Yes. I see a screen full of your second to last result:

https://twitter.com/HaraldKml/status/1562137336409985025/pho...

Huh... this is pretty interesting. My screenshot shows "15 results" at the top, which a reload of the page just now is still showing.

But when I go to load the site through my VPS in Germany... I see the "292 albums" you're talking about! And yep, umpteen copies of the same album art just like in your screenshot.

Wow. I think this might be due to Australian consumer protection laws dictating that faulty products MUST be returnable. (Buying stuff in Australia is actually kind of cool because if I don't get exactly what I paid for I don't generally have to make very much effort to get a refund.) IIUC this policy has taken impressive chunks out of pretty big players.

...And so it would seem I'm simply not seeing anything I might reasonably and correctly regard as faulty.

Well that's an interesting database column then.

(I unfortunately have less familiarity than I probably should about this status quo (given I live here :D), but I can at least offer the "Consumers" and "Business" headings (and all the individual sections in the associated dropdowns) at the top of https://www.accc.gov.au/ as a cursory indication of the level of pedantry and protection involved.)

It's entirely possible I have the wrong end of the stick here and something else is the axis point. I wonder what would happen if you loaded the site through an AU proxy/VPN. I'm also curious if any other countries cause this... different presentation.

This is just conjecture, but I think it may have to do with compilation rights. The spam albums contain a random selection of music from the actual artists. Maybe the spammer has some very broad license to make compilations - I can totally see record companies accepting this sort of spam as long as they get their cut. But such rights would perhaps be geographically limited?

There are also problems with this theory, though:

* "Their cut" should, from my understanding of copyright law, be 100%. I don't understand how the spammer would make money off it at all.

* From the metadata, the spammer's one-off label claims to directly own both the music and the recording rights.

* The spammed artists do not seem limited to one of the big three's back catalog.

* The spammed artists include some which are/were well known for not allowing third party compilation albums with their music.