Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple music includes match
No it doesn’t. It’s a separate service
Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
951–960 of 963 posts
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#952Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple music includes match
I’m not sure it does, or if it does it doesn’t work very well. I have an apple music subscription. If I enable iCloud Music Library it only adds the songs to my other devices if they’re available on Apple Music. 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.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#953Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.pandora.com/upgrade
I pay for an Apple Music Family subscription, my wife still uses Pandora on occasion however. She trialed Pandora Premium and a couple months ago noticed her stations suddenly started playing very different music selections, so she decided to not upgrade.
Then it sounds like your problem has nothing to do with ads.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#954Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#955Earlier 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?
Just wanted to mention that any limitation in listening to a track is set by the artist, not Bandcamp. With an artist profile, you can set the number of times people can listen/stream your music before being prompted to buy (I have such a profile).
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#956Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, payment is giving money to something. Spotify itself says the ad-infested plan is free.
Payment is the exchange of value. Your attention for their product.
Emotionally manipulating people for profit, harming them not just by annoying them but also by impairing their ability to make rational decisions, is always wrong. And that's what advertising is.
If you sell yourself into slavery, you don't become a slave. If you use a product "in exchange for ads", you don't lose your right to protect yourself from them.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#957Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Spotify has reached a point where there's a potential (possibly even real, but I'm not in any position to know) higher return in monetizing existing users over improving the experience in order to gain new users or make sure they keep whatever miniscule number of users who'd otherwise leave over a lack of updates and improvements (or even a gradual loss of 'minor' features). Spotify is good enough for…
They lose more money and more if you actually use the service. Since they’re a publicly traded company now, they’re probably being pressured to keep earning more and more money each year.
That's true. They have a perverse incentive to reduce music played time or interaction with their service while still preserving one as a customer. I hadn't thought of that.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I took a copy of Stephen King's next book off his editor's computer and post it for free online before he sold a single copy, would it be a nasty rhetorical truck to call that stealing/theft/piracy...?
Totally different question, which is itself a nasty rhetorical trick - but also yes. You switched the topic from receiving for personal use to distributing. Demand promotes supply, I'm not unaware, but that doesn't make them equivalent - unless we'd like to equate drugdealing with possession, and scalping with buying a secondhand concert ticket? You also escalated from 'distribution' like burning a CD for a friend to…
Speaking of nasty rhetorical tricks, "personal use" is just a distribution at small scale.
It's just a rhetorical trick that pro-theft people (people who steal the hard earned labor of other people because of entitlement or, perhaps, just devotion to technical pedantry) use to justify their immoral behavior.
The creators of the content intended it to be available for purchase only and distributed it so that only those who pay could listen.
When you violate that intellectual property, you steal from them. You steal their labor, their time, their blood sweat and tears.
I'm always fascinated at the kind of evil it takes to justify this kind of stealing.
Just because they don't want you to have access to their labor doesn't mean you're entitled to it, no matter how many rhetorical tricks like "Personal Use" you use.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#959No one is allowed to guarantee that an ad shows up on a screen I own. They can TRY to show an ad on my screen, and I might let them. But the conditions of use of any type of free service they emit out into nature emphatically does not include being allowed to control what appears on my screen. Nope. Never. I am perfectly allowed to consume their free service AND ALSO control what I allow to appear on the screen that…
And Spotify can control their service how they please, next.
As a point of fact, they cannot, because their goal with "controlling their service" is to control what is displayed on someone else's personal property as a condition of listening to the free data stream they decided to emit.. and so Spotify (or anyone else) is not capable of making that a reality.
They could change their service to try to block users who protect their personal property from having certain harmful pieces of information (like ads) mixed in with otherwise freely available data sources. But it would just be a silly failure, since lots of people already circumvent that type of thing easily and legally with technology all the time.
The only thing they could actually do is to entirely shut down their emitted free stream of data all together, both content and ads alike. Of course they are free to do that if they want. Nobody suggested they have to emit a free stream of data.. only that if they choose to then people will just keep consuming it without allowing ads to appear, and the ads will keep being legally and successfully blocked regardless of any type of ban that Spotify tries to implement.
Re: Spotify will now suspend or terminate accounts it finds are using ad blockers
#960Earlier 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…
"But you can definitely buy their time. That's exactly what you sell when you're employed."
The relationship you have with your employees is the inverse of the relationship you have with your users. I think you don't understand the idea of entitlement anymore than stealing.
They aren't entitled to spotify if spotify doesn't want to do business with them but they are entitled to have a negative opinion about spotify and or spotify's actions.
The fact that an increasing share of spotify's users neither want to pay them or watch their ads is a failure on Spotify's part to capture those potential users and reliance on a business model that is fundamentally stupid.
The fact that ad supported multimedia worked for so long is not an indication of future longevity. Horses were a great method of transportation for longer.