The United States opened a public consultation to investigate fraud in online music reproductions, a practice that can artificially inflate the popularity of songs and divert income that should go to artists, composers, and other rights holders. The initiative, announced on October 7, 2026, will also examine the relationship between these maneuvers and music generated with artificial intelligence.
The U.S. Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, published a notice of inquiry at the request of a federal legislator. The goal is to gather evidence regarding the extent of fraudulent reproductions, the mechanisms used to manipulate them, their economic consequences, and the solutions that authorities might consider.
This is not a new law or a general sanction against Spotify, YouTube, or musicians. It is an information-gathering procedure: the office will receive feedback and data from the sector before drawing conclusions that may be useful for Congress.
What are fake reproductions and how are they manipulated?
The notification published on October 7 in the Federal Register describes playback fraud as the use of misleading or unauthorized methods to artificially inflate the streams of a song or album in order to gain economic advantages or to create an appearance of popularity that does not match the actual interest of the public.
Among the practices identified are bot farms, which are automated programs or accounts that repeatedly play songs; click farms, which organize mass interactions; playlist manipulation, and the misuse of other people's accounts. It also mentions misleading promotional campaigns that promise artificial results in exchange for money.
The notice adds another aspect: uploading manipulated recordings of others' works or improperly claiming rights over songs, a practice that can contribute to the reproduction fraud along with issues of ownership and royalty collection.
Not all mass reproductions or viral songs are fraudulent. A hit that accumulates genuine listens thanks to its fans, social media, or a legitimate advertising campaign does not equate to a bot operation. The irregularity lies in simulating listens that do not reflect a real decision by the listeners.
How can artists who do receive real listens lose money?
The main concern is the distribution of royalties, the money that platforms pay to those who hold rights to recordings and compositions. Many services have a remuneration fund system that distributes income among rights holders based on their share of computed plays, although the details vary by platform, contract, and mode.
If some of those reproductions are inflated through illegitimate mechanisms and are counted for payment, those responsible for the fraud may receive a portion of the money that would otherwise belong to genuinely listened-to music. That is why the office warns that the problem can affect both major labels and independent musicians and composers.
The research also examines other consequences: a fictitious success can distort popularity indicators, algorithm recommendations, and the placement of songs on charts. Manipulated data could even influence business decisions, such as where to organize concerts, how much to invest in promotion, or which artists to hire.
The federal document references revenues of approximately 9.5 billion dollars from recorded music streaming in the United States and around 22 billion globally, according to industry estimates gathered by the office. These figures describe the size of the market, not how much money has been lost due to fraud. Quantifying the losses is precisely one of the issues intended to be studied.
What is the connection between artificial intelligence and music fraud?
The inquiry specifically asks what information exists about the relationship between fraudulent reproductions, music generated by artificial intelligence, and the distribution of the corresponding economic rights related to recordings and compositions.
A song created with AI tools does not automatically constitute streaming fraud. The problem arises when someone manipulates listens, uses third-party works without authorization when it is necessary, presents false ownership data, or attempts to obtain payments through deceptive methods. The office wants to understand how these behaviors can be combined and what measures work to detect them.
Among the alternatives being requested for study are increased verification of accounts and distributors, improved rights records, information sharing on suspicious activities, contractual sanctions, and potential legislative responses. None of these options should be presented as a regulation already approved by the announcement of October 7.
Platforms can now withdraw royalties and songs due to artificial streams
The industry's reaction does not depend on the conclusion of this consultation. Spotify explicitly warns artists that third-party services that guarantee streams in exchange for payment violate their terms and can harm their accounts.
The platform states that it detects and removes artificial streams from its public figures and that, when it confirms manipulation, it can withhold associated royalties, correct statistics, and remove songs from playlists. In cases of repeated or particularly serious offenses, distributors may also withdraw music or suspend accounts according to their own terms.
This also poses risks for an artist who unknowingly hires a promoter that uses fraudulent practices. The recommendation is to be wary of offers that promise guaranteed thousands of listens, secured positions on charts, or immediate income from playing songs on repeat.
Why is it of interest to Cuban musicians and the cast?
Digital monetization has become an important part of the international presence of Cuban artists who distribute their songs from Miami and other markets. For independent musicians, credible statistics can help negotiate contracts, secure promotions, and plan performances in cities where they truly have followers.
In July, CiberCuba reported statements from Melanie Santiler regarding the importance of Miami in Spotify statistics and the challenges of measuring part of its audience within Cuba. This phenomenon should not be confused with the fraud examined by the United States: the listens that do not appear due to access limitations or platform usage are different from artificially inflating streams for profit.
The rights to songs are another significant concern for Cuban artists. In May, CiberCuba reported on the complaints of musician Giraldo Piloto regarding the management of his recordings and rights by Cuban state record labels. This is a different conflict, but it highlights the importance of knowing who controls the works and how their revenues are distributed.
The U.S. inquiry does not accuse Cuban artists or any specific musical genre of using bots. There is also no basis to deduce fraud simply because a song by the cast accumulates millions of listens or grows rapidly on a platform.
What can an artist do if they detect suspicious reproductions?
Musicians and their representatives can compare the available statistics in their artist accounts with their actual promotional campaigns and check if an unexpected increase comes from listeners or playlists that they do not recognize. A statistical anomaly, on its own, does not prove the existence of fraud.
If suspicious listening appears, Spotify for Artists recommends reporting playlists that may be using artificial streams. Affected parties may also consult their distributor or label and keep contracts, invoices, and messages from companies that offered advertising campaigns, especially if they are being charged for activity they did not hire.
Before paying for promotional services, it's wise to check whether the company promises exposure to a real audience or guarantees numbers and rankings in exchange for money. The presence of legitimate paid advertising does not eliminate the risk of scams disguised as music marketing campaigns.
Until when can opinions be submitted to the U.S. investigation?
The Copyright Office has opened case 2026-6, titled Music Streaming Fraud. Initial comments will be accepted until November 23, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, while responses to those comments may be submitted until December 21, 2026, at the same time.
The instructions can be found on the official comment submission page. The office uses the federal Regulations.gov system to receive contributions from individuals and organizations. The submitted documentation will be public, so personal information that the sender does not wish to disclose should not be included.
The procedure aims to gather information on the extent of fraud, how it is detected, what economic impact it produces, and what solutions could be adopted. For now, the announcement does not establish any new general prohibitions or a tax on reproductions. The debate is in the study phase, while the music industry attempts to protect the revenue generated by authentic listeners.
Related videos:
Filed under: