Well, you can't really blame the tech CEO here... Spotify charges people what they're willing to pay to listen to music. I think it's a minor miracle that they've worked out a way to get people to pay anything for music considering how easy music piracy has been since the internet came along. (Not taking a moral stance, just stating a fact).
Speaking as another sound engineer and software engineer:
I believe the effort and risks involved with piracy are -- on average in well-off places -- simply "worth it" compared to owning physical media and "not worth it" compared to paid streaming subscriptions.
It's not just about dollars, but the value proposition of the total experience. The average pirate doesn't streamline their rig with all sorts of automation to pull things into a slick xbmc derivative heuristically; rather it's a time sink and less on-demand.
On the other hand, the more restrictive back catalog does keep piracy relevant for those who want less common selections.
The arbitary nature of contracts also keeps piracy relevant for people who get exasperated at the "now you hear it, now you don't" problem with playlists.
If you pirate something and make a playlist, it won't be full of holes after the next round of contract negotiations. With Spotify -it very well might.
For me the time sink for finding new music is enjoyable. Listening to something that I've put a minimal amount of effort on acquiring makes the experience worth more. That's in comparison to letting algorithms play one song after another( which most likely will either repeat the same songs or just play top hits which are boring to me).
Well, you can't really blame the tech CEO here... Spotify charges people what they're willing to pay to listen to music. I think it's a minor miracle that they've worked out a way to get people to pay anything for music considering how easy music piracy has been since the internet came along. (Not taking a moral stance, just stating a fact).