Spotify Web Player no longer supports Safari as they move to use Widevine CDM in Web Player. Music DRM in your browser??!!

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Want to know the best part? Pirates are not affected, at all, by this retarded DRM scheme. Aside from the fact the vast majority of that music can be found and downloaded from youtube without any effort, all a pirate has to do to put the tracks online is buy the DRM free discs you can find in any music store and rip them. I was actually considering a spotify subscription, but after seeing this they have definitely lost a potential customer. Let them keep sticking their head deep into their butts, then laugh when they wonder why they went bankrupt despite "fighting" those pesky pirates.

Wow someone got butt hurt because they cant use it in safari and think they will go bankrupt because of it. Probably dozens of people are affected by it. Also I am not surprised other companies do this because Apple doesnt regularly update safari as they said before, they dont need to because OSX is secure enough, which is an idiotic move. 

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

People will still download shit for free if they are able to. A good product worth buying doesnt mean people will pay for it, especially knowing its free through piracy. 

 

DRM was to combat piracy first which over time got worse and worse as piracy got better and better. Piracy is the cause for this bullshit but everyone blames DRM.

DRM does not work and only affects the paying customer. Nobody has ever been able to prove piracy significantly impacts sales - people are still only going to buy 5-6 movies per year if they cost 25$ per disc. If that is not reason enough to despise DRM I don't know what else you need. Pirates exist and will always exist, implementing a "solution" that doesn't work and annoys the paying customer is exclusively on the publishers. The fact that the whole music industry is not out of business yet is conclusive proof that people are actually willing to pay for things if they aren't bugged and inconvenienced every step of the way. Calling everyone a pirate (which is what spotify is doing with this) is insulting and shows that spotify does not deserve our money.

8 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Also 9.99 a month for a service with unlimited music, no ads, custom playlist and great sound quality is a good product in my book.

It was before they started using intrusive DRM.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Wow someone got butt hurt because they cant use it in safari and think they will go bankrupt because of it. Probably dozens of people are affected by it. Also I am not surprised other companies do this because Apple doesnt regularly update safari as they said before, they dont need to because OSX is secure enough, which is an idiotic move. 

I don't have a mac and would rather die than use safari . But I despise the idea of DRM in all its forms. If they keep inconveniencing their customers for no reason I guarantee you, they will go bankrupt. Just look at cable tv. Look at the huge flop blue-rays have been. People are turned off from giving you money if paying gives you an objectively worse experience than not paying.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Not to defend DRM, since it's kind of scummy and I loathe it, but I see this as probably not being spotify's fault. The music industry as a whole, particularly large publishing companies, are no different than the movie industry. They put tons of pressure on companies to try and force DRM, absolutely terrified of piracy. Spotify has also been in a very precarious position since it started, as far as licensing and pricing go, giving these big companies a direct way to control it.

 

Our media industry is f-ed up, and this is likely just another instance of them pressuring and forcing a company into compliance.

Spotify is the music industry, so if the music industry as a whole is to blame, then Spotify is to blame  

The difference between Spotify (and similar companies) and the other players in the industry is a "technological" one, if you want, a difference in the distribution channel. It's like the difference between Netflix and Blockbuster

[mynameisjuan]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

DRM does not work and only affects the paying customer. Nobody has ever been able to prove piracy significantly impacts sales - people are still only going to buy 5-6 movies per year if they cost 25$ per disc. If that is not reason enough to despise DRM I don't know what else you need. Pirates exist and will always exist, implementing a "solution" that doesn't work and annoys the paying customer is exclusively on the publishers. The fact that the whole music industry is not out of business yet is conclusive proof that people are actually willing to pay for things if they aren't bugged and inconvenienced every step of the way. Calling everyone a pirate (which is what spotify is doing with this) is insulting and shows that spotify does not deserve our money.

It was before they started using intrusive DRM.

I never said it is impacting total sales. So say you make 1 million dollars a year and I go in a take say $100 bucks a day from you. No its not really hurting you much but Id take it you'd be fine with it? Remember they are still a business.

 

They are not calling everyone a pirate and the fact you think its a problem now because they cannot use it on a web player which probably almost no one uses, and can still use it on their phone (which 99% almost guaranteed uses) and other browsers is just idiotic. 

 

Also how is this intrusive DRM? Ive never seen anyone bitch about spotify for not letting them listen to it the way they want.

[Sniperfox47]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Spotify is the music industry, so if the music industry as a whole is to blame, then Spotify is to blame  

The difference between Spotify (and similar companies) and the other players in the industry is a "technological" one, if you want, a difference in the distribution channel. It's like the difference between Netflix and Blockbuster

My comment was more with regards to publishing studios. As a publisher, Spotify is waaaaaaaaaaay smaller scale than even Google Play Music. They're, at their heart, a distribution service no different from a rental outlet. Exactly, Netflix VS Blockbuster.

 

The big players, the ones who hold these distribution services by the balls, are the publishing studios in both cases. Even if Netflix wanted to be a good sport and remove DRM, they don't really have that option. It's the reason why 4K playback on Windows got delayed so long and is as hardware locked as it is, because they didn't have the option to distribute it without some kind of DRM in affect.

 

And just as I can't really blame Netflix for their DRM situation, I can't truly blame Spotify either. If they want licenses to distribute the content they have to play by the Publishing Studios' rules; the issue at hand lies further up the food chain than Netflix or Spotify.

 

 

[Sauron]

30 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I never said it is impacting total sales. So say you make 1 million dollars a year and I go in a take say $100 bucks a day from you. No its not really hurting you much but Id take it you'd be fine with it? Remember they are still a business.

 

They are not calling everyone a pirate and the fact you think its a problem now because they cannot use it on a web player which probably almost no one uses, and can still use it on their phone (which 99% almost guaranteed uses) and other browsers is just idiotic. 

 

Also how is this intrusive DRM? Ive never seen anyone bitch about spotify for not letting them listen to it the way they want.

There is no proof that pirates would buy the product if they weren't pirates. Lost sales = 0$. Unlike stealing physical goods, making a copy costs nothing to the publisher.

 

Yes, they are EXACTLY calling everyone a pirate. You only punish a person when you believe they're guilty.

 

If I can't play it with whatever the heck I want it's intrusive drm.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

My comment was more with regards to publishing studios. As a publisher, Spotify is waaaaaaaaaaay smaller scale than even Google Play Music. They're, at their heart, a distribution service no different from a rental outlet. Exactly, Netflix VS Blockbuster.

Netflix is already into production business, though

Spotify isn't, but may as well engage in it as the dinosaurs fall, simply because it needs music to be recorded in order to distribute it. And recording depends less and less on big studios anyway. It's more about the rights they still hold from previous era.

 

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 

The big players, the ones who hold these distribution services by the balls, are the publishing studios in both cases.

 

Nobody holds distribution services as Spotify and Netflix "by the balls". I understand why streaming services may like to cast things in that light, but they are far from being small fishes in a sea of sharks.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's the other way around -yet-, but it's more of a conversation among "peers" on the same side of the market (a fierce conversation, since the split of profits is at stake, but conversation nonetheless).

 

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Even if Netflix wanted to be a good sport and remove DRM, they don't really have that option. It's the reason why 4K playback on Windows got delayed so long and is as hardware locked as it is, because they didn't have the option to distribute it without some kind of DRM in affect.

 

And just as I can't really blame Netflix for their DRM situation, I can't truly blame Spotify either. If they want licenses to distribute the content they have to play by the Publishing Studios' rules; the issue at hand lies further up the food chain than Netflix or Spotify.

 

Losing content as a distributor is as much of a problem as losing an important distribution channel as a right holder. Saying that they have no choice or they risk losing suppliers is like saying Amazon has no choice but to accept the conditions of the products' manufacturers.

Well, OK, that's an exaggeration -for now  

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is no proof that pirates would buy the product if they weren't pirates. Lost sales = 0$. Unlike stealing physical goods, making a copy costs nothing to the publisher.

 

Yes, they are EXACTLY calling everyone a pirate. You only punish a person when you believe they're guilty.

 

If I can't play it with whatever the heck I want it's intrusive drm.

So are locks on doors saying everyone is a robber? Any security, DRM, pass code, whatever is there to prevent them from stealing. Is it inconvenient, damn right it is, I hate being drunk trying to unlock my door but at least I know my stuff is safe. Its always been a choice, either security or convenience. 

 

Also my argument is still not about loss of profit or how much it hurts them. Trust I think its fucking retarded that artist and movie stars make millions of dollars for what they do compared to some people such as farmers that work 10x what they do. But I still listen and watch the movies and pay for them because its still stealing. Even if piracy made it where they lost 1 million out of 150 million its still stolen money. 

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

So are locks on doors saying everyone is a robber? Any security, DRM, pass code, whatever is there to prevent them from stealing. Is it inconvenient, damn right it is, I hate being drunk trying to unlock my door but at least I know my stuff is safe. Its always been a choice, either security or convenience. 

 

Also my argument is still not about loss of profit or how much it hurts them. Trust I think its fucking retarded that artist and movie stars make millions of dollars for what they do compared to some people such as farmers that work 10x what they do. But I still listen and watch the movies and pay for them because its still stealing. Even if piracy made it where they lost 1 million out of 150 million its still stolen money. 

Nonsense. When I buy a product and bring it out of the supermarket, there is no lock on it. When I buy a house, the lock is there to keep others out, not me - I don't need to use a house vendor certified lock on it and I can let in whomever the hell I want. Spotify on the other hand is trying to restrict THE PAYING CUSTOMER, not someone who tries to obtain the music without paying. They're saying that YOU are liable to rip the music you paid for and put it on the internet for free, so OTHERS can be pirates. If they have so little trust in their paying customers, then they don't deserve to have customers at all.

 

I am not advocating piracy of course - I am just criticizing spotify's decision of trying to prevent it in the worst possible way. Because of this I will not pay them, ever, and will buy my music on CDs, which have been DRM free for years; I encourage everyone to do the same and show we do not support these bullshit practices.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Want to know the best part? Pirates are not affected, at all, by this retarded DRM scheme. Aside from the fact the vast majority of that music can be found and downloaded from youtube without any effort, all a pirate has to do to put the tracks online is buy the DRM free discs you can find in any music store and rip them. I was actually considering a spotify subscription, but after seeing this they have definitely lost a potential customer. Let them keep sticking their head deep into their butts, then laugh when they wonder why they went bankrupt despite "fighting" those pesky pirates.

even better:

1. grab a spotify playlist

2. feed it to a certain application that checks videos on youtube that i cannot name here because of community guidelines in this forum

3. rinse and repeat for every playlist on spotify, even your friends playlist if you so desire

4. ??????

5. profit

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Nonsense. When I buy a product and bring it out of the supermarket, there is no lock on it. When I buy a house, the lock is there to keep others out, not me - I don't need to use a house vendor certified lock on it and I can let in whomever the hell I want. Spotify on the other hand is trying to restrict THE PAYING CUSTOMER, not someone who tries to obtain the music without paying. They're saying that YOU are liable to rip the music you paid for and put it on the internet for free, so OTHERS can be pirates. If they have so little trust in their paying customers, then they don't deserve to have customers at all.

 

I am not advocating piracy of course - I am just criticizing spotify's decision of trying to prevent it in the worst possible way. Because of this I will not pay them, ever, and will buy my music on CDs, which have been DRM free for years; I encourage everyone to do the same and show we do not support these bullshit practices.

There are security cameras in the store, RFID scanner at the doors, sometime officers in the building. The food you buys is the end product like the song you want to listen to or the game you want to play. Its the method of accessing that stuff, the grorcery store, steam, spotify that is locking it down so their stuff isnt stolen. 

 

They are restricting paying customers because safari is not wanting to support their way to block a potential way of getting song illegally. 

Like at this point you ARE just supporting theft. DRM will exist until stealing stops but it never will so the endless cycle will continue. 

[Sauron]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

There are security cameras in the store, RFID scanner at the doors, sometime officers in the building. The food you buys is the end product like the song you want to listen to or the game you want to play. Its the method of accessing that stuff, the grorcery store, steam, spotify that is locking it down so their stuff isnt stolen. 

All of this is BEFORE you paid for your product. And again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT TAKING SOMETHING THEY HAVE. It's about copying something YOU have.

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

They are restricting paying customers because safari is not wanting to support their way to block a potential way of getting song illegally. 

Like at this point you ARE just supporting theft. DRM will exist until stealing stops but it never will so the endless cycle will continue. 

Since there is literally NO benefit to spotify for using this in the first place, any inconvenience it causes is unacceptable. Furthermore there's more to it than that - using that sort of DRM prevents you from listening to music on devices that in principle would have no problem playing it. DRM also introduces security risks, telemetry, and sucks performance.

 

If disagreeing with you on what is reasonable to prevent theft is encouraging theft then have it your way, install all the proprietary, performance hogging security flaws you desire. Never mind the fact that "theft" as you call it will not be affected in ANY WAY by your using them.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT TAKING SOMETHING THEY HAVE. It's about copying something YOU have.

A monthly payment is RENTING it not buying so its not yours and again, copying it to redistribute it is still stealing!

 

You obviously dont want to support spotify but thats fine by me and I doubt they care because now their DRM covers their ass from a lawsuit. 

 

Look I hate DRM as much as you do but if you were CEO of spotify or pandora or ubisoft....I can bet 100k that you would have DRM on your stuff also. 

[Sauron]

28 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

A monthly payment is RENTING it not buying so its not yours and again, copying it to redistribute it is still stealing!

 

You obviously dont want to support spotify but thats fine by me and I doubt they care because now their DRM covers their ass from a lawsuit. 

 

Look I hate DRM as much as you do but if you were CEO of spotify or pandora or ubisoft....I can bet 100k that you would have DRM on your stuff also. 

Copying is not the same as distributing. And no, I would not use drm because it's fundamentally stupid and clearly doesn't work. It takes 5 seconds to realize pirates could get the music in hundreds of different ways.

[mynameisjuan]

52 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Copying is not the same as distributing. And no, I would not use drm because it's fundamentally stupid and clearly doesn't work. It takes 5 seconds to realize pirates could get the music in hundreds of different ways.

Ok but its still one less way. Why use locks when they can just break the windows? So you still lock your door right?

 

Again.....security is how much patience the thief has. Piracy will always win because DRM is reactive but fine whatever, support stealing for all I care. DRM being obtrusive as it is you obviously dont understand the intentions of it.

[Sauron]

13 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok but its still one less way. Why use locks when they can just break the windows? So you still lock your door right?

 

Again.....security is how much patience the thief has. Piracy will always win because DRM is reactive but fine whatever, support stealing for all I care. DRM being obtrusive as it is you obviously dont understand the intentions of it.

I don't know about you but I have metal bars on my low windows... it's not that easy to get in my house. Otherwise why would I bother with a heavy door?

 

Right now pirates need no patience, paying customers need a lot.

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok but its still one less way. Why use locks when they can just break the windows? So you still lock your door right?

 

Again.....security is how much patience the thief has. Piracy will always win because DRM is reactive but fine whatever, support stealing for all I care. DRM being obtrusive as it is you obviously dont understand the intentions of it.

ever heard of sidify and the likes?

Pirates don't have to be patient, there are tools out there that just make removing DRM from media files just that easy and fast. As always: pirates receive the best experience, paying customers get treated like evil fuckers who must never ever be trusted.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

People will still download **** for free if they are able to. A good product worth buying doesnt (sic) mean people will pay for it, especially knowing its free through piracy. 

 

DRM was to combat piracy first which over time got worse and worse as piracy got better and better. Piracy is the cause for this bull**** but everyone blames DRM.

You're right, DRM was a (flawed) solution to the problem of piracy, not the cause of it.  Having said that, DRM never hurts pirates, at most it delays them.  DRM always affects paying customers, however.  To what extent depends entirely on the type of DRM, but there's always a price to pay; and it's always paid by the legitimate, paying customers.

 

And I have to disagree with you about your first sentence.  Consider Steam and digital distribution.  Steam has many flaws, but one thing they did right was make DRM acceptable by making it mostly unobtrusive.  Most people don't mind the DRM in Steam because the benefits outweigh the detriments.  I prefer my games not have any DRM on them at all, but I can't argue that Steam makes it very convenient to buy and use my games in spite of the DRM.

 

Because of its convenience, many people will buy games through them when they might otherwise pirate it.

 

If you want a TL;DR, then I'll summarize it like this:

If people are willing to pay for a product, and it's easy to do so, they'll buy it.  If people want to pirate a game, no matter how easy it is to buy, they'll pirate it.  DRM won't make anyone choose to buy a product, but it can certainly turn people off from buying it.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

If you want a TL;DR, then I'll summarize it like this:

If people are willing to pay for a product, and it's easy to do so, they'll buy it.  If people want to pirate a game, no matter how easy it is to buy, they'll pirate it.  DRM won't make anyone choose to buy a product, but it can certainly turn people off from buying it.

 

The people who want to pirate will use any excuse under the sun to justify their actions,   It's a distribution problem, it's a geo-blocking problem, it's a moral protest,  They charge too much, it's not theft because there is no physical product, etc etc etc.

 

All I hear nowadays from those who pirate.  I am still waiting for that one person to come along and admit the real reason they pirate, i.e they don't want to pay for it.

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

8 hours ago, Jito463 said:

You're right, DRM was a (flawed) solution to the problem of piracy, not the cause of it.  Having said that, DRM never hurts pirates, at most it delays them.  DRM always affects paying customers, however.  To what extent depends entirely on the type of DRM, but there's always a price to pay; and it's always paid by the legitimate, paying customers.

 

And I have to disagree with you about your first sentence.  Consider Steam and digital distribution.  Steam has many flaws, but one thing they did right was make DRM acceptable by making it mostly unobtrusive.  Most people don't mind the DRM in Steam because the benefits outweigh the detriments.  I prefer my games not have any DRM on them at all, but I can't argue that Steam makes it very convenient to buy and use my games in spite of the DRM.

 

Because of its convenience, many people will buy games through them when they might otherwise pirate it.

 

If you want a TL;DR, then I'll summarize it like this:

If people are willing to pay for a product, and it's easy to do so, they'll buy it.  If people want to pirate a game, no matter how easy it is to buy, they'll pirate it.  DRM won't make anyone choose to buy a product, but it can certainly turn people off from buying it.

I beg to differ about Steam. For someone that is largely offline on the desktop, even single player gaming can be stopped up by a required update or needing to reconnect. Getting Steam to install from a flash drive and activate without deciding to munch down on my tethered data can be a downright PITA.

[Orangeator]

AAANNDDDDD This is why I hate DRM. Still the biggest pain in the ass one is Intel's monopoly on 4k content for desktops. What they are doing right now should be illegal. They are literally making it impossible for people with Ryzen based system to watch 4k content, via Netflix/Blu-Rays... Etc.

[Orangeator]

13 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Netflix is already into production business

They are honestly better and more original than most production businesses I would argue. I just finished binge watching Narcos... And it was DAMN good. That show right there and their other movies/shows are the reason I'll be keeping my Netflix subscription.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

it's not theft because there is no physical product,

Legally speaking, it's not theft.  It's copyright infringement.  Theft implies a loss, whereas digital products can't technically be stolen because they're so easy to replicate.  Morally and ethically is a different matter, however.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am still waiting for that one person to come along and admit the real reason they pirate, i.e they don't want to pay for it.

That is certainly a reason many use, though there are other reasons.  Finding a rare copy of some movie/game/album that's not in distribution anymore, following a TV show that you can't get in your area because of the geo-blocking you previously mentioned, etc.  It's not a black-and-white issue.  You can't just say all "piracy" is bad.

 

For example, when I switched to Windows XP x64 edition (the first desktop 64-bit Windows version), I could no longer play my legitimate copy of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and only because of the accursed StarForce copy protection.  Ubisoft refused to do anything about it, forcing me to wait for a cracking group to release a "patch" for my legitimately bought game so I could play it.  I paid for it (in fact, I had 4 separate legitimate copies of the game for myriad reasons), yet I couldn't play it, and the publisher didn't care one iota.

 

Technically speaking, I was supporting "piracy" by downloading that modified exe, but it was necessary to play what I had bought and paid for.  If Ubisoft had never used SF, or if they had removed the copy protection (by that point, they had made their initial sales), then I would have been able to play without issue.  As it stood I was ignored and abandoned, and I won't forget it.

[themctipers]

On 9/11/2017 at 0:08 AM, Droidbot said:

My dad has like a 1000+ CD collection all ripped into MP3-320, but I don't have the time nor money to bother with that. 

My dad just conveniently has them stored on a shelf in the basement. 

 

No they're never used.