Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spotify To Bait and Switch?

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the hard-to-argue-with-the-mafiaa dept.

DRM 121

hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review, of all places, is running a story suggesting that Spotify may have to rely on a bait & switch strategy — or might have one forced upon it by the record labels. From the article: 'Spotify gets all its content from the same place everyone else does – the same industry that has forced price increases on other online services once they have become successful. That appears to be at least partly what happened with Netflix last week. At least in the case of the existing a la carte music services, if you don't like the new price, you don't have to buy the new track. In Spotify's world, if you don't like the new price, there goes your music library. Or, if Spotify tries to stand up for its users, the labels can just pull the songs and those songs simply disappear.'"

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rent? (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847792)

I think this is the difference between buying and renting. If you can't pick it up, it seems like you can't "buy" much any more... Pirate? Yes. Buy? No.

Re:Rent? (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848022)

I agree with your sentiment, but you can buy digital music from Apple and Amazon still. Just because you can't pick it up, does not mean you don't own it. There is no repudiation mechanism for iTunes or Amaon music, it won't just disappear one day.

Re:Rent? (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848072)

Doesn't really matter. You paid for the subscription, you should own the content. http://www.spotifyrip.com/ [spotifyrip.com] is one solution. Legal? Grey area. Provable in court? Not in a million years. You're recording the playback. There have been apps that do this for everything from shoutcast to a variety of other things. Streamripper equivalents for spotify can probably do this. [sourceforge.net] I see http://spotiplay.com/how-to-rip-music-from-spotify/ [spotiplay.com] pointing to other alternatives.

That was the first result of https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=export+music+from+spotify&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t [google.com] , and I'm sure that more is coming, especially with US demand.

Do I trust Spotify? No. Do I trust my hard drive with what I choose to put on it? Yes. This is pretty much equivalent to forking an app, except that we can't really trust the labels any more than spotify.

Re:Rent? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848198)

Doesn't really matter. You paid for the subscription, you should own the content.

Huh? Do you own World of Warcraft just because you pay for the subscription?

Re:Rent? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848320)

That is also why it's the biggest scam ever. Literally you are buying into DRM. The difference is that you have a way to deal with actually getting a return value here. When you stop paying, you have nothing. You don't even own what you paid to access. Remember their suit with wowglider? You know why they're pissed, because all it did was prevented them from being as successful at being a timesink and deliberately extracting people's money.

World of warcraft is literally the most profitable scam masquerading as legitimate business outside of hundreds of other businesses already doing the same thing, in quite a long time.

Re:Rent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848700)

It's a subscription service. You make a regular payment to maintain your service, in return they provide you with entertainment. Once you stop paying, you stop receiving further entertainment. They don't magically take away all your previously-enjoyed entertainment from you.
AFAIK, a scam requires some kind of deception. I'm not convinced WoW players think they are buying into ownership of the game's assets, code and a share of the profits via their subscription fees. I'm not sure exactly what you're accusing Blizzard of deceiving people about.

Re:Rent? (1)

bickle (101226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849080)

If it is a scam, what exactly are they promising and not delivering? I'm paying for a service, and they are providing it. When I stop paying for it, they stop providing it. I fail to see the scam.

I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but crazy accusations like this make us all look bad.

Re:Rent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849256)

World of Warcraft is a Skinner-trap, not a game. The service is the scam, and you are paying for it knowingly and willingly.

Re:Rent? (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851648)

The service is the scam, and you are paying for it knowingly and willingly.

"Knowingly and willingly?" I thing that means that it's *not* a scam. According to some, It may not be a good value or a good way to spend money, but if they're providing the agreed-upon service in exchange for the agreed-upon payment, it's hardly a scam.

Re:Rent? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849132)

Right.... Do you feel this way about paying to see a musical because you can't take the actors home with you? How about paintball or minigolf? Are they big scams because they take back the gun and putter when you leave, and at the end of the course your ball disappears? Theme parks that you have to keep re-purchasing enterance too, yeah its all just scams!

Re:Rent? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850222)

Do you own the rowing machine at 24 Fitness? No. You pay a subscription fee to use it, and if you stop paying, you can't take the rowing machine home with you.

Re:Rent? (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851170)

I disagree, how do you think I ended up with this rowing machine?

Re:Rent? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851264)

Well, look at your name.

Re:Rent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849244)

Well, no, but you own WoW because you bought the retail box with software in it.

Re:Rent? (1)

Xenx (2211586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850472)

You own the physical media, and you are given the right to install it. However, you don't own WoW.

Re:Rent? (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848200)

If the terms of the subscription are quite clear that you only have access to the music so long as you pay the subscription, why should you own the content?

I don't own every film I get in my Netflix subscription....

Re:Rent? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848298)

If the terms of the subscription are quite clear that you only have access to the music so long as you pay the subscription, why should you own the content?

I don't own every film I get in my Netflix subscription....

I believe the popular reply on Slashdot will be "Sucker!", regardless of its merits.

Re:Rent? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848378)

What kind of logic is that? Subscribing to spotify is like getting a library card: it gets you access to millions of songs (books) that you can use, but are not yours. You would have to be completely nuts to think that paying $5/mo means you actually own 15 million songs.

Re:Rent? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848642)

You paid for the subscription, you should own the content.

How so? You no more own the content then you own the content played on the radio. The terms of your subscription that you agree to pretty much explicitly state you don't own the content.

Re:Rent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849502)

Doesn't really matter. You paid for the subscription, you should own the content.

No, that isn't what subscription means. Your subscription gives you the licenses to consume the content you don't own. If you want to own it, buy it, but for those who like to explore new music, that model would be tremendously expensive. That is why subscriptions can be of great value to many. It's like paying for cable TV they owe you nothing after you stop playing. Personally, I prefer the Zune Pass because you get credits for music to keep even if you cancel your subscription.

Re:Rent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848112)

Yeah, piracy is just too convenient to bother with crap like spotify now. I'll still play several songs off youtube just to make sure I like em' before I download the discography, which presumably passes them some advertising revenue.

Good (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847838)

I hope they all go out of business, so I can go back to using the "but there is no viable legal alternative".

Oh what the fuck, I'm just going to pirate anyway, cause it's awesome.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847932)

Oh what I wouldn't give to be 15 again.

Re:Good (3, Funny)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848220)

Ah yes... drool all day, stare at chicks who'd rather throw themselves in front of a bus than talk to me, and masturbate all night. Pimples, voice breaking, and endless rounds of Quake complete with teabagging, cheetos, and trash-talking. Sneaking booze out of Dad's liquor cabinet and getting the hell beaten out of me later. Ripping tunes for the lulz, and staring in envy at those goddamn 18 year old Seniors who have it all. Good times...

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849134)

Agreed, if my kids drink the good stuff from my cabinet they will damn well get a beating. They can drink the cheap stuff I buy them with their allowance and they'll enjoy it.

Re:Good (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849280)

Ah yes... drool all day, stare at chicks who'd rather throw themselves in front of a bus than talk to me, and masturbate all night

Did you say fifteen or fifty?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36850738)

She got high for the first time at the camps down by the banks of the Mississippi River

Lord, to be seventeen forever

Re:Good (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849636)

Well, in his case, he was brutally sodomized on his 16th birthday. Lost his cock and balls in the process.

So I think you can see why he might want to be 15 again.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36850308)

He's Cowboy Neal?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36851090)

Quake complete with teabagging

You couldn't crouch in Quake, thus there was no teabagging.

Re:Good (1)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36852292)

He never said anything about in-game teabagging.

Re:Good (2)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#36852968)

I'm twenty-five, you insensitive clod!

But at least we have strong copyright! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847846)

Whatever it takes to protect the rights of artists, the people must endure.

Just ask the copyright holders - they'll explain that's the only reason they do anything.

Re:But at least we have strong copyright! (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848016)

You've got it all wrong. Its the rights of the publishers.

A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847854)

The guy is worried that Spotify will start cheap and then raise it's prices if successful. And if you cancel you don't get to keep listening to music (unless you figured out a way to make your own copy, like many slashdotters will).

Not sure what this guy's point is. A better article would be don't buy Spotifiy because GrooveShark and youtube are free. And you can get firefox extensions that make turning a youtube video into an mp3 really easy.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (3, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848086)

It's not panicky, it's real. People need to wake up. Look at how Amazon has deleted things people have purchased for the Kindle, with no warning and recourse.

DO NOT TRUST THE CLOUD FOR ANYTHING.

If you do not wholly control a non-DRMed local file, you don't have shit. When you use services like Steam or Spotify or any content delivery service that retains the right to delete things you've bought whenever they feel like it, you're asking for a disaster eventually. Even if the whole service doesn't tank, it will just be a matter of time before they start doing things like Amazon and deleting things you've purchased without warning. Whether it's a licensing issue or 'for the children', it will happen and you won't be able to do jack.

You've been warned.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (4, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848274)

Look at how Amazon has deleted things people have purchased for the Kindle, with no warning and recourse.
 

You mean the single title which they found out (after the fact) that a partner did not have the rights to, so they pulled the book and refunded your money? Or are there a slew of others I just haven't heard about?

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848414)

Yes, there were others you don't know about. [slashdot.org]

Worse this was done after they said they wouldn't do it again. The fact that they even have the capability should be enough to wary any thinking person, but that they break their 'word' on the matter should shatter any false confidence once and for all.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848420)

After the 1984 debacle, they promised not to do it again. Then they did it again. http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/amazons-latest-kindle-deletion-erotic-incest-themed-fiction.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848788)

Guess you couldn't read all the way to the bottom of the article where is said that was a technical problem for a short period of time and was fixed. No users lost anything.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848612)

There have been other cases, but really, isn't once enough?

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849872)

When Amazon bought Amy Street, they just deleted the music collection I bought. Yes, you read it right I bought, not rented.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36851486)

If it had DRM in it, and you can't backup the file, you only bought the right to play it, not the file itself. Piracy will stay alive while it offers a better product than it's competitors.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850350)

They changed the deal. Pray they do not change it again.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848278)

DO NOT TRUST THE CLOUD FOR ANYTHING.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but the cloud is less than trustworthy. For example, I'm fine with using Google Docs (why would Google want to take away *my* files?) and Steam (games are less subject to licensing issues), but otherwise, you are correct.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848676)

How can Spotify delete something you own? They don't sell you (or claim to sell you) anything. All they are providing is access to their library of music. If people are dumb enough to believe that for a few bucks a month they actually OWN the songs they listen to, that is their problem, not Spotify's. Your argument is like saying "don't trust your local library, because someday a book you like may be out of circulation". If a song (or book) is that important to you, buy your own copy. For people that just want to listen to more music than they could ever possibly own, Spotify is a great deal, and is certainly not a road to disaster.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (2)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848778)

"If you do not wholly control a non-DRMed local file, you don't have shit"

Duh. It's a music rental service. If you don't like it, don't use it. Buy your MP3s or CDs instead.

Did it really require a whole article in the Harvard Business Review. What next "Stay Away From Redbox, You Cant Keep Those DVDs"

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849380)

It reminds me actually of the King of the Hill episode where Hank's dad is tricked in 'buying' a timeshare in Mexico. Americans cannot own land in Mexico, but the timeshare people go to any length to stifle anybody who brings that fact up.

So while Spotify/Steam/Amazon etc. don't falsely tell people that they 'own' what they are paying money for, they don't ever talk about the fact that they are licensing it either. They want people to think that they are buying things in a sense of ownership, because that is what people value, and if anybody starts talking about how it's only licensed and the 'purchasers' are completely helpless about what happens to it, those companies will try to downplay that because it hurts sales.

I would respect these operations a lot more if they came right out and used truthful terms like 'rent' and 'license' in places other than the enormous cryptic TOS that few people ever actually read.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849892)

If anybody is stupid enough to believe that for $5 or $10 they can actually own all the music that Spotify has, then they deserve what they get. Nowhere do I see anything on Spotify's site that leads me to believe I would own anything. All they say on the main page (not some cryptic TOS) is that for $5 PER MONTH I can listen to a library of 15 million songs. The thing is priced per month, why the hell would I have to pay per month if I actually own the music.

Let me put it this way (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849292)

You make it sound like you need to trust them with the lives of your children or something. You pay them to listen music (or just use their free service) and you listen. If they raise the prices you can cancel. What do you have to lose? You can't listen to Kesha's greatest hits anymore?
The best answer is to get their free service and figure out how to make your own mp3's off their stream. But if someone tells me they pay Spotify five dollars a month, I'm not going to be, "OMFG! DON NOT TRUST THE CLOUD FOR ANYTHING!"

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848206)

A better article would be don't buy Spotifiy because GrooveShark and youtube are free. And you can get firefox extensions that make turning a youtube video into an mp3 really easy.

The audio in YouTube videos is already compressed to hell, and turning it into an MP3 would mean subjecting it to lossy compression again. Relying on YouTube for music and then making the audio even worse is appalling, and I'm not even an audiophile snob.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848294)

Why transcode to mp3? Just take the AAC audio stream, unchanged, from the container.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848828)

A better article would be don't buy Spotifiy because GrooveShark and youtube are free. And you can get firefox extensions that make turning a youtube video into an mp3 really easy.

The audio in YouTube videos is already compressed to hell, and turning it into an MP3 would mean subjecting it to lossy compression again. Relying on YouTube for music and then making the audio even worse is appalling, and I'm not even an audiophile snob.

As someone who does, exactly that, I can tell you that the result isn't even close to appalling. It sounds, byte for byte, like what comes from flash on youtube. I just dump the audio in the flv using mencoder, than run lame over it to fix the timing.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851438)

When I've manually downloaded the flash and converted it to mp3, it sounded bad. When I've used firefox extensions, it made good mp3's for me. I don't really have an explanation, but it works.

Re:A somewhat obvious and panicky article (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848302)

The guy is worried that Spotify will start cheap and then raise it's prices if successful. And if you cancel you don't get to keep listening to music (unless you figured out a way to make your own copy, like many slashdotters will). Not sure what this guy's point is.

Me neither. I mean if it's a good service now, use it now. If it turns to crap, well then switch service or go back to pirating then. The whole "don't use it now because it might turn crap later" doesn't make sense. It's not a bait and switch any more than a car lease, you have it as long as you pay the lease. Maybe the lease company will hike their rates later, but then you're free do to something else. Just like you are every month before you pay for Spotify. I don't see the problem here...

netflix's selection is still pretty bad (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847858)

only reason netflix raised prices was because they are trying to license more content. even with the latest deals the selection is still pathetic and titles vanish all the time. i might just cancel my streaming soon and buy a DVD or blu ray every month for my kids

Re:netflix's selection is still pretty bad (2)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848006)

selection is still pathetic

That's a question of personal taste. Netflix's documentary collection is large and the quality of titles on the whole is the best I've ever seen, and well worth the $7.99/month CAD that I gladly pay for it. (Ever seen Manda Balla? I hadn't even heard of this film until I saw it browsing Netflix. One of many excellent titles worth watching and recommending)

On a side note, yes I've downloaded high-quality HD movies without paying for them (it's legal in Canada, you know), but Netflix is just easier, and the aforementioned selection so good that I don't know of a better place to go shopping for films on-line. The music industry would do well to bring a comparable product to market (and don't talk to me about satellite radio. The concept is ok, but the sound quality is just too poor to even think about paying any real money for).

Re:netflix's selection is still pretty bad (1)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849998)

Exactly. The selection of pilates videos is phenomenal as are the exercise videos featuring a giant ball. Well worth the price.

Re:netflix's selection is still pretty bad (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850142)

The Netflix streaming library is great for browsing. You can always find great shows just by looking through the catalog.

It really sucks for finding shows that you already know you want to watch.

When I first heard about the change in pricing, my first thought was to keep the streaming and hit up Redbox for DVDs. My wife's first thought was to get rid of streaming and just keep the disc plan. I think what we're eventually going to do (when the new pricing actually kicks in) is to get rid of cable and keep the streaming and disc plans (and maybe bump up to 2 discs).

As difficult as it is to find specific movies you want in the streaming catalog, TV shows are another story. They almost always have up through the previous season, and they have all the Disney/Nick shows my kids like, which is how we spend most of our time with cable. Hopefully with the pricing change, the TV catalog will get even stronger.

Re:netflix's selection is still pretty bad (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850842)

Not just because they are trying to license more content, but there is a big prediction that content providers are going to increase Netflix's licensing costs substantially.

Couldn't you get it out this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847896)

But if Spotify were to do this and you choose to stop subscribing, all that music you have on your Android or iPad is gone. You can't get the music out, and there's nothing to suggest that you'll be able to get the playlists on your computer out as easily as Spotify does from iTunes.

Really? Even if you're really careful and remove the screws and carefully pry the cover off, you couldn't get the music out?

What about just smashing the device? Wouldn't the music leak out of it then?

I don't know. I'm just a caveman.

Still a good deal compared to satellite radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847902)

It's still a good deal compared to satellite radio.

If you expect to pay $5-$10/month and actually own everything in the catalog, you're just being ridiculous.

Pirate FTW (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847914)

Meanwhile, my collection pf pirate mp3s sits on my harddrive, perpetually available, can be transcoded into any forseeable format in the future, and has wide support on every modern portable and computing device out there...

The market has spoken! And it has said "f*ck you".

P.S. RIAA/MPAA I've taunted you on this website and dozens of others ever since the DeCSS incident, daring you to start legal action against me. I've got close to 2 terabytes of "your" crap on my harddrive and I have yet to hear so much as a cricket-noise from you.

Re:Pirate FTW (0)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848018)

Indeed, the problem that all these people need to identify:

The pirates are NOT beating you just because their product is free. Their product is also SUPERIOR. It arrives quicker, it's more reliable, it's more versatile. If you want to beat them, then work at making your product the better one, first! Go ahead and provide 'Product Codes' on CDs/DVDs that allow access to 'cool extras' and 'bonus clubs' and what have you - you can do this, and the pirates can't! Use those internet connections for more then just providing ads - I know people who prize Netflix's suggested movies! The more you try to squeeze, the more people are going to slip away.

And for the love of god, make a benign pricing model. You know, the sort where subscribing rates are 'locked in' because there's no realistic justification for anything else except your naked greed, where you 'value customers' by allowing them one track for free a month permanently and an option to buy others at a discount...you could be doing a lot more to make people WANT your product, but instead, you're trying to compel your entire target audience into accepting an inferior product at legal gunpoint. There's already mass legal disobedience, you're an inch away from obsolence - you should stop.

Re:Pirate FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848034)

Meanwhile, my collection pf pirate mp3s sits on my harddrive, perpetually available, can be transcoded into any forseeable format in the future, and has wide support on every modern portable and computing device out there...

The market has spoken! And it has said "f*ck you".

By "the market", do you just mean yourself? Do you bother to look outside your window very often to see what I suppose you would call the unwashed heathen masses who don't perfectly agree with you? Do you figure they're safe to ignore because they spend money keeping the music industry in business (to the tune of increasing profits every quarter)? Do you bother to look outside your neighborhood/apartment complex? How about outside your city? Region?

Or, alternatively, do you mean the market has spoken to YOU and is saying "f*ck you"? Because if you consider "the market" to be those actually spending money, that's what it's sounding a lot more like.

Re:Pirate FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849320)

if you think he is alone and is not part of the market you are a total idiot. there are a few million people on most services pirating stuff on any given day.

This is the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848636)

Please do not taunt us on message boards. We really hate that.

Re:Pirate FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849156)

I have yet to hear so much as a cricket-noise from you.

They can't. It's copyrighted by Duffy Duck.

Who Needs Spotify? (0)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847928)

When you have music from video games or independent artists like Tryad and Tomas Dvorak?

Some video games have amazing music. Halo, Knytt Stories, Command & Conquer?

Re:Who Needs Spotify? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848136)

You do realize that you can find video game music and independent artists on Spotify, right?

The new definition of possessing something.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847952)

Where you perpetually lease it from publishers who have been granted a artificial monopoly by the government that lasts the better part of a century on good that have exactly zero scarcity.

Don't you just love how "free-market" capitalism drives down costs and makes things more efficient.

Re:The new definition of possessing something.. (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849466)

I'm still waiting for a jurisdiction to exist with a free market... government granted monopolies don't qualify...

Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848000)

Back to pirating I guess.

Re:Oh well... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848054)

or simply going to another legal source,

Won't matter soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848286)

Once Apple buys up the entire music industry with their $70 billion in cash and shuts everyone else out.

Re:Won't matter soon (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848746)

What if Apple bought Amazon?

Appzon?

Re:Won't matter soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36850656)

Amazapple.

This has worked for me before? (1)

SithLordOfLanc (683305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848290)

Anyone got a couple of Spotify invites they can send my way? sithlordoflanc @ gmail . com

Service is worth paying for (1)

Flambergius (55153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848374)

I've been on Spotify Premium for couple of year now, I think, maybe year and a half. That means I have so far spent about 250 songs worth (from a la carte download music shop) on the service that grants ability to browse music: I have listened to many thousands of different songs, many of which I would have hard time gaining access without the service. I would be very bummed if Spotify would shut down for any reason, but I consider the service well worth the cost.

The summary does make a valid point though, Spotify may indeed find itself in a fairly difficult negotiation with copyright holders for access to music. It might be a good idea for Spotify to be extremely public about its licensing contracts and related negotiations: this would make it harder for copyright holders to act as a de facto cartel. It would also assure the consumer that loss of the service is not likely. Another thing possible worth trying would be a loyalty reward system for paying customers that would allow customers to claim (or purchase at a discount) the songs they most often listen to.

Re:Service is worth paying for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36850652)

Spotify is great. I have also been a subscriber for more than a year, and I love exploring music that I would never buy. It works well on mobile phones in the car or with bluetooth A2DP speakers in the office - It's a great service. I consider the cost much better than spending money on media that ends up gathering dust after a few months.

play limits on certain tracks? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848396)

easiest way to achieve reductions on play counts on the expensive tracks.

They already did 'bait & switch' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848598)

In the early days you could play unlimited music, but with ads, that got a lot of people, including my parents interested. They were pushing their premium service via the ads and other things, but my parents didn't mind ads, they were used to the TV / Radio which has plenty.

They they started making new sign ups have a monthly play limit (x hours) which was pretty low, and of course because all your playlists were stored 'in the cloud' getting around it with multiple accounts was a bit of a pain. People using the free service from the early days still no limits were still recommending it, yet others were signing up and finding these limits in places.

Now they appear to have switched it completely and introduced the monthly limits to all free users, the ads weren't enough apparently.

This annoyed my parents, who were mostly only using it to listen to songs they had on CD anyway. I ripped their CDs, and uninstalled Spotify. As a result they don't have to listen to any ads at all, but are also denied the opportunity to discover new music via it. Net result.. uh, everybody loses?

Depends how you use it (1)

dhammond (953711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848608)

I've been using Rhapsody for a while now, and am pretty happy with it. I work at my computer constantly and like having music on while I'm programming (it helps me get into the groove). I listen to a lot of music that I'm not inclined to buy. I appreciate being introduced to music that I wouldn't otherwise have known about, and I appreciate the fact that if I hear about a song or an artist I can almost always find it on Rhapsody and listen to it immediately. In other words, I get a lot out of my $6/mo (I should explain that I have a grandfathered account that was transferred from Yahoo Music years ago so my pricing is different from their standard pricing).

So for me, Rhapsody is great, and I have only been thinking about checking out Spotify because of some somewhat minor annoyances with the Rhapsody software (which may or may not be better in Spotify).

Re:Depends how you use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848948)

I subscribe to Rhapsody for $14.99 a month and I agree with this post. There is a lot of music I might like to try or listen to for a while, but I don't want to buy it permanently. Also nothing stops me from buying the album or song if I want. That is available too. I don't really see how Spotify is different from Rhapsody and I would not bother subscribing to 2 services. However, I think this model makes plenty of sense and $14.99 a month is cheap for all the music you want for a month. Music artists do deserve to be paid for their work. I think there is plenty of reason for both business models (subscription and buy each song) and supply and demand will sort it out in the end. No one likes price increases, but businesses have to operate so they are profitable. You can't really hold that against them.

Bait and switch does not apply (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848684)

Premium Spotify user here. If the prices increase I will simply stop paying and my account will be in "free" mode again. I won't lose my music collection. It's not like Spotify deletes your playlist in free mode. I'll just have to spend some hours pirating it again, so I don't think "bait and switch" applies in this case...

Re:Bait and switch does not apply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849306)

Free mode is severely restricted (in Europe, at least) - 10 hours per month listening. 5 plays per track forever.

Re:Bait and switch does not apply (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849414)

Free mode only works for Windows and Mac.

If you're on Linux, minimum is $10/month.

Re:Bait and switch does not apply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36849874)

Free mode only works for Windows and Mac.

If you're on Linux, minimum is $10/month.

Unless you use WINE. Which is basically equal in features, and has an FAQ on the Spotify website
http://www.spotify.com/us/help/faq/wine/

PHBs, listen up. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848690)

Pointy-Haired-Bosses who think everything needs to be "in the cloud", pay attention.

But, but... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848728)

I paid good money for that music. How DARE they?!!!

Re:But, but... (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849664)

I get that feeling every day, after listening to the radio for a while.

Who cares? (1)

z1ppy (1123453) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849386)

There are plenty of alternatives. Anyone who is putting all of their eggs in one basket doesn't understand the shelf life of technology.

Most everyone I know has some kind of personal music collection on their local machine(s), and the streaming is a complement to that. Because of the general hassle associated with managing a large and growing music collection, of course we'd love to offload that to someone else for a nominal fee.

My current strategy involves tripling up on cloud storage and trying before I buy any of the streaming services. Google and Amazon both offer substantial music storage for ridiculously low prices. $20 a year for a cloud drive with UNLIMITED storage means a one time hassle of tagging and uploading everything to the cloud...let them worry about it after that. Amazon is the winner now, just because of the download capability. Google Music is great too, though. Both work well on your mobile device with limited bandwidth requirements.

After investigating and playing with Spotify a little bit, it actually appears to be an inferior product to MOG [assuming you plan to pay for either service] for a few reasons, which you can seek out for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

BitTorrent and File Lockers aren't going away. Turntable.fm is fantastic. We've got options. Let Spotify do whatever it wants, and we'll do whatever best suits our needs/wants.

Y! Music Unlimited (1)

Isarian (929683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849434)

Same thing happened to Yahoo! Music Unlimited, years and years ago. That's when I learned my lesson about having owned, local copies of my music.

They've shown you the answer to this problem... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849682)

It's quite simple, really. Don't buy. Don't infringe.

Doesn't matter what the story is. Unless they're going to offer a decent deal, it's done- they offer little, if anything, that is worth what they're demanding right at the moment.

The thing that concerns me more than price... (1)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849724)

... increases is content disappearing for no reason. For example UMG has disabled all songs longer than a certain amount 8+ months ago (which affects a lot people listening to classical and jazz, but not only, for example try to listen to the 2112 album by Rush on spotify...) and it hasn't been fixed yet

http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/long_songs_are_missing [getsatisfaction.com]

I love the idea of spotify and would sign up in a heartbeat even at $30/month, but not with this kind of issues where a record company can arbitrarily mess with your account and you have no recourse.

Re:The thing that concerns me more than price... (1)

twokay (979515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850284)

Oh i noticed this on a couple of albums and wasnt sure why, thanks for mentioning that. Its definitely worth the subscription still, even with the missing content from stupid labels. If they push it much further or tried a price hike i would have to seriously think about cancelling. It has stopped me pirating for the last year or so, and i have even purchased tracks i really like because i found them on through Spotify. But its not like its hard for me to start again if they try anything.

The Bay (1)

heson (915298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850102)

Spotify is pulling their customers from the bay (eye patch one) if it becomes less convenient than the bay they will end their subscription. There is no risk involved in spotify, either you have it or you do not have it. All you lose is the not so expensive monthly fee. There is no start fee, there is no eradication of your current warez collection. You do not buy stuff inside spotify that you can only enjoy while on spotify, EVERYTHING on spotify (*) is yours to enjoy while it is there. Spotify is an all you can eat buffet, not a subscribe to stuff you have to buy. Disclamier: While I do love the ideas behind spotify, it is not for me becuase I only listen to my obscure records I already own and only half of them is on spotify. *subject to local discrimination - not all music is available in all countries.

They get it from where? (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36850878)

Spotify gets all its content from the same place everyone else does...

you mean bittorrent?

I still don't get Spotify (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851472)

I signed up for an invite and it came the other night. I immediately signed up to check it out, went to add the mobile app and found that it required a Premium membership. Immediately uninstalled. I didn't really get the premise in the first place but thought I'd give it a chance to see what all the buzz is about. But I'm not going to use it on a desktop - I can't stream at work which is where I spend most of my computer time anyway. There, or at home I'm likely to use my phone. It seems like if I want a specific song and have to pay for it, I'll buy it on Amazon. If I want to listen to random music I'll use Pandora or Slacker Radio or any number of thousands or Shoutcast streams, or streams of terrestrial radio via TuneinRadio. All for free.

What am I supposed to do with Spotify? And why would I ever pay for it as well?

Retarvard (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36851826)

This isn't bait and switch. Bait and switch is where they lure you in with a special offer on X, and when you go there they try and get you to buy Y which isn't such a good deal.

I was going to say it's selling a pig in a poke, but they aren't actually selling anything anyway, since it's effectively a rental.

So it's perhaps like you lease a foocar, and you go to bed in a house. But when you wake up you're in a cardboard box and there's a barmobile on the driveway, without so much as a by-your-leave.

But who am I to quibble? I'm not a fellow at Harvard, I'm just someone who can form a possessive correctly: "it's compelling offerings, not lawsuits, that win customer's hearts and minds".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>