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

931–940 of 963 posts

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

#931

Post by jshowa3 »

colemickens wrote: post #869
jshowa3 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want to pay for it because there are mechanisms in place that sustain these businesses outside of ads. Just think about how much VC money is dumped into these services that never or barely generate a profit and they're all free to use and have been for years. Twitter and Snapchat come to mind. Blocking ad blockers is incredibly annoying and is just an excuse for ad spamming. Let me tell you watching Yout…

>People don't want to pay for it because there are mechanisms in place that sustain these businesses outside of ads. Just think about how much VC money is dumped into these services that never or barely generate a profit and they're all free to use and have been for years. Please correct me if this is disingenuous, but I feel like you basically just said you're used to having VCs subsidize your entertainment platform…

Please correct me if this is disingenuous, but I feel like you basically just said you're used to having VCs subsidize your entertainment platforms and that you've extrapolated that entitlement into a justification for never paying for any entertainment acquired over the Internet.

It has worked for several years. So why not?

At the very least, it seems obvious that it's unsustainable and likely that creative artists will be the first squeezed.

It's unlikely this would ever happen. But mostly, I'd be fine with embedded ads if they were used responsibly. But, according to Wikipedia, Spotify was founded over 10 years ago. In 2017, it was reported that it was still not profitable despite its subscription models: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38930699. Last year it launched an IPO. So somehow, Spotify magically became profitable enough to launch an IPO or it lasted over 10 years from what looks like VC funding without being profitable and is still not profitable. That leaves only one question, how does such a business survive so long without profit and did VC's really care considering how popular the platform is.

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

#932

Post by michaelmrose »

Sebb767 wrote: post #916
michaelmrose wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing is a term of art for the legal arena. Just like a million idiots who call their entire tower a cpu doesn't serve to redefine a technical term you "feeling" like not watching ads is stealing food from your mouth doesn't mean that it is. There are a number of pieces of actual property involved but the user isn't carting off Spotify's servers and spotify isn't breaking into the users home and stealing their lap…

Well, stealing is be defined as[0]: > a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully Using Spotify without paying them, either directly or by watching ads, falls under that definition. The fact that there is no actual object being taken does not impact this. If you create a great piece of software and I copy and then sell it, would you not consider it stealing? Afte…

Ip infringement is indeed not stealing it is its own separate issue more akin to breach of contract than theft.

Intellectual property is virtually nothing like property.

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

#933

Post by themacguffinman »

acct1771 wrote: post #889
themacguffinman wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify isn't reaching into your computer and running ads, you are running Spotify. If you don't want Spotify and its dependencies, you can simply not run Spotify.

The ads weren't a dependency, and technically speaking, still aren't. They could force them to be. And socially, are. But, they're not technically.

I'm not sure why a "technical" dependency matters. A shirt at a shopping mall doesn't "technically" need a security tag, but it's not my prerogative to remove it.

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

#934

Post by jsgo »

hanspeter wrote: post #909
jsgo wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very interesting take. What prior legal action justifies it? This seems more akin to cable services here. For all intents and purposes, all of the channels they provide are served to the home, but they then restrict based off the package you’re paying for. In Spotify’s case instead of restricting (unless they have premium only channels/content), they’re adding advertisements. To block the ads is analogous to…

I don't know if that's an interesting take. That's what it means. I'm unaware if there's any prior legal actions but terms are written not only for any prior legal actions but also for any possible legal actions. An analogy to cable services would be if you had something installed on your TV that automatically switched channel or put on a cat youtube video, when the commercials are on on and switched back when the co…

Okay, how about this: it’d be like granting an entity (Spotify) the ability to put signs (advertisements) in your yard (browser window), and then when they go to do so, you prevent them from entering your yard (browser window).

If it isn’t against the agreement directly, it certainly is against the spirit of it. And that holds a lot of weight. Because what is the point of being able to show you advertisements if you’re going to block them from even rendering?

I get it. I don’t like ads either. Well, I’m generally fine if they make some degree of sense (none of the odd ones where it has a picture of an onion partially covered by a sock or something) or don’t hijack the browser (massive redirect that eats back history and presents me with some “congratulations, click here” thing). But if I don’t like the ads, I’m free to either pay for Spotify without advertisements or not use Spotify at all. No one is holding a gun to my head that I must have them (and I don’t after a promo period with Sprint) and they do have to pay licensing for that music (to include some kind of fee per x streams of given songs to ASCAP or whatever). That doesn’t even factor in the infrastructure requirements on their end. So why would anyone expect this to be totally free to a user?

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

#935

Post by ddebernardy »

dylan604 wrote: post #865
ddebernardy wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless. If radios can get away with throwing an ad every few songs, why can't Spotify et al ?

Because my radio playing an ad does not offer the potential for damaging my computer

How can an audio ad served by Spotify served in between two songs possibly damage your computer?

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

#936

Post by manicdee »

akerl_ wrote: post #340
kgwxd wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…

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…

Spotify telling us, "you have to let us run unvetted third party software on your device to listen to music for free" is completely different from, "here is an ad-supported music streaming option."

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

#937

Post by dylan604 »

ddebernardy wrote: post #935
dylan604 wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because my radio playing an ad does not offer the potential for damaging my computer

How can an audio ad served by Spotify served in between two songs possibly damage your computer?

How would an ad blocker affect those ads? Why be obtuse? Ad blockers run in a browser to block ads from the visited website. Those ads have in the past and currently been known to deliver malicious code to the browser. Spotify is threatening to suspend the accounts of someone protecting their system from this attack vector.

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

#938

Post by majani »

akerl_ wrote: post #340
kgwxd wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…

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…

Maybe Spotify and others could offer an option to serve untargeted ads, but hide it away under heaps of menus and technical jargon such that only the 0.1% of their users who are obsessed with this topic will bother with it

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

#939

Post by jamiek88 »

8ytecoder wrote: post #697
jamiek88 wrote: post #650

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

No it doesn’t.

It’s a separate service

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

#940

Post by mancerayder »

00deadbeef wrote: post #183
wolco wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix offers too much value for a small amount plus the size of movies makes downloading/previewing the throwaway type of netflix shows make it hard to justify the effort to pirate. Spotify always seems less useful compared to winamp if you knew what music you liked or like to download everything from one band who's best days are behind them. A hassle for new stuff but if you want the all of the 'yes' albums the ra…

For me it's the opposite way around. Netflix's UK catalogue is tiny compared to the US, but Spotify always has the music I want. I pay for Spotify, but not Netflix.

A bit of a tangent, but the production quality and writing of shows on BBC iPlayer is high compared to Netflix. Netflix shows increasingly feel like they're written for a generic audience, with a lot of mediocre writing and, I hate to say it, a little dose of virtue signaling as well.
Post reply on HN