I find this fascinating, actually. On one hand we must disincentivize fraud. On the other hand enforcement of laws really should have observable utility and not feel arbitrary. I’m much more on the “fix the model” side of the spectrum on this one. That doesn’t mean I think we should allow what SMITH did.

I feel uncomfortable when we start handing out prison for things that are isomorphic in utility to things that seem clearly legal.

Which of these are fraud:

a) I block or skip ads in media I consume

b) 1000 people block or skip ads in media they consume

c) I convince 1000 humans to play my songs every day and all of them listen to the ads

d) I convince 1000 of humans to play my songs every day and all of them skip the ads

e) I program 1000 bots to play my songs every day

(b) (d) and (e) all have the same outcome for ad agencies, nobody hears the ads. If (e) is the only one that’s problematic, then we aren’t solving the problem by prosecuting (e).

Similar vein to Matt Levine’s “everything is securities fraud” takes.

[delayed]

IANAL, but...

>a) I block or skip ads in media I consume

>b) 1000 people block or skip ads in media they consume

Not doing something is generally considered okay, even if it decreases someone else's revenue. eg. saying that a given product is a scam and not worth the money (assuming it's true). Same with skipping ads (eg. TiVo)

>c) I convince 1000 humans to play my songs every day and all of them listen to the ads

>d) I convince 1000 of humans to play my songs every day and all of them skip the ads

Legal, because the whole point of advertising is to convince people to do something, even if it costs someone else money (eg. drugs, which might cost your insurance provider money). Where you might get into trouble is if the actions turn out to be fraud, eg. telling people to stream music, even though no one's listening to it, for the sole purpose of getting streaming minutes, or setting up a kickback scheme (might be tortious interference). Again, going back to the drug example, it's pretty intuitive. Advertising a drug? That's fine. Telling people to buy your drug, just so they can chuck it into the trash, for the sole purpose of enriching yourself? Probably illegal.

the difference is that (d) is not fraud and (e) is fraud, lol. Duh.

you seem to be thinking of the legal system like some kind of programming language / logic paradigm and it is not that and never has been

most likely ad-blocking would also be considered some sort of fraud (or rather: companies would block using their services if the ads were not seen, and then circumventing that would be regarded as fraud) except that it is not politically/socially tenable to do that at all.

Easy, (e) is fraud. The rest are legal. You can choose to not do something, advertising is analogous to convincing and advertising is legal.

Collecting money from a platform by making bots play songs you created is fraud.

Making bots listen to a song without any financial incentive is not fraud.