7 ms·

I've never used this phrase in my entire life but it seems absolutely perfect for the described scenario. Sorry not sorry. I personally chose not to use Spotif

by kgwxd 8y ago

I've never used this phrase in my entire life but it seems absolutely perfect for the described scenario. Sorry not sorry. I personally chose not to use Spotify at all, but I'm not going to fault anyone for using it with a thrid-party blocker. Even if Spotify didn't also do advertising the right way (e.g. branded playlists (I believe paying users get those too)), no one is obligated to subject themselves to personal harm, even if someone is dumb enough to expose people to that risk as a subsidy for their service, no matter how useful the service is.

fastball 8y ago
If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. It's an online service, not a piece of personal property.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  But I still have right to NOT use service provided by Spotify or and another third-party service, completely or partially.
  - fastball 8y ago
    You do NOT have a right to use the service "partially" (by blocking ads), as blocking ads on their free plan is against the ToS.
    - sieabahlpark 8y ago
      He has all the right to, that's why he's not in prison. Spotify gets to dictate who gets to use their product though.
    - zanny 8y ago
      ToS's (online, at least) aren't legally enforceable. If they were actually legally binding companies would be sueing users for violating them all the time. Theres a reason the extent of ToS enforcement is just account closure, its because they have no legal standing and just act as a safeguard against actual legal challenges.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        The legal enforceability of the TOS isn't really important here, when you use a service there are conditions with that service. Go ahead and try walking into starbucks, paying for half of a tall americano and walking out the door with half of a tall americano. Service providers have the inherent right to place conditions and limits on the services they provide.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        IMHO, the more correct analogy will be to walk into cinema and watch cinema without paying for pop-corn, despite the fact that theater makes most of their profit on pop-corn. I have no obligation to make a business profitable.
        tomjakubowski 8y ago
        Customers who use too many company resources or hurt the bottom line get dropped. Like when a suspected card counter is banned from a casino. That's just what's happening here.
        munk-a 8y ago
        If the ticket price was bumped up by $20 and popcorn was included free you might rationally object to the fact that you didn't want their overpriced air anyways, but it doesn't mean you'd have any inherent right to utilize the service at the old cost - competition might fix that problem (a new theatre with slightly more expensive tickets than the old one originally offered, but far cheaper than the new tickets to movie + popcorn) or regulation might (especially if movie theatres don't scale well (and they don't, a mall with 20 movie theatres isn't going to be rolling in money)).
        logifail 8y ago
        >> I have no obligation to make a business profitable. Do we have an obligation to allow script in our browsers? >90% of my "news reading" on the internet is done with NoScript running; from my point of view it's all good, no ads, no GDPR pop-ups, pages load quickly, fewer worries about tracking. It's probably not what publishers want, though.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      It is my private property (my screen). I absolutely do have the right to use it partially if Spotify is emitting it freely. Their terms of service have utterly no relevance to what I disallow to be shown on my private property.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        Ok so they'll ban you and then... what? You'll have no recourse, i.e., you have no inherent right to use their service as you see fit (outside your own head anyway).
        mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        I’ll use technology to legally circumvent the ban, as has been happening since the dawn of the fool’s errand that is DRM or free channel restriction.
    - codedokode 8y ago
      How is blocking ads with software different from turning down the volume during commercials? Also, nobody can be forced to listen to something.
      - fastball 8y ago
        There isn't a difference, except that Spotify can drop you as a customer. Which is what they're doing. Which is fine. The debate in this thread is not "what can you technically do?", but rather "who has the moral high ground?"
    - tomohawk 8y ago
      Spotify does NOT have the right to run arbitrary code on my device. That is not something that fits into the category of me using their service. That rather fits into the category of me being forced to provide a service to Spotify.
      - themacguffinman 8y ago
        Spotify isn't reaching into your computer and running ads, you are running Spotify. If you don't want Spotify and its dependencies, you can simply not run Spotify.
        acct1771 8y ago
        The ads weren't a dependency, and technically speaking, still aren't. They could force them to be. And socially, are. But, they're not technically.
        themacguffinman 8y ago
        I'm not sure why a "technical" dependency matters. A shirt at a shopping mall doesn't "technically" need a security tag, but it's not my prerogative to remove it.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. OR, he could install an ad blocker. It is completely legal to use ad blockers. Thats the law. If you don't like the law, then go change it.
- baddox 8y ago
  I believe I have the right to choose whenever possible which resources my computer downloads and what code my computer executes. That includes selecting which parts of a specific website or application I download and execute. If Spotify wants to refuse to fulfill requests for one resource (e.g. songs) separate from requests for another resource (e.g. ads), I have absolutely no problem with that. But if Spotify chooses (as appears to be the case, at least before this account suspension policy) to fulfill both requests independent of one another, I believe I have the right to make either request, both requests, or neither request. In other words, I have absolutely no qualms with users using ad blocking software, just like I have no problem with users using firewalls, antivirus software, or content restriction software. And I also have no problem with Spotify attempting to prevent this activity, either by making ad blocking technically infeasible (radio figured this out over 100 years ago), or by suspending accounts that violate their terms (especially free accounts, since the customer would have no case that Spotify owes them a refund or compensation).
  - jsgo 8y ago
    You get married. The agreement between you and your significant other is that both parties will be faithful and to perform various duties within the relationship. Also, if the marriage is ended, both parties leave with their individual things/pay/etc. You decide to play the field. Your significant other decides to leave you and you are now responsible for the tasks/financials that your significant other previously assisted with. In agreements, you can't pick and choose the terms of the agreement you're willing to subject yourself to once they're settled (beyond renegotiating). In the Spotify case, they literally get nothing out of the arrangement if someone blocks their ads on the free tier whereas the person blocking said ads would be of the belief they're owed limitless listening to free music? That's pretty comical.
    - drewmol 8y ago
      >once they're settled... Should I be expected to monitor changes to a living document that I never read in the first place in order to know whether the current version means I am married to Spotify and act accordingly? Spotify is the one who defaulted first by not providing me the limitless free music I am owed.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. Of course they have that right. Spotify has no right to restrict how anyone uses their service.
  - adventured 8y ago
    In fact they do have the right to restrict how people use their service. They're about to trivially prove that exact point by terminating accounts that use ad blockers.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Ability != right
      - traviscj 8y ago
        They have both.
DevKoala 8y ago
At the same same time you are stealing a service if you don’t accept either of their revenue proposals when taking advantage of it. If you don’t want ads, then you need to pay in some form. Spotify is not a charity.
- kgwxd 8y ago
  It's no stealing, it's not even lying. Show me where in the agreement it says exactly "you must to listen to ads from a third-party if you listen to music". There are things like "we retain the right to...", or "by using this service, you agree to allow us to...". There are no commandments, only stuff that covers their ass so you can't sue them for closing your account, exposing your personal information or letting other people hack your devices.
  - beering 8y ago
    I'm frankly surprised at the level of entitlement that you and others are operating under. Section 8 and 9 of the Spotify T&C is what you are looking for, btw.
    - kgwxd 8y ago
      Section 8 grants Spotify and their business partners the right to provide advertising and other information to you. That's you granting them rights should they succeed in doing so, not you guaranteeing the ability to do it. Section 9, item 5 only mentions "circumventing or blocking advertisements in the Spotify Service". Nothing about "third party" ads, when "third party" is explicitly mentioned in other rules, separate from "the Spotify Service". If they legally can, I'm sure they'll "fix" that wording, at which point using a typical ad blocker with become lying, but still definitely not stealing. That rule is redundant anyway as it would required circumventing DRM, already illegal. I guess there are plenty of "commandments" there, but they're all for show as they're either already illegal or fall under the fact that Spotify can deactivate your account whenever they want, even for reasons not listed there.
      - 8y ago
cabaalis 8y ago
I believe it's safe to assume that (1) You sell a product or service for which people pay you, or (2) You derive an income working for someone else that sells a product or service for which people pay, or that (3) You receive financial support from someone who is within one of the above. What happens to the food on your table when people take that product or service without giving you money for it?
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  > What happens to the food on your table when people take that product or service without giving you money for it? Such business is not sustainable. It will shutdown and will free taken resources back into the economy.
- robdachshund 8y ago
  On the other hand, is spotify a benevolent entity saving starving musicians or is it something they are now forced to comply with? How much money do you think musicians make on spotify? Do you think it's any better than it was before, or do you think spotify probably takes advantage of musicians? Additionally, spotify has pretty much destroyed retail and online album sales (ignoring record sales), effectively forcing musicians to use the service. Unless spotify is paying everyone well, they probably aren't the benevolent actor you make them out to be.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by kgwxd 8y ago

fastball 8y ago

If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. It's an online service, not a piece of personal property.

v_lisivka 8y ago
But I still have right to NOT use service provided by Spotify or and another third-party service, completely or partially.
- fastball 8y ago
  You do NOT have a right to use the service "partially" (by blocking ads), as blocking ads on their free plan is against the ToS.
  - sieabahlpark 8y ago
    He has all the right to, that's why he's not in prison. Spotify gets to dictate who gets to use their product though.
  - zanny 8y ago
    ToS's (online, at least) aren't legally enforceable. If they were actually legally binding companies would be sueing users for violating them all the time. Theres a reason the extent of ToS enforcement is just account closure, its because they have no legal standing and just act as a safeguard against actual legal challenges.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      The legal enforceability of the TOS isn't really important here, when you use a service there are conditions with that service. Go ahead and try walking into starbucks, paying for half of a tall americano and walking out the door with half of a tall americano. Service providers have the inherent right to place conditions and limits on the services they provide.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        IMHO, the more correct analogy will be to walk into cinema and watch cinema without paying for pop-corn, despite the fact that theater makes most of their profit on pop-corn. I have no obligation to make a business profitable.
        tomjakubowski 8y ago
        Customers who use too many company resources or hurt the bottom line get dropped. Like when a suspected card counter is banned from a casino. That's just what's happening here.
        munk-a 8y ago
        If the ticket price was bumped up by $20 and popcorn was included free you might rationally object to the fact that you didn't want their overpriced air anyways, but it doesn't mean you'd have any inherent right to utilize the service at the old cost - competition might fix that problem (a new theatre with slightly more expensive tickets than the old one originally offered, but far cheaper than the new tickets to movie + popcorn) or regulation might (especially if movie theatres don't scale well (and they don't, a mall with 20 movie theatres isn't going to be rolling in money)).
        logifail 8y ago
        >> I have no obligation to make a business profitable. Do we have an obligation to allow script in our browsers? >90% of my "news reading" on the internet is done with NoScript running; from my point of view it's all good, no ads, no GDPR pop-ups, pages load quickly, fewer worries about tracking. It's probably not what publishers want, though.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    It is my private property (my screen). I absolutely do have the right to use it partially if Spotify is emitting it freely. Their terms of service have utterly no relevance to what I disallow to be shown on my private property.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      Ok so they'll ban you and then... what? You'll have no recourse, i.e., you have no inherent right to use their service as you see fit (outside your own head anyway).
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        I’ll use technology to legally circumvent the ban, as has been happening since the dawn of the fool’s errand that is DRM or free channel restriction.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    How is blocking ads with software different from turning down the volume during commercials? Also, nobody can be forced to listen to something.
    - fastball 8y ago
      There isn't a difference, except that Spotify can drop you as a customer. Which is what they're doing. Which is fine. The debate in this thread is not "what can you technically do?", but rather "who has the moral high ground?"
  - tomohawk 8y ago
    Spotify does NOT have the right to run arbitrary code on my device. That is not something that fits into the category of me using their service. That rather fits into the category of me being forced to provide a service to Spotify.
    - themacguffinman 8y ago
      Spotify isn't reaching into your computer and running ads, you are running Spotify. If you don't want Spotify and its dependencies, you can simply not run Spotify.
      - acct1771 8y ago
        The ads weren't a dependency, and technically speaking, still aren't. They could force them to be. And socially, are. But, they're not technically.
        themacguffinman 8y ago
        I'm not sure why a "technical" dependency matters. A shirt at a shopping mall doesn't "technically" need a security tag, but it's not my prerogative to remove it.
stale2002 8y ago
> If you don't want to "subject yourself to personal harm" you can either not use the service or pay for the ad-free service. OR, he could install an ad blocker. It is completely legal to use ad blockers. Thats the law. If you don't like the law, then go change it.
baddox 8y ago
I believe I have the right to choose whenever possible which resources my computer downloads and what code my computer executes. That includes selecting which parts of a specific website or application I download and execute. If Spotify wants to refuse to fulfill requests for one resource (e.g. songs) separate from requests for another resource (e.g. ads), I have absolutely no problem with that. But if Spotify chooses (as appears to be the case, at least before this account suspension policy) to fulfill both requests independent of one another, I believe I have the right to make either request, both requests, or neither request. In other words, I have absolutely no qualms with users using ad blocking software, just like I have no problem with users using firewalls, antivirus software, or content restriction software. And I also have no problem with Spotify attempting to prevent this activity, either by making ad blocking technically infeasible (radio figured this out over 100 years ago), or by suspending accounts that violate their terms (especially free accounts, since the customer would have no case that Spotify owes them a refund or compensation).
- jsgo 8y ago
  You get married. The agreement between you and your significant other is that both parties will be faithful and to perform various duties within the relationship. Also, if the marriage is ended, both parties leave with their individual things/pay/etc. You decide to play the field. Your significant other decides to leave you and you are now responsible for the tasks/financials that your significant other previously assisted with. In agreements, you can't pick and choose the terms of the agreement you're willing to subject yourself to once they're settled (beyond renegotiating). In the Spotify case, they literally get nothing out of the arrangement if someone blocks their ads on the free tier whereas the person blocking said ads would be of the belief they're owed limitless listening to free music? That's pretty comical.
  - drewmol 8y ago
    >once they're settled... Should I be expected to monitor changes to a living document that I never read in the first place in order to know whether the current version means I am married to Spotify and act accordingly? Spotify is the one who defaulted first by not providing me the limitless free music I am owed.
anoncake 8y ago
> You don't have a right to use Spotify how you want. Of course they have that right. Spotify has no right to restrict how anyone uses their service.
- adventured 8y ago
  In fact they do have the right to restrict how people use their service. They're about to trivially prove that exact point by terminating accounts that use ad blockers.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Ability != right
    - traviscj 8y ago
      They have both.

DevKoala 8y ago

At the same same time you are stealing a service if you don’t accept either of their revenue proposals when taking advantage of it. If you don’t want ads, then you need to pay in some form. Spotify is not a charity.

kgwxd 8y ago
It's no stealing, it's not even lying. Show me where in the agreement it says exactly "you must to listen to ads from a third-party if you listen to music". There are things like "we retain the right to...", or "by using this service, you agree to allow us to...". There are no commandments, only stuff that covers their ass so you can't sue them for closing your account, exposing your personal information or letting other people hack your devices.
- beering 8y ago
  I'm frankly surprised at the level of entitlement that you and others are operating under. Section 8 and 9 of the Spotify T&C is what you are looking for, btw.
  - kgwxd 8y ago
    Section 8 grants Spotify and their business partners the right to provide advertising and other information to you. That's you granting them rights should they succeed in doing so, not you guaranteeing the ability to do it. Section 9, item 5 only mentions "circumventing or blocking advertisements in the Spotify Service". Nothing about "third party" ads, when "third party" is explicitly mentioned in other rules, separate from "the Spotify Service". If they legally can, I'm sure they'll "fix" that wording, at which point using a typical ad blocker with become lying, but still definitely not stealing. That rule is redundant anyway as it would required circumventing DRM, already illegal. I guess there are plenty of "commandments" there, but they're all for show as they're either already illegal or fall under the fact that Spotify can deactivate your account whenever they want, even for reasons not listed there.
    - 8y ago

cabaalis 8y ago

I believe it's safe to assume that (1) You sell a product or service for which people pay you, or (2) You derive an income working for someone else that sells a product or service for which people pay, or that (3) You receive financial support from someone who is within one of the above. What happens to the food on your table when people take that product or service without giving you money for it?

v_lisivka 8y ago
> What happens to the food on your table when people take that product or service without giving you money for it? Such business is not sustainable. It will shutdown and will free taken resources back into the economy.
robdachshund 8y ago
On the other hand, is spotify a benevolent entity saving starving musicians or is it something they are now forced to comply with? How much money do you think musicians make on spotify? Do you think it's any better than it was before, or do you think spotify probably takes advantage of musicians? Additionally, spotify has pretty much destroyed retail and online album sales (ignoring record sales), effectively forcing musicians to use the service. Unless spotify is paying everyone well, they probably aren't the benevolent actor you make them out to be.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]