do musicians get remunerated per play (in which case, it doesn't matter how many plays other artists get), or is there a fixed pie and it's divided by percentage of share of plays?
If the latter, that's truly a horrible deal for artists.
The increased revenue pool in theory means that other artists were unaffected, Spotify made extra money, the fraudulent artist made extra money and the advertisers lost money. This is probably why they waited 7 years and till they had IPO'd to pull the plug.
It's a simplification, since 100% of an individual's subscription doesn't go to directly to royalties, it's after expenses.
Smaller artists are frustrated with this model as it favours the big artists.
[1] https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/
Edit: added the link.
You know it won't go to the artists. Spotify takes it and at best some publishers (or what name they choose in music) get a little cut on the top to keep in good graces.
This is definitely wrong but this is exactly why I don't really have any sympathy here.
On top of the fact that Spotify probably also did and does the exact same scheme, but that was in a period of "market capture mode" and the adverts didn't care enough to not be frauded. Instead playing the long game. (Blitzar in another response explained this better than I did).
I've long maintained that the "Spotify fucks over musicians" angle is cleverly positioned to hide the "record labels fuck over musicians the same as they always have for 50+ years" angle. Because the big record labels are still doing great in the streaming era!
Same shit, different day either way.
I've little sympathy for Spotify and the rest _but_ this scheme -- if I understand how Spotify pays out -- reduces payouts to other folks. I don't know if society is well-served by sending him to prison, but he should definitely be penalized somehow until that money, plus damages, is redirected to actual artists.