In Taylor Swift vs. Spotify, who gets hurt? Your Say

On Monday, singer Taylor Swift removed her songs from Spotify, prompting a debate about music streaming services. Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

With more than 10 million paying subscribers, Spotify is no slouch. Paying $5 a month for the student premium membership has been one of the best decisions I've made. I no longer keep any music locally on my phone except a few songs Spotify caches.

Streaming music is a train moving with so much steam that Taylor Swift cannot stop it. She will come back to the service soon enough.

— Ryan Callahan

Buying albums isn't convenient anymore. Technology has evolved, and so must the way people listen to music. CDs take up space, not to mention they can scratch and can skip. Streaming music is easier. Plus, I believe that many people would rather pay the $9.99 a month to stream a song than to take the time to find it online and download it illegally.

At least with streaming apps, the artists are getting some money, while with illegal downloads they get none.

— James Kingsbury

Swift has the right to pull her music from Spotify if she chooses.

But companies such as Spotify and Pandora are driving a new market for music. Fewer people are buying music in the traditional fashion, and fewer are going the iTunes route, too. I couldn't imagine paying concert prices, but many do.

If Swift feels like she doesn't need to list her music on Spotify, so be it. I don't see any fault on the part of her or Spotify.

— Joshua Vanlandingham