Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I'll just leave this here...
* unless the adverts are intrusive, e.g Audio/Visual in a non Audio Visual environment or cause unexpected crashes and/or carry spyware or melware which may hurt your computer... any other uses are totally unacceptable ESPECIALLY when the is an option in place to bypass them all.
but they'll only get less if people start using adblockers, besides Spotify is a significant step up from the artists getting no money at all angle which the world was running on 2 years ago.
your arguments always prove to be misguided, you always seem focused on musicians best interests and their fans but your arguments always boil down to 'things you can afford' such a dull opponent.
you aren't entitled to stuff for free ya know... the more people use free options without adverts the more likely things will become a lock out in the future in order to fund the maintenance of services and of course to provide a profit for peoples time & skills, which is only fair.
Otherwise internet ads are junkmail by another name.
If sites are so confident in the value of their offering they are completely free to self host ads so that adblockers won't automatically block them. Or they can limit what they freely publish and put up a paywall.
Third party adservers have already begun to offer their clients the ability to first party adserve whilst still using all of the third party technology behind it all.
*ONLY when the is an option in place to bypass them all.
Self-hosted ads, arranged by the site = fine.
Automatically served ads from third party servers = gonna get automatically blocked. The web as it is is a fucking travesty without ad block. It's becoming a fucking travesty even /with/ ad block now that sites are too lazy to code anything and just serve up automatic lists of shitty facebook links.
and they leave the room when the adverts come on to make a cup of tea does that make them a cunt?
If you really don't want adverts then pay a fiver, you tight bastards. If you really don't want to give artists money, then go download their music for free. Easy.
Also, the anti-virus thing suggests this may have a trojan.
if they downloaded the music it'd be less damaging then if they were to use this software... before you were only fucking the artists and labels but now you're fucking Spotify on top of it.
This is good
Comes straight out your account via paypal and i never even notice it. Christ, what's the world coming to.
I can't see how anyone who loves music couldn't afford £5 a month, even students and you tax stealing dole bludgers...
Spotify = too cheap, even at £10 pm, for rental of 'almost all' music ever.
Paying for rental of recorded music ain't my bag.
(If I ever pay for Spotify, and i /might/, it'll be for the technological convenience of having trybeforeyoubuy on my phone or whatever. Not because of any misguided notion about artist recompense.)
Given that as you say below, it only gives you rental access to music, not permanent possession.
``c'mon, it's only a fiver``, who see some sort of direct equivalence between buying recorded music and renting access to it, and then make claims that they're 'doing the right thing', and anyone that doesn't subscribe to spotify must be some sort of scrounger.
Renting music through spotify is legal and exists with the agreement of artists/labels. Can't see how you can take a superior attitude about that really.
^EXACTLY the point I was making in that respect for copyright thread. And you waved it away. So forgive me for just largely copypasting my clarification...
I'm not saying it's not legal or without the agreement of artists/labels. Just that anyone who says... ``c'mon, it's only a fiver``, who sees some sort of direct equivalence between buying recorded music and renting access to it, and then makes claims that they're 'doing the right thing', and anyone that doesn't subscribe to spotify must be some sort of scrounger... needs to rethink.
then it seems strange to quibble. But I don't think we're really disagreeing here. Renting at £5 per month is valid, buying music is valid, renting by enduring advertisements is valid, and any combination or those is valid.
(By valid here I mean with agreement of all parties concerned. I also think filesharing is ``valid``, but obviously I would define that differently).
Taking the mutual consent that artists/labels and Spotify have out of the equation leaves us with listeners.
Spotify listeners who pay for it is fine. It's fairly neat tech, after all. Don't have a problem with these people though.
But Spotify listeners who self-righteously barrack those who don't pay for it, especially by suggesting that paying for it is /directly/ 'helping the artists maaaaan', in some significant way ain't true. <--- These are the people need to reel their necks in.
isibuko points out the indirect benefits of Spotify downthread (and they mainly centre on going to gigs and buying records from him direct). I don't and wouldn't dispute them.
are mental, agreed.
I guess all that remains is to laugh heartily at those deluded-but-self-righteous clowns who think that by paying for premium, or using the free version and listening to the adverts, they are contributing even 1p more towards the music they want everyone to know they love. And so laugh I shall.
And i pay £5 for spotify because i hate advertising in all it's forms. But you don't know me personally so you weren't to know. ;)
That's fine. It's a legit reason for subscribing.
And Spotify is a great trybeforeyoubuy resource. Despite my aversion to ads, I accept that they're there, and they're of minimal intrusion for such use.
I ain't never gonna rent music though. And that's all spotify effectively is. Rental. And a lot of people (most?) don't realise that Spotify uses a peer-to-peer network. It relys on sharing and uploading via the bandwidth of on your internet connection. An internet connection that you've already paid for. You could even go as far as to say that Spotify is merely an old skool p2p, totally reliant on it's users to seed the service about, but layered with DRM so that 'the industry' is placated for the time being.
Whatever... As I say, I like Spotify for what it is. But you're kidding yourself if you think that it's not gonna have it's fees ramped up and up to the point where you're left wondering if it's worth it (look at emusic). But you're (not you personally) left with nowt once you stop your subscription, cos you never actually owned anything.
A rant. But necessary, when so many people get so self-righteous about paying for Spotify, and start throwing cheapskate jibes about. I'm happy I've paid a fair amount for my lot. The proof is in the record collection photo thread.
a) Too restrictive or,
b) Too costly
I have no doubt whatsoever that it's going to change big time now it's in the US. Labels are going to start being far more restrictive now it's being taken seriously.
I have enjoyed it and it's worth far more to me than £5 a month. That's one days lunch at work pretty much. Fine, sign me up.
I mainly use it for listening to random music. I'm hardly going to go on there and listen to Radiohead, MBV or any other of my favs because i already own it, so if Spotify pushes people like myself out then it's no big deal to me really. It was fun while it lasted. I see it the same way i view relationships, if it works out then great! If it doesn't, it was good while it lasted.
"I mainly use it for listening to random music" and "i pay £5 for spotify because i hate advertising".
Re: "it's worth far more to me than £5 a month". To you, maybe. But a lot of other people think that they're some kind of major benefactor for giving up on p2p pirating and stumping up £5/10pm.
Also: That's quite an expensive lunch. :-)
If you're ever a bit brassic, Morrison's do some neat cheap sushi. <3 their £1.50 veggie option.
or you're some kind of industry guru who somehow has the right to dictate new consumption models you have no knowledge of
The people who start throwing around the cheapskate jibes are doing exactly the same thing. Except their claims are wrong.
Everybody is obviously free to spend above and beyond the fiver a month. But that's an aside from the fact that a fiver a month to rent 'all music' isn't as high and mighty as some people like to pretend.
Who do they need to buy music if they're happy renting? Just like housing innit?
It's not that they aren't happy with themselves. Deal with it.
Just thought it was interesting.
with Spotify and the like. Eventually label pressure will mean that only subscribers can use the service and artists will start getting some money from it, albeit still f-all but more than now.
I have a friend in a band, a very successful one who says that Spotify just have a pot of money each quarter the divide up between the artist by play counts. Considering the stature of his band, he still says they get fuck all.
Pretty obvious info but thought worth sharing.
Those figures don’t include publishing/songwriter royalties though, which do add up.
I think for most artists Spotify isn’t a way of making money, it’s more of a portal. It’s like those articles which say that Lady Gaga only earned $100 or whatever for 1 million listens of her track on Spotify…which totally ignore the fact that she has had over 20m paid downloads. Spotify is just part of that marketing strategy, and it’s an important part…basically a radio on demand service which does frequently lead to other things.
In my band, we’ve got our EP on Spotify through our label (as well as a couple of things on compilations), and it’s amazing the number of people who come to our shows having heard our EP on Spotify. That’s important, and these people are often the ones who are first to buy the record direct from us at gigs. Spotify is now a really important part of the way that people listen to music, and whilst it’s not a perfect service I think that it’s pretty narrow to see it simply in terms of these royalty stats.
who knows? he's certainly not forward in giving them away if he does. pays £85 pound a month for sky footy though, so...
most expensive package on their website is £62.25.
1. he doesn't make his own music.
2. he doesn't make his own films.
3. he doesn't pay an £85pm sky subscription.
4. he's obviously on the wind up.
i thought that was gonna be a mediafire link to your latest album
I really was just 'leaving it here' after I read about it on Lifehacker and there was a previous thread about annoying spotify ads.
But at least I can now say I started a thread that wasn't about Primavera that more than two people have posted on.
where brightonb and TheWza don't wave their canes at the young people? I personally hope not.
if you work it out, society in general will pretty much be fixed.
I'd like to point out I don't care about this debate at all, I just find it really amusing that almost any Spotify thread will be degenerate into the pair of you howling at the moon.
who come blazing in shouting about how it's only a fiver, but miss the irony that it's only a fiver (for now).
The scamps, but boys will be boys.
Every. Single. Time.
And then the threads tend to go quiet once facts are rolled out in response to the name-calling. See also: knowing the argument is lost and resorting to claims that being 32 is decrepit.
just, y'know, getting that way...
Could you repeat that? This bloody hearing aid is playing up again.
WHAT? COULD YOU RETYPE THAT IN CAPS, MY EYESIGHT AIN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE AND I'VE JUST MISPLACED MY READING SPECS WHILST MAKING A MUG OF OVALTINE.
It was just an amusing little image to illustrate an amusing little trait you have. Also I was calling you names because you're funny, I don;t care either way in this *debate*.
People saying it's ''renting' music don't quite understand how the world is going to end up - soon, you won't have anything on your hard drive. you'll just stream it all from the cloud, movies, documents, books... it's coming.
however, the thing with spotify is that you are streaming, essentially, someone elses music collection. look at amazon cloud drive, or google music - you upload your own music. or itunes in the cloud is just the music you have bought, available to any device. but my point is that mobile devices are going to stream /everything/ and spotify is just one way of doing it.
see, i buy music. i actually buy more music now that i did before spotify. i don't illegally download anymore. spotify is used to sharing it to friends, making playlists, getting some new stuff that i might not have or older stuff i might have lost. it's not a replacement for buying music, and i think that even spotify know that - hence the buying feature inside the program, that probably NEVER gets used.
Nah. At the very, very least I'll have a backup on my hard drive. Documents, in particular. cf: dropbox.
Music, too. The music on my hard drive is mostly already a backup, tbf. A backup of my CDs.
By the very nature of it. We have a different relationship with music than we do with books and films. As popular as the kindle may be, paper books have plenty of longevity in 'em. And movies have a long history of rental - it's been standard to rent films as long as it's been possible to put it onto VHS. And they don't need 'the cloud' to be delivered digitally. I've been buying fims on demand for years via cable without the need for a computer.
All of these things, and the fact that Spofity (in it's current business model) can never be a full replacement for bought music - in terms of satisfying many many music fans, or in terms of staisfying 'the industry'. For Spotify to displace bought music would necessarily mean that 'the industry' has changed to the point where it's almost incomparable to the way it has been for the past 50 years. Now, that might happen. Maybe. But there will always be people who want to /own/ recordings of music. Be that on vinyl or CD. Because there will always be music collectors. And you can't barely collect mp3s. And you definitely can't collect rented streams.
It's a bloody good service though. If the adverts annoy you to the point of making a fiver worth paying, then yeah, pay up. And if the mobile technology is worth a tenner, then all good too.
except idiots, like. I've never clicked on an ad in my life and probably never will. I'm a spotify subscriber and die by adblock. There's no loss to anyone.
that's not how it works. most if not all people have no intention to click on the ads, you support it by allowing them the opportunity to present you with something you might want to click. it really isn't unreasonable to think that if you use spotify for a year and see hundreds of ads, you will at one point see one ad that interests you enough to click through.
that's what they rely on. huge userbase + occasional click through per user = frequent click throughs.
and probably never will. fine if someone else will click an ad but there's no loss from me whatsoever.
the are people like yourself who won't click on ads but value is added to adspace for potential customers & every single person who goes on this site is counted as a potential customer! With people like yourself blocking ads the 'hits' the ads get goes down therefor so does the number of potential customers so therefor the adspace value depreciates.
I often find it's people who use stuff like Ad Blockers that complain most when the site doesn't function properly & you aren't helping with that attitude.
which isn't an adblocker. I don't really use spotify enough to hear many adverts, but if I did I'd probably use this because it's hurting nobody.
Artists still get paid per stream.
Spotify still get paid per advert played.
Consumers can choose which adverts they want to actually listen to.
Consumers continue to use Spotify e.g. make Spotify money.
Consumers enjoy a free service.
I fucking loathe it
and they are already hardwired/brainwashed into thinking that music does not exist beyond Spotify
also, however much people may claim that at least the artists get some money they get shit all - 100,000 plays gets you the equivalent of half an hour's busking
if Spotify becomes the default model for music consumption (and it is pure consumption as opposed to the experience of music) then it will be massively damaging to the artform of music (hence the Monsanto comparison)
If, on the other hand, after 5 or 10 years of Spotify dominance they start to loose their market share and decide to sell up or go bankrupt then all that cash that users the world over have thrown their way will have bought precisely nothing
take a look at your record collection, your CDs, tapes, mp3s etc.
Do you really want to live in a future where the whims of the market place and/or corporate governance can delete the entire collection in one go?
my collection isn't on spotify, but i know the point you are making. that's the problem with it, i guess - but it's not just spotify. it's always been like that. labels could've put the cds out of print, or itunes could stop selling the albums. it's always been a problem.
but i take your point. spotify is used for me to try and also have access to loads of artists that i dont have on my ipod at that moment
it doesn't actually evaporate it from your collection - this is a whole different level
which also brings into play the entire 2nd hand record market - how many times have you discovered something wonderful just from taking a punt on a cheap charity shop buy? Personally the answer is loads and I certainly wouldn't have 'donated' anywhere NEAR as much money to Cancer Research, homeless charities, disabled charities etc etc.
Spotify sucks Satan's cock
re: thinking any money spent on spotify goes towards music in any meaningful way.
i.e. It doesn't. Which is fine if you don't care about that. And if you like the spotify paid features like mobile etc, then if your fiver/tenner feels like value for that, the that's fine.
But... I'm not quite on board for the last line. Spotify is a handy try-before-you-buy listening post, a better version Amazon's preview function, an on-demand radio service, a playlist/mixtape maker/sharer. But it's not a way to collect music or directly support the artists you're listening to.
It's a service not a future music business model.
Look at how emusic has been squeezed on value for money. Spotify will most likely squeeze and squeeze like that in the future. Sure, a few apps have been added here and there. Woohoo. In the meantime, albums and tracks are coming and going all over the shop. Not stable. Not stable like CD, vinyl, or even bought mp3s.
could also be said for torrenting/rapidshare/etc. or, if you like, a non-monetized public depository of music with universal access for all, a music wiki, a global public library
and as for the 'service not a future music business model.' argument... have you spoken to any 8-12 year olds about how the receive/consume music? To the majority of them music is an app with a round green logo. It is in my neck of the woods at least.
I am of the opinion that Spotify is a Cuckoo's egg
Spotify /is/ little more than an officially sanctioned torrenting/rapidshare (iirc, the tech behind the scenes is essentially a p2p set-up, which possibly includes some level of irony in there).
But there's very little you can do about that. At least with Spotify there's allegedly, potentially, maybe, possibly, probably more of a chance of some sort of upselling than with non-sanctioned sharing. Hmmm.
The fact that Kids These Days (TM) are largely into free streaming music rather than amassing a physical collection is a result of tech. Not much you can do about that. It's their loss, though.
The thing that can be changed is the perception some people have on here, when they think that their £5 or £10 a month to Spotify is, in reality, anything other than a payment for the technology, and that a Spotify free user is in any way more of a freeloader than they are. It's guff.
If Spotify is a main source of music listening, be honest with yourself - it's because it's a really really cheap way to have access to "all the music you could ever want". And if you whinge cos the Spotify catalogue isn't as extensive as you think your £5 or £10 (or £0) entitles you to, then you need a reality check.
Except there's actually no reason to think that people using spotify will have any effect on music as an artform. So, na.
Care to explain?
You claim spotify will damage music as an artform. I say this is an unfounded and incorrect assertion. Therefore, spotify = no great problem.
bring on the ads. I'm just bummed that they don't seem to make the artists much money at all.
They would get the version of spotify with ads and constantly click on them, then buy products through those links. Otherwise they just hate music and want the artists to suffer.
An app which automatically spits on anyone who attempts to use a Spotify ad blocker.
To those who say Spotify don't pay artists well enough, what evidence are you basing this on? Utter rubbish in my experience. More: http://www.lifeinaglasshouse.com/2011/11/in-defence-of-spotify/
Yeah but did they give you a barcode?
and Spotify has to stop and buffer tracks a lot. But I quite like how when it tries to play an ad, it keeps giving up after a few seconds and just going on to the next song instead.