I'm so sorry that... someone who signed a contract is bound by it I guess. Also no need for personal attacks.
The conduct of other labels or rights holders isn't really relevant in the discussion of what's happening here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Taylor Swift can't perform her own songs at the AMAs because she doesn't own them
- Thread starter Typhon
- Start date
I'm so sorry that... someone who signed a contract is bound by it I guess. Also no need for personal attacks.
The conduct of other labels or rights holders isn't really relevant in the discussion of what's happening here.
People should really read her full letter In the OP as well as the one she made some months back - https://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/185958366550/for-years-i-asked-pleaded-for-a-chance-to-own-my
When she first got her record deal, she signed an exploitative contract. Which is a pretty common thing that happens to newly signed artists.
Whether her family should have been in the position to get her a better contract or not, my opinion is the same.
It's true that it's completely legal for the new owners of her old record label to own all her old recordings ...but I honestly can't fault Taylor Swift for publicly complaining about scummy behavior that goes on in the record industry, even if it's legal for them to do, and even if the complaining is self serving for her own benefit.
Basically my opinion is if you own someone else's music, expect that they will complain about that fact and just live with it. Treat it as an expected cost of doing business and move on with your life as the new owner of their music. Getting into a feud via the press with the artist doesn't do anything for me.
And I say this as someone who was NEVER really a fan of Taylor Swift, and I think there are other much better pop artists.
Whether her family should have been in the position to get her a better contract or not, my opinion is the same.
It's true that it's completely legal for the new owners of her old record label to own all her old recordings ...but I honestly can't fault Taylor Swift for publicly complaining about scummy behavior that goes on in the record industry, even if it's legal for them to do, and even if the complaining is self serving for her own benefit.
Basically my opinion is if you own someone else's music, expect that they will complain about that fact and just live with it. Treat it as an expected cost of doing business and move on with your life as the new owner of their music. Getting into a feud via the press with the artist doesn't do anything for me.
And I say this as someone who was NEVER really a fan of Taylor Swift, and I think there are other much better pop artists.
Contract law supersedes copyright law. Is their a copy of this contract?
TMZ is usually legit and the additional context makes the situation make significantly more sense.
The Swifties are on the loose per The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14...-doxxed-scooter-braun-scott-borchetta-twitter
That's fair. I don't fault anyone for not feeling BAD for Taylor Swift; I just think that leaving it at "yeah, that's how the industry works" or "yeah, and you agreed to those terms" is still a bad take.
If, say, she were LYING, whether about the terms of the contract or how they affect her (and I really can't tell based on her "letters" which are frustratingly vague), or as it turns out actually millions in debt to the label, or whatever, that's something else. As raised by other posters, it's unclear why, legally, she wouldn't be allowed to perform her songs, to the extent that it feels like spin on her part. And I think it's fair to say, hey, maybe I don't believe what she's saying. But again, not the same as saying "she agreed to that."
Last edited:
I don't exactly trust Taylor Swift as she's made clear in the past that she's willing to embellish the facts to portray herself as a victim but I do think contracts made before adulthood are bullshit to a degree and should have some kind of an out. If that led to less child stars or whatever doomsday scenario then so be it.
OP
OP
Cool that you'll throw your morals out the window if somebody isn't poor.
Imagine defending exploitative industry practices with the circular argument that Taylor Swift signed a bad deal, and therefore the terms of the bad deal are justified.
The TMZ article in here says she owes them 7 million and hasn't paid anything in a year. If that article is true then she is making this bed for herself (at this time, I won't for a second defend record company contracts), they are using the means at their disposal to leverage that money back.
If the article is correct she is also using her fans to pressure, and probably harass, the execs. Which is very shitty
OP
OP
She hasn't paid her debts and is now using her fanbase to harass them. Considering she has a history of misleading i'd rather not cry wolf so she can increase her wealth.
If she were some young artist just getting by this would be a different situation.
Why does she want to record copycat versions of her past songs? To transfer recording rights to herself?
It's rare, but something like this has happened before. John Fogerty got sued for sounding too much like himself. And I remember there being a huge issue over Slash vs. GnR and who owned the rights to play their most popular songs live. same iirc with the remnants of Oasis. There have been other cases of bands not being able to print their lyrics on cd re-releases because they didn't own the words they themselves wrote.
Anyway, this is undoubtly a shitty situation for Swift, but definitely not unprecedented. She/her parents probably signed a shitty contract when she was young that gave her original label full control over every master and this is a sad side-effect of that.
Last edited:
My assumption would be she doesn't want to pay either the 7 mill back or purchase the rights/masters outright herself and is looking for ways around that
That's basically how Jojo got around a similar issue right? Re-recorded all her own albums as covers?
Her tweet came across as disingenuous and I got the impression that she was trying to play the victim. Which apparently isn't far off the mark. Pay your dues lady.
Basically it seems like to me the Scooter Braun guy knows if Taylor Swift re-records her music next year, the value of his masters drops like a rock.
So he's trying to force her into some kind of deal to prevent her from doing that.
So he's trying to force her into some kind of deal to prevent her from doing that.
One day you guys are going to need to get over this hate boner for anyone worth millions and understand musicians and novelists, the people that earn those millions by touching the hearts of and connecting with millions of people, are in no way the same as those who earn billions exploiting other people. Corporations and their executives are the enemy, not people who sell millions of copies of their work to millions of people that like it.
It isn't really about the money. This is music she wrote and performed and men who had nothing to do with any of that creative process are telling her she can't perform any of her own songs unless she behaves like a good little girl and does what she's told. You're basically siding with the corporation on this one.
It wouldn't matter if she was an indie artist or The Beatles, that's fucked up.
It's just so fucked up to think like that.
I don't care if she's rich as fuck, she deserves to be able to sing her own songs.
This is America, you'd be surprised at just how many people would say yes she should be held to everything she agreed to at 15 with the argument being: she should have researched.
She is doing pretty good without a soul . Were can i sell my soul?
Reminds me of what happened to Poe (the singer). Got screwed by her label/people that bought the rights to her music rights and tied her up in court over it all, not even allowed to sing her own songs or make new ones (though she did under a pseudoname). However it basically killed her career, she was legit at the cusp of stardom and had a good selling album under her belt and opening for Depeche Mode.
I mean:
Some of my favorite 90's songs.
I hope that Taylor can get this worked out and get the rights to her music.
I mean:
Some of my favorite 90's songs.
I hope that Taylor can get this worked out and get the rights to her music.
The argument is that she can, she is being economic with the facts so as to build support and also galvanise her fanbase.
She apparently has history with this.
YUP
love all the people in this thread (gonna play the odds and say they're 98% men) telling the female musician who's been in this industry literally her entire adult life and knows more about it than all of us combined ever will "well, I mean, that's kinda how it works"
just for once maybe have the smallest shred of empathy. Just a little bit
This is a win-win for TS.
- TS sold rights to her masters, made her money, paid her debt.
- TS is about to rerecord EVERYTHING she has done in the past ten years of her career. She owns copyright, so she can do this.
- TS fans about to EAT IT UP and double dip on these rerecordings, pushing her to more platinums than ever before.
- TS documentary on Netflix will be watched by everyone and their mother when it's out because of this added scenario.
- TS makes shit loads of money by 2021. Shit loads. And she will continue making it for the next ten years just rereleasing same old material.
- TS sold rights to her masters, made her money, paid her debt.
- TS is about to rerecord EVERYTHING she has done in the past ten years of her career. She owns copyright, so she can do this.
- TS fans about to EAT IT UP and double dip on these rerecordings, pushing her to more platinums than ever before.
- TS documentary on Netflix will be watched by everyone and their mother when it's out because of this added scenario.
- TS makes shit loads of money by 2021. Shit loads. And she will continue making it for the next ten years just rereleasing same old material.
It's mind boggling that this shit still happens. The movie industry was like this for decades where you'd have to sign an exclusive deal with say Universal for 5 pictures and then get burnt out cause they run you ragged ie Judy garland.
I get a studio/individuals owning the album but a musician is different than other entertainers as your image and voice are your whole livelihood. Your like an independent contractor and so many young people and especially women get screwed by it. You sign a contract at 15 and now they can bar you from your own intellectual property ;that's got to be so frustrating.
So you are ignoring the whole "The argument is that she can, she is being economic with the facts so as to build support and also galvanise her fanbase."
I see.
Wasn't public knowledge that they are not selling the masters? Why wouldn't she want to pay, she's like the biggest pop act in these times.
It's stupid to have to pay for songs that you wrote and sang just because some assholes have power over you.
The whole system is broken. Honestly, she has enough weight in the industry to make permanent change.
Not that I care one way or the other but wouldn't it be illegal or impossible to have a minor sign into a contract? Like any there have to be parental consent for that be go through?
Yes, this thread is ridiculous.
Unless she was an emancipated minor, even then, I'm not a lawyer, so who knows.
They offered her a deal to own her masters but she passed on it and signed elsewhere with no animosity. The real reason she's upset is because someone she hates, Scooter, bought them and is now trying to play the victim card.
I'm pretty sure that is not at all how this works.
Someone who holds only the rights to a recording of a song does not get to dictate when and where tsaid song is performed.
You can record an entire album of covers and sell it without permission, so long as you are paying royalties to the original songwriter.
Look up "compulsory licensing", Taylor.
Someone who holds only the rights to a recording of a song does not get to dictate when and where tsaid song is performed.
You can record an entire album of covers and sell it without permission, so long as you are paying royalties to the original songwriter.
Look up "compulsory licensing", Taylor.
