731–740 of 963 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is within someone's full legal right to use an ad blocker.
Yep! Just like it's within Spotify's full legal right to ban you for using an ad-blocker.
This is the music industry. Spotify should be happy playing music for me in exchange for exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using US prices, a black basic coffee is probably $2-3 at a coffee shop. Any size coffee is $1 at McDonald's 24/7. The quality is improving, too, so it's something to remember when you're traveling in unfamiliar territory.
Hrmn, no thanks. I've never gotten a coffee at McDonald's that was a remotely drinkable temperature.
>In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[32]
>Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today[when?] is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[33] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[33][34] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[35] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
The temperature of the coffee in that case was not the real issue. The real issue was the flimsy cup design that was prone to collapsing in on itself (as well as a plaintiff who was easy to sympathize with and a defendant who was impossible to sympathize with.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not stealing or violating any law (as far as I know, and if there is a law against it, I vehemently oppose the law). It's no different than muting radio commercials or recording live TV and fast-forwarding through the commercials. I'm not responsible for Spotify's business model or tech stack. If Spotify wants to deliver free music bundled with advertisements, it's on them to implement that bundling correctly. I…
What is so special about network requests that should be an exception here? If you sign a lease for an apartment that requires you to get liability insurance from a separate provider of your choice, do you also think you have every moral right to not purchase such insurance because it's a different "endpoint"?
It would be like not knowing what insurance company you will have to use until you walk into your apartment for the first time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Within current legal standards you are. Ideally the government is supposed to step in and regulate situations like these to remove bad actors and provide consumer protections, since in a monopoly/oligopoly consumers can be forced to go without a service to comply with onerous conditions for that service and the music industry loves their monopolies. A website is currently absolutely within their rights to decline you…
This is what is frustrating. I will agree that users are subject to civil law, but that is not a moral claim. I am seeing so many people on HN taking a strong, rebuking moral stance on a civil matter. They hand wave the morality of Spotify allowing RCE by third-parties but feel indignant for a person breaking a fucking TOS or EULA.
If Spotify wants to suspend accounts for using adblockers, fine. I don't actually object. But I'm seriously disturbed by the number of comments here which equate using adblocked Spotify with 'stealing music' or otherwise imply that ToS violations are criminal acts. This sort of framing, by people who ought to know better, is why tech companies are still showing up in court pretending ToS violations are felonies under the CFAA. (And, thankfully, getting slapped down by increasingly-annoyed judges who understand the distinction.)
Creating a new copy of something is not the same as stealing the original, blocking ads is not the same as obtaining unauthorized access, security precautions aren't interchangeable with other approaches to adblocking, and violating a EULA is a civil matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iTunes Match combined with Apple Music gives me everything. Family sub for $14 month and $25 year for match to keep all my music even dodgy mp3s safe from bitrot is well worth it. I move dozens of times a year, I no longer have to haul books and cds, I for one welcome my digital overlord.
Apple music includes match
There doesn’t seem to be a way for me to upload my own MP3s to the service like you can on Google Play Music.
Long time premium spotify user, but it seems they are more interested in their ad-tech than anything else. They introduce 0 new features or improvements and in fact actually remove things over time. It's amazing to see a product continue to get worse. Before you could send your friends a message within Spotify to send a song for them to listen while in the application and could even carry on a discussion. It was slic…
Remember when subscribing to artists would give you alerts for when they released new content? It was a fantastic way of keeping up with new music. For me it was a killer feature. They replaced it with the terrible "Release Radar" playlist that shows a small sample of whatever this week's ML algo recommends. It's garbage.
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…
15 year old me had basically nothing. Paying $10 per month for pretty much anything was unthinkable. I still wanted to listen to music though, so I found ways. I really don’t think that was so terrible, and neither do I think the few million people that block ads are.
If enough people think the laws are terrible, then lobby your representative to have them changed. This is how the system works. Half the reason it doesn't work is admittedly our corrupt officials taking the big media money (RIAA and MPAA subsequently), but the other half the equation is you and me. Everyone just wants things to magically change and be the way they think they are suppose to be without putting any skin in the game.