No that’s not my argument actually. I don’t think theft here is justified just because it’s a streaming service or big ad or it’s just a click. There’s a real crime here.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that something that is allowed if you pay humans is also illegal if you use bots. That feels like it deserves more discussion. And it feels like while there is a clear crime here, it’s also a problem that the ad and streaming industry have a model that reduces one stream to one human. I don’t want to worry about jail time for automating tasks with bots and accidentally falling on the wrong side of some industry’s really bad/dated monetization model and having it look like fraud. That isn’t the case here, but it encroaches.
>"I am uncomfortable with the idea that something that is allowed if you pay humans is also illegal if you use bots."
To reiterate, this would also be a crime if humans were paid, although it would be easier to defend in court because it CAN be argued that the ad placement was delivered, whereas with bots it CANNOT be argued that the ads were placed.
However prosecution CAN argue if humans are paid, that this is fraud, and just replacing bots with humans in this case wouldn't materially change the legal facts, it would maybe make less economical sense, and give plausible deniability, but the objective was to defraud, to obtain money without providing the agreed upon services.
For example if the perpetrator had hired people from the philippines to make 50 accounts each, and used a proxy network to fake their locations so they effectively WATCH ads more than once and from locations that were clearly not corresponding to the intent, then those facts would bring the case closer to the the fraud that occured with bots.
It would definitely be harder to argue, but it could still be fraud, but it's a hypothetical that I'm not sure why is being brought, I feel it detracts, but definitely the fact that humans were involved hypothetically wouldn't automatically make this not fraud.
If you're not sure why I brought up the hypothetical situation and you don't want to engage with it then... don't.
I'm curious, which is why I brought it up. In my worldview humans should have a right not to be advertised to and all advertising should require consent. Even today, humans can ignore and block ads without committing ad fraud. So I don't see a difference between humans and bots consuming ad-laced content. --because no guarantees can be made as to wether an ad will be "consumed" or not, only show
Since I don't distinguish a difference, I wanted to discuss whether the case at any level hinged on the bot factor. That's all.
What I do value is the ability for institutions to control who uses their space/services. So I support regulating and punishing inappropriate use/access. In this case that would be bot usage of Spotify in ways that breaks the contract you agreed upon when you signed up to use their service.
But there's a difference between "this person committed fraud and it's criminally bad because something was fraudulently obtained from advertisers", and "this person breached their contract with spotify and possibly committed criminal computer abuse etc". So it's semantics around who is being defrauded.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that something that is allowed if you pay humans is also illegal if you use bots. That feels like it deserves more discussion. And it feels like while there is a clear crime here, it’s also a problem that the ad and streaming industry have a model that reduces one stream to one human. I don’t want to worry about jail time for automating tasks with bots and accidentally falling on the wrong side of some industry’s really bad/dated monetization model and having it look like fraud. That isn’t the case here, but it encroaches.