@Centretowner@urbanists.social
2026-03-23 17:40 UTC
@ShadSterling@mastodon.social @WiteWulf@cyberplace.social @brucelawson@social.vivaldi.net
I can imagine a scenario — in today's bizarro tech bro world where workers aren't "employees", drivers for hire aren't "taxis", and purchasing doesn't mean "owning" — where the terms of service of a Spotify type service treats their relationship with the content uploader as something other than "licensing" for tech bro technicality reasons.
Otherwise yeah, you can't license a work without holding its copyright, and this slop definitely wasn't copyrightable.
Replies (1)
-
@Centretowner@urbanists.social 2026-03-23 17:52
@ShadSterling@mastodon.social @WiteWulf@cyberplace.social @brucelawson@social.vivaldi.net Here's the actual indictment, which describes his dealings with co-conspirators to pull off the scheme: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1366241/dl It also makes it clear that the fraud is essentially violating the streaming services' terms of service where he agreed (by accepting the terms of service) not to artificially boost streams of the music he uploaded. Whether the work is copyrighted, or copyrightable, doesn't seem to be a factor in the case.