Hi_Lo
2 hours ago
Jake threw a bunch of money in this just to lose. lol
Yup, just like your hero George Sharp (not yet indicted?) did with GVSI.
I see you now have a runny-nosed spoiled brat scammer as another hero.
You sure know how to pick them.
https://www.billboard.com/pro/spotify-indie-label-streaming-fraud-millions-fake-accounts-countersuit/
Spotify Countersues Indie Label, Alleging Massive Streaming Fraud & Millions of Fake Accounts
Spotify has countersued indie label Sosa Entertainment and its founder Jake Noch, alleging massive streaming fraud, unjust enrichment and the creation of millions of fake accounts to generate…
In November 2019, indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment and its founder, 20-year-old Jake Noch, filed a lawsuit against Spotify that alleged the streaming service failed to pay royalties on over 550 million streams of its music. The suit, which was also brought on behalf of Noch’s PRO Pro Music Rights (which was later removed), sought $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement, and alleged that Spotify removed its music not because it detected “abnormal streaming activity,” as the service claimed, but because it was trying to dodge paying royalties on the streams.
Now, Spotify has fired back with a countersuit alleging that Noch “designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams” in order to “manipulate Spotify’s system to extract undeserved royalties at the expense of hardworking artists and songwriters.” The filing, which is supported by screenshots of messages allegedly between Noch and a “bot farmer” and charts that show streams on Noch’s music go from zero into the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, also alleges that Noch directed the bot farmer to create millions of fake accounts and changed the names of songs in his catalog to closely resemble those of established hit songs, like XXXTentacion’s “SAD!” and DJ Snake’s “Taki Taki.”
Spotify has countersued indie label Sosa Entertainment and its founder Jake Noch, alleging massive streaming fraud, unjust enrichment and the creation of millions of fake accounts to generate…
BY DAN RYS
In November 2019, indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment and its founder, 20-year-old Jake Noch, filed a lawsuit against Spotify that alleged the streaming service failed to pay royalties on over 550 million streams of its music. The suit, which was also brought on behalf of Noch’s PRO Pro Music Rights (which was later removed), sought $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement, and alleged that Spotify removed its music not because it detected “abnormal streaming activity,” as the service claimed, but because it was trying to dodge paying royalties on the streams.
Now, Spotify has fired back with a countersuit alleging that Noch “designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams” in order to “manipulate Spotify’s system to extract undeserved royalties at the expense of hardworking artists and songwriters.” The filing, which is supported by screenshots of messages allegedly between Noch and a “bot farmer” and charts that show streams on Noch’s music go from zero into the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, also alleges that Noch directed the bot farmer to create millions of fake accounts and changed the names of songs in his catalog to closely resemble those of established hit songs, like XXXTentacion’s “SAD!” and DJ Snake’s “Taki Taki.”
Indie Hip-Hop Label Files Suit Against Spotify Over Catalog Takedown
Noch, who lists himself as the chief executive of Sosa and Pro Music Rights, as well as a handful of additional music companies, has quite the proud litigious history, having released several press releases touting lawsuits against Spotify, Apple, Google, YouTube, Amazon, SoundCloud, Pandora, Deezer, iHeartRadio and more. Pro Music Rights claims a database of some 2 million tracks, including more than 23,000 by various artists using some form of the name “LEGATO,” like LEGATO_DIMY, LEGATODE45, LEGATODI001, LEGATOGILL2002 and LEGATOKAL999, to name a few.
According to Spotify’s counterclaim, filed Monday (May 18), the service first detected artificial streaming activity on Noch’s content in March 2016 and eventually banned his music from the service, before extending that ban to all content related to Noch. Noch then tried to “smuggle” the content back onto the service using slightly different names and created millions of fake accounts to stream that music.
In June 2016, a whistleblower contacted Spotify with screenshots that purported to show Noch directing the person to create millions (direct quote: “i need millions”) of fake accounts. And while Spotify had identified the fraud a few months prior, the company had already paid a small amount of royalties to Sosa and Noch — royalties that otherwise would have gone to legitimate songwriters with songs being streamed by legitimate fans. According to the complaint, for one of Noch’s albums that jumped from zero streams to more than 400,000 in just days, 99% of its streams came from Spotify’s ad-supported free tier and from accounts registered to male users in the United States, a pattern that was also found for other works.
Noch then changed distributors and changed the names of some of his companies in order to dodge Spotify’s fraud detection systems, with slightly different artist names, song titles and cover artwork. In one section of the complaint, attorneys wrote that “analysts at Spotify found that 5,500 ‘users’ streaming one of the Sosa albums ‘originated’ from a small American town with a total population of 10,000. For that album, the stream count jumped from zero to 749,000 streams in a span of only two days… This pattern is highly anomalous and not at all correlated to any possible pattern of genuine streaming activity.”
In another example from the complaint, in what the filing calls “title track parasitism,” Noch and Sosa uploaded tracks called “SAD!” with the same punctuation as the XXXTentacion hit, and “Taki Take,” shortly after the similarly-named DJ Snake song reached the top 20 of the Billboard Hot 100. Some of the tracks that Noch and Sosa would release on Spotify were AI-generated sound loops.
In all, Spotify’s counterclaim seeks relief for fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, indemnification, unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices. As another line in the complaint reads, “This was one of the most egregious fraudulent streaming operations from a single rights holder that Spotify had to deal with in its company’s history.”
After the publication of this story, Noch provided a comment to Billboard which reads, in part, “Spotify’s claims are laughable… I also greatly look forward to the day we get to go to court, and I hope that all of Spotify’s shareholders will pay close attention to these cases… Time will prove that we are right.”
Hi_Lo
8 hours ago
And this is the types of scam Jake P. Noch perpetrates (there is no way a court will grant him custodianship of BCAP):
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gmvd/spotify-sues-self-described-music-prodigy-who-allegedly-ran-royalties-scam
Spotify Sues Self-Described 'Music Prodigy' Who Allegedly Ran Royalties Scam
Spotify says Jake Noch "[generated] hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams" and engaged in "title track parasitism" among other fraudulent practices on its platform.
JC
By Jelisa Castrodale
May 19, 2020, 4:38pm
Last November, the 20-year-old head of indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment filed a massive (and massively complicated) lawsuit against Spotify, alleging that the digital music service hadn't paid royalties on more than 550 million streams of its songs. According to Billboard, Sosa Entertainment founder Jake Noch also named his other company, PRO Music Rights, as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and the co-plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages, asking for $150,000 for each infringement.
Noch's lawsuit accused Spotify of a number of transgressions, including unfair and deceptive business practices, willfully removing Sosa Entertainment's content, "obliterating" his expectations, and refusing to pay royalties. In a statement, Noch said that he was willing to "fight to the end" if it meant that Spotify would ultimately compensate the artists who were affected.
"I have a duty to see this through so that I can pay my artists what they are owed from Spotify," he said. "I know others feel the same way as I blaze this trail for the music community, who I know is behind me and roots for our success in bringing down Spotify."
Part of Noch's problems with the company started in the spring of 2017 when Spotify removed all of Sosa Entertainment's song's from its servers and "blanket banned" Noch and his companies from using the platform going forward. According to Noch—who describes himself as a "musical prodigy" in his lawsuit—Spotify informed him that the songs were removed because of "abnormal streaming activity," but the company didn't give him the opportunity to explain what could've caused the weird-looking streaming data. Noch has alleged that Spotify just "fabricated a reason" to kick him off the platform, in an attempt to avoid having to pay the royalties that he was due.
But in its own countersuit, filed on Monday, Spotify says no, it was just because of the abnormal streaming, and also because Noch allegedly "designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams" in order to game the system and rack up a ton of royalty payments.
"Starting in 2016, Noch designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams on songs he had seeded on Spotify’s online music-streaming service," the company's complaint reads. "Noch’s objective was plain: to manipulate Spotify’s system to extract undeserved royalties at the expense of hardworking artists and songwriters."
Billboard reports that Spotify removed Noch's content from its platform after being contacted by a whistleblower who claimed that Noch had instructed a bot farmer to create literally millions of fake accounts to stream songs from the Sosa Entertainment catalog. Spotify's own analysts became suspicious when one of Noch's records went from zero streams to 400,000 in under a week, while a second album racked up 749,000 streams in two days. (Spotify also apparently determined that 5,500 of the accounts that played the latter record supposedly all lived in the same American town—even though the town's total population was just around 10,000 people.)
The company has also accused Noch of "title track parasitism," which involves uploading songs with the same name and punctuation of legitimate hit songs. Spotify's legal filing identified two "AI-generated sound loops" that had been given the same name as then-popular tracks by DJ Snake and XXXTentacion.
"This was one of the most egregious fraudulent streaming operations from a single rights holder that Spotify had to deal with in its company’s history," Spotify wrote in its complaint. The company's countersuit is asking for compensation for a long list of Noch's alleged transgressions, including fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, indemnification, unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices.
Damn, most 20-year-olds can only dream of being dragged that hard by an international streaming service. A musical prodigy, indeed.
https://www.billboard.com/pro/spotify-indie-label-streaming-fraud-millions-fake-accounts-countersuit/
Spotify Countersues Indie Label, Alleging Massive Streaming Fraud & Millions of Fake Accounts
Spotify has countersued indie label Sosa Entertainment and its founder Jake Noch, alleging massive streaming fraud, unjust enrichment and the creation of millions of fake accounts to generate…
BY DAN RYS
In November 2019, indie hip-hop label Sosa Entertainment and its founder, 20-year-old Jake Noch, filed a lawsuit against Spotify that alleged the streaming service failed to pay royalties on over 550 million streams of its music. The suit, which was also brought on behalf of Noch’s PRO Pro Music Rights (which was later removed), sought $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement, and alleged that Spotify removed its music not because it detected “abnormal streaming activity,” as the service claimed, but because it was trying to dodge paying royalties on the streams.
Now, Spotify has fired back with a countersuit alleging that Noch “designed a scheme to artificially generate hundreds of millions of fraudulent streams” in order to “manipulate Spotify’s system to extract undeserved royalties at the expense of hardworking artists and songwriters.” The filing, which is supported by screenshots of messages allegedly between Noch and a “bot farmer” and charts that show streams on Noch’s music go from zero into the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, also alleges that Noch directed the bot farmer to create millions of fake accounts and changed the names of songs in his catalog to closely resemble those of established hit songs, like XXXTentacion’s “SAD!” and DJ Snake’s “Taki Taki.”
Indie Hip-Hop Label Files Suit Against Spotify Over Catalog Takedown
Trending on Billboard
Noch, who lists himself as the chief executive of Sosa and Pro Music Rights, as well as a handful of additional music companies, has quite the proud litigious history, having released several press releases touting lawsuits against Spotify, Apple, Google, YouTube, Amazon, SoundCloud, Pandora, Deezer, iHeartRadio and more. Pro Music Rights claims a database of some 2 million tracks, including more than 23,000 by various artists using some form of the name “LEGATO,” like LEGATO_DIMY, LEGATODE45, LEGATODI001, LEGATOGILL2002 and LEGATOKAL999, to name a few.
According to Spotify’s counterclaim, filed Monday (May 18), the service first detected artificial streaming activity on Noch’s content in March 2016 and eventually banned his music from the service, before extending that ban to all content related to Noch. Noch then tried to “smuggle” the content back onto the service using slightly different names and created millions of fake accounts to stream that music.
In June 2016, a whistleblower contacted Spotify with screenshots that purported to show Noch directing the person to create millions (direct quote: “i need millions”) of fake accounts. And while Spotify had identified the fraud a few months prior, the company had already paid a small amount of royalties to Sosa and Noch — royalties that otherwise would have gone to legitimate songwriters with songs being streamed by legitimate fans. According to the complaint, for one of Noch’s albums that jumped from zero streams to more than 400,000 in just days, 99% of its streams came from Spotify’s ad-supported free tier and from accounts registered to male users in the United States, a pattern that was also found for other works.
Noch then changed distributors and changed the names of some of his companies in order to dodge Spotify’s fraud detection systems, with slightly different artist names, song titles and cover artwork. In one section of the complaint, attorneys wrote that “analysts at Spotify found that 5,500 ‘users’ streaming one of the Sosa albums ‘originated’ from a small American town with a total population of 10,000. For that album, the stream count jumped from zero to 749,000 streams in a span of only two days… This pattern is highly anomalous and not at all correlated to any possible pattern of genuine streaming activity.”
In another example from the complaint, in what the filing calls “title track parasitism,” Noch and Sosa uploaded tracks called “SAD!” with the same punctuation as the XXXTentacion hit, and “Taki Take,” shortly after the similarly-named DJ Snake song reached the top 20 of the Billboard Hot 100. Some of the tracks that Noch and Sosa would release on Spotify were AI-generated sound loops.
In all, Spotify’s counterclaim seeks relief for fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, indemnification, unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices. As another line in the complaint reads, “This was one of the most egregious fraudulent streaming operations from a single rights holder that Spotify had to deal with in its company’s history.”
After the publication of this story, Noch provided a comment to Billboard which reads, in part, “Spotify’s claims are laughable… I also greatly look forward to the day we get to go to court, and I hope that all of Spotify’s shareholders will pay close attention to these cases… Time will prove that we are right.”
SCAMBUSTERKING
2 days ago
You don't understand the scam then. I dont care what happens here, I am solely after Jake P Noch for the numerous security laws he has violated. Whether or not someone saves this ticker or not is none of my concern.
The scam is, Jake will go to an obscure court, lie about the 3a10 exemption, to get unlimited free trading shares for $6M per year regardless of share price. He will sell until he can't anymore, then RS, and sell more. You see this from the eyes of shares being something of value, ownership, and sacred. Jake see's this as chucky cheese coins he can press out from a machine out back for unlimited play.
This is of course, unless I can stop him first. Check out my work though, see Crank Media CRKM that I got SEC revoked and HPIL which the OTC was so shocked how bad the scam was it is now CE and untouched for years. This is what I do for fun and I am very good at it. No one will touch Jake's baby SONG now because they know the scam, he has been caught.
The SEC already has an open investigation on it surrounding the use of the Reg A, the illegal use of a 3a10 exemption, and securities fraud around the timing and claims by Jake through press releases and social media posts deceiving shareholders into buying stock while he was selling hundreds of millions to billions.
Tweets about share buybacks, while had converted 14B shares to sell under the 3a10 but was "only" able to sell ~2B. Saying dilution was a "false narrative" literally as he is dumping shares and not updating the SS to hide the fact he over 10x'd the OS. Share reduction pump so he could sell 749M shares into the market then he complained about the PPS blaming flippers (when it was him).
He is the Chairman, CEO, CFO, 80% voting power, etc of the company, an affiliate of affiliates, Yet he obtained free trading shares illegally and caused 20+ false claims to shareholders to increase buying volume while he was selling those shares. Caught red handed, because he put out a NOBO list showing he still had them in July they were at the TA, then noted in tweets right after he deposited them the DTC number through twitter, then noted at years end he no longer owned any shares.
We have the whole timeline of how he works his scams and that is in the SEC's hands. Like, Jake really doesn't understand how F'd he is. Davy, his lawyer, is too stupid to ever get it. They don't scare me, the CRKM and HPIL weirdos have been sending me death threats for years, the CEO sending me threatening emails and lawsuits. Nothing has happened because I am 20x smarter than them or their dumb lawyers. Davy didn't even know he had to domesticate the subpoenas wasting months... just to find out after they do all that the social media companies will tell him to f off like iHub already did and there is nothing he can do. They are the equivalent of the kids who couldn't make the special ed debate team.
When the SEC comes in, whether or not Jake gains control of this shell or not is the last thing on their mind. Trust me.
getmoreshares
2 days ago
May 14th Jake P. Noch Family Office, LLC. Files Complaint Seeking Custodianship of Baron Capital Enterprise, Inc. (OTC: $BCAP)
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
Jake P Noch Family Office LLC CASE NO. 11-2024-CA-000998-0001-XX
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Baron Capital Enterprise Inc.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Jake P Noch Family Office LLC, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.500(b), hereby respectfully moves this Court for a default judgment against Defendant, Baron
Capital Enterprise Inc., and states:
1. This is a civil action for damages in excess of $50,000, against Defendant.
2. Plaintiff owns more than 250,000,000 shares in BCAP.
3. BCAP is the symbol that Defendant uses to trade on the Over The Counter Market.
4. On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this suit, asserting bought common shares
over the OTC market from Defendant, and Plaintiff took a position within
Defendant’s company and owned over a substantial amount of common shares as
of today.
5. Defendant was not and is currently not compliant with its annual or quarterly
reporting requirements as a publicly traded company therefore, as a shareholder,
Plaintiff requested in writing to Defendant corporate records of the company.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order granting a
default judgment against Defendant Baron Capital Enterprise Inc. in favor of Plaintiff and
granting Plaintiff’s initial requests in the Complaint and such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and proper. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests that this Court:
1. Appoint Plaintiff as Chairman of the Board (COB) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
Baron Capital Enterprise Inc. without the need to hold a formal shareholder vote.
2. Grant Plaintiff custodianship of Baron Capital Enterprise Inc.
3. Remove all existing share classes that Plaintiff deems necessary.
4. Provide Plaintiff with a voting control block as part of this process.
5. Address and resolve any voting rights issues as requested by Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff’s annual salary as a custodian would be paid as a form of convertible note. The
convertible note shall permit the Custodian Jake P. Noch or his affiliated entities or third
party entities to receive shares until Jake P. Noch is able to realize six million dollars
($6,000,000.00) in cash with any other expenses incurred to realize this amount.
Additionally, Plaintiff will receive 50% of the net profit of all future ventures that Plaintiff
formalizes under the company. The note shall remain valid and in effect until Mr. Noch
realizes six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), and additional shares may be added to the
convertible note as necessary in order for such amount to be received. The entity shall
indemnify Plaintiff due to unknown liabilities that may pre-exist. This salary mechanism
is for the risks undertaken and costs incurred in cleaning up regulatory issues, restructuring
the business, and acquiring or building a new company, ensuring the continued benefit to
shareholders.
7. Conduct the reimbursement, convertible note, and the shares related in this transaction as
a 3(a)(10) exemption of the Securities Act of 1933 and hold a fairness hearing to ensure
compliance with the exemption process.
Additionally, the custodian will take over the Series AA shares, BB shares, and any other control
blocks and will have the discretion to determine the structure of the shares currently in existence.
Furthermore, Plaintiff requests the Court to create a class of shares called Preferred J Class with
the following rights:
1. Each share in the Preferred J Class can vote on all matters.
2. The Preferred J Class is intended to be exclusively held by Jake P. Noch or his affiliated
entities.
3. The Preferred J Class will have 80% voting power across all classes of shares of the
company.
Explanation of Benefits of 3(a)(10) Exemption:
The 3(a)(10) exemption under the Securities Act of 1933 allows for the issuance of securities in
exchange for bona fide claims without the need for registration under the Act, provided that a
fairness hearing is held and the court approves the transaction. This exemption is beneficial for
the following reasons:
1. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: By utilizing the 3(a)(10) exemption, the transaction
can proceed without the lengthy and costly process of registration with the SEC, saving
time and resources for all parties involved.
2. Protection for All Parties: The requirement of a fair hearing ensures that the interests of
all shareholders and stakeholders are considered and protected, providing a transparent
and equitable process.
3. Regulatory Compliance: The exemption allows the company to comply with securities
laws while addressing the urgent need for restructuring and regulatory clean-up, which
are necessary for the company's survival and future growth.
4. Facilitates Reimbursement and Investment: This process enables Plaintiff to be
reimbursed for the significant risks and costs undertaken in the restructuring and clean-up
process. It also facilitates the necessary investment to acquire or build a new company,
ultimately benefiting the shareholders by restoring the company’s viability and enhancing
its value.
https://cms.collierclerk.com/cmsweb/
News
Market Data
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Lime Time
1 hour ago
Acme Investments
5 hours ago
Pink Lady
12 hours ago
Walter4
1 day ago
JMoneyHoops
2 days ago
