The U.S. Copyright Office has opened an inquiry into music streaming fraud, asking how widespread it is, how it affects the music business, and what could help prevent it. The inquiry is open, not a final finding or a new regulation, but the questions have immediate relevance for independent artists: fake plays can redirect money from legitimate streams.
A recent federal case shows the potential scale. Michael Smith pleaded guilty to a scheme involving hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs and billions of bot streams. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
What the inquiry covers
Who asked for it
On October 7, 2026, the U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry pursuant to a congressional request. The Office is gathering information about streaming fraud across platforms and its effects on the music industry. It is seeking input from people and organizations with knowledge of streaming, royalties, music distribution, fraud prevention, and enforcement.
This is an information-gathering process. The Office is asking questions to help Congress better understand the problem; it has not announced a final policy or conclusion. The inquiry asks what contributes to streaming fraud, what efforts are being used to deter it, how well those efforts work, and whether voluntary, statutory, or regulatory solutions may be useful.
What counts as streaming fraud
The Office describes streaming fraud as using illegitimate methods to artificially increase a song’s plays. Examples include bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing, and account hijacking. These methods make activity appear to come from genuine listeners when it does not.
The concern is not simply that a play count may be inaccurate. Artificial plays can dilute the royalty pool paid to rights holders for legitimate listening. The inquiry asks about the prevalence of these practices across platforms and how they affect artists and the wider industry.
The deadlines
The U.S. Copyright Office set these deadlines:
- Initial written comments: November 23, 2026, by 11:59 p.m. ET
- Reply comments: December 21, 2026, by 11:59 p.m. ET
The Office’s inquiry page includes the notice and submission information. The comment submission page explains how to file responses.
The $8 million case as a concrete example
What the scheme did
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Smith’s scheme ran from 2017 to 2024. He created thousands of fake accounts on streaming services and used software to have them play music he controlled. Prosecutors said he used AI to generate hundreds of thousands of songs, then spread the bot activity across a large catalog.
The songs were streamed billions of times. In an example reported by the Department of Justice, Smith’s bot accounts generated 80.9 million streams on YouTube Music in April 2023, while Taylor Swift’s entire catalog received 9.3 million family-plan streams on the service that month. The DOJ said the scheme brought Smith more than $8 million in royalties.
AI-generated music, on its own, is not the same thing as streaming fraud. The case concerned the use of fake accounts and automated streams to create false listening activity and collect royalties.
The sentence
Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. On October 6, 2026, a federal judge sentenced him to 18 months in prison. The court also ordered him to forfeit $8,091,843.64 and serve two years of supervised release after prison.
Music Business Worldwide reported the sentence and described the case as a major enforcement example involving AI-generated songs and bot streaming. The DOJ’s sentencing announcement provides the government’s account of the case.
What it shows about enforcement
This was not just an unexplained jump in a dashboard. The case was prosecuted in federal court, Smith pleaded guilty, and the court imposed a prison sentence and forfeiture. That is an adjudicated enforcement outcome, not merely an allegation.
It also shows why the Copyright Office is asking about prevention and deterrence alongside enforcement. The inquiry considers how fraud happens, what platforms and industry participants are doing about it, and whether other approaches are needed.
Why artists should care
The pro-rata math
In a pro-rata royalty system, rights holders receive a share of a revenue pool based on their share of eligible streams during a given period. If fake plays are included in the total, they increase the number of streams used in the calculation.
The result is straightforward: fake streams take a share of the pool without representing real listeners. For the same pool of money, that can leave each legitimate stream with a slightly smaller share. The precise calculation and impact can vary by platform and agreement, but the basic concern is that artificial activity can redirect royalties away from genuine listening.
How fake streams touch your payouts
A sudden increase in plays might look like good news, but an unexplained spike is not proof of real audience growth. If a platform identifies artificial activity, the streams may not earn royalties. They may also be removed from public counts or charts.
For example, Spotify says it detects and removes artificial streams, withholds associated royalties, and shares reports with labels and distributors. Depending on the case, a distributor may issue a warning, charge a penalty, remove music, or suspend an account. Platform and distributor rules differ, so artists should check the policies that apply to their releases.
What platforms and distributors are doing
Platforms use their own systems to identify suspicious activity. Spotify describes its anti-fraud processes and advises artists to tell their label or distributor if their data shows unusual activity. Its artist guidance on artificial streaming explains potential consequences and common warning signs.
Distributors may pass along platform notices and enforce their own policies. A royalty statement from a distributor is important for understanding actual reported earnings; a dashboard’s stream count alone may not show whether every play was accepted for royalty purposes.
Practical checklist
- Never buy streams or guaranteed playlist placements. A service promising a specific number of plays or a guaranteed placement may use methods that violate platform rules.
- Keep your distributor statements. Save statements by release and payment period so you can compare reported royalties over time.
- Report suspicious activity to your distributor. Share relevant dates, unusual audience patterns, playlist information, and any messages from outside services.
- Document your legitimate promotion campaigns. Keep contracts, invoices, ad reports, campaign dates, and a record of the methods used to promote your music.
- Be skeptical of services promising chart or playlist results. Before hiring a promoter, check what they actually do and whether they can explain their methods clearly.
Publishing
Artists who own or control their master recordings may also collect eligible SoundExchange royalties when their music is played on qualifying non-interactive digital services.
These are distinct from royalties generated by on-demand streaming and from songwriter or composition royalties. SoundExchange provides information about digital performance royalties and who may be eligible to collect them.
Radio-friendly talking points
5- to 10-minute segment cues
- Set the scene (1 minute): The Copyright Office has opened an inquiry to understand how widespread streaming fraud is and how it affects the industry.
- Explain the terms (1 minute): Define bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing, and account hijacking in plain language.
- Break down the money (2 minutes): Explain how fake plays can dilute a pro-rata royalty pool and why a stream count is not always the same as payable royalties.
- Review the case (2 minutes): Summarize Smith’s guilty plea, the bot-streaming scheme, the $8 million-plus figure, and the 18-month sentence. Clarify that the case involved fraudulent streaming, not simply making AI music.
- Share the artist checklist (1–2 minutes): Discuss documentation, distributor statements, suspicious spikes, and the risks of guaranteed streams or playlist placement.
- Close with the inquiry timeline (1 minute): Initial comments are due November 23, 2026; reply comments are due December 21, 2026. Note that the inquiry remains open and is gathering information.
For further background, Spotify for Artists has a video explainer on artificial streaming.