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

671–680 of 963 posts

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

#671

Post by anonu »

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…

The "cup of coffee" unit of measurement is becoming increasingly popular when comparing digital subscriptions. Generally these things are incredibly cheap. For some reason people are ok spending 5 bucks on a latte for 30 days a month ($150) versus an order of magnitude less for Spotify, Netflix, etc...

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

#672

Post by gpderetta »

fastball wrote: post #634
gpderetta wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, and Starbucks should feel perfectly at ease kicking you out for that, just as Spotify plans to do. (actually Starbucks does not feel at ease doing that after the whole two men / racism fiasco, but they should feel justified in doing that).

Oh, I agree they can kick you out. But getting a coffee and walking away is very different from using the WiFi and walking away.

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

#673

Post by lancesells »

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…

In the article it doesn't say for free account only does it? So if you pay for the service but you have an ad-blocker running will you be suspended?

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

#674

Post by [deleted] »

stale2002 wrote: post #642
criley2 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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]

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

#675

Post by npongratz »

perfect_wave wrote: post #463
gowld wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDs don't send money to musicians either, unless they are self-publishing. But there's still a gap: I can't mix my paid-for (ripped) CDs and paid-for MP3s/AACs with streams in one app. This is the problem of letting the music distributer (Spotify) also control the player app.

Except you can do this with Spotify. https://support.spotify.com/is/using_spotify/features/listen...

For now. Spotify has removed so many useful features from their desktop app over the years, I won't be surprised in the slightest when they remove the ability to listen to local files.

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

#676

Post by loco5niner »

gowld wrote: post #401
akerl_ wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the approach is “I won’t use services that want to use 3rd-party-RCE-style ads”, it makes sense to me. But the folks who are blocking ads are taking Spotify’s offer (pay us, let us run our ads, or don’t use our service, pick 1) and trying to shoehorn a 4th option that Spotify doesn’t offer: get the content w/o Spotify getting paid. To tell Spotify “I’d use your service if you added an option where the ads didn…

Pandora and Google Play Music (and maybe Spotify too I don't know) put ads in the audio stream (and video, if you are looking at the app screen while listening to music for some reason). Seems simpler to do this than get into a technical arms race with users.

>Pandora and Google Play Music ... put ads in the audio stream

Why would you want to encourage Spotify to adopt this horrible practice? I don't WANT ads injected into the audio.

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

#677

Post by cr0sh »

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…

I wish there was an option to pay a per-day rate. I like Spotify for what it does (it would be nice if I could purchase the CD of the music I listen to - alas), but there are times when I go for days or weeks without listening to it.

I'm still debating on if I want to spend $10.00 a month on something I may not use often enough to justify it? For now, in the spirit of everything, and to not be blocked, I turned off my ad-blocker. I can deal with it for now.

One thing I think about that is analogous is the fact that every month I donate $5.00 to my local NPR station - but I haven't listened to it in months! But - those are tax deductible (or at least once were? I'm not sure how it works now this tax year), and I do like the station, but I can only take so much of it at a time.

Maybe if Spotify weren't a paid service, and instead were "listener supported" with tax deductible donations - I could more readily get behind it...?

Ten dollars a month isn't that much, sure - it's something I need to think about more (it would be nice if there were an easy way to track when you use Spotify and for how long; that could help me too).

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

#678

Post by [deleted] »

fastball wrote: post #548
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.

My only point is that you don't have a "right" to use the service. The ToS not being legally enforceable does not change that fact. Spotify can kick you off for violating their terms, but they can also kick you off for whatever they want. Being barred from the service is not some sort of injustice or violation of your rights, especially after breaking the terms. The people in this thread claiming they can do whatever…

[deleted]

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

#679

Post by johncolanduoni »

baddox wrote: post #657
DevKoala wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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"?

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

#680

Post by mechnesium »

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…

There’s a 4th option that somewhat falls under your number 2. AdNauseum (https://adnauseam.io/) spoofs interaction with ads while simultaneously blocking them. I suppose both the service and consumer can reap mutual benefits from AdNauseum.

You seem to take sides with business, but never forget the old adage: the customer is always right.

Post reply on HN