4 ms·

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.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  It only allows them to TRY to provide ads to me, according to particular web requests, etc. It does not mean I am compelled to allow it to be displayed on the screen I own, regardless of whether I consuming from the free content stream they decided to emit. I could cut out a small rectangle of construction paper and create a robot with a computer vision apparatus, and have it follow me around, constantly check if an ad is visible on the screen, and dynamically block my field of vision to ensure I don’t see it. Or I could miniaturize that whole thing and place it as a browser plugin or mobile app.
robdachshund 8y ago
It's not really surprising. Spotify is just a pivot by the music industry. An industry that has a history of abusing musicians and customers alike. You could also argue that spotify isn't doing enough to help artists, and the subscription model had probably decimated what was left of album sales. As a musician, you bow have to use spotify or flounder alone. It's not far off from people supporting piracy. You can argue about justifications and morality, but it shouldn't be surprising given the state of the music industry and the the last 2 decades we've had with high levels of piracy.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I’m frankly surprised you believe terms of service regarding a data stream that a company chooses to freely emit are in any way related whatsoever to a person’s right to restrict what is displayed on a physical device that they own. My screen is not Spotify’s property. They are allowed to TRY to display something on it, and it will only be displayed IF I LET THEM. There’s no discussion here.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >My screen is not Spotify’s property. They are allowed to TRY to display something on it, and it will only be displayed IF I LET THEM. There’s no discussion here And they will only send you that stream IF YOU LET THEM (display ads). That's the deal whether or not you like it. You don't get to substitute your own. So, they win, you lose.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    The user wins in that they retain control of their device which is slightly more significant than the ability to listen to some tunes.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      ...ok so then we're back at "you do not have the right to use the service in any way you like." Glad we agree.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        Nobody is “using the service in any way you like” at all. Preventing some certain pixels for being allowed to be displayed on a piece of my personal property has no connection, legal or otherwise, to usage of some freely emitted data stream someone else decided to send out freely to the world. The person who sends it out to the world might write some things down or complain about what they want to control on my personal property, but it is just not relevant to anything. They are free to stop producing a freely available data stream if they don’t want to. Just like I am free to keep blocking certain infos they try to send me (ads).
michaelmrose 8y ago
Stealing is taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of said property. One cannot steal data by not watching ads because you can't deprive the owner of said data. Misusing a word to evoke an emotional response is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. Entitled is another overused manipulative term. I am in fact entitled to decide what runs on my computer and spotify is entitled to decide who accesses theirs. If spotify closes accounts for not watching ads and I choose to block ads literally nobody is in the wrong. We are both exercising our respective rights. At that point it becomes a discussion on what is prudent. If you arne't in the habit of reading 5-10 pages of legalese when you walk into random stores I wonder why you believe people will read 5-10 pages of legalese before reading the dozens of sites they visit. People care about the terms and conditions exactly when they are informed of being in breach of them and only to the extent that being in breach of them effects their life. In this case it seems incredibly likely that said users who aren't customers in the first place even if some of them watch ads will just watch free music on youtube. On net spotify will save money on bandwidth which is incredibly cheap to start with, gain a modicum of new subscribers, and shrink their supply of free users that are their primary source of paid users. Presumably they are in the best position to figure out if this is worth it and we shall all see.
- Sebb767 8y ago
  > Stealing is taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of said property. > One cannot steal data by not watching ads because you can't deprive the owner of said data. Well, it is. Spotify grants you the temporary license to play the copyrighted song for you listening to their ads. They _pay_ for the right to distribute that song. It's like taking something from a store and refusing to pay for it because "that store does not decide where my money goes". > I am in fact entitled to decide what runs on my computer and spotify is entitled to decide who accesses theirs. If spotify closes accounts for not watching ads and I choose to block ads literally nobody is in the wrong. We are both exercising our respective rights. Fully agreed. > On net spotify will save money on bandwidth which is incredibly cheap to start with, gain a modicum of new subscribers, and shrink their supply of free users that are their primary source of paid users. Well, as said above, they pay licensing fees and that is actually most of their business cost. I highly doubt that they loose many customers who would bring in any money with this move.

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.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
It only allows them to TRY to provide ads to me, according to particular web requests, etc. It does not mean I am compelled to allow it to be displayed on the screen I own, regardless of whether I consuming from the free content stream they decided to emit. I could cut out a small rectangle of construction paper and create a robot with a computer vision apparatus, and have it follow me around, constantly check if an ad is visible on the screen, and dynamically block my field of vision to ensure I don’t see it. Or I could miniaturize that whole thing and place it as a browser plugin or mobile app.

robdachshund 8y ago

It's not really surprising. Spotify is just a pivot by the music industry. An industry that has a history of abusing musicians and customers alike. You could also argue that spotify isn't doing enough to help artists, and the subscription model had probably decimated what was left of album sales. As a musician, you bow have to use spotify or flounder alone. It's not far off from people supporting piracy. You can argue about justifications and morality, but it shouldn't be surprising given the state of the music industry and the the last 2 decades we've had with high levels of piracy.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I’m frankly surprised you believe terms of service regarding a data stream that a company chooses to freely emit are in any way related whatsoever to a person’s right to restrict what is displayed on a physical device that they own. My screen is not Spotify’s property. They are allowed to TRY to display something on it, and it will only be displayed IF I LET THEM. There’s no discussion here.

EpicEng 8y ago
>My screen is not Spotify’s property. They are allowed to TRY to display something on it, and it will only be displayed IF I LET THEM. There’s no discussion here And they will only send you that stream IF YOU LET THEM (display ads). That's the deal whether or not you like it. You don't get to substitute your own. So, they win, you lose.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  The user wins in that they retain control of their device which is slightly more significant than the ability to listen to some tunes.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    ...ok so then we're back at "you do not have the right to use the service in any way you like." Glad we agree.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      Nobody is “using the service in any way you like” at all. Preventing some certain pixels for being allowed to be displayed on a piece of my personal property has no connection, legal or otherwise, to usage of some freely emitted data stream someone else decided to send out freely to the world. The person who sends it out to the world might write some things down or complain about what they want to control on my personal property, but it is just not relevant to anything. They are free to stop producing a freely available data stream if they don’t want to. Just like I am free to keep blocking certain infos they try to send me (ads).

michaelmrose 8y ago

Stealing is taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of said property. One cannot steal data by not watching ads because you can't deprive the owner of said data. Misusing a word to evoke an emotional response is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. Entitled is another overused manipulative term. I am in fact entitled to decide what runs on my computer and spotify is entitled to decide who accesses theirs. If spotify closes accounts for not watching ads and I choose to block ads literally nobody is in the wrong. We are both exercising our respective rights. At that point it becomes a discussion on what is prudent. If you arne't in the habit of reading 5-10 pages of legalese when you walk into random stores I wonder why you believe people will read 5-10 pages of legalese before reading the dozens of sites they visit. People care about the terms and conditions exactly when they are informed of being in breach of them and only to the extent that being in breach of them effects their life. In this case it seems incredibly likely that said users who aren't customers in the first place even if some of them watch ads will just watch free music on youtube. On net spotify will save money on bandwidth which is incredibly cheap to start with, gain a modicum of new subscribers, and shrink their supply of free users that are their primary source of paid users. Presumably they are in the best position to figure out if this is worth it and we shall all see.

Sebb767 8y ago
> Stealing is taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of said property. > One cannot steal data by not watching ads because you can't deprive the owner of said data. Well, it is. Spotify grants you the temporary license to play the copyrighted song for you listening to their ads. They _pay_ for the right to distribute that song. It's like taking something from a store and refusing to pay for it because "that store does not decide where my money goes". > I am in fact entitled to decide what runs on my computer and spotify is entitled to decide who accesses theirs. If spotify closes accounts for not watching ads and I choose to block ads literally nobody is in the wrong. We are both exercising our respective rights. Fully agreed. > On net spotify will save money on bandwidth which is incredibly cheap to start with, gain a modicum of new subscribers, and shrink their supply of free users that are their primary source of paid users. Well, as said above, they pay licensing fees and that is actually most of their business cost. I highly doubt that they loose many customers who would bring in any money with this move.