Swift and everyone else are just killing the only viable alternative to their music simply being taken for free.
The only alternative to their music being taken for free is… giving it away for free??
Oh, yes, of course - Apple carving out its usual lion’s share of a market by giving away others’ property to buy the real estate is entirely to the benefit of those others.
Just like the endless “intern” jobs where you can take ten years of college, experience and skills to produce a professional-quality web site or publication for something less than minimum wage benefits you because it will look SO good in your portfolio.
Unfortunately, they’re not mine 
After reading this and other posts, Mea Culpa. :o It seems she is a smart and resourceful young lady (why she did not bitchslap Kayne back in 2009, OTH)
Still she undouteldy does have a team of heavy hitting lawyer and accountants at her beck and call now.
The only alternative to pirating is a healthy online music streaming industry, be it apples or anyone elses.
You do realize how this sounds to someone who, like me, regards piracy as ethically questionable?
It doesn’t really matter how you regard it, it’s still going to be a thing.
I’m not really sure that’s true in the absolute long term. If piracy ultimately renders making music unprofitable, Taylor Swift won’t make music anymore. And there are a lot of wealthy and powerful people with a strong interest in making sure that never happens. I’m not ready to cede the field to the six-year-old’s mentality that I SHOULD HAVE WHAT I WANT HOW I WANT IT AT THE PRICE I WANT AND NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SAY DIFFERENTLY WAAAAAAH.
Gimme yer wallet or I’ll just take it anyway.
This concludes today’s session of “Ethics in the 21st Century.”
I’m not really seeing the equivalence there.
Who’s saying that?
Me neither. To me, it sounds like he’s saying, “Oh yeah? Well, Taylor Swift once did something that I don’t think is fair!”
I don’t know enough about the business of photography to know whether it really is unfair. Even if it is, the relevance to the current issue is tenuous at best.
Err, no - in fact, that contract is a nice mirror for to the Apple situation, in that they’re for photos of Taylor Swift - why should photographers get to profit in perpetuity from her image? They’re not selling their own “art”, they’re selling her image (I’m pretty sure that’s not the contract that an Annie Leibowitz or other ‘name’ would sign if they were to photograph her)
Piracy right now is easier and simpler than any form of paying for music, and yet millions of people still buy CDs and LPs and pay for downloads.
So… are Apple and Swift… getting back… together?
Thanks for the link, I read the article. Very nice response to Taylor Swift from Jason Sheldon.
Let’s not pretend that Taylor Swift and other artists like her are fair for others to make money through their works.
For there to be that swift of a change means that Cook and Cue must have already considered doing just that. That isn’t the kind of decision usually made literally overnight.
Taylor Swift is a rather awful person, with a fierce greed, redeemed by her good looks and her amazing talent at wearing tiny skirts, and this hypocrisy is crass; but I do admire the semi-nude photo in the comments by ‘Sarah’ she laid claim to, because it was taken at one of her live shows.
