you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 88 points 2 years ago (107 children)

If it were a paid account yeah, it'd be extremely shitty. But seeing as it's a free account, it's their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service. Besides, I don't get this entitlement that spotify has to provide music for free. They're a (admittedly greedy) middle-man that wants to get paid. If one wants free music and everything, well, time to self-host.

  • source
  • hideshow 107 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (38 children)

    it's their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service.

    Except that this attempt could easily be shown to largely land on folks with accessibility needs. That's a big no-no under many laws.

    An interesting comparison is pay-to-ride elevators. For most folks an elevator is a nice convenience they would not mind occasionally paying for.

    But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    Due to the uniquely fucked up way music licensing works, it's likely they license the lyrics through a separate company than the music and probably don't even directly license it themselves (Tidal for example uses Musicmatch's lyric library and api). There's a cost associated with this that is likely outside their control. It's shitty, but it is plalusibly reasonable they implemented this as a cost savings measure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (31 replies)
  • load more comments (68 replies)