Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#31

Post by smnrchrds »

hobofan wrote: post #19
ToFab123 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On Sunday, June 30 [2019], it was announced that Scooter Braun and his company, Ithaca Holdings LLC, acquired Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group in a deal that’s reportedly worth over $300 million. Through buying Borchetta’s company, Braun now also has ownership of Taylor Swift’s master recordings made when she was with the label, including her first six albums. https://www.bustle.com/p/why-doesnt-taylor-swi…

> in a deal that’s reportedly worth over $300 million So if she were to really put the money where her mouth is, she could probably buy the rights to her old records with her reported $360 million of net worth, or find a more friendly recording label willing to do so.

She actually tried that, but was unsuccessful.

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#32

Post by ncallaway »

xwdv wrote: post #27
solipsism wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are two things that weaken Swift’s message here 1/ There’s no need to call out gender If you think that'll weaken her message, you haven't been paying attention to society lately. This will resonate strongly with the people she intends it to resonate with. Maybe you mean it makes the message less compelling to you personally. I'm not sure Taylor cares about that though... 2/ When your net worth is measu…

Please don’t give her anymore ideas. She should just take her money and retire peacefully dressing fancy and traveling the world.

So you'd like her to be good and shut up?

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#33

Post by yevster »

So she’s crying a river over being forced to live up to the obligations of contracts she willingly signed. Most of her fans reading this can only dream of having a fraction of the breaks she’s had or the money she’s made. So she won’t have a documentary about her on Netflix. Neither will anyone reading this, but somehow we’re all supposed to feel sorry or outraged for her?

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#34

Post by cortesoft »

wallace_f wrote: post #17
bhauer wrote: post #3

For those who, like me, don't visit the domain called facebook dot com: https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1195123215657508867...

To be fair Twitter isn't overwhelmingly better.

You mean the domain called twitter dot com?

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#36

Post by steve19 »

stupendousyappi wrote: post #11

Evidently, starting next year, Swift will have the legal right to do something harmful to the owners of Big Machine Records- rerecord her old songs. The owners of that company currently have the legal right to prevent her from playing her old songs. There are many artists who I think have been exploited by the executives of their industry, but Taylor Swift isn't one of them. I expect that she was generously compensat…

Presumably she had a lot less power early in her career when she originally recorded those albums.

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#37

Post by daenz »

gorgoiler wrote: post #12

I think there are two things that weaken Swift’s message here: 1/ There’s no need to call out gender — “be a good little girl and shut up”, referring to “these men”, etc. Not during 2019’s entertainment industry harassment crisis. This is an intellectual property rights issue but it feels like Swift is trying to nudge it in another direction, unfairly. 2/ When your net worth is measured in the hundreds of millions of…

>but it feels like Swift is trying to nudge it in another direction unfairly

People using social issues to manipulate situations in their favor? Say it isn't so! It's the unintended consequence (intended, to some) that people have been trying to warn the ultra-identity-politics movement about. I had a disagreement with a project collaborator recently, and when I referred to them in the third person, they demanded I use different pronouns for them...different than what they advertise to everyone else publicly. What can you say to that? People are using these social talking points as unassailable offense tactics, because it's cheap and easy power. Nothing new here.

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#38

Post by baroffoos »

wallace_f wrote: post #17
bhauer wrote: post #3

For those who, like me, don't visit the domain called facebook dot com: https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1195123215657508867...

To be fair Twitter isn't overwhelmingly better.

Would be nice if someone could just copy and paste the text here.

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#39

Post by austhrow743 »

gorgoiler wrote: post #12

I think there are two things that weaken Swift’s message here: 1/ There’s no need to call out gender — “be a good little girl and shut up”, referring to “these men”, etc. Not during 2019’s entertainment industry harassment crisis. This is an intellectual property rights issue but it feels like Swift is trying to nudge it in another direction, unfairly. 2/ When your net worth is measured in the hundreds of millions of…

1. I don't understand how you can both point out the existence of the 2019 entertainment industry harassment crisis and think that mentioning gender will weaken her message. People are chomping at the bit to stomp on any man that wrongs a woman at the moment. Drawing attention to her and their genders is a terrific move.

2. It feels like straight up bullying because that's what this is.

Re: Taylor Swift: Don’t know what else to do

#40

Post by cyberferret »

xwowsersx wrote: post #6

Can someone explain the background here? I only have a vague idea of how the music industry works. I don't understand what's going on here.

I was surprised to learn recently (my son is just beginning his career in the music industry) that a lot of artists out there don't own the legal rights to their own music once they sign with a label.

It is I guess similar to the case where you might get hired as a programmer for XYZ Corp, and while there you use their resources and facilities to create an Uber or AirBnB app which goes on to make billions for the company. If you leave the company, the IP stays with them and they can continue to make money off it and not give a dime to you.

However, the corollary to this is that in the music industry, the IP is really not worth anything without the artist themselves performing the music, in most cases. I get that in this case, the owners of the IP want to still make royalties and money from the actual performance of the music, but I don't understand why they would restrict the artist (Ms. Swift) from performing or recording her music in the interim?? They would still get some APRA royalties from the performance.

NB: IIRC, Paul McCartney does not own the rights to the Beatles music catalog nowadays. It more recently belonged to Michael Jackson, and now to whoever bought it from his estate. But in this case, there is no 'don't perform' clauses in place, so Paul can still sing those old Beatles hits in public, and the owner of the catalog gets a split of the royalties.

Post reply on HN