On: An open response to Taylor Swift's rant against Apple

[Shivetya]

Frankly if Apple refuses to sell your music because you refuse to allow them to earn off of you for their free trial then Apple is guilty of coercion and needs to be slapped down.

I would cheer to see a suit against them for this action. Free trials are supposed to be at the expense of the company peddling a service, not the people who provide the goods the service profits on.

[GuiA → Shivetya]

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/19/apple-not-coercing-indie...

[Dylan16807 → Shivetya]

How is it different from any boring publishing contract that gives the publisher price control?

Refusing to sell someone's product is not generally considered duress.

[ticviking → Shivetya]

Frankly. If that is what the contract says it's what you agreed to. Sell elsewhere if you don't like it.

Taylor Swift is actually in a position to do something about that. Instead she whined because she didn't like a contract after it was signed.

[_red → ticviking]

Actually, you're wrong, she's not "whining after the fact"

Taylor Swift did not agree to the contract. Hence why she is withholding her music.

Unlike many other artist, she holds the right to negotiate her streaming contracts directly.

[ticviking → _red]

I know it's been days, do you have a source on that? It radically changes the situation and my opinion.

[_red → ticviking]

Well its sorta self apparent.

I mean, if she had signed away control of her streaming rights, how would she ever been able to "pull her songs" off of iTunes (or Spotify as she did the previous year).

She would've been in violation of a contract otherwise, and would've need to seek remedy via the courts.

[s73v3r → ticviking]

Why the Hell should such a contract be able to exist?