facebook rss twitter

Spotify restricts access to ‘free’ music, piracy to increase?

by Scott Bicheno on 14 April 2011, 11:54

Tags: Spotify

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa5le

Add to My Vault: x

No such thing as a free lunch

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth today following the announcement from music streaming service Spotify that it's introducing restrictions to its ‘free' (ad-funded) model.

From now on, new Spotify users will only get access to the current unlimited free service for the first six months. After that they will only be able to play an individual track up to five times, ever, and the total listening time will be limited to ten hours per month. Existing users who signed up before 1 November 2010 will see these changes kick in on 1 May, for everyone else it's six months after joining.

"Spotify's aim from the very beginning was to make music on-demand available to all," said the blog announcing the move. "To give you the power to listen to, discover, share and manage your music the way you want to - simpler, faster, better - while making sure the artists whose music we all love continue to see the benefits as we grow.

"Above all, this means we can continue making Spotify available to all in the long-term. We'll be bringing out some awesome new features as well as significant improvements over the coming months, which will make the Spotify experience even better."

To what extent this change was brought about by the failure of the ad-funded business model, or pressure from rights-holders or whether it was always part of the plan is unclear. But opinion seems to be divided on whether it's a positive step.

The first comment on the blog post was: "So long Spotify. It was nice nowing you [sic]. Guess I'll go back to pirating music again then." But that was soon countered with: "Stop complaining. You can't get everything for free. Just dig down and pay those 49 SEK a month it costs to get rid of the limitations and commercials. It's worth it you know."

This typifies the debate over ‘free' stuff in general online. One school of thought feels entitled to free stuff and genuinely indignant that individuals and companies should charge for their work. The other acknowledges that everything has a price, and that it's down to the individual to decide whether they're willing to pay it.

Spotify, and rights-holders, will be hoping that the majority of heavy Spotify users will have been sufficiently convinced of the value of the service to decide it's worth paying for. Those who do decide to revert to illicit means of acquiring music will presumably be paying via a diminished user experience. Again, that's their choice, but they must also decide if the threat of legal action is a justifiable extra cost.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 26 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
In my opinion, the commenter is spot on. It really *is* worth the small subscription fee. I've subscribed to Spotify for over a year and I'd be lost without it. It use it at work, at home, on the train, on the bus. It's just wonderful.

I guess it's about finding the tipping point where somebody would rather pay the subscription than endure the hassle of pirating tracks. I'm not too ashamed to say that I'm an ex-music-pirate, but my MP3 collection has been long deleted. I don't understand the mentality of the crowd who prefer to posses hard copies of their music, but this works out much easier for my lifestyle. To each their own, I suppose.
Couldn't agree more, we are talking about £5 to £10 a month for a fantastic service. Well worth it IMO, though i would have prob cut it down to 5 plays a month…not ever as a gd middle ground!
Sorry but I can't agree. I just don't see the need. I was never a really into music until spotify free. I'll just go back to listening to online radio. The value of music to me just isn't that high as I only really use it to pass the day in the office.
I agree that Spotify is well worth the Premium subscription cost, i too have previously obtained music without paying for it, in the past i may have tried to justify it to myself because i could not always afford to buy it.

I am now in the situation where i can, and am happy to, pay for music. Most of the music that i have ‘pirated’ in the past i no longer posses or have since purchased.

I until recently have preferred to buy the CD album then rip to itunes for use on my iphone. I am less inclined to increase my CD collection now which takes up a large amount of space as i can access all this from various locations digitally via spotify. Also the thought of going through hundreds of albums to rip them all to digital copies on itunes.

I value the ability to listen to a huge choice of music as and when i want and am happy to pay for the privilege, granted the radio is free but what you listen to is dictated by the playlists of each radio station. I do listen to the radio too because i enjoy some of the inane chat of the DJ inbetween records.

BTW spotify:user:gccoles
It's just typical business behaviour. Get a bunch of people hooked on the promise of free stuff then ask them to pay for it later.

What it boils down to is, you have less money and they have more.