The Ghostof Napster How Selling Streaming Data Could Land Youin Jail

Published in Food and Wine on Tuesday, August 19th 2025 at 17:22 GMT by Serious Eats
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The music industry has undergone a seismic shift over the past two decades. From physical albums to digital downloads and finally to streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music, consumers have adapted, and record labels have scrambled to keep up. But lurking beneath the surface of this seemingly seamless transition is a legal gray area – one that could soon see individuals facing jail time for simply selling data collected from their streaming habits. The recent case against Noah Farrell Williams, a former Spotify employee, has brought this issue into sharp focus, highlighting the potential ramifications of scraping and selling user data in an age where personal information is increasingly valuable currency.

Williams, along with Alec Taylor, faces charges under the 2018 Video Voyeurism Prevention Act (VVPA), a California law originally intended to combat secret recordings in private spaces. Prosecutors are arguing that Williams and Taylor’s actions – scraping Spotify data to create a music recommendation service called Músē - violated the VVPA because they obtained user listening information without consent and with the intent to profit from it. While seemingly absurd on its face, the prosecution's logic hinges on the argument that streaming services collect incredibly detailed data about users’ listening habits, effectively creating a digital record of their preferences and potentially revealing sensitive personal information.

The VVPA, as originally written, focuses on visual recordings without consent. However, legal experts are now debating whether it can be applied to audio data, particularly when that data is collected at scale and used for commercial purposes. The crux of the matter isn't necessarily about the music itself; it’s about the data surrounding the listening experience – timestamps, location information (if enabled), device types, and even patterns in listening behavior. This data, prosecutors argue, can be considered a form of “personal information” deserving of protection under the VVPA.

The implications extend far beyond Williams and Taylor's case. The legal precedent set could have a chilling effect on researchers, developers, and anyone else who attempts to analyze or utilize publicly available data from streaming services. While APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are often provided by these platforms for legitimate research purposes, scraping – the automated extraction of data directly from websites – is generally prohibited in their terms of service and now faces potential legal consequences.

The argument against Williams and Taylor isn't solely about violating Spotify’s terms of service; it’s about a broader concern regarding privacy and the exploitation of user data. Streaming services amass vast amounts of information on their subscribers, which they use to personalize recommendations, target advertising, and improve their platforms. However, this data is also incredibly valuable to third parties who might want to understand consumer behavior or develop competing products.

The case has sparked a debate about the definition of “personal information” in the digital age. Is listening history inherently private? Does the fact that users agree to terms of service negate any expectation of privacy regarding their data? These are complex questions with no easy answers, and the outcome of Williams’ trial will likely shape how these issues are addressed moving forward.

Furthermore, the VVPA isn't unique to California. Similar laws exist in other states, raising the possibility that individuals across the country could face similar legal challenges for scraping or selling streaming data. The potential penalties are significant – up to one year in jail and a $10,000 fine per violation.

The situation echoes the early days of Napster, the peer-to-peer file-sharing service that revolutionized music distribution but ultimately faced lawsuits from record labels over copyright infringement. While Napster’s downfall was rooted in unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material, the current case highlights a different kind of conflict – one between data privacy and commercial innovation.

The legal landscape surrounding data scraping is constantly evolving. The Williams case serves as a stark reminder that even seemingly innocuous activities like analyzing publicly available data can have serious legal consequences. As streaming services continue to dominate the music industry, it's crucial for lawmakers, platforms, and users alike to grapple with the ethical and legal implications of collecting, using, and sharing this increasingly valuable resource – before more individuals find themselves facing jail time for simply selling a digital echo of their listening habits. The future of data analysis and innovation in the streaming era hangs precariously in the balance.

N※N

The Ghostof Napster How Selling Streaming Data Could Land Youin Jail