
Spotify’s Beta Used ‘Pirate’ MP3 Files, Some from Pirate Bay - djvdorp
https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files-some-from-pirate-bay-170509/
======
lettergram
One thing I noticed a few years ago, was that Spotify was using a massive
amount more upload bandwidth than download. Upon digging it actually appeared
they were streaming FROM my computer, similar to how a torrenting system
works. I'm assuming their current platform is doing something similar.

If this is indeed the case, they can stream music to everyone's phones /
computers, then use their network to stream to their other customers. It's
truly brilliant, and saves them tons on network costs. At the same time, it is
somewhat disingenuous to me - hence I'll never go back.

It's not at all surprising that their initial "success" is tied to torrenting
as well.

EDIT: Yes I know they supposidly stopped this program [1]. I still thought I
should share it, as many people don't/didn't know (and it is relevant to the
article).

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/17/spotify-removes-peer-to-
pe...](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/17/spotify-removes-peer-to-peer-
technology-from-its-desktop-client/)

~~~
pmarreck
> hence I'll never go back.

So basically, you're saying that since they (according to you) weren't
plastering news about their P2P design across all their marketing (as if most
people would even be able to understand that, from a marketing perspective),
and DESPITE the fact that it was well-known enough for academic papers in 2011
to be written on the design ([http://pansentient.com/2011/04/spotify-
technology-some-stats...](http://pansentient.com/2011/04/spotify-technology-
some-stats-and-how-spotify-works/)), _that 's_ why you'll never return to
them, even though they've since entirely removed that functionality? Because
you never heard of that part of the design until you detected it on your own
network?

This isn't someone "robbing your bandwidth" IMHO, I'm not for example angry
when I torrent something open-source and have it set to reupload 2x what I
downloaded... In fact here's Netflix debating going to a P2P design in 2014:
[https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/04/netfl...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/04/netflix-researching-large-scale-peer-to-peer-technology-
for-streaming/)

If I torrented for a year ("as a downloader") without realizing how it worked,
and then found out it was uploading what I already downloaded, would I have
the right to be indignant about my own ignorance?

That said, a lot of new endeavours (especially on the Internet) have
questionable legality when they first emerge (mp3 scene, bitcoin, digital
content distribution in general, etc) and then acquire legitimacy later on.
It's fine (... I guess?) to feel unlimited righteous indignation about a
company (I feel that way about Microsoft, actually), but it's _not_ fine IMHO
if it's not based on reality.

~~~
lettergram
I'm not telling you not to use their service, my wife (for example) continues
to use Spotify.

However, I personally will never use their service again. When they thought it
was alright to use my network (that I pay for) to make money, then I have a
right to turn my back on them.

Questionable legality is one thing, I personally could care less about laws. I
break probably 5 or 6 laws an hour. Laws have nothing to do about morality.
It's "illegal" to go 1 mph over the speed limit, it's "illegal" to cross the
street without a sign, etc. As a society the vast majority of the laws we
don't care about or follow.

What most people do is try to be moral and civil with one another. In the case
of distributing music, most people seem willing to pay (hence Spotify has
become popular). However, that didn't give them a right to use my network
without my consent.

That is immoral, and that will get a visceral reaction from people. In this
case, it didn't surprise me they were using torrented content in their
service. I shared what I found interesting, and why it didn't surprise me, and
also my opinion about how they were shady.

> even though they've since entirely removed that functionality?

If a company is shady, I'm not going to trust them with my money / data unless
I have to (i.e. Comcast / Verizon / AT&T). If I have a choice, I'd use someone
else. This is my "vote" of dissatisfaction. I vote with my wallet, and I share
my insights / knowledge such that others will vote (informed) as well.

~~~
johnmaguire2013
I think the parent's point was that people and companies make mistakes. Voting
with your wallet is a great idea -- often times when I pull funding from a
company for a perceived slight, if they react to my vote, I'll vote again by
paying for their service.

~~~
LordKano
There are some transgressions that people don't forgive easily or at all.

I have been taking part in a one man boycott of Nintendo for over 20 years.

Not that it hurts them. Not that they care. I was just done with them.

~~~
pmarreck
I hesitate to ask, but what did Nintendo do to justify this lifetime ban? ;)
(also, I kind of want a Switch, but anyway)

~~~
LordKano
The way they butchered what was my all-time favorite arcade game "Killer
Instinct" with the SNES port and then KI Gold for the N64.

I have never been able to forgive the company.

~~~
pmarreck
err... did you ever consider that perhaps those systems weren't actually
powerful enough to support the "full" Killer Instinct experience, so there was
no way for it not to seem "downgraded" from the real deal?

(I was in my early 20's when that came out in the arcades. I remember it well)

~~~
LordKano
The SNES certainly wasn't able to reproduce the arcade experience. The N64
should have been.

Over the years, I have considered buying an old arcade cabinet just to re-
experience the magic.

I just need to find the space for it.

~~~
pmarreck
You should do that. Don't lose the wide-eyed kid inside. :)

~~~
LordKano
Many years ago, someone made a PC based Killer Instinct emulator and I played
it whenever I was feeling nostalgic.

I had problems getting it to run under XP, I wonder how well it would work
under 7.

------
Kiro
Yes, if you used Spotify Beta it was very obvious. On release the library was
reduced to a fragment of its former self. It was also something everyone said:
"in the Beta they used the employees' MP3 libraries, that's why it used to be
so good".

~~~
crucialfelix
It was amazing. A massive library of obscure releases across all genres.
Merzbow box set, thousands and thousands of country LPs, music from African
and Asian countries. Gradually it got whittled down to what certain labels
would agree to.

~~~
throw52191375
You can stream torrents [0], how long until someone makes a Spotify clone
using torrents with a curated home page and integrated torrent search? Like
Popcorntime and Netflix?

You could re-sell a one click VPN for revenue.

~~~
throw52191375
I forgot to add links

[http://butterproject.org](http://butterproject.org)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent)

------
rhaps0dy
What does the author mean by this?

"For a company that has attracting pirates built into its DNA, it’s perhaps
fitting that it tempted them with the same bait found on pirate sites.
Certainly, the company’s history of a pragmatic attitude towards piracy means
that few will be shouting ‘hypocrites’ at the streaming platform now."

What is this attitude to piracy that will prevent them from being called
hypocrites? I do think that aiming to eliminate piracy while using it is
hypocritical.

Unless they needed to use that pirated music to reduce pirated music overall,
in which case they did well from a consequentialist standpoint.

~~~
thrownhwn
Piracy is also a form of convenience. What you want, when you want it. No
stupid geographic delayed releases, no stupid DRM where you have to prove
you're not a thief every time you want to access the content, no internet
connectivity requirements, etc.

~~~
thirdsun
> No stupid geographic delayed releases, no stupid DRM where you have to prove
> you're not a thief every time you want to access the content, no internet
> connectivity requirements, etc.

To be fair those haven't been issues with digital music purchases for a long
time. Buying music couldn't be more convenient these days.

~~~
aphexbr
DRM might not be an issue any more (at least for purchases), but regional
releases, platform exclusivity, etc. sure as hell are.

~~~
thirdsun
I thought we were talking about purchases, not streaming. How would DRM-free
streaming work?

I haven't seen regional releases in ages.

Platform exclusivity? Again, for streaming maybe, but we were talking about
purchases, right? I buy my weekly releases in a digital, lossless format from
a range of stores. The files I receive are mine. Non of the issues you
mentioned apply these days.

Streaming, however, while convenient can have disadvantages like the ones you
mentioned. More importantly, you don't own your collection, you just rent the
music and albums may disappear at any point.

However none of this justifies piracy since there's a flawless alternative:
Buying music.

------
6stringmerc
To me, Beta is different than building a business model around piracy. It's
quite clear Spotify has spent a metric fuck-ton of money trying to appease
Rights Holders (ahem, I didn't say Artists for a reason...) and do their
thing. Disclosure: Longtime Spotify artist by way of DistroKid, have very much
enjoyed the 'Discovery' aspects for foreign countries to find my tunes.

------
atemerev
I don't see any problem with that as long as they have had the license. It's
not like the bits are tainted.

