Apple Music will boast over 30 million songs when it launches at the end of June, but Taylor Swift has decided to leave a blank space where her 1989 album would’ve been.
The pop star’s latest album 1989, which has sold more copies than any other record the last two years, will not be available to stream on Apple Music, Buzzfeed has learned. Swift created a public spat with Spotify last year when she denied the music service the rights to stream her hit album, and it appears that Tay is taking the same hard stance with Apple.
Taylor doesn’t plan to take all of her albums off Apple Music like she did to Spotify though. The singer’s rep at Big Machine Records told Buzzfeed that Swift’s back catalog will be found on Apple Music.
Beyonce made a similar decision in 2013 to not make her self-titled album available on Spotify and Rdio, but eventually relented to make a deluxe edition available for streaming 11 months later.
According to Swift’s rep, there are currently no plans to make her mega-hit album available on any streaming service, even though it’s been over six months since the album was released. Pulling her album from streaming services certainly hasn’t hurt Swift’s bottomline though. 1989 sold over 8 million copies worldwide since its release last October, making it one of the most successful albums of the past decade.
Source: Buzzfeed
Buster Hein is a freelance writer who lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Twitter: @bst3r.
107 responses to “Taylor Swift shakes her album off Apple Music”
Taylor – you are not musically talented enough for this ego. We’re watching the decline of Taylor Swift – sales and fans will be going away. But it will be fun to watch her implode and start doing anything to be relevant. Like Miley or Justin. It is starting and it is accelerating. It sure is fun to watch each of these mid level talent do it though.
True. I am really waiting for the day she comes back to every streaming service just to have those plays. She already failed at doing any kind of statement since nobody seems to care and is veering all of those who wants to listen to her but not pay to pirate bay and sites like those.
Every Swift track is on Youtube – FREE – to the listener to listen and stream on any device, Like every other music track.
Strange Swift doesn’t send a take down notice to Google/Youtube? Oh wait, that is where her fans listen to her music. Google pays her – how much who knows.
Anyone can get music legally or illegally in seconds.
And just think – The Beatles aren’t streaming on Apple Music. The Beatles took how many years to even see their music on iTunes – losing BILLIONS the whole time.
Artists and Labels are still as dumb as can be. Apple saved them and they think they accomplished it.
The Beatles don’t own their whole catalog, Michael Jackson’s estate does. Apple violated the copyright decision by entering the music business. Apple lost to the Beatles a trademark infringement case for using the word “Apple”. The company Apple agreed not to enter the music business but did anyway and had to pay off the Beatles. The Beatles are doing just fine.
BILLIONS? I don’t think so.
You don’t seem to understand that she doesn’t care about the freeloading fans. Those that actually enjoy her music will buy 1989, as over 8 million have already done. She wants her fans to be those that actually pay for her music. Also, all her previous albums are still on Spotify and will be on Apple Music. Give it a few more months and 1989 will be on both.
She may not be musically talented enough for this – but really, more people aren’t today than are – but she certainly has the sales behind her to be able to do things like this.
It pays to be popular, that’s is how Apple gets away with it.
For now. How long can her image carry her mediocre talent though? Time will tell. Will anyone be listening to her music in 20 years time? I seriously doubt it.
Flash in the pan
You seem about as prescient as the Decca Records executive who turned down the Beatles saying that “Not to mince words, Mr. Epstein, but we don’t like your boys’ sound.
Groups are out; four-piece groups with guitars particularly are
finished.”
Who convinced you that you were a music critic or expert? We’ve all seen the pretentious contrarian routine before. Give it a rest.
I’ll express my opinion on an open forum as I see fit.
As a consumer I’m as entitled to an opinion as any entitled, peacocking detractor.
Who convinced you that you were the arbiter of acceptable opinion on this website? Have you been appointed moderator?
Perhaps it is you who should take a rest. Only time will tell which of us is right.
You wrote: “I’ll express my opinion on an open forum as I see fit.”
And I’ll express my opinions as I see fit. But, as evidenced by the deletion of your other post, this isn’t an “open forum.” It’s private property with rules you agreed to abide by.
You wrote: “Who convinced you that you were the arbiter of acceptable opinion on this website?”
You can answer my question first: Who convinced you that you were a music critic or expert?
You wrote: “Perhaps it is you who should take a rest”
I’m not the one using this forum to attack a young woman, and her fans, while hiding behind some pseudonym. You are.
You wrote
“And I’ll express my opinions as I see fit. But, as evidenced by the deletion of your other post, this isn’t an “open forum.” It’s private property with rules you agreed to abide by.”
Luckily agreeing with your opinion is not one of those rules.
“You can answer my question first: Who convinced you that you were a music critic or expert?”
I provided a point of view, what I did not do is attempt to silence or suppress the views of others. I never claimed opposing views have no merit or should not be raised, you did. Ergo I would argue burden of proof lies upon the individual attempting to silence debate.
When you implied I need some verifiable status as an expert critic to express opinion on Swift’s music you implied I lack the required credentials to debate here and that you are the arbiter of that.
So I ask again? Have you been moderator? And if so is musical preference something you have been authorised to moderate?
You wrote “I’m not the one using this forum to attack a young woman, and her fans, while hiding behind some pseudonym. You are.”
I am not attacking a “young woman” – I am criticising her music. She’s a grown adult who does not need your protection. I never once mentioned her fans in any way shape or form.
If your point of view requires this kind of straw man, the illusion of ad hominem attack then I believe there is little I can do to engage you in quality debate.
If your fandom of Taylor swift cannot tolerate others’ distaste for her music (to the point where you mischaracterise it as a personal attack) then I respectfully suggest you examine your reasons for this. Perhaps a subconscious sense of shame?
Maybe you can just “shake it off”?
You wrote: “I provided a point of view, what I did not do is attempt to silence or suppress the views of others.”
Had you made your statement in a more polite manner, I’d have not responded at all.
You wrote: “I am not attacking a “young woman” – I am criticising her music.”
You are being dishonest. You wrote the following:
“Swift knows she is a flash in the pan. Every time she courts publicity with some trite attempt to manipulate the public sentiment – she wants that funnelled into sales channels which pay top buck right away, because she knows very few will pay more to appreciate her music in a higher quality format.”
When you accuse someone of ‘trite manipulation of public sentiment’ for financial gain, that’s a personal attack. It has nothing to do with her music.
In your now-deleted post, you accused her fans of “flock[ing] to stream [her] music due to [her] marketing prowess, hype
or latest banal feminist rally cry”
You accused her fans of being gullible — of being taken in by marketing, hype, and a ‘banal feminist rally cry.’
You wrote: “Perhaps a subconscious sense of shame?”
You’re seem to be the one with some emotional need to proclaim your distaste for the music of Ms. Swift. I like her music. I think that she’s a very talented singer, songwriter, and lyricist who frequently displays a command of the English language far beyond someone of her years. I think that she’s also a genuinely nice person.
“When you accuse someone of ‘trite manipulation of public sentiment’ for financial gain, that’s a personal attack. It has nothing to do with her music.”
Nonsense. It’s an indictment of the lack of depth of her music.
It seems to me you’re mischaracterising my argument as a personal one in order to dismiss it.
“You accused her fans of being gullible — of being taken in by marketing, hype, and a ‘banal feminist rally cry.'”
If only the gullible were influenced by marketing it wouldn’t be particularly effective. You’re straining here to misrepresent what I’m saying.
Effective marketing and generation of hype can influence sales independent of or even in spite of musical quality (or lack thereof). What often distinguishes between the two is time, longevity. We shall see.
I’m happy for you that you like Taylor Swift, even that you like her enough to defend her against all criticism of her music online. Quixotic, but seemingly well enough intentioned.
I’m afraid I couldn’t claim to know her well enough to comment on the genuine depths of her personality.
Thank you for elaborating as regards your taste, now allow me to re-state that I do not need to be recognised by you as a “music critic” or “expert” in order to express my own taste or distaste, any more than I need to be an accredited interior decorator to dislike the latest range of hello kitty couch throws.
Far beyond her years is a phrase I’d be keener to reserve for someone like Regina Spektor. “All the rowboats” shows not just mere clever wordmanship, but metaphorical and thematic depth beyond there mere deconstruction of tired interpersonal and relationship tropes. All without quite the same level of posturing and media manipulation.
Time and hindsight are often needed to decouple the hype from the talent when it comes to an artist’s success.
I couldn’t agree more… Regina is unmatched among today’s singer songwriters, even more impressive in that English is not her native language…
While I realize that you’d like to redefine the basic meanings of words, accusing someone of trite manipulation for financial gains is not a comment on ‘musical depth.’
I don’t defend Taylor against all who criticize her music. As you say, everyone is entitled to their own musical tastes and opinions. I only commented after you posted a series of messages alleging some cynical attempt on her part to be greedy, manipulative, and scheming — because she knew that she lacked talent and was trying to quickly cash in before she was discovered.
If you value intelligent lyrics crafted for an educated audience, you might want to listen to folk-rock musician Al Stewart. I recommend some of his less popular albums, including “Past, Present, and Future,” and “Between the Wars.”
P.S. You really should get some of the Kelly Kitty interior decorating
accessories. They would go so well with your “Mean Girls” persona that
you’re cultivating online.
If you had said “I don’t like her music”, you’d have a leg to stand on. But you didn’t. You called her a mediocre talent, which has been disproven by those that have the credentials to make that assessment.
Very true, there is nothing special about her voice or appearance. But this new pop persona has breathed new life into her career. Country TS was about to take her last breath.
I can’t say I’d consider her appearance relevant. I find her quite beautiful, but it doesn’t really matter, or at least it shouldn’t.
We’ll see in time if the success continues when the hype dies down. I feel it won’t, but then taste is subjective.
Albums recounting “bad experiences with boys” could sell to teenagers indefinitely, but they’re a fickle crowd and their musical heroes come and go.
Her standoff against streaming won’t last forever I reckon.
You wrote: “Albums recounting “bad experiences with boys”…”
Her catalog is quite a bit more full than that. Just to cite a few examples, songs like “22,” “Mean,” “State of Grace,” “Stay Stay Stay” have nothing to do with breakups. She maintains a good sense of humor about herself, even parodying the way she’s portrayed by some detractors with the recent song “Blank Space.”
Yes, she is beautiful and it shouldn’t matter. But what should matter is that she is a really nice person (according to just about everyone who has spent significant time with her). That’s a good deciding factor when choosing between two CDs that you otherwise like equally.
She may not have the talent of some artists, but to place herself and her fans as her priorities has garnered the respect of those who weren’t fans, and now they, like me, have become Swiftys.
Mediocre talent? You have no clue what you’re talking about. You do realize she’s already been on the charts for 9 years and she’s been thoroughly recognized by the industry as being both a talented artist and songwriter?
Crawl back into your basement.
You are kidding right? TS is HUGE, i agree with the talent thing, but her brand won’t hurt by not streaming, hype for her next album will be SKY HIGH, and by then her fans will know the only way they can legally get it is to buy it.
Her largest fan base is still teen girls, Swift is now 25. And her fans that are now her age are not buying her album and going to her concerts.
And Swift is still cultivating teen fans – still showing up surprising 14 year old birthday parties for the PR.
Swift doesn’t have longevity as an musical artist.
I agree her longevity won’t last, but she and her advisors are looking to milk everything that her brand is worth before she washes up. Her taking her stuff off streaming sites makes her look really exclusive, which creates demand, which creates hype, which sells records.
By the way, I ‘m denigrating Swift. She has written and produced some very good songs. For her time in music. And trying to get as much now as possible – smart. As a long term musical artist she will not sustain. As most now. A good few years and gone
As to her brand I’m not sure what it is right now. is it music, fashion, look I’m a rebel fighting big business for my fans (not) even though she is a big business?
Swift is in the same boat as Gaga (over), Perry (facing too), and most music artists of the last 20 years, who?
No one is going to be cutting the songs of Swift, Perry, Gaga etc… let along Jay-Z, Kayne, Bieber etc… – they will not be living off of a catalog. So save now.
Exclusive? Isn’t it strange Swift hasn’t pulled her music off Youtube? Free to users. Why pull Spotify Taylor and not Youtube? Maybe because most of the fans who do listen to her music won’t pay for it, but get it free on Youtube.
Taylor has outlasted both Gaga and Perry. She’s been on the charts for over 9 years. And ALL of her back catalog is still available to stream.
The problem is the teenagers who Bieber, Gaga, and Perry are pandering to are a spoiled generation. They have short attention spans and no sense of loyalty. Taylor transcends generations.
All of her old albums are still available to stream. 1989 will be available in a few months.
False. I am 28 and still love her music.
She has longevity and none of the stuff you see in the media is done “for the PR”. She’s a genuinely nice person who loves doing those things for her fans.
It’s not ego and yes she is talented. One of the rare talents in fact who will be around in 25 years still making and writing great songs.
She is immensely talented and you have no right to say otherwise. She has been recognized as a talented artist and songwriter by her peers, those that actually know what they’re talking about. She is only getting better and bigger.
But haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate…
Pack up your Swift lunchbox and get ready for school tomorrow little girl.
Be careful, he decides what you have the right to say and think.
I know. Why I just dismissed the little girl.
Says the little stalker troll. You enjoy discrediting yourself way too much.
Sorry, do I not have the right oh mighty know it all lord?
And there goes your credibility….. BYE
Good – you have your lunched packed. Taylor would be so proud of you.
But why are you responding to me – “you have no right to say otherwise”
Cause I enjoy seeing more of your comments disappear. Stay in school and maybe you’ll learn someday. I left that hellhole a long time ago.
Oh, poor little Swift fan girl – you peanut butter and jelly in your Swift lunchbox?
How much music have you produced little girl?
Continuing your ad hominem attacks only makes you look like a completely retarded asshat. Good thing they’re all getting deleted. Your continued responses just give the mods more exercise. Have fun in your sad little dream world. Us adults are here in the real world.
Cutofmac likes to moderate. I don’t call names. But maybe they, like you prefer to deny peoples right to an opinion.
Do us all a favor and link to you lip syncing to Taylor songs in front of your computer screen, in your parents basement. We would all like to laugh for a bit.
Now go to bed, Instagram Taylor your dreams and enjoy your lunch from your Taylor Swift lunchbox.
Oh, and you being a 14 year old girl is not adult sweetheart.
You sure love talking about yourself. It’s really sad. Go cry into comment purgatory where no one can here your inane ramblings.
lol it’s jokes how she thinks she’s worth so much. Good for her. I just want to see her sales of her albums vs no. of seeds for that same album on torrenting sites. What I don’t get is that musicians are stupid and that’s all cool – but whatever happened to her advisors?
The first two commenters (like most people) don’t understand this issue at all. The streaming distribution model of music pays the artists almost nothing, and Taylor is taking a stand – again.! The arts in the U.S. are at an all time low as far as the amount of attention and respect that they generate, and not to mention that everyone wants to consume their art of choice for free, or close to free. Whether your art is sculpture, ceramics, on canvas, dance, or MUSIC, people don’t want to pay and support the artists that create it. They feel they are entitled to it for free, partly because of technology but mostly because of a warped sense of entitlement. Keep something in mind – once your art is free, soon you’re going to have some pretty crappy art. I’ve met Taylor of a couple of occasions and she’s smart and very humble – more so many of the other celebrities I’ve dealt with during my work in Television. She knows exactly what she’s doing. It’s smart business to create more demand for her work by cutting off part of the supply. Especially since it wouldn’t generate much money anyway since the share for artists is so abysmally low and unfair. Luckily she is in a position to do this with her sales numbers. She talking advantage of the fact that she can afford to make this stand for all the other musical artists out there struggling to make a living. Good for her..!
Just download it and problem solved.
You mean take it, or in fact steal it?
An artists business model has always been to give it away for free and get paid by those that truely appreciate it enough to compensate.
You don’t become popular and famous by not allowing your art to be seen and heard by everyone.
Yeah I see professional painters, sculptors, and wood carvers do that all the time…. just give it way. Geez if only everyone would give away their hard work.
Poor analogy. Painters license prints to galleries for exposure. Sculptors, wood carvers etc all have unavoidable per- item material costs which prevent the mass distribution of their works for free or at low cost for added exposure.
Many top photographers allow far and wide distribution of their works for added exposure also. (Check out stuck in customs, he doesn’t even watermark)
Swift knows she is a flash in the pan. Every time she courts publicity with some trite attempt to manipulate the public sentiment – she wants that funnelled into sales channels which pay top buck right away, because she knows very few will pay more to appreciate her music in a higher quality format.
Somehow I can’t see her music selling too well on vinyl
You wrote: “Many top photographers allow far and wide distribution of their works for added exposure also.”
From what I’ve seen, it’s very few, and even those who do usually limit the distribution to only a tiny portion of their portfolio.
You wrote: “because she knows very few will pay more to appreciate her music in a higher quality format.”
Acoustic Sounds and HDtracks are offering her latest album (“1989”)in a 24 bit sample size FLAC download. Many audiophiles are complaining that it’s not available with a 96khz sampling rate, too.
You wrote: “Somehow I can’t see her music selling too well on vinyl”
Taylor Swift’s “1989” is listed in fifth position in vinyl sales on Amazon as I write this.
Humm, I didn’t mention photographers but if adding a statement to make your argument for thievery go down better so be it. Theft if theft no matter how bad you wish to change the definition.
can you come over and paint my house please – I’m not going to pay you anything.
Do you really not appreciate the difference between a service and making music? She is already being paid for her services when she performs in concert. The music she should give away for free is her portfolio. If you like her music, you go to a concert, buy her branded stuf.
and what about recording artists who can’t tour and do live shows, you are demanding that other people work for free, so lets see you work for free, YOU should work for free COME AND PAINT MY HOUSE IF YOU WANT SOME RESPECT.
For many serious about music streaming is for music discovery, not consumption. For those who aren’t – theft will remain an attractive option. (It isn’t remotely fair, but it is what it is)
People who want to buy her music will buy it, those who won’t won’t. No amount of spitting the dummy out will change that.
I tend to find a new album on spotify, then buy it on CD to enjoy in higher quality. If it isn’t decent, I’ll stream it a few times then forget about it.
Streaming doesn’t line the pockets of people like Taylor swift. If people flock to stream your music due to your marketing prowess, hype or latest banal feminist rally cry – they won’t bother to purchase it afterward because the quality of the music didn’t back it all up.
25 years ago that same hype would have had to drive singles sales.
You can restrict the supply of dogshit all you want, but when it comes out it is still nonetheless a turd.
Generally I’ve found that artists who complain about the lack of appreciation for their art generally aren’t particularly good artists.
Have you considered that perhaps in at least some cases it is easier on the ego to claim the entire consumer base lacks quality, rather than the art itself lacking the needed quality to compel and induce purchase?
Making something scarce can make it more desirable when it has some measure of inherent worth, that inherent worth often determines the magnitude of that effect. It’s called scarcity value and it’s entirely distinct from the mechanisms of supply and demand (which tend to influence price rather than one another directly)
Swift wants her music to be appreciated as art, for people to buy the CD, sit down and spend time listening to it. Like one might do with a Dire Straits album or some Pink Floyd.
People consume shallow art in a shallow manner – if her music lacks the quality and depth for people to step off from the music discovery platform and listen to it with greater quality on CD or Vinyl elsewhere – then perhaps it is not just the sheeple consumer, but also the art/artist who is to blame.
Remember it is easier on the ego to see oneself as an unappreciated genius and blame the ignorant populace, than it is to accept the limited appeal of your art.
Think half the people could care less.
More than half of the music buying population doesn’t care about her music. There are probaably well over a couple of billion people that have some sort of device to download and listen to her music, yet she only sells less than 10 Million copies of her latest album in almost a year? She’s got horrible adoption rate with the total population. She’s worse than freakin Windows Vista.
Just torrent it.
Why would someone even care to even bother wasting storage on her music in the first place? She’s just a pop singer that caters to the musically ignorant teenager crowd.
Just steal it.
I’m guessing Keith hasn’t replied because he’s rushed out to buy a load of Taylor Swift albums. He’ll be back soon.
you need to look up the word “steal” you’re confusing it with “copy”
no, he means steal.
No. Torrenting is stealing. The courts have confirmed that.
the courts don’t own the english language. you’re wrong again
This isn’t about language, moron. The courts have levied huge fines against torrenters because they are stealing and distributing copyrighted material.
Fact: Torrenting music is stealing in the eyes of the law, which has nothing to do with language.
Care to own up to your mistake, or are you gonna spew some more of your ignorance on this thread?
When I am talking about the meaning of a word it is precisely about language, you uneducated buffoon
Oh good, more ignorance. Finding all you ignorant morons is fun.
shhh, your stupidity is showing
Talking to yourself? So we’re adding insanity to your list of horrible flaws on display. Moron, ignorant, stalker, troll, insane….. how much more are you adding to the list?
Trying hard for that last word, lol. You’ll still be wrong and I will be right.
Nope, but you’ll think so regardless of what the facts say. You really breezed through Ignorance 101. But it’s all for naught, like all your disappearing comments. So sad.
You lose
Try again, retard.
loser
BTW, you lose again. Stop making an ass of yourself.
You first, troll.
Wow, I didn’t mean to embarrass you so bad you have to try the troll card.
Only one here embarrassed is you because you keep failing at saving face.
Nope, you’re wrong.
I win again
Still at this ignorance shtick? I feel sorry for you and your disappearing “opinions”.
Loser loser
I see you’re devolving back into a 4 year old. Get off the computer; the adults are talking here.
you still lose
Really? Wow, I am sorry your ethics are so contorted you can’t tell the difference.
I am confused, her album is streamed on her own Apple Radio channel, but then she denies it on another streaming format? Isnt the cat already out of the bag at this point (not mentioning album has been out for 8+ months at this point).
It makes sense. Don’t give the rights to the streaming services to force consumers to purchase. Once the sales of the album has eased off, then give them the streaming rights.
I wish that all of the rappers, teenage idols would not stream either, in fact, I would love it if they simply stopped allowing their content on terrestrial radio, muzak and everywhere else, so we won’t have to listen to it.
Hell NO. I don’t listen to Taylor Swift!
No one cares.
I shouldn’t have too much trouble dealing with this. I don’t intend to subscribe to any streaming music service.
All the negative comments here yet she has more money than any of you and does more for others than any of you could even think of doing in your lifetime. Give it a rest.. she is way above your fault finding and laughs all the way to the bank no doubt. Good grief…get over your jealousy …..
What’s the difference between streaming and having it on traditional over the air radio? Is the revenue for the artists that different between the two?
Streaming SHOULD be like radio, to promote the sale of music so that artist can earn a living and create more work for their fans but unfortunately it’s been cannibalized by the streaming companies who are hardly paying the artist anything or nothing and using them to promote their companies instead.
Streaming has become more like a jukebox than a radio. Services allow users to select what to hear. It’s not like over-the-air radio where you heard what the DJ and station decided to play.
Traditional radio was a great model to that benefited artists and radio stations. Radio stations got revenue for ads. Artists realized sales of singles and albums after airplay gave the songs exposure. When listeners heard a song and really liked it, many bought 45s and LPs that contained the song.
With streaming, a person can just stream whatever they want at any time (and most don’t care about nuances of sound quality).
That would be okay, if the artists were being fairly compensated, but they are not. Instead, they see sales of their albums being cannibalized by services that pay them very little.
The comments on this page are quite incredible, such a lack of understanding of how the entertainment business works, of the way that streaming has almost destroyed the livelihoods of so many artists and writers, of the talent of Taylor Swift and the fact that she is making a stand for other artists so that the streaming companies (of which Apple has now joined the club) realize that artists have the right to be paid for their work. To anyone who disagrees, would you spend a year creating a work of art only to be told that it’s worthless and you are going to be paid nothing for it. Struggling artists who have small incomes have just been told that Apple are going to be paying them NOTHING for 3 months and after than their earnings are going to be reduced to a tiny fraction of what they used to be paid in order to promote a streaming service that is likely to result in very tiny earnings. You want music free – how do you think the artists feel about that fact that you consider their work worthless.
Taylor is a hype-machine – not a ‘talent’, not by any stretch a singer, vocalist or musician. Less talent than the Monkees. (Google it.)
According to who? Some pseudonymous commenters on the Internet? Rolling Stone gave her latest album four out of five stars. She’s been praised by critics, fellow musicians, and producers.
Spotify is doing just fine without her catalog and Apple won’t be any different. She should be grateful to Apple for NOT pulling her catalog from iTunes.
FYI, they both still have her entire back catalog available.
Taylor Swift has nothing to say. Just background music. Probably good enough for hairdresser shop but hardly more. I wouldn’t even notice if she wasn’t on.
I don’t get it, her problem is she doesn’t want free-only streaming services to feature her album but Apple won’t have a free only model after the trial period???
Having said that, this album is proof that streaming cannibalises physical (and digital) sales…
She only pulled 1989 from streaming services. All of her back catalog is still available. Why does no one understand this?
Effective or not it is a fact. When you take something without paying you are stealing. You seem like an educated person and yet your ethics seem so corrupted. Just call it stealing and leave it at that.