn about whether or not the problems at these DIY distributors will be easy or hard to solve. One DIY distribution employee, who requested anonymity, says stopping bad activity is a never ending game of “wack-a-mole” and that it is “impossible to catch everything” even with a quality control team. “There’s so much content pushed through at once that a lot slips through the cracks.” They add, however, that there is too much of an emphasis on “quantity over quality” at these companies and that they need to hire more quality control personnel than they have right now.
But Larry Mills, senior vp of sales at Pex, a company that provides tools for content identification and rights management, believes “it actually isn’t that hard of a problem to solve. Some distributors and DSPs are just making a business decision to use lesser technologies that aren’t tuned to finding modified audio or covers until they are forced to.”
Beyond contracting a third-party service, like Pex or Beatdapp, or spending a millions on more full-time staffers, there are also much more simple measures that can be taken. Greg Hirschhorn, CEO/founder of distributor Too Lost and a member of the Music Fights Fraud coalition, said in an October interview that his company has seen significant success by simply requiring users to submit a photo ID and a selfie before uploading songs to Too Lost. “There’s no hiding from it, and it’s easy,” Hirschhorn says. “If you break the law using our site, I have your information, and I can just send it to local law enforcement or to the streaming service.” Hirschhorn claims he has offered to implement this same service for fellow MFF members, but he says no one has taken him up on it.
According to Mills, the new UMG lawsuit against Believe has encouraged more action. “Thankfully, people are starting to take this seriously. Our phones are certainly ringing more since [the UMG lawsuit],” he says.
An employee at one of the DIY distributors also has seen a change in attitude about these problems in light of the UMG lawsuit. “A lot of us [in distribution] have been talking about this lawsuit,” this person says. “This is a systemic issue in distribution. No company is blameless … Other distributors should be f-cking nervous.”
For those in the business of helping artists and writers collect their rightful royalties online, like Hart and Jon Hichborn, founder of royalty tracking company Records on the Wall, “There’s too much responsibility on the rights holder,” as Hichborn puts it, to police their copyrights. “It’s mind boggling. I track down royalties 24/7. Imagine if I wanted to be a musician who was writing and performing? There would not be enough time in the day to do it all.”
Still, the continued dysfunction and challenges stemming from DIY distributors has birthed a lucrative cottage industry for companies like Pex, Beatdapp, Hart & Songs, Records on the Wall and more that are designed to clean up the mess that is protecting copyrights and collecting royalties on the internet today. “My business unfortunately does thrive on everybody screwing up,” laughs Hichborn. “It’ll never go away.”
It’s unclear what the future looks like for DIY distributors. While Beatdapp foresees “extinction” for distributors that don’t get their act together, Hirshhorn predicts great change “in the amount of quality control, the amount of KYC [“know your customer” checks], the amount of diligence required,” but he doesn’t see it as an apocalyptic event. As he’s found with the implementation of ID checks, even if the scale of songs a distributor releases goes down some, a distributor can still thrive. Too Lost, he says, is doing better than ever, earning over $50 million in annual revenue this year.
“At the end of the day, you just shouldn’t be able to make money on the internet — whether it’s from music, gaming, or the creator economy — if you don’t disclose exactly who you are,” Hirshhorn says. “That just makes total sense… The music industry is always slow to adopt any changes, but this is what the future will look like.”
Independent music trade bodies have hit out at TikTok for boycotting collective license talks with Merlin by seeking to strike direct deals with its indie label members, accusing the platform of trying to divide the sector and “drive down the value” of music.
Licensing talks between TikTok and Merlin, which negotiates digital licenses for a coalition of more than 30,000 independent labels and music companies, representing 15% of the global recorded music market, abruptly ended late last month when “TikTok walked away before negotiations even began,” according to a letter Merlin sent to its members on Friday (Sept. 27).
The London-headquartered indie rights organization, which counts the labels 4AD, Domino, Matador, Subpop, Partisan, Warp, XL Recordings and Secretly Group among its members, said that TikTok told them that it would not be renewing its license deal, due to expire Oct. 31, and was instead looking to licence its members directly.
Trending on Billboard
A spokesperson for TikTok confirmed Monday (Oct. 1) that it was “committed to entering into direct deals with Merlin members in order to keep their music on TikTok.”
One of the reasons TikTok has given for not renegotiating its deal with Merlin is its concerns over alleged streaming fraud, which a TikTok spokesperson told Billboard specifically relates to a handful of Merlin members delivering songs or remixes of songs that they don’t own the rights to.
Addressing those allegations, Merlin told members it has worked “productively and collaboratively with TikTok” on streaming manipulation and fraudulent content “and until now, no concerns have been raised.”
Executives and trade bodies from across the independent music sector have also called into question TikTok’s reasoning for not renewing its deal with Merlin, while also slamming its attempts to boycott collective licensing with the company.
Brussels-based independent labels trade body IMPALA, which represents over 6,000 indie music companies in Europe and has previously criticized TikTok for the low returns it pays to rightsholders, said it strongly opposed TikTok’s attempts to boycott Merlin.
“Given the timing, it seems clear that TikTok’s real intention is to fragment the sector and drive down the value of independent music, rather than deal with streaming manipulation,” said Mark Kitcatt, chair of IMPALA’s streaming group, in a statement on Thursday (Oct. 3).
“Record labels have entrusted their rights to Merlin to negotiate on their behalf and by TikTok going directly to rights holders they are disrespecting the licensing agreements that are in place,” added Dan Waite, chair of IMPALA’s digital committee. “Like a supermarket chain negotiating directly with individual farmers for the price of their milk, it’s difficult to see how this can work out in the farmers’ favour.”
Referencing TikTok’s cited concerns around streaming manipulation, IMPALA’s executive chair Helen Smith questioned how seeking direct deals with Merlin members would better address the issue than renewing a collective license. “This feels like a smoke screen for boycotting Merlin given the history and the timing and the fact the whole industry is working hard on this important issue,” said Smith in a statement.
“TikTok’s claim that leaving Merlin would alleviate fraud is technically and effectively incorrect,” Gee Davy, interim CEO of the U.K.-based Association of Independent Music (AIM), tells Billboard. She claims that TikTok can already choose which music catalogs it uploads through the Merlin deal, and stresses it is by the industry working together “and TikTok re-engaging with Merlin that the industry will fight online fraud.”
“The resource required to close deals and manage a large number of independent music relationships, take down unlicensed music, and handle fraud separately across a number of participants would surely outweigh any gains,” says Davy. “And that’s aside from any reputational issues that arise from TikTok claiming to respect independent music while in practice showing that they don’t respect the licensing choices of independent music businesses.
“Many smaller labels and artists will be locked out of any direct licensing, which will sour relations as well as set back many years of work by Merlin, AIM and others in improving equitable access to the market and diversity of music available to consumers. We urge TikTok to speak to us and consider the bigger picture and; most of all, to recognise the inadvertent damage their actions have caused and return to discussions with Merlin.”
Those sentiments were echoed by Dr. Richard Burgess, president of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), who earlier this week told Billboard: “TikTok’s refusal to negotiate a deal with Merlin isn’t just a setback — it’s a threat to the whole music ecosystem.” Burgess said the dispute “isn’t just about Merlin; it’s about properly recognizing the value of artists and their music.”
The Brussels-based International Music Publishers Forum (IMPF) has also urged TikTok to reengage and strike a licensing agreement with Merlin, calling its attempts to “circumnavigate” collective licensing “a thinly veiled attempt to divide independent labels and drive down the price of music.”
“Merlin’s members have entrusted their rights to the organisation in order to uphold transparency, efficiency and fair remuneration. That must be respected,” said IMPF in a statement.
Merlin is the third music organization this year, after Universal Music Group (UMG) and the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), to express challenges in renewing music licenses with TikTok. In February, UMG’s failure to reach a deal with TikTok led to the removal of its entire catalog of hits from TikTok for about three months.
In April, after publicly supporting UMG’s position against TikTok, the NMPA allowed its TikTok license, which was used by a number of indie publishers, to lapse as well. It has not been renewed. A spokesperson for TikTok says that many of the indie publishers have now established their own direct licenses with the short-form app.
Unless a swift resolution can be found between TikTok and Merlin — or Merlin’s label members choose to negotiate individual license deals with the ByteDance-owned platform — hit songs from artists like Nirvana, Phoebe Bridgers, Diplo, The Lumineers, Mac Demarco, Madlib, Mitski, Thundercat, Wet Leg and Coolio could start to be removed from TikTok on Nov. 1.
Nine sites that were selling fraudulent streams have been taken offline, according to IFPI and Music Canada.
IFPI, the worldwide recording industry association, and Music Canada, a trade group that represents major Canadian labels, filed a legal complaint with the Canadian Competition Bureau against the sites, accusing them of selling false plays and streams to manipulate streaming service data. The nine connected sites, the most popular of which used the domain name MRINSTA.com, have since gone offline (though you can still see them via the Wayback Machine).
“Streaming manipulation has no place in music,” stated Lauri Rechardt, the IFPI’s chief legal officer. “Perpetrators and enablers of streaming manipulation cannot be allowed to continue to divert revenue away from the artists who create the music.”
As streaming has grown in popularity, so have efforts to game platforms’ royalty models. Vancouver-based fraud detection software company Beatdapp estimates that as many as 10% of music streams are fake. Fake streams are often generated through streaming farms, which use bots to automatically stream particular songs and boost their stats.
Trending on Billboard
Canada recorded 145.3 billion streams in 2023. – Rosie Long Decter
Warner Music Canada’s Head of A&R Leaves to Start New Management Company, SWING
It was only January of this year that Victoria, B.C. pop-funk act Diamond Cafe announced his signing to Warner Music Canada. Now, George Kalivas, the man who signed him, is breaking off on his own to manage him — and building a whole new company around the artist.
SWING is launching as a Toronto-based management company with Diamond Cafe as its first artist, though Kalivas says the eventual plan is to “evolve into a full-service record label in no time.”
Kalivas started in marketing at Warner Canada seven years ago, handling domestic artists signed to the label and international releases signed to subsidiaries like Atlantic and 300. But he had “one foot in A&R,” he says, which became official two years ago when Kristen Burke became label president.
His first signing was Crash Adams, a Canadian pop duo known for viral TikTok trends. After the joint launch of 91 North Records by Warner Canada and Warner India, Kalivas helped sign the label’s second artist, AR Paisley. A long-simmering Canadian rapper, Paisley hit the top 10 of the Billboard Canadian Hot 100 this year with “Drippy,” a posthumous collaboration with the late Punjabi-Canadian superstar Sidhu Moose Wala.
But it was Diamond Cafe that made Kalivas realize the time was right to strike off on his own “I haven’t seen a triple threat artist like him — writer, performer and producer — in 15 years,” he says. “He’s next level.”
As publishing and song catalogs become a major money-maker in the music industry, artists like Diamond Cafe, who can work both in front of and behind the scenes, are being scouted heavily. For SWING, it’s enough to structure a whole new company around. – Richard Trapunski
Texas Songwriter Livingston Debuts on the Canadian Hot 100 With ‘Shadow’
Texas singer-songwriter Livingston is making a splash on the Canadian charts this week.
The 21-year-old has landed on the Canadian Hot 100 for the first time with his single “Shadow,” which debuted at No. 100. The ominous single, which finds Livingston warning about the dangers we pose to ourselves, shows off his belt and falsetto over keyboard stabs and jittery percussion. “Shadow” is also performing well on the iTunes charts and has gathered over 1 million YouTube views since its Mar. 7 release.
Livingston’s new album, A Hometown Odyssey, also found a spot on the Canadian Albums chart this week, debuting at No. 92. Livingston first gained popularity as a teenager on TikTok during the pandemic and signed shortly thereafter with Elektra Records. His website states that he “reclaimed his independence” from his major label deal a year ago. Hometown Odyssey is independently released.
Independence seems to suit Livingston well. Though he isn’t charting on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 or Billboard 200 yet, sometimes rising American artists — like Benson Boone — perform better in Canada before gaining steam in the United States. – Rosie Long Decter
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) welcomed the latest edition of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Notorious Markets Report on Tuesday (Jan. 30), which provides an annual run-down of various forms of copyright infringement, including digital music piracy.
Digital music piracy is not front-of-mind for many listeners in the age of streaming; even the industry itself has focused more of its recent frustration on streaming fraud and the popularity of rain sounds, at least in public comments made in the last year.
However, global music piracy inched up in 2022, according to a March 2023 report from MUSO, a U.K. technology company, which tracked over 15 billion visits to music piracy sites that year.
The USTR’s new report highlighted a handful of sites — including 1337X, Krakenfiles, Rapidgator and Ssyoutube — where people go to stream or download songs illegally. “Ssyoutube is reportedly the most popular YouTube ripping site globally, with over 343 million visitors just in April 2023,” the USTR noted in one example.
“We appreciate the report’s prioritization of thefts that target the music community such as stream-ripping,” said George York, the RIAA’s senior vp of international policy, in a statement.
Overall, music is less of a concern in this year’s USTR report relative to 2023’s. The document’s primary focus is the “potential health and safety risks posed by counterfeit trademark goods.”
The USTR was heartened by the fact that “this year many e-commerce and social commerce platforms took solid steps toward initiating additional anti-counterfeiting practices and adapting to new circumvention techniques used by counterfeiters.”
“Several platforms filed public submissions outlining their implementation of new anti-counterfeiting tools, including releasing educational campaigns, increasing identity verification requirements, and implementing faster and more transparent notice-and-takedown processes,” the report continued. “Additionally, several platforms have invested in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies as a way to scale up and quickly adapt traditional anti-counterfeiting measures such as text and image screening.”
The RIAA had asked the USTR to highlight another aspect of AI, according to comments submitted in October, though it was not ultimately included in the report.
At the time, the RIAA noted that “the year 2023 saw an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track. This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners.”
In a statement following the USTR’s latest release, York “urge[d] the organization to take “a close look in the future at emerging piracy challenges presented by AI, including the widespread illegal use of copyrighted sound recordings and artist names, images, and likenesses to generate invasive and unlawful voice clones and deepfakes.”
When Morgan Hayduk and Andrew Batey founded Beatdapp — a company which helps streaming services, labels, and distributors detect streaming fraud — at the end of 2018, they faced a major obstacle: The music industry was reluctant to acknowledge that streaming fraud was a problem.
“It used to be verboten to speak publicly about [it],” Hayduk told Billboard last year. “It was all behind closed doors. But I don’t think you can fix a problem until you accept its existence.”
The climate has changed dramatically recently. Last year, Universal Music Group began calling for changes to the streaming model, arguing that fraud and things like white noise and rain sounds were scooping up royalty income that should be going to actual artists. And Beatdapp announced on Friday (Jan. 19) that it’s entering into a strategic collaboration with UMG as well as partnering with SoundExchange (which collects performance royalties from digital radio stations and broadcast companies like SiriusXM) and the streaming service Napster.
“We’re at a point now where there’s a consensus that we have to address the problem” of streaming fraud, says Michael Nash, chief digital officer and executive vice president for Universal Music Group. “Beatdapp have really focused on understanding the problem and working with a number of different platforms to provide a very clear perspective about the scope of the problem. Providing that kind of leadership, driven by data analysis, has been really important.”
Hayduk defines streaming fraud as the leveraging of “bots, stolen accounts or manipulated platform features” to steal streaming income. The practice “hurts everyone who makes a living in the music industry and, left unchecked, creates this promotional race to the bottom where everyone believes they have to cheat to succeed,” he told Billboard last year.
“In an industry where it’s already hard to make something and then promote something and then get paid,” Batey added, “you should at least get paid correctly.”
As Beatdapp widens its network of partners, it gets access to more streaming data — the company was analyzing 2.2 trillion streams in 2023, up from hundreds of billions in 2022 — which in turn allows the company to improve its understanding of how fraudsters manipulate the streaming ecosystem and get better at identifying suspicious listening patterns.
“Napster provides Beatdapp with a daily feed of all usage on Napster’s services, and Beatdapp then uses its detection filters to identify likely stream manipulation activity based on certain (high) confidence levels,” explains Matthew Eccles, the streamer’s svp and general counsel. “Napster will then ensure that the streams identified by Beatdapp are removed from royalty reports for all licensors so that the market share calculations for all labels are not affected.”
Napster’s view is that it is helpful to engage a third party to detect stream manipulation because “it eliminates potential questions of bias when the results come back,” Eccles continues. “Third parties can help achieve consistency across the industry in relation to what is and what is not considered to be streaming fraud.”
Beatdapp also announced on Friday that it had raised an additional $17 million, money that will go towards hiring new data scientists and senior leadership and expanding into Europe and Asia.
“With the volume [of music on streaming services] jumping the shark over value — more than 150 million tracks and more than 100,000 uploaded every day — this has created a lot of issues,” Nash notes. “That level of volume has created a context for a lot of bad actor activity.”
Tackling these issues is complicated, but cracking down on fraud is “the least controversial item on the agenda,” Nash adds. “There aren’t a lot of advocates for fraud.”
While Spotify is planning to start penalizing labels and distributors for egregious instances of streaming fraud, Apple Music quietly rolled out its own strengthened fraud protections — including hitting repeat offenders with “financial adjustments” — more than a year ago, according to an email obtained by Billboard that the platform sent to music industry partners in March. Apple Music’s internal metrics indicate that the policy has already led to a 30% drop in streaming manipulation.
In the March email, the streamer defines manipulation as “the deliberate, artificial creation of plays for royalty, chart, and popularity purposes” as well as “the delivery of deceptive or manipulative content, like an album of 31-second songs.” “In October [2022], we launched new tools and policies designed to prevent stream manipulation on Apple Music,” the email explains. “Since we launched the new tools, manipulated streams have accounted for only 0.3 percent of all streams.”
That 0.3 percent figure is lower than the stats cited by some of Apple Music’s rivals. A Spotify spokesperson told a Swedish newspaper earlier this year that “less than one percent of all streams on Spotify have been determined to be tampered with,” while Deezer has said that it finds 7% of plays to be fraudulent. (This comparison only goes so far, though, because each service might define fraud differently, and not all of them have ad-supported tiers.)
In a statement, an Apple Music spokesperson said the platform “takes stream manipulation very seriously. Apple Music has a team of people dedicated to tracking and investigating any instances where manipulation is suspected. Penalties include cancellation of user accounts, removal of content, termination of distributor agreements, and financial adjustments.”
When Apple Music emailed industry partners in March, the streaming service noted that “despite the low percentage [of fraud], manipulation remains a widespread and persistent problem: That 0.3% of streams came from more than 85,000 albums across hundreds of record labels.”
As a result, the email indicates the company outlined a sharper anti-fraud policy in October 2022, promising to take “remedial actions against content providers with repeated and significant stream manipulation.” This means of incentivizing reform has worked for some — half the distributors that were flagged for fake streaming have reduced manipulation on their content by over 45%, the company said.
To help labels and distributors figure out where fraud is occurring, Apple Music’s email says the platform started sending daily reports detailing “a content provider’s albums with streams held in review.” “After each review,” the email goes on, “we remove manipulated streams and release legitimate plays. At the end of each month, content providers also receive a report with all excluded streams.” (Spotify has now also ramped up the reporting it provides to labels and distributors, according to one executive at a distribution company, “adding a new dimension of seeing repeat offenders.”)
“This all happens before Apple Music pays royalties and tabulates charts,” the email noted. “We block wrongdoers from the primary advantages of stream manipulation and redirect royalties to valid plays of content.”
The last six months have seen a flurry of companies committing publicly to fraud mitigation. More than half a dozen distributors formed “a global task force aimed at eradicating streaming fraud” in June. And when Deezer announced a new partnership with Universal Music Group in September, Michael Nash, UMG’s executive vp and chief digital officer, promised that “fraud and gaming, which serves only to deprive artists their due compensation, will be aggressively addressed.”
Under Spotify’s new royalties model, the platform will financially penalize labels or distributors when it finds that more than 90% of streams on a song are fraudulent, charging 10 euros per offending track, according to several music distribution executives.
The service’s current remedies will also remain in effect — removing fake streams from the system so they don’t impact payouts or charts, pulling the track off editorial playlists, and possibly striking them from the platform altogether. The fees racked up by labels or distributors will be charged against future royalties.
Like the rest of Spotify’s new model, which also affects how the lowest-streaming acts and non-music noise tracks earn royalties, the new fraud rule will impact music’s steadily growing “long tail” of tracks that don’t get played much. In this case, it’s simple math: Big artists trying to boost their numbers are unlikely to hit that 90% threshold for fraudulent streams since they already have an established audience that will listen to them. Any act with a fair number of legitimate streams would need a huge amount of fraud to trigger a penalty.
This means companies that have built hands-off, high-volume distribution businesses with small margins, charging a small fee per upload — the three biggest are DistroKid, TuneCore and CD Baby — likely have the most to lose under the new rules. They have huge batches of new music uploading daily, and that means it’s hard to know who is doing the uploading.
Even so, Tunecore welcomed news of Spotify’s change. “In order to effectively prevent bad actors from diluting the royalty pool for real artists with real fans, all companies need to be a part of the solution,” says Andreea Gleeson, the company’s CEO. “We also have been engaged in a deep dialogue with all our DSP partners, including Spotify, to actively deploy anti-fraud measures that encourage content providers to make the proper investments to actually fight fraud. We are fully aligned with the measures that Spotify is implementing.” (Tunecore’s parent company, Believe, has a history of publicly supporting Spotify initiatives, including Discovery Mode, which is unanimously opposed by the major labels.)
“It’s a positive incremental step to take, but it’s incremental — you could see a service doing something much more drastic,” adds another senior executive. “It sends a good signal to the marketplace about intentions.”
On the other hand, DistroKid founder Philip Kaplan voiced his objection to the penalty system on a recent call with the Music Fraud Alliance, according to two sources who were also on the line. (Both DistroKid and Tunecore are members of the coalition.)
One of those executives described the gist of Kaplan’s comments: “We can’t determine if a new client is going to hire a marketing service that’s going to bot streams until they’ve done it. It’s like you can’t determine if your neighbor is going to commit a crime.” And the entity best able to monitor for fraudulent activity is Spotify itself. In this line of thinking, then, Spotify would be penalizing distributors for something that they didn’t do, can’t predict, and can’t spot as quickly as the streamer itself.
Kaplan declined to comment. Spotify also declined to comment.
There is little public data on the prevalence of fraud and where it tends to occur. The most comprehensive study that’s widely available was carried out recently by the Centre national de la musique (CNM), a French government organization, which found that “more than 80% of the fraud” detected by Deezer and Spotify in France in 2021 was “at the long tail level.”
These acts are unlikely to be associated with a major record company, as the big labels focus primarily on the top releases: Odds are that many of the tracks involved in the fraud are there purely for that purpose — a bad actor uploads white noise or junk audio expressly to pump up plays with bots and attempt to extract royalties from the streaming ecosystem.
Assuming that the 80% rule — or some semblance of it — holds more broadly across countries and streaming services, Spotify’s new penalty system functions as “a direct shot at distributors that are just way overpopulating platforms with a lot of nonsense,” says another music executive with experience fighting fraud. In this view, Spotify is pushing distributors to look more closely at what it is they are distributing.
“Being penalized should create an environment where the distributors will invest more to make sure that their business is cleaner,” says Ty Baisden, who manages Brent Faiyaz, among others.
It remains notoriously hard to determine where streaming manipulation actually comes from.
“Distributors might say it’s the [fault of the] labels,” Ludovic Pouilly, senior vp of institutional and music industry relations at Deezer, told Billboard earlier this year. “The labels might say it’s the management. And artists themselves might tell you it’s the competition who’s trying to negatively impact their reputation.”
On top of that, there are also plenty of third-party marketing companies that artists hire thinking they’re implementing legitimate streaming campaigns, but are actually just paying bot-farms to generate plays instead. This makes any attempt to assign responsibility for streaming fraud on a large scale fraught. “How are you going to hold a label or distributor responsible for something that they can’t control at all?” asks an independent label founder.
To that end, several distribution executives said they would try to shift any fraud-related penalties they incur on to whoever uploaded the music that was tied to fake streams. “Our plan is to pass on the fee to the accounts and the releases where it occurred to the best of our ability,” says one distribution executive.
This offers its own challenges. If a fraudster already has money running through the distributors’ system due to previous streaming activity, or a legitimate bank account on file, the distributor might be able to claw back the penalty money it now owes Spotify when it learns of fraud. But if the fraudster recently signed up to the distributor, that might not be so easy.
The biggest takeaway from Spotify’s new policy may be that it demonstrates how much the conversation around fraud has shifted in less than a year. In 2022, no one would talk about it; in 2023, everyone is suddenly eager to tackle the problem — and to broadcast their efforts in a public manner.
“Nobody’s immune” to streaming fraud, Christine Barnum, chief revenue officer at the distributor CD Baby, told Billboard in April. “So people are finally having the realization, ‘Yeah, this is a problem.’”
During his tenure at Google in the early 2000s, Shuman Ghosemajumder‘s official title was global head of product, trust and safety. But he also acquired a snazzier moniker, “click fraud czar,” thanks to his efforts to combat bad actors who try to fake online activity to inflate advertising payouts.
“It was very surprising to us, almost 20 years ago, when we saw organized crime getting involved with online fraud,” Ghosemajumder says. “Ever since then, I’m never surprised: The idea of cybercrime or online fraud coming from an individual hacker sitting in their bedroom hasn’t been the case for basically 30 years.”
Criminal interest in a different type of click fraud drew the attention of the music industry this week, when the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet published a piece alleging that the country’s gangs use streaming manipulation as a way to launder money earned via illicit activities. “Spotify has become an ATM for them,” an anonymous police investigator told the paper.
“That article appears to point to a really kind of ingenious way of laundering money,” says James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor who worked on cases involving both computer fraud and money laundering. “It seems to me to be a fairly invisible process right now, and that poses serious challenges to law enforcement.”
“It’s the usual chase,” he adds. “The robbers come up with something new, and the cops eventually catch up.”
In a statement to Svenska Dagbladet, a rep for Spotify told the paper that “manipulated streams are a challenge for the entire industry,” one that the platform “is working hard to combat” via “market leading” technology. On top of that, the rep said Spotify has discovered no evidence that it is being used as a money laundering tool.
If additional criminal activity is discovered on streaming platforms, could that bring new pressure to the music industry to address streaming fraud — something many believe is long overdue?
The article arrives at a time when executives from around the music industry are calling for better monitoring of the streaming ecosystem. “As an industry, we need to do more to harden the defenses of platforms and deter bad actors from using music streaming for criminal purposes,” Beatdapp co-CEOs Morgan Hayduk and Andrew Batey said in a statement. (Beatdapp makes fraud detection technology.)
Svenska Dagbladet‘s report is hardly the first time connections have been drawn between criminals and the music business. Industry history books are sprinkled with gangsters, especially in the earlier decades before it consolidated and became increasingly corporate. In one of the most infamous episodes, the longstanding practice of paying for airplay drew government scrutiny after a 1986 NBC report linked prominent radio promoters with members of the mafia.
But the resulting investigation ended up having little impact and ultimately fizzled out. In the book Hit Men, which catalogs this period, Fredric Dannen wrote that the lesson for the record business was that “the government is incapable of sending any major music industry figure to jail.” Paying for airplay continued unchecked for more than a decade.
The practice of paying for artificial streams has only recently drawn public criticism in the U.S. music industry. Streaming manipulation has the potential to distort market share calculations and steer money away from the hardworking artists who are not gaming the system. Both Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge and Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer have expressed concern about fraud in calls with financial analysts this year.
“Once someone like Lucian Grainge makes a statement about it, it’s necessarily going to get more prominence,” says one streaming service executive who agreed to speak about manipulation on the condition of anonymity. “That’s not to say we weren’t dealing with it behind the scenes before Lucian was making statements. But now there is broader recognition of the scope of the problem and the impact that it has on revenues and royalties that should be, but have not been, paid through to legitimate artists.”
Potential connections between streaming manipulation and criminal elements were raised last year at a pair of music industry panels, first at South by Southwest and then at the Music Biz conference. Michael Pelczynski, who was then SoundCloud’s vp of strategy, participated in both discussions. “We were able to see signs of such activity” by collaborating with Pandora/SiriusXM and the cybersecurity company HUMAN, he says. “The benefit of creating a coalition with a third party was they could puzzle together certain patterns that we as individual platforms could not.”
Streamers try to work backwards from anomalies in the data, trawling for “potential bad actor networks,” as Pelczynski puts it, and trying to prevent them from “migrat[ing] from platform to platform.” Svenska Dagbladet took a different approach, speaking to several criminals who claimed to have direct knowledge of the laundering scheme.
The paper reported that Swedish gangs take criminal profits, convert them into cryptocurrency, use that to buy fake streams for artists they’re connected to, and then collect the royalties. They lose some money in the process by paying for fake streams, but the royalties they extract from the music industry are now “clean” — they can’t lead back to anything gang-related.
“There is always a cost in money laundering,” Trusty explains. But even if it’s a really high transaction cost, it still puts you in a position where you have untraceable, usable profit. And so the key for any real money laundering operation is volume. The article seems to be pointing out that this is something that’s kind of an institutional mechanism for these gangs.”
Trusty was not surprised to hear about the results of Svenska Dagbladet‘s reporting. “Anytime you have technological developments, somebody’s going to figure out a way to take advantage of those in a bad way,” he continues. “It’s eventually in the industry’s interest to lean forward and figure out how to work with law enforcement to close this gap that’s being exploited.”
Sony Music Group chairman Rob Stringer said on Tuesday (May 23) that the company is focused on the fight against low-quality content — which he called ”the lowest common denominator” — flooding top streaming platforms. “We have to look after the premium quality artists at the top of our business,” Stringer said during a company-wide […]
Last year, Pandora started to get suspicious about the streaming activity of a prominent act. “This is a top artist by every measure,” George White, senior vp of music licensing at SiriusXM and Pandora, said during a panel at the Music Biz conference in Nashville on Wednesday (May 17). Some of the interest from Pandora users was clearly genuine. But at the same time, the platform picked up “abnormalities” — “lots of quick skips,” White noted, and “very unusual ratios of radio listening to premium listening” — along with “social media sites actively posting tutorials for how to game the Pandora system and teaching potential users how to drive those streams even higher.”
“This is challenging and more difficult to detect because it’s under a background of legitimate activity,” White continued. And he said that Pandora is seeing more of this type of behavior around “established artists.”
White was one of 11 different speakers across a two-hour, three-panel fraud extravaganza — which covered a lot of ground, jumping from bot farms all the way to thieves falsely claiming publishing ownership on songs to collect money that belongs to someone else — at Music Biz. The tone stayed upbeat, though the message was glum and occasionally paranoia-inducing, with lots of talk about cybercriminals hacking into the accounts of innocent unsuspecting users for nefarious purposes.
“We’ve been seeing lately that as technology advances, the fraud is supercharged,” said Mona Simonian, a partner at the entertainment law firm Pryor Cashman. It’s important that “people start really recognizing how much money is at stake here,” she added. And as Shuman Ghosemajumder, Google’s former “click fraud czar” (real title: head of global product for trust and safety), put it: “It’s always a little bit scary before you get your arms around the problem.”
While some panels stay general, these three sessions (an interview with Ghosemajumder about the ubiquity of fraud, “52 Flavors of Fraud,” and “Fraud Use Cases: What Can We Do?”) brought some hard numbers to a fraud conversation that often remains frustratingly diffuse, because the behavior is difficult to quantify. White had his Pandora case study. And Andrew Batey, co-founder and co-CEO of the fraud detection company Beatdapp, came armed with numerous examples and a boatload of graphs.
There was the account that recorded 33,500 plays in one week. (“The average user has a few hundred to a thousand plays a week,” Batey said.) There was the user with 96 devices “playing from 47 cities in 17 countries in the same week,” a geographical impossibility for even the most devoted jet-setter. There was the group of thousands of accounts all targeting the same songs with 155-ish plays a week, and the batch of 53,000 accounts playing around a dozen acts to camouflage the one artist whose numbers they’re actually trying to inflate.
If this behavior continues undetected, it represents “billions [of dollars] that are being sucked out of this industry,” Batey said. This sentiment was echoed by Christine Barnum, chief revenue officer of CD Baby: Fraudsters are “diluting the pool for everyone.” (She spoke about ways for companies to improve their fraud detection capabilities on a budget, including using ChatGPT to help write programs that can detect anomalous activity.)
Why the upbeat mood, despite the grim news? For years, many music executives, especially in the United States, were unwilling to publicly acknowledge that fraud was a problem. The fact that there was a 120-minute block — enough time to watch two episodes of Succession, quipped Beatdapp co-founder and co-CEO Morgan Hayduk — devoted to the topic at a major music business conference is indicative of an attitude shift. “I’m so happy there’s a room full of people talking about fraud,” Barnum said.
White was similarly optimistic. While recent studies have concluded that around 80% of fraud is financially motivated — grifters running bot networks to white noise recordings, for example, rather than the work of actual artists — White said, “We’ve seen enormous strides in identifying that [activity] really early.”
“I won’t say that’s in control; it’s an issue that requires ongoing investment,” he added. “But it’s at least something we feel like we have a handle on.”