Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Bans Ad Blockers In Updated ToS (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the read-the-fine-print dept.

In an updated Terms of Service policy sent out on Thursday, Spotify is now explicitly banning ad blockers. "The new rules specifically state that 'circumventing or blocking advertisements in the Spotify Service, or creating or distributing tools designed to block advertisements in the Spotify Service' can result in immediate termination or suspension of your account," reports The Verge. From the report: The service already takes significant measures to limit ad blockers. In a DigiDay report from last August, a Spotify spokesperson revealed that the company has "multiple detection measures in place monitoring consumption on the service to detect, investigate and deal with [artificial manipulation of streaming activity]." After it was reported last March that 2 million users (about 2 percent of free Spotify users) were dodging ads with modded apps and accounts, Spotify began cracking down by disabling accounts when the company detected abnormal activity. Users were sent email warnings and given the chance to reactivate their accounts after uninstalling the ad-blocking software. In some rare cases where the problem persisted, Spotify would terminate the account. The new Terms of Service, which go into effect on March 1st, will give Spotify the authority to terminate accounts immediately, without warning.

90 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Banning ad blockers will never work by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And is the last gasp of a company that is destined to die. People will not put up with ads in the locations and quantity that publishers and marketers want. Nor should they have to.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And is the last gasp of a company that is destined to die. People will not put up with ads in the locations and quantity that publishers and marketers want. Nor should they have to.

      Bingo.

      First they load the site with enough ads to annoy me, then they take steps to make sure they can continue to annoy me. This is not exactly a recipe for success.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Recent article mentioned that Spotify and such "saved" the recording labels. Thus reviving and feeding the RIAA monster in the basement. Maybe that time is up. Let nature take its course as people vote with their mouse-clicks / wallets. A few "starving artists" for a few years might also reset the music "industry" to produce something worth listening to.

    3. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want money from your users, put the product behind a paywall. It is that simple.

    4. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And is the last gasp of a company that is destined to die.

      Most users have premium and fund the company way more than free accounts.

    5. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by dshk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not that simple. Almost all people choose an ad supported service over a paywalled. They tried microtransactions where you pay a really small amount, like 0.1 cents, but people don't want to pay at all, instead they prefer ads.

    6. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't prefer ads, that's why they block them.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    7. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that were true--that only a tiny fraction of revenue comes from ads to free users--then why would they even care?

    8. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ... and why should Spotify care is some sponging freeloader leaves, and stops wasting their bandwidth?

    9. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me start a patent application.

      Don't forget to mention the prior art in credit cards that allow you to generate virtual numbers that can only be used by a single vendor. E.g., cards from Citi, Chase and others.

    10. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. As it stands I don't want my CC# plastered all over 100,000 different website databases because we seem to have 20 breaches/second. If only there was a way to generate a pass...some kind of token...something that says "I have a business relationship with this business" that wasn't just a publicly accessible open-buffet single number.

      Like...a one-time number? A number that can only be used by one business. A single-person key of sorts. Better if we can vet the use of it and revoke it if it's being misused.

      I think I'm on to something here. Let me start a patent application.

      Way too late. Check with your bank/credit card service to see if they provide this service. Lots of them will generate a valid transaction code for one time use.

    11. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 2

      I don't buy it. I think plenty of people would happy pay for ad-free Spotify with 10 songs to the penny.

      They are way greedier than that.

    12. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you do not want ads, then do not visit ad supported sites. It is that easy.

      How? Given that they fight to put their links a the top of every search engine? Given that they edit every Wikipedia page to add their link, given that they spam everywhere with everything? There's no way to know you are visiting an ad supported page until you get there. Attempting to run your code on someone else's computer is a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Advertisers who try to ban ad blockers should be locked away for a minimum of 20 years.

      If you want to run an ad supported service and don't want people who don't want ads then disconnect from the internet now. Goodbye, good riddance. Get off my lawn.

    13. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but people don't want to pay at all, instead they prefer ads.

      To be clear, this is a false dichotomy. People do not want ads. People have never wanted ads. What they want is free and also NO ADVERTS. I know that's not possible, so I pay for Spotify to not get ads.

      What I'm concerned about is, I also paid for Adguard, the paid version blocks adverts for all apps on desktop and mobile.

      What I don't want is for Spotify to consider me one of the people that are ripping them off because "OMG AD BLOCKER DETECTED"

    14. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by kingbilly · · Score: 2

      I agree. With 6 users on our family plan constantly streaming music from devices for 15/month... I think we are getting 100 songs to the penny. And we are happy.

      It is not a bad deal at all. Comes to less that 3 a month per person. Not only are there no ads, but the syncing between devices is great. I have a few playlists that I add some tracks to while at home or at work, and those playlists default to downloading on my portable devices, so that I won't have to stream every time I am in the car.

      I'm estimating I listen to Spotify about 180 hours a month. Pretty good utility for 3 dollars a month, yet some luddite will call me stupid because Spotify could go away any moment and take the music with them. Implying these luddites don't spend at least 3 dollars a month on something that won't be around a month later (beer, movie tickets, hookers, food, etc).

    15. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by jezwel · · Score: 1

      Ads are not as big a problem as providing credit card data that seems to be leaked almost instantly.

    16. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However ads are dangerous and lead to other issues. Once there are ads the company will now want to have targeted ads to maximize income, or just add more and more ads to maximize income, outsourcing the ads to a third party that they can't control, etc. On computers these ad services are main vector for malware.

      An online music service should theoretically be better for the consumer than the radio in the automobile. There we are allowed to changed the station instantly when an ad comes on and we're not being tracked by what stations we prefer.

    17. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Cito · · Score: 3, Informative

      I use the open source dns server "Pihole" : https://pi-hole.net/
      Blocks all ads at the dns level for all devices on my network. For others I use Firefox with ublock and noscript extension to block spammy and malware scripts, and I use the extension Decentraleyes which protects privacy by evading large delivery networks that claim to offer free services, and added protection against trackers and browser fingerprinting.

    18. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by fyzikapan · · Score: 1

      Apparently 46% of users do pay for Spotify.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

    19. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by zidium · · Score: 1

      I have this exact concern for the exact same reasons!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    20. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by zidium · · Score: 1

      For those without enough time to read the article and do the math: 207 million users vs. 96 million premium users.

      96 / 207 = 46.37% +/- 0.50%

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    21. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what will happen. It is that inevitable.

    22. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by xonen · · Score: 1

      As one user i find 10 euro a month way too much. If i were listening to it for hours a day, maybe. Netflix already costs me over 10 euro a month, and it's at a constant struggle for monthly renewal. Spotify is just too expensive. 10 euro or dollar sounds like a bargain, but it's not.

      I went back to the traditional way. I use cd's -thrift stores sell them for $1 each-, i use youtube when i want to check out something new, or have a playlist and don't care for audio quality. And spotify can *** because their free service nags all the time with stupid promo's and an occasional read ad, and the paid service is too expensive for the infrequent times i use it.

      --
      A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    23. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because those freeloaders, in large amounts, are useful to inflate their numbers and make investors believe they are a successful business.

    24. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Active user figures. Look at the way the stock values of social media companies react in relation to changes to userbase - FB and Twitter evaluations have both taken a tumble because they failed to meet expected user growth targets, not just revenue targets; they're ultimately ad-companies so they *need* as many eyeballs as possible. It's also a risk; those users are going to go somewhere, and what happens if that somewhere becomes the Next Big Thing? Pretty sure Spotify doesn't want to become the next MySpace...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    25. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Because they need to make the free service less valuable. They want people to pay them to remove ads. Not remove the ads themselves.

    26. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Confused · · Score: 1

      Adblockers can be annoying for Spotify and its ilk and therefore they don't like them. When a company stoops so low to ban them, it just means their business model failed or they're doomed for another reason.

      It's like a shop with a rule to shoot shoplifters on sight.

      A total over-reaction which in the end won't help Spotify except help them to annoy customers and drive them away.

    27. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      I havea pfsense server with an ad blocker. Protects my systems including my mobile devices. Plus noscript for my desktop and laptops.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    28. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by Malc · · Score: 2

      I lost my Spotify account a few years ago, which was premium through a special deal through my phone company (Vodafone UK). I received an email that my email address had been changed, but no chance to confirm and accept the change. The hacker changed other details on the account preventing me from confirming any details, and apparently Spotify's security team had no access to historical account information. It was a work phone and I was travelling a lot, so I couldn't get the billing information they asked for quickly, but really, why should I have to work around their shoddy security. I won't pay them a penny. I stopped using the free version to check out music because the ads were using too much CPU and draining my battery, although maybe that shoddy programming has been fixed now? I hope in this case they're only banning ad blockers for the free service, rather than premium (if premium has ads now, then another reason I wouldn't subscribe).

    29. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 1

      Well... my wife got tired of the audio ads in the free version on her mobile. Got a family subscription which is great value.

    30. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. I think plenty of people would happy pay for ad-free Spotify with 10 songs to the penny.

      They are way greedier than that.

      Lots of people pay $10/month to use Spotify ad free. Not sure how the "per song" math works out, but their catalog is vast.

    31. Re: Banning ad blockers will never work by edris90 · · Score: 1

      What a user does with information that is willingly transmitted to them is out of the control of the transmitter, it is inherently uncontrollable, an inappropriate use of law enforcement and court systems for what is essentially a defunct idea. unenforceable and represent an excusable drain on public resources to try and prop up. When will people learn you can't litigate away basic principles of reality

    32. Re:Banning ad blockers will never work by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Short Spotify stock then.

  2. Guess who won't be using Spotify? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Q: Guess who won't be using Spotify?

    A: Everybody.

    Sorry, but if you prevent me from using an ad blocker you're basically preventing me from visiting your site. That's just how it works, nothing personal.

    So long, Spotify, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see any ads. Oh wait, it's because I actually pay for the service. You want free music streaming and avoid the ads as well? Sorry, but it's probably you who should be careful about the swinging door.

    2. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by crgrace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're using their free service but blocking ads you are actually costing them money because they have to pay for the songs they stream.

      So it is probably best you not use the service. Spotify isn't a charity.

    3. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I was already not using it.

    4. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Spotify isn't a charity.

      Neither am I.

      Here's the thing- if ads weren't so well-known as malware vectors I might allow them, but they're a clear and present danger to my computer.

      So, no.

      (And to be clear, I don't use Spotify, I've never used Spotify, and I sure as hell won't be using them now. This is all academic to me.)

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I was already not using it.

      Same here, but I couldn't resist kicking them while they're down.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    6. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by bigwill666 · · Score: 1

      Well, almost half of their subscribers are paid (and they are the real target of the service) and are not going to leave because of this change in the ToS. The ad supported option only exists to advertise the paid service as I believe they lose money on the free subscribers even with the few ads they play. So, if you are blocking their ads, they really don't want you anyway, something about them having to pay for each song they stream, and there is no chance you will start a paid subscription.

    7. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      The major reason is that if you want to advertisers to pay per ad viewed by the audience, then the advertiser (or rather, the ad network) generally wants to measure the number of views themselves to ensure that you aren't inflating the number.

      There are a number of people who instead monetize their site with ads as part of their content. These people generally get paid per click, rather than per view, often through an "affiliate" style arrangement.

      However, that requires the site owner to manage their advertising themselves, either by putting the fixed ad in a fixed place in their content, or by constantly updating the ad themselves. If you want to keep your ads "fresh", i.e. ensure that you're not advertising superseded products, which generate no revenue for the advertiser or yourself, you need to be constantly updating your ad catalog.

      In theory, this would be something you could outsource to an agent who specializes in ad sales, however the agents have proven themselves to be unscrupulous in that regard.

      --
      "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
    8. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Yet...they may NEVER die. ....sites like FuckJerry (something that I don't believe I've ever even HEARD of) are making $75000 off a single instagram post copying other people's shit and adding ads.

      I have to admit, I don't really understand how the internet economy works, where youtubers pull in $millions$ for nearly nothing...where is all this money coming from?

      --
      -Styopa
    9. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Username checks out beautifully.

    10. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Why would they care? They are a business. They are in it for the money. You are not providing them money.

    11. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 1

      We got a family subscription which cost approx. what a CD costs per month.

      For somebody actually listening to a lot of different music, that is actually pretty cheap...

    12. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Q: Guess who won't be using Spotify?

      A: Everybody.

      Sorry, but if you prevent me from using an ad blocker you're basically preventing me from visiting your site. That's just how it works, nothing personal.

      So long, Spotify, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      I'm sure they will be devastated at the loss of your $0/mo (since you were not in their paid customers) and the loss of your, er, not viewing their ads.

    13. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by bigwill666 · · Score: 1

      I have the same opinion about paid services. If I pay, then I want no ads at all, but if I choose a free service over the paid one I will put up with ads. And that is what this whole ToS change from them is about, people on the free service listening to ads and banning people who block them.

    14. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they will be devastated at the loss of your $0/mo

      They were already devastated since I never used them.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    15. Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      You should short Spotify stock then.

  3. Paying for a subscription is much better option by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Provided that the pay service performs demonstrably better. I don't have anything against advertising, but I think it is irresponsible that businesses outsource advertising. Not only have they handed over their revenue generation to someone else, but they have no control over the buffoonery in the ads.

    1. Re:Paying for a subscription is much better option by dshk · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.

    2. Re:Paying for a subscription is much better option by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Whats the math per year on ads per day on a web site from one browser?
      What would an average web site need to set that price at?
      A gift card per site per year would cost how much?
      A gift card per year that pools money into a browser fund that pays the site per visit?
      Something new that avoids the CC costs, a traditional payment system taking a huge %.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Paying for a subscription is much better option by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.

      Which shows you how much they actually value the service if they aren't willing to pay to get an ad free stream.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Paying for a subscription is much better option by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.

      2% of users block ads according to the summary so you're about 97% wrong.

  4. To the www soon? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    A web site detects an ad blocker.
    Content is not shown.
    Return to the site with a new ip and no blocker, the site loads.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:To the www soon? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      How many sites will go for a full ip ban now after detecting an ad blocker?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. What do the ad blockers do during ads? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    If it stops it from playing, then you get a few seconds of silence, which can also be annoying. Do they tell the stream the ad is over, a tactic that should be easy to detect given the sender knows the how long the ad should play? The most annoying thing i found was it insisted on playing ads for jobs, colleges, etc., for a town I have never been in and is hundreds of miles away form where I live; I guess my cellular provider gave them bad location data based on where they connected me to the internet.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  6. Customer respect by presearch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A long time ago, a founder of a very large software company (still in business BTW but not with him) told me
    he was against copy protection (and banned the use of it in the company) because you owe everything to your
    customers that pay and should disregard people that don't pay you anything.

    I thought that was an enlightened approach, and still do.
    That company is now neck deep in the software-as-a-rental model and the long paying customers feel screwed.

    I think they auto find another cad package...

  7. Re:Users ban Spotify by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like a net benefit for Spotify, currently you're costing them money on bandwidth and streaming fees, if you stop using their site you'll cost them nothing.

  8. Wonder how it will deal with network level blocks by linuxtelephony · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm on a network where the admins have blocked many/most ad servers for security reasons (ad companies have historically been tricked into serving malware with the ads).

    I wonder how Spotify will deal with that. This is not a block on the app, or the device, or even the computer, but rather at the network level. If their ads are served by the same servers as their content then it should be fine, but if their ads are served by separate servers that are already on a blocked list then it could be an issue. And not one the user can control unless they switch to a different network, if available, or disable wifi and use mobile data. If they shut down my account for this then so be it, because I won't use my mobile data just for them when wifi is available.

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  9. Barney the Purple Dino Sings.... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 3, Funny

    You block me,
    I ban you,
    we just roll around in poo,
    singing "Pay for it or don't block ads,
    as we are a bunch of cads..."

    It's our right,
    even if it's wrong,
    So get it on and bang a gong,
    If you wanna listen to your favorite song,
    You are forced to suck upon the corporate dong,

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  10. Re:Users ban Spotify by sgage · · Score: 1

    And when 80% of their users leave, who will pay them to advertise anyway?

    There has to be a better way. I know some people are way into their music and all, but for me, ads are not acceptable, and I'll just do without. I've got enough (purchased over the last 45 years) music on my drive to last me forever anyway.

  11. I have a 100 GB Music Collection for a reason by Hey_Jude_Jesus · · Score: 1

    I don't need no stinking advertisements. I paid for 95% of it over the last 30 years, so I'm not freeloading on Natalie Merchants Music.

  12. Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    I don't even like 'streaming' services, especially for things like music, although so many of you here on Slashdot would argue that I should be -- but Spotify disqualifies itself entirely with this move. I'm not going to disable adblockers and NoScript and other things I have loaded just to access anyones' service, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. Enjoy going out of business, Spotify. And nothing of value was lost.

    1. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by Petersko · · Score: 1

      âoeAnd nothing of value was lost.â

      Are you referring to your traffic on their site? Then yes. I agree.

    2. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Many people use adblockers and for damned good reasons. If they're stupid enough to piss off their customers by making it a violation of their ToS to use an adblocker then I guess they don't care if they stay in business -- and I don't think 'services' like Spotify are worthwhile in the first place and I'd be perfectly happy to see them all go out of business. I'd much prefer the free internet radio we once had before ASCAP and everyone else involved jumped on them and beat them to death. If that all 'triggers' you then that's your problem not mine.

    3. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      You're not a customer. They make no money from you, and wouldn;t even if you used the service. Why do you think they care? "Oh no! people we're making no money from are no longer costing us money! what will we do!?"

      I'm really not seeing a problem here from Spotify's point of view.

    4. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Are you dumb? Any chance I'd ever be persuaded to use their shitty service has now dropped to ZERO. Do you think I'm the only person on the planet who can say that? That they're now going to attract fewer new customers?

    5. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      They already do that, it's called BROADCAST RADIO. I already get that for free.

    6. Re: Not a Spotify customer and never will be, then by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If they did offer a service that you - someone who has no interest in music streaming - wanted, how would they actually fund it? You're obviously not willing to pay a subscription, and you're not willing to put up with advertising.

      You are not a potential customer. You are a potential freeloader. Why do they want a potential freeloader?

  13. Then I don't need Spotify. by Chas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, but ads are, unfortunately, a transmission vector for malware and compromise code.

    I do not choose to open my systems to that.

    And, even if I did, it's MY desktop real-estate, not the ad purveyor's.

    If they wish to lock me out of their service? C'est la vie.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Then I don't need Spotify. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Ads are what supports their free version. Stop being a cheapskate and pay for premium if you don't like them.

      In some cases I do!

      But I will NOT be nickeled and dimed to death by every last website on the planet.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:Then I don't need Spotify. by Chas · · Score: 1

      I won't.

      Because I won't even come in...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  14. Re:Users ban Spotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you were to (gasp!) RTFA, you'd see that they claim that only 2% of the free-service users are smart enough to employ ad blockers. So to your corrected question, "And when 2% of their users leave", I don't think they'll be too crushed at the loss.

  15. So I must allow ads to go... where exactly? by TentativeFate · · Score: 2

    Ok, so I'm not allowed to set my browser to not download ads.
    I guess I'm also not allowed to prevent ads from being displayed on screen?
    Am I allowed not to look? Or must it also reach my eyes?
    Am I allowed not to pay attention? Or must I let it into my brain? My mind? My soul? My very existence?
    Why not just force me to buy the damn thing you're promoting and get this over with?

    1. Re:So I must allow ads to go... where exactly? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I'm not allowed to set my browser to not download ads.

      Of course you are. You are also allowed to choose which data you do and don't upload. Spotify are taking advantage of this right.

      I guess I'm also not allowed to prevent ads from being displayed on screen?

      Of course you are. If a company wants to stop doing business with you as a result then they're entitled to do so.

      Am I allowed not to look? Or must it also reach my eyes?

      You can choose to do what you want here. I think your argument has sort of gone off the rails a little.

  16. Re:Close your eyes by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Will that prevent you from hearing the ads?

    Spotify is an audio service.

  17. Re:Wonder how it will deal with network level bloc by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Seems they do use dedicated ad servers. To be honest, this surprises me. I'd have thought that would add complexity to the app, and make blocking easier.

    I guess that will be caught in the ad block test.

    Your options are to stop using the service (a win for Spotify because they no longer need to pay for a user they get no advertising revenue for) or pay for the service (also a win for Spotify).

  18. 'twas nice while it lasted. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    NEXT!

    (and yes, I am yelling. That's the point)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Pay for things twice! by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    Like ads in theatres. This is why I already have every note by every artist I ever wanted to listen to stored locally on my own hard drives

  20. next by Torvac · · Score: 1

    whats next ? wont allow virus scanners or fresh air ?

  21. get rid of the 'free' service by sad_ · · Score: 1

    netflix doesn't have one, and they seem to be doing more then OK.
    why couldn't spotify only have subscription based model?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  22. Re:Wonder how it will deal with network level bloc by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering the same thing. I used to manage the proxy at work and I used it to block ads, with a twist. The proxy didn't return a 403 code for the ads, since that would clutter up the pages with ugly block messages. I had the proxy just return an empty HTML page for the request instead. At that time, I never saw any of the 'you are running an ad blocker' redirects and I suspected there was some sort of code looking for a blocked or null response to an ad request, and my proxy returning a blank page instead fooled them. Good idea, I am going to try that at home this weekend and see how it works now.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  23. Don't block ads! Click on them all! by Kludge · · Score: 1

    https://adnauseam.io/ clicks on all the ads for you. This add-on was blocked by Google, because they are more afraid of this than ad blockers. It must be great.
    But still flush your cookies when you close your browser.

  24. AI-Assisted Ad-Blockers Ban Spotify by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    Me: Genious, I heard of something called Spotify, find me some new music on Spotify

    Genius: There is no such thing as add free music on Spotify. Spotify is no longer relevant.

    Me: Ok, Genious, find me some new music.

    Genius: Ok, here are some new tracks in a genre that you like.

    ......

  25. Or ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Or you could just, you know, pay for the service.

    It's $10/mo. For dang near all the music catalog anybody could want. You can't buy one CD for that.

  26. Never paying for music again by ne1av1cr · · Score: 1

    I will never pay for music again in my life. You can't make me. The problem for them is that the hoops they'd have to make their desired users jump through to keep me away would drive those users away too.

  27. Cool. Another reason not to use it by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    Beyond the terrible interface, the stupid social stuff, and the lack of anything by my favorite band (tool).

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  28. In related news: Ad blockers ban Spotify by twms2h · · Score: 1

    (some text to keep the filter happy, but really, the content is the subject)

  29. Re:Users ban Spotify by Luthair · · Score: 1

    The same advertisers, in fact they might be overjoyed if they're currently being charged for listens that aren't happening. Why would advertisers give a shit about users who don't see their ads?