Oh, Spotify

I've been a long-time lover of the free music streaming service Spotify. I've danced to it, sung along to it, and shouted at it when the annoying adverts come on. But I wouldn't have changed it.

A few adverts in exchange for free music? Ok.
You don't have some of my favourite obscure bands on there? That's ok, you have lots of the mainstream stuff.
You don't have some of the biggest names on there? That's ok, that's what youtube's for.

But no longer. I'm done being a Spotify apologist. All that changed today when I got this message:

I should add that this wasn't entirely unexpected. A few days ago I got a pop-up message that invited me to read and agree to a new terms of service agreement. Unsure of what to expect (and unwilling to read a ream of contractual nonsense), I agreed, wondering abstractly if I would be the front, middle, or rear of the new human centispotify.



I've been resisting a switch to the peer-recommended service Grooveshark based on
a) a misplaced sense of loyalty to the Scandinavian green-motif'd venture-capitalist-funded enterprise
b) a fear of change
c) the stupid name. Srsly, Grooveshark? It sounds like a really corny DJ or an ill-advised attempt at creating a "cool" cartoon character. Not that Spotify is much better, conjuring up as it does images of a light menstrual flow, or acne-filled teenage years.

I can understand the need for investors to begin to see a return on their investment, and for the service to "monetize" their existing customer base. But with over a million paying subscribers in Europe (about one in ten users) I'd say they were pretty well monetized already.
Denying people access to their free service can only drive customers to rival services, which Spotify had an early lead on. With established names like Napster entering the mobile streaming market, the increased competition can only be good for customers (and bad for Spotify).

"I love music" tee from Purple Cactus, available from MySoti

While a cursory examination of the beta-service Mflow showed it to be pretty easy to use, the catalogue of five million tracks appears to be restrictive (isn't it great living in the future?), and although an initial appraisal of Grooveshark show it to be advert-stuffed, with 22 million tracks available, it looks to have the edge for those (like me) unwilling to reach into their wallets.

Although these services haven't stamped-out online piracy, I genuinely believe they serve to significantly reduce it. Given the option to listen to the same song legally or illegally, at the same cost, I think people will go for the most convenient option. Historically illegal downloading has been way easier, but with these streaming options available, the music industry seems to have found a way of maintaining a source of income (other than the lucrative and booming tour and merchandise revenue streams).
That is, unless these services make some horrendous error of judgement like altering their terms of service so a free user can only listen to a given song five times ever.