>For one, Spotify took the extreme measure of removing the song entirely without any kind of probation or appeal process. A logical endgame of this type of defensive action is an environment where a corporation gets to decide how users listen to music.
My concern here is quite different from the author's. If it is easy to trigger takedown on tracks with no appeals process, this can be used by non-owners of the track to troll artists or censor tracks they don't like
Well, the author did consider that possibility further down:
> If I wanted to seek revenge on a relatively unknown artist that I had a personal vendetta against, couldn't I simply repeatedly stream one of their songs in an effort to get their work removed from the service?
And this type of thing has been a problem in related industries. Things like this (used to?) happen with internet ad agencies, wherein a competitor will try to hurt your business by emulating click-fraud on your website's ads. Or a really passionate fan will think, "I'll support these guys by clicking their ads a hundred times!".
My concern here is quite different from the author's. If it is easy to trigger takedown on tracks with no appeals process, this can be used by non-owners of the track to troll artists or censor tracks they don't like