Artificial streaming accusation (worth trying to sue)

[Bleary]

Jurisdiction

Washington

Hi guys, I was wrongly accused by Spotify of purchasing artificial plays on a song so they took down the whole album and blacklisted it across distributors via soundcloud.
Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?
Thank you so much.

 

[adjusterjack]

Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?

Yes, it's possible.

Any more questions?

 

[justblue]

Hi guys, I was wrongly accused by Spotify of purchasing artificial plays on a song so they took down the whole album and blacklisted it across distributors via soundcloud.
Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?
Thank you so much.

The question you should be asking is: "Is it possible to successfully sue them?"

 

[Tax Counsel]

Hi guys, I was wrongly accused by Spotify of purchasing artificial plays on a song so they took down the whole album and blacklisted it across distributors via soundcloud.
Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?
Thank you so much.

What damages have you incurred as a result of the takedown of the album? That's important because litigation costs money and if your damages are small those litigation costs might exceed the amount of the judgment you get if you win.

It's also very important to closely read the Spotify terms of service (TOS). The TOS may require you to arbitrate your dispute instead of filing suit in court and the TOS may give Spotify to take down material without any liability to you.

Are the songs your work or work that you've obtained a copyright license to distribute? If the answer to both is no you may have a copyright problem, which might come to light if you pursue this in court.

What evidence do you have to counter Spotify's claim that you artificially pumped up the number of plays? You need evidence to win your case. Your testimony that you didn't do it is admissible evidence but it's weak evidence because you have a financial interest which a judge or jury may decide makes your testimony not very reliable.

If the money at stake is significant you need to talk to a local lawyer to review your options. You might find a lawyer willing to give you a free or lost initial consultation and that consultation will give you a clearer picture of what claims, if any you have, how much you might win, and what it will cost you to pursue it.

 

[zddoodah]

I was wrongly accused by Spotify of purchasing artificial plays on a song so they took down the whole album and blacklisted it across distributors via soundcloud.

I have zero idea what this means.

Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?

Of course it's possible. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Of course, you shouldn't sue without factual and legal bases to do so, and you haven't clearly articulated either.

Perhaps you should explain more clearly what happened.

 

[Bleary]

What damages have you incurred as a result of the takedown of the album? That's important because litigation costs money and if your damages are small those litigation costs might exceed the amount of the judgment you get if you win.

It's also very important to closely read the Spotify terms of service (TOS). The TOS may require you to arbitrate your dispute instead of filing suit in court and the TOS may give Spotify to take down material without any liability to you.

Are the songs your work or work that you've obtained a copyright license to distribute? If the answer to both is no you may have a copyright problem, which might come to light if you pursue this in court.

What evidence do you have to counter Spotify's claim that you artificially pumped up the number of plays? You need evidence to win your case. Your testimony that you didn't do it is admissible evidence but it's weak evidence because you have a financial interest which a judge or jury may decide makes your testimony not very reliable.

If the money at stake is significant you need to talk to a local lawyer to review your options. You might find a lawyer willing to give you a free or lost initial consultation and that consultation will give you a clearer picture of what claims, if any you have, how much you might win, and what it will cost you to pursue it.

Thank you very much for your answer. It looks like Spotify does have an arbitration clause, but as I've found out more it looks like the more culpable party is SoundCloud, which does not have one. (It looks like Spotify (to minimize exposure) flags a song/album to the distributor and "leaves the decision up to them" but really they pressure them to with threats of lower standing, and SoundCloud is the one responsible for pulling the album and blacklisting it from the worldwide distribution network.)

Yes/yes, there's no copyright issue unless the producer used some unauthorized sample I'm not aware of.

The monetary damages are minimal (the damage is in potential, like you lose some of the base of something that doesn't make real money until the structure is built). But I'm willing to pay much more than I could recover because it's about the principle.

I guess my innocence is an impossible thing to prove; I can show them all my financial statements to show that I didn't pay any unscrupulous service, but I guess they could say I used cash lol. (I guess this is why it's usually innocent until proven guilty). But it looks like I would have to arbitrate with Spotify about them punishing artists for the actions of bot farms instead of going against the actual doers of the wrong, and I'd class-action SoundCloud for doing so much damage on hearsay? The plus side is that I no longer have to prove my innocence, but it looks like they have a clever way of sluffing responsibility. Does it seem like there's an angle here?

 

[Bleary]

Yes, it's possible.

Any more questions?

Ooh salty boi. The title was 'worth trying to sue', and 'worth' indicates a risk-reward ratio, the risk being cost, and the reward being potential of success. I hope that helps.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I guess my innocence is an impossible thing to prove; I can show them all my financial statements to show that I didn't pay any unscrupulous service, but I guess they could say I used cash lol. (I guess this is why it's usually innocent until proven guilty).

That is indeed one of the reasons for that presumption in the law. In a lot of circumstances it is extremely difficult to prove that you didn't do something. There won't be any video showing you not committing the crime. The best the defendant can hope for in terms of video is a recording showing them somewhere else at the time the crime is alleged to have accurred. So the law sensibly places the burden on the plaintiff in civil cases and the prosecutor in criminal cases to prove that the defendant actually did what the plaintff/prosecutor claims they did.

The legal systems in countries like the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and other dictatorships around the world use the opposite rule in criminal trials: the criminal defendant has to prove he didn't do what he's alleged to have done. If the defendant is even given the chance to present his side of the matter. But proving innocence becomes impossible because the state holds all the evidence (and if necessary fabricates the evidence), doesn't share that evidence with the defendant, and tells the judge what what verdict to make and what punishment to hand out. The judge becomes simply an actor playing the part the Party assigned to them. Judges that refuse to play the part end up in those prisons too.

 

[Bleary]

That is indeed one of the reasons for that presumption in the law. In a lot of circumstances it is extremely difficult to prove that you didn't do something. There won't be any video showing you not committing the crime. The best the defendant can hope for in terms of video is a recording showing them somewhere else at the time the crime is alleged to have accurred. So the law sensibly places the burden on the plaintiff in civil cases and the prosecutor in criminal cases to prove that the defendant actually did what the plaintff/prosecutor claims they did.

The legal systems in countries like the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and other dictatorships around the world use the opposite rule in criminal trials: the criminal defendant has to prove he didn't do what he's alleged to have done. If the defendant is even given the chance to present his side of the matter. But proving innocence becomes impossible because the state holds all the evidence (and if necessary fabricates the evidence), doesn't share that evidence with the defendant, and tells the judge what what verdict to make and what punishment to hand out. The judge becomes simply an actor playing the part the Party assigned to them. Judges that refuse to play the part end up in those prisons too.

If only we could bring some communism to america lolol. So do you think it's worth going after soundcloud for causing considerable harm because someone made some mild accusation?

Also as far as mediating with spotify over going after victims instead of the people doing the thing, do you think I should get a lawyer for a mediation or just go in, hope for the best, and sue them when it goes in my favor but they don't pay the damages given in the mediation resolution (apparently that's what happened to everyone else).

 

[army judge]

Hi guys, I was wrongly accused by Spotify of purchasing artificial plays on a song so they took down the whole album and blacklisted it across distributors via soundcloud.
Does anyone know if it's possible to sue them?

If you hired an attorney to pursue a lawsuit on your behalf, regarding the matter under discussion, expect to shell out anywhere from $10,000 upwards of $25,000.

You might consult three or four nearby attorneys to see whether you possess the necessary moola to fund the lawyer's fees. You'll also receive more specific information about the potential success of the endeavor.

Only you know how much moola you possess, and if you're willing to exhaust it pursuing a lawsuit that might be impossible for to achieve your desired result.

I wish you all the best, as you ponder the matter further.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Also as far as mediating with spotify over going after victims instead of the people doing the thing, do you think I should get a lawyer for a mediation or just go in, hope for the best, and sue them when it goes in my favor but they don't pay the damages given in the mediation resolution (apparently that's what happened to everyone else).

Mediation is simply a process of negotiation between the parties, often with the help of skilled mediator. At best the mediation reaches an agreement to settle the dispute. If one of the parties doesn't live up to to his end of the deal then the other party may sue him for a breach of contract.

Aribtration, on the other hand, is like a private trial. The decision the arbiter reaches is a form of judgment that may recorded and enforced like any other judgment. So if a party is seeking a judgment then arbitration is the route to go rather than medication because it streamlines the process. Mediation may be a worthwhile thing to try first, though, since that offers a better chance for the parties to reach a compromise both can live with.

 

[Bleary]

Mediation is simply a process of negotiation between the parties, often with the help of skilled mediator. At best the mediation reaches an agreement to settle the dispute. If one of the parties doesn't live up to to his end of the deal then the other party may sue him for a breach of contract.

Aribtration, on the other hand, is like a private trial. The decision the arbiter reaches is a form of judgment that may recorded and enforced like any other judgment. So if a party is seeking a judgment then arbitration is the route to go rather than medication because it streamlines the process. Mediation may be a worthwhile thing to try first, though, since that offers a better chance for the parties to reach a compromise both can live with.

Thank you. Ok final question I hope. Is a lawyer pretty much always recommended in arbitration then?