It seems like every month, Apple releases a new component to its vast music empire. On June 30, 2015, Apple released its first music streaming application: Apple Music. Amidst the news of its release, popstar Taylor Swift made headlines by pulling her entire discography from the website. This act of selfishness certainly does not go well with the pop star’s angelic façade.

Swift justified her radical decision by saying that she was defending the rights of smaller, less successful artists. Her train of thought follows as this: if she keeps up this sort of pseudo-protesting, other musicians will join in, forcing streaming sites to pay the musicians more than the royalties that they are already given. Unfortunately for her, few have followed her lead. Instead, many have spoken out about Swift’s egotistic ways and cowardice for hiding behind her argument that she is helping out other musicians.

It is obvious that Swift has not properly thought out her plan. While she has the privilege to do risky things like this, the artists whom Swift claims to be assisting depend on streaming sites to get their name and music out to the general public. The more familiar people are with an artist’s name, the more they are willing to pay to see them perform in concert. In this day and age, music lovers prefer to experience the buzzing excitement of concerts, rather than paying upwards of $15 on one album from one artist. Swift is either too narrow sided to understand exactly how self-serving she is being, or she is very aware, and choosing to hide behind her revolutionary savior act in order to make a bit more money.

Although having applications like Apple Music pay artists for their work is a good idea, more can be done on Swift’s part. If she were actually concerned for the well being of “small artists,” Swift could donate to charities, such as the Health Alliance for Austin Musicians (HAAM) or the Musicians Foundation, which aim to help out lesser known artists. For someone who is worth an estimated $80 million, even a small fund from her can go a long way.

However, revoking the rights of her fans to listen to her music is not uncommon for the 25 year old. Around the release of her latest album 1989, Swift announced that she would pull all of her music from Spotify, a music streaming app similar to Apple Music. Swift’s tactless move enraged many fans. Some fans who were already paying the $11 monthly fee for Spotify Premium, which gives members unlimited music access on all devices, were forced to shell out extra money just to listen to Swift’s album. Furthermore, Swift’s fan base consists mainly of teenagers who rely on either their parents or their own paychecks to cover lesser prioritized expenses, such as music. Therefore, with meager amounts of money to spend, Swift’s fans, or Swifties, must resort to downloading her music illegally. This means that Swift does not earn money for her music, which was initially the source of her grievances.

The issue here is that Swift has not done her research. The reason that streaming applications became so popular in the first place is because of illegal music downloading sites, like Napster and Limewire. Although pirating was once the most common way to get music, it was a flawed system. In exchange for free music, users often contracted computer viruses along with the poor music quality. As a result, sites like Spotify and Pandora Radio rose to popularity. While people these days are willing to spend a few dollars a month to listen to an unlimited selection of music, it is out of the question to force music fans to purchase 10 songs for around $15 every time a new album drops. Due to the stubbornness of human nature, people are not going to buy music from iTunes, and instead pirating songs will revert back to being the norm. No one gains anything from this form of acquiring music, not even the music industry itself. Swift is simply shooting herself in the foot.

Having debuted her latest album with 1.287 million copies sold, Swift is clearly well off enough to allow her fans to listen to her music through streaming services. Clearly, the impetus in making this decision is fueled by something other than what Swift likes to call “the integrity of music.”