6 ms·

This is just the argument against piracy. And if anyone proved that convenience combats piracy, it's Spotify. If you ever find your users trying to circumvent p

This is just the argument against piracy. And if anyone proved that convenience combats piracy, it's Spotify. If you ever find your users trying to circumvent part of your process in order to make their experience better, the proper response isn't "hold up now, your experience with our product wasn't supposed to be THAT good." It's on their business to figure out how to maximize their customer's satisfaction, while still remaining profitable. Or another service will come along and do it for you.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
Thank you. Failures of your business model are not our problem. The only people who can force me to pay is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Everyone else can persuade me
- criley2 8y ago
  Enjoy your ban! I'm always pleased when companies stand up to grifters like you. Go back to stealing mp3s or whatever it is you think you're entitled to.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    I actually do pay spotify - I just object to the enforcement principle. (And apple music and Amazon - I think I need to rationalise that one) I think that the Apple / Amazon model is more appealing - pay us first or basically you get nothing. I guess this is the early signs of the Freemium model falling apart.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    I am not sure why you are accusing someone of a crime ("stealing"). Installing an ad blocker is within someone's full legal right. Why are you making false statements regarding what is or is not a crime?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rstupek 8y ago
      It is and it's also within your rights not to use the service, or pay for it. Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it?
      - s_tec 8y ago
        > Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it? The Free Software movement has been fighting against this exact mentality for decades. Digital autonomy should be a basic human right. Anyone should be able to download and execute whatever code they want on their own computer. Spotify also has this right, of course, and is free to block users if they choose. I am not morally obliged to support their business model. At the same time, I choose to have a paid Spotify account because it's more convenient.
        saalweachter 8y ago
        That's the free software movement, not the free music movement Although the latter may actually be the more venerable body.
        s_tec 8y ago
        I'm talking about the Free Software movement. I have a moral right to use ad-blocking technology, or any other software on my own computer. Spotify can refuse me service if they have a problem with this (no free music), but they can't make me feel guilty for blocking ads.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        If you're running the Spotify client, you're using their computer, too, not just your own. You have the right to kick them off of your PC or phone, and they have the right to kick you off of their server. What's the problem with that?
  - seeker61 8y ago
    My experience with people, and your quick accusation, lead me to believe that you are a grifter.
  - drewmol 8y ago
    Why steal mp3's when you can make copies for free?
- darawk 8y ago
  Do you say that when you shoplift too?
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    that's very clearly not what i meant :-) please see "end of freemium" comment If someone opens a shop and invites me to walk around, browse and chat, then that's nice - maybe i will buy. but saying "now you must pay an entrance fee because you are wearing earphones - we want customers to listen to our trained shop staff" is kind of defeating the point. yes they can set up weird rules for their shop, but it's dishonest to change the game now, and frankly counter productive
    - darawk 8y ago
      > yes they can set up weird rules for their shop, but it's dishonest to change the game now, and frankly counter productive You agree to their terms before entering the shop. Everyone understands and knows this. Pretending you don't know their terms is willful ignorance. The moral issues here have been settled in law for centuries now. The only thing that actually changed is technical capability. A much better analogy is this: You walk into a music store, and there is a sign that says "Please do not play the instruments". The shop owner walks out of the store, and you start playing the guitars because "they're not here to enforce it, so the rule doesn't apply".
squeaky-clean 8y ago
People who use their service and also block ads aren't their customers though. They have no incentive not to block them. Sure it'd be best to come up with an alternate revenue stream that's less annoying and equally or more profitable than ads but obviously no one has or they'd be using it successfully.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

Thank you. Failures of your business model are not our problem. The only people who can force me to pay is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Everyone else can persuade me

criley2 8y ago
Enjoy your ban! I'm always pleased when companies stand up to grifters like you. Go back to stealing mp3s or whatever it is you think you're entitled to.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  I actually do pay spotify - I just object to the enforcement principle. (And apple music and Amazon - I think I need to rationalise that one) I think that the Apple / Amazon model is more appealing - pay us first or basically you get nothing. I guess this is the early signs of the Freemium model falling apart.
- stale2002 8y ago
  I am not sure why you are accusing someone of a crime ("stealing"). Installing an ad blocker is within someone's full legal right. Why are you making false statements regarding what is or is not a crime?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rstupek 8y ago
    It is and it's also within your rights not to use the service, or pay for it. Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it?
    - s_tec 8y ago
      > Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it? The Free Software movement has been fighting against this exact mentality for decades. Digital autonomy should be a basic human right. Anyone should be able to download and execute whatever code they want on their own computer. Spotify also has this right, of course, and is free to block users if they choose. I am not morally obliged to support their business model. At the same time, I choose to have a paid Spotify account because it's more convenient.
      - saalweachter 8y ago
        That's the free software movement, not the free music movement Although the latter may actually be the more venerable body.
        s_tec 8y ago
        I'm talking about the Free Software movement. I have a moral right to use ad-blocking technology, or any other software on my own computer. Spotify can refuse me service if they have a problem with this (no free music), but they can't make me feel guilty for blocking ads.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        If you're running the Spotify client, you're using their computer, too, not just your own. You have the right to kick them off of your PC or phone, and they have the right to kick you off of their server. What's the problem with that?
- seeker61 8y ago
  My experience with people, and your quick accusation, lead me to believe that you are a grifter.
- drewmol 8y ago
  Why steal mp3's when you can make copies for free?
darawk 8y ago
Do you say that when you shoplift too?
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  that's very clearly not what i meant :-) please see "end of freemium" comment If someone opens a shop and invites me to walk around, browse and chat, then that's nice - maybe i will buy. but saying "now you must pay an entrance fee because you are wearing earphones - we want customers to listen to our trained shop staff" is kind of defeating the point. yes they can set up weird rules for their shop, but it's dishonest to change the game now, and frankly counter productive
  - darawk 8y ago
    > yes they can set up weird rules for their shop, but it's dishonest to change the game now, and frankly counter productive You agree to their terms before entering the shop. Everyone understands and knows this. Pretending you don't know their terms is willful ignorance. The moral issues here have been settled in law for centuries now. The only thing that actually changed is technical capability. A much better analogy is this: You walk into a music store, and there is a sign that says "Please do not play the instruments". The shop owner walks out of the store, and you start playing the guitars because "they're not here to enforce it, so the rule doesn't apply".

squeaky-clean 8y ago

People who use their service and also block ads aren't their customers though. They have no incentive not to block them. Sure it'd be best to come up with an alternate revenue stream that's less annoying and equally or more profitable than ads but obviously no one has or they'd be using it successfully.