[sbarre]

> We’re not here to pirate. We’re here to opt out.

Then "opt out" by not using the product? No one has a right to use Spotify. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service.

I'll never get why people smart enough to build something technically impressive like this feel the need to throw these completely childish pseudo-rationalizations out there. Yeah, you are stealing actually.. Is it that big of a deal? Nope. But it still is what it is.

Do they think this kind of false-moralizing will protect them from DMCA takedowns or something?

[breppp]

Artists are earning pennies of what subscribers are paying? then let's not pay, that will show them artists

[immibis]

Some people choose to pirate media and then pay the full price to the artists directly.

[const_cast]

These people are largely theoretical - I've heard this many times, but I've never seen it.

Regardless, I don't necessarily think piracy is immoral. There's a lot of situations where it's the only viable option. However, we should acknowledge that most people are pirating because they are cheap. Which, to me, isn't a sustainable model for anyone. Pirates want music, too, and if they keep this up then they lose as well.

[immibis]

Spotify also doesn't have a right to unmodified client systems.

If their server sends you bits, why should you delete the bits? If you accidentally sent them the wrong bits, do you think they'd be nice enough to delete them? Pre-emptively before receiving any notification from you?

Terms are irrelevant and in most cases have no legal power at all. Fighting back with technical power (as YouTube has done) is fair game though.

The golden rule of capitalism is to do everything in your physical ability to improve your individual situation at the expense of others. Feel free to come to an agreement with Spotify, that neither of you will do capitalism against the other. Until then, you should probably play the game or you will lose by default. Spotify isn't that important but you should definitely get into the mindset of playing the hand you're dealt.

[toomuchtodo]

You're "stealing" (if you can even call it that) from Spotify, not artists. As of July 2025, Spotify has a market cap of $145.48B USD. This makes Spotify the world's 118th most valuable company by market cap. They'll be fine. No one has a right to revenue or profit.

Mental models differ, it is what it is. Stealing from artists is of course always poor form, don't do that.

[sbarre]

Curious where exactly do you draw your line when it comes to who it's ok to steal from and who it's not? Do you have a formula or something?

Or is just an arbitrary bar of convenience that you set case-by-case depending on how you want to feel about it?

> No one has a right to revenue or profit.

I certainly didn't imply anything this universal. But as a society we do have laws, and if you engage with Spotify's product, you agree to their terms, and in that very specific context they do have a legal right to see their terms held up.

Now.. will they go after you for bypassing their ads? Probably not. Will your actions have a negative impact on them? Again, nope.. I definitely agree with you that they'll be fine..

But then the people who make these products that facilitate this kind of activity should just have the conviction to stand by their actions and say "yep we're helping you steal from Spotify".

Just own it, especially if your justification is "it doesn't matter anyways".

[toomuchtodo]

"Can this multinational company afford it?" and "Will this incur a felony or similar judicial record?" is my bar, broadly speaking. Never take from someone who cannot afford it, or where it would be material to them. Bits, never fiat. Laws are just words, how you decide which to ignore is a function of potential legal exposure and your belief system.

I pay for Spotify because I’m lazy and can afford it, but rip whatever I want from YouTube, for example. I own it, I do not care. Why would one care what random strangers think of them?

[sbarre]

> Laws are just words

Spoken from a place of security, comfort and privilege no doubt.. All afforded by the laws of the land. ;-)

[toomuchtodo]

Strange argument. The laws bind economically to extract (“these bits are gated, you must pay or go to jail for not paying for them” in this context), they are not affording what you describe. Ignoring or evading them is where the security, comfort, and privilege come from. Freedom is being ungovernable.

“Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.” is a fun quote on this. Laws don’t protect me, they protect those with property and capital, as well as large companies that have limited to no liability. I protect me.

Anyway, I block ads and don’t care.

[immibis]

Doubt. All the most successful people are the ones who push the limits of which laws they can ignore. Just see any big tech founder-CEO.