In news that will come as no shock to regular readers of RandomlyAccessed, Warner Music has decided it will pull support for it's music collection from free music streaming services like Spotify, We7 and Last.fm

We understand why this is, per-listen, free-streamed tracks really don't make the license holders any money when supported by adverts. The bottom dropped out of the online advertising world during the recession, and companies are looking to spend their money in smarter ways online than with intrusive audio and banner advertisements.

However, something intrigues us. The company (is rumoured to) own(s) a part of Spotify, so deliberately going out to harm it would seem illogical, they've declared their intent to pursue paid-for streaming operations like the premium version of Spotify yet, which is supported by a £10pcm charge.

Are they hoping that their withdrawal from the free service will spur people to switch from the free version of and other services to the paid-for Spotify? Do they think that it's an unimportant part of their business, or need more negotiation room?

Do they honestly think that they'll generate more sales this way? I for one am a happy Spotify Premium subscriber, but know of dozens who are only really interested in the free variant, and they'll look for free alternatives if their selected tracks aren't on the legal services.

It'll be interesting to see, but as we've predicted on plenty of occasions, users will have to get used to paying for things online in the future. The ad supported model cannot support the net forever, and with the clampdowns on illegal filesharing and downloads, we'll see more and more major brands, like Warner, shifting to the online paid-for-only model.

[BBC]