Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 963 posts

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#611

Post by Tsubasachan »

bscphil wrote: post #551
judge2020 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already do this, there are constant interruptions for 30-second audio ads. Currently, you can turn the audio down, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do something akin to the black mirror episode "fifteen million merits" where you have to look at/listen to the ads for them to go away. The main gripe is using adsense which can still often be used to deliver malware.

If I'm not mistaken the audio ads still use ad servers, so if you're on a network where someone is running a PiHole or something similar, the ads will be blocked. So running Spotify on an another person's network could get your account suspended if they're blocking ads, I guess.

Hopefully Spotify doesn't ban my paid for account because I'm using an Android wide ad blocking solution.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#612

Post by gpderetta »

munk-a wrote: post #553
zanny wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Sales have very specific laws. When you buy a coffee you are entering in a contract.

Walking in a Starbucks and using the free WiFi without buying anything is a better example.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#613

Post by dTal »

rchaud wrote: post #324
MarsAscendant wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you don't do this already: You can use Bandcamp Downloader [ https://github.com/Otiel/BandcampDownloader ] to download the artist's music – including any or all albums and any of the songs – just by entering the addresses of the pages. Might make getting the audio easier, considering you've already paid.

BC lets users stream every track at least a couple of times before asking you to pay. This 'free plays limit' resets after a few days, so theoretically, you wouldn't have to pay to hear it ever. I like the reminder because I'm more willing to support independent artists, and if I get the prompt for a song I like, why not pay $5-8 or whatever to have it in my collection?

There's a limit? I stream a good bit off Bandcamp and I've never once hit it.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#614

Post by PSZD »

john-radio wrote: post #448
bad_user wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.

People who use Spotify are equally freeloading, since Spotify's business model grants its artists only pennies on the dollar.

Pennies on which dollar, exactly?

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#615

Post by munk-a »

v_lisivka wrote: post #590
munk-a wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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)).

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#616

Post by CharlesColeman »

pytyper2 wrote: post #584
Changee6 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inert, no-cookie ads are the compromise position between total blocking and allowing arbitrary code execution and tracking.

Then you can't target the ads to those who most likely will buy, then each impression is worth less in most ad marketplaces. I don't think you will be able to suggest a solution if you ignore the true desires of the buyers and sellers of ads.

> Then you can't target the ads to those who most likely will buy, then each impression is worth less in most ad marketplaces. I don't think you will be able to suggest a solution if you ignore the true desires of the buyers and sellers of ads.

Their desires aren't the only factor in the equation here. If they want to satisfy their desire to have their ads seen at all, they're going to have to sacrifice some of their other desires. If they expect the user make all the sacrifices, then they shouldn't complain when users like me mercilessly block them, encourage others to do so, and do what I can to encourage regulation that would destroy them.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#617

Post by amatecha »

jbeales wrote: post #331
cletus wrote: post #255

Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…

Here's the thing(s): 1. It's not just 1 type of ad. In Little Snitch, I have permitted Spotify to connect to 281 different domain names, most of which are ad-related. That's a lot of companies being allowed to run JS in whatever webview Spotify uses to display ads. I don't listen much on my computer anymore. 2. They keep advertising deals to me - $0.99 for a month, or $9 for 3 months, that I can't subscribe to becaus…

Dang, it's pretty telling that they don't provide their paid offerings to users due to the consumer protection laws in the respective region...

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#618

Post by grawprog »

munk-a wrote: post #553
zanny wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

>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.

I have watched people do exactly this as well as many variations on this theme...at Starbucks.

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#619

Post by xbkingx »

Are they still going to take all sorts of telemetry and 'share' (read:sell) it to third parties if I pay for the service? Yes? Okay, then I'll continue to support the most dastardly peglegs to ever sail the seven seas. I value my personal data at twice the value of their service, so technically I'm paying more than my fair share by not collecting on it. I'm saving THEM money - they would owe me the cost of their service if I didn't block ads. And just like Spotify, I don't have an opt-out option, so I don't take it personally if they cease to provide service. I mean, technically, I DO require a 3 month notice and reserve the right to collect a $50,000 early termination fee, but I'm a nice guy.

It's funny how automated systems that are impossible to oversee operate. It's almost as if it shouldn't be allowed, but, hey, they have my info and could have contacted me.

You get my data or my money, not both. There was a time when I would be fine with data collection - when it actually improved the product - but now that it's another revenue stream to sell all that off to random third parties I have no control over, sorry, no dice. I have zero qualms with people not wanting advertising thrown at them 24/7 while their life is continuously data mined.

Advertising is mental pollution. It's not even junk food, since it offers no sustenance. It's predatory. People need to stop pretending it's an inconsequential option to throw it on a mediocre product no one would actually buy. If someone told me the apps/programs I paid for bumped their prices up by 10x, I would still buy them. If I installed your app and chose the ad-riddled version, it's because I barely care that it exists or didn't want to bother with sifting through 10,000 clones.

This is what we get for the mobile app race-to-the-bottom. Mentally, "$0.99 vs free" is much closer to "$20 vs free", than "$20 vs $40". But, now we're stuck. No one's going to up their price to something reasonable, and if stores eliminate the free tier, then the ads will just migrate to the lowest priced tier. I 100% expect that ads will require camera permissions and force you to look at them within 10 years, maybe 5. Are people still going to be singing the startup-saving praise of ads when Pepsi is permanently burned into their retinas? "I mean, you're already looking at your phone, and you get this neat flashlight button!"

Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers

#620

Post by munk-a »

pytyper2 wrote: post #586
munk-a wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately a compromise like that could only be reached through enforcement by a third party (probably the government) and in the current political climate that's not going to happen.

Oh no don't suggest that.

Why... not?... It's pretty clear market forces haven't been strong enough to enforce privacy rights in terms of sleazy advertisers? Granted, the internet is pretty new when you look at the scale of history, but I think the role of advertisers in our internet has stabilized at this point, overt malware brings repercussions, user tracking causes privacy advocates to speak out and... the hordes on facebook keep on facebooking.
Post reply on HN