Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Music Businesses The Internet Technology

Spotify Bans Ad Blockers In Updated ToS (theverge.com) 172

Posted by BeauHD 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spotify Bans Ad Blockers In Updated ToS More

Spotify Bans Ad Blockers In Updated ToS

Comments Filter:

  • Banning ad blockers will never work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:15PM (#58086670) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:Banning ad blockers will never work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:24PM (#58086718) Journal

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • Re: Banning ad blockers will never work (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

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

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Confused ( 34234 )

      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.

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

  • Guess who won't be using Spotify? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:22PM (#58086706) Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • Re:Guess who won't be using Spotify? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crgrace ( 220738 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:38PM (#58086818)

      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.

      • 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.)

        • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Username checks out beautifully.

    • I was already not using it.

      • I was already not using it.

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

    • 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.

    • 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?

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

    • 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.

    • You should short Spotify stock then.

  • Paying for a subscription is much better option (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:23PM (#58086708)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dshk ( 838175 )
      I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.

      • 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 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      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 %.

  • To the www soon? (Score:3)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:26PM (#58086740) Journal
    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.
  • 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.

  • Customer respect (Score:4, Interesting)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:48PM (#58086858)

    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...

  • Wonder how it will deal with network level blocks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linuxtelephony ( 141049 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:50PM (#58086866) Homepage

    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.

    • Seems they do use dedicated ad servers [ashwinshenoy.com]. 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).
    • 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

  • Barney the Purple Dino Sings.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by pslytely psycho ( 1699190 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @08:19PM (#58087008) Journal
    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,
  • 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.
  • 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.

    • âoeAnd nothing of value was lost.â

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

      • 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 'trigg
        • 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.
          • 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?
            • 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?

  • Then I don't need Spotify. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Thursday February 07, 2019 @10:48PM (#58087520) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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?

    • 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

  • NEXT!

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

  • 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

  • next (Score:2)

    by Torvac ( 691504 )
    whats next ? wont allow virus scanners or fresh air ?

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

  • https://adnauseam.io/ [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.

  • 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.

    ......

  • 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.

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

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

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Close