Streamed for free?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f7d01b701d0> #<Tag:0x00007f7d01b70108>

Just noticed this edit
I would argue that “can be streamed for free” is incorrect. I followed the link and tried to listen to the track. It wasn’t possible, instead I was asked to sign up or log in.

AFAIK, Spotify at basic level is ad supported. “For free” may not always mean “free of charge” but for me implies “if no consideration is requested” (i.e. no synallagma = no EXCHANGE of services). However, Spotify wants personal data in exchange and targets the listener with (customized?) ads. I think a more finegrained explanation should be used.

What do others think of this?


Indeed it’s wrong. I have a free Spotify account and only can listen to random tracks, not the linked recording.


I can with my non-subscriber account :-/

1 Like

I guess @jesus2099 is using the Spotify app on his smartphone which is indeed very limited – while the website (on my desktop PC) and the app for (Android) tablets allow you to listen to whatever you want with a free account :grin:


I’ve taken issue with even having such a relationship at all. Most commercial streaming services, even if they advertise themselves as free, are not totally free. More and more of them are moving to a paid-subscription-only model, in large part thanks to protests from artists like Taylor Swift.
Before I made, I debated whether to add a separate relationship or rename the existing one. It seemed at the time like adding a separate relationship was the way to go (path of least resistance), but I question that decision every day. My worst fear is that artists will point to the existence of the “stream for free” relationship on MB as evidence that we don’t care that they get paid, and retaliate accordingly.


I don’t think this scenario is far-fetched. With Corona it is unlikely that concerts will happen anytime soon. Especially bigger artists will want to tighten their control over revenue as a result.

I would suggest to change “can be streamed for free” into “can be streamed legally” - as those two are not necessarily the same.


It’s semantics really, isn’t it?

The intent is to let people know that you can follow the link and listen to the song without handing over money, and I’m sure that’s how people understand it. They know what site they’re being sent to via the link and can make their own assessment. ‘Can be streamed legally’ might be more technically correct but I don’t see the benefit in a practical sense, and maybe a bit more confusing (do we guarantee that our links are legal uploads, and a paid stream, eg a iTunes purchase, also falls under the definition of ‘legal stream’).

Disclaimer: I also strongly believe Spotify is satan manifested on earth as a music “service” :slight_smile:
At least the semantics are right for Bandcamp!


This is also a grey area IMO: The importer scripts and general consensus seem to be to apply the “stream for free” relationship to Bandcamp releases where all tracks are publicly available, but unless it’s an entirely free release (i.e. pay-what-you-want with no minimum), you will be asked to purchase it after streaming it a few times.