There is a battle gripping the music business today around the manipulation of streaming services — and innocent indie artists are the collateral damage.
Fraudsters are flooding Spotify, Apple Music and the rest with AI-generated tracks, to try and hoover up the royalties generated by people listening to them. These tracks are cheap, quick and easy to make, with Deezer estimating in April that over 20,000 fully AI-created tracks — that’s 18 percent of new tracks — were being ingested into its platform daily, almost double the number in January. The fraudsters often then use bots, AI or humans to endlessly listen to these fake songs and generate revenue, while others are exploiting upload services to get fake songs put on real artists’ pages and siphon off royalties that way.
Spotify fines the worst offenders and says it puts “significant engineering resources and research into detecting, mitigating, and removing artificial streaming activity,” while Apple Music claims “less than 1 percent of all streams are manipulated” on its service. That may sound encouraging, but in a streaming business worth US$20.4 billion globally (according to the IFPI), it’s likely that hundreds of millions of dollars are being skimmed off annually by rogue operators.
Photo: Reuters
Part of the problem is that while the barriers of entry for musicians have been dramatically lowered — uploading songs to streaming services is much easier than manufacturing CDs or vinyl — the barriers of entry for fraudsters are lower too. So the industry has declared war, but hair-trigger automated detection systems mean that artists are seeing their music taken offline even when they’ve done nothing wrong.
Darren Owen, chief operating officer of music distribution company Fuga, suggests streaming fraud “started to blow up across the industry” around 2021. Grappling with it now makes up 50 percent of his workload.
Using AI and machine learning, Fuga gives streaming patterns a “severity score,” separating out “non-human listening patterns” to spot fraud.
“You’re not going to listen to the same song at the same time across multiple devices,” Owen says, noting that countries like India, Vietnam, Thailand and parts of eastern Europe are hotbeds of click-farm activity, using low-paid workers.
“It’s become clear that organized criminals are involved in it as well.”
It is not just services like pimpyourfollower.de in Germany — which was taken offline after a court injunction — and others in Canada and Brazil who are being targeted by record industry trade bodies for offering artificially inflated streams. Universal Music Group (UMG), the biggest record company in the world, has been accused by Drake of conspiring to increase the play count of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us, an allegation UMG denies.
Multiple artists say they found themselves at the sharp end of this war on manipulation, where unexpected spikes in streams get taken as proof of guilt.
Darren Hemmings is managing director of music marketing company Motive Unknown and a musician himself. His distributor recently informed him that a track on one EP, having jumped from “a few plays a day” to more than 1,000, was guilty of manipulation.
“I wouldn’t blame them for drawing that conclusion,” he says, but “it’s very judge, jury, executioner.” He did not manipulate the streams, but could not identify the root cause — other than it simply becoming popular with actual listeners.
Northern Irish rock band Final Thirteen had some of their music taken off streaming services due to a spike in the tens of thousands. They suspect this came after a play on Radio 1, but their distributor automatically concluded they were manipulated.
“It’s really hard for any artist to prove that they didn’t [manipulate streams], but it’s even harder for Spotify to prove that they did,” says their drummer, Doobes. “[They] take it down and that’s it.”
Adam J Morgan, who makes music as indie act Naked & Baked, had a track get over 10,000 streams in a week, possibly from use in a TikTok video, but it was zapped by his distributor RouteNote as suspicious.
“I hadn’t done anything wrong and they didn’t provide any evidence,” he says, believing it was down to an overly anxious RouteNote. “I spent that weekend trying to work out what was going on, but Spotify said my music hadn’t been flagged at all.”
RouteNote did not respond to a request for an interview.
Takedowns can cause musicians inconvenience, derail marketing and cost them money. Matthew Whiteside, artistic director of experimental classical event The Night With… (and head of the TNW Music label) had three different albums taken down amid claims of artificial streaming. He tracked it back: TNW Music tracks were being added to manipulated playlists.
“It made no sense [why they were added] based on the genre.”
His distributor said he could resubmit the album again, at US$40 per album, but with no guarantee it would not be removed again.
“Streaming in general is geared against the smaller and the niche,” he says. “If we get 1,000 streams a month on an album, I’d be very happy.” As such, paying to resubmit an album is beyond their release budget.
Deezer claims it was the first streaming service to implement fraud detection systems.
“We look at a lot of indicators that help our algorithm decide if a user is fraudulent or not,” says Thibault Roucou, the company’s royalties and reporting director. “When we ask for a takedown, we look manually at what’s happening and we’re very confident that it is extreme manipulation.”
Unfortunately, systems elsewhere for taking down tracks often presume guilt and the appeals system is so arduous that small acts, already struggling, just give up. Pop singer Levina, who represented Germany at Eurovision in 2017, saw her music taken off streaming services without warning — it was flagged because she unintentionally had the same name as another artist.
“With streaming services, it’s almost impossible to [appeal] through them,” she sighs. “You fill out a form but it leaves you quite powerless.”
She is also chair of the artist council within trade body Featured Artists Coalition, and they are finalizing “minimum standards for what distributors should be doing”. She proposes a traffic light warning system that allows acts time to present their defense or take action to address the problems.
Streaming services and distributors now accept this battle is about containment rather than total elimination. Owen, however, says the latest iteration is not fraudsters manipulating the streams of a few tracks by large amounts, but rather boosting multiple tracks a small amount to fly under detection radars.
For Hemmings, this could result in a two-tier streaming economy, with smaller acts abandoning the main streaming platforms, where earnings are derisory anyway, to focus on a service such as Bandcamp. “This could provoke a conclusion among large swathes of the independent music community that they’re just better off focusing on other ways to make money.”
Behind a car repair business on a nondescript Thai street are the cherished pets of a rising TikTok animal influencer: two lions and a 200-kilogram lion-tiger hybrid called “Big George.” Lion ownership is legal in Thailand, and Tharnuwarht Plengkemratch is an enthusiastic advocate, posting updates on his feline companions to nearly three million followers. “They’re playful and affectionate, just like dogs or cats,” he said from inside their cage complex at his home in the northern city of Chiang Mai. Thailand’s captive lion population has exploded in recent years, with nearly 500 registered in zoos, breeding farms, petting cafes and homes. Experts warn the
No one saw it coming. Everyone — including the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — expected at least some of the recall campaigns against 24 of its lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) to succeed. Underground gamblers reportedly expected between five and eight lawmakers to lose their jobs. All of this analysis made sense, but contained a fatal flaw. The record of the recall campaigns, the collapse of the KMT-led recalls, and polling data all pointed to enthusiastic high turnout in support of the recall campaigns, and that those against the recalls were unenthusiastic and far less likely to vote. That
The unexpected collapse of the recall campaigns is being viewed through many lenses, most of them skewed and self-absorbed. The international media unsurprisingly focuses on what they perceive as the message that Taiwanese voters were sending in the failure of the mass recall, especially to China, the US and to friendly Western nations. This made some sense prior to early last month. One of the main arguments used by recall campaigners for recalling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers was that they were too pro-China, and by extension not to be trusted with defending the nation. Also by extension, that argument could be
Aug. 4 to Aug. 10 When Coca-Cola finally pushed its way into Taiwan’s market in 1968, it allegedly vowed to wipe out its major domestic rival Hey Song within five years. But Hey Song, which began as a manual operation in a family cow shed in 1925, had proven its resilience, surviving numerous setbacks — including the loss of autonomy and nearly all its assets due to the Japanese colonial government’s wartime economic policy. By the 1960s, Hey Song had risen to the top of Taiwan’s beverage industry. This success was driven not only by president Chang Wen-chi’s
RSS