61–70 of 90 posts
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 only have a vague idea of how the music industry works It's like startups. Someone pays some 20-somethings to work themselves to death on their passion project. Most fail fast, some are notable, and a few are runaway successes.
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…
There is precedent for it.[1] And if you consider the collective wealth of a labor union, calling a strike is a form of a "millionaire" (for a sufficiently large union) trying to have their way in the court of public opinion.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/aug/10/history-prince...
She’s too young and her music is too recent to invoke her right to terminate her copyright transfer, which would otherwise be a nice solution.
For those not familiar with compulsory licenses, US copyright law provides that for certain kinds of works and uses of those works, instead of obtaining a license from the copyright owner you can pay a fee to the Copyright Office and they can give you the license. The Copyright Office sets the amount of the fee. The money still goes to the copyright owner.
It doesn't matter if the copyright owner doesn't want you to have a license [1]. If you pay the fee, you get the license.
Unfortunately for Swift, I don't think that taking a compulsory license would help her here. I don't think that there is a compulsory license available for broadcast rights or for performance rights, one or both of which would be necessary for performing the songs on a TV broadcast. I think that the only compulsory license available for songs is the right to make and distribute audio recordings.
[1] One big exception. In the case of recordings of songs, compulsory licenses are not available until after there has been a release authorized by the copyright holder. Once the first authorized release is out, others can take compulsory licenses and make and release their own recordings.
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…
I'm sure Scooter Braun, who's likely got a net worth more than Taylor Swift, is going to be OK. He can take care of himself and doesn't need you to defend him. Nobody is bullying anybody here.
Wait, so she sold "her" music and it's no longer hers.... What am I missing here?
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…
Thanks for responding to my comment. I should be clearer that I think her message is weak specifically on a moral basis. That’s a bad thing because it is pretty damaging behavior to see coming from someone with so much influence over young people. As a piece of PR though, you are absolutely right. There’s nothing weak at all in this message. Attempting to mobilize millions of fans like this is a nuclear option not on…
Ignoring the respect part, I don't see the analogy. No civilians are going to suffer here. She's attacking record execs. Bloodsuckers. No one's going to shed a tear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair Twitter isn't overwhelmingly better.
Would be nice if someone could just copy and paste the text here.
TAYLOR SWIFT·THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019·READING TIME: 3 MINUTES
Guys - It’s been announced recently that the American Music Awards will be honoring me with the Artist of the Decade Award at this year’s ceremony. I’ve been planning to perform a medley of my hits throughout the decade on the show. Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun have now said that I’m not allowed to perform my old songs on television because they claim that would be re-recording my music before I’m allowed to next year. Additionally - and this isn’t the way I had planned on telling you this news - Netflix has created a documentary about my life for the past few years. Scott and Scooter have declined the use of my older music or performance footage for this project, even though there is no mention of either of them or Big Machine Records anywhere in the film.
Scott Borchetta told my team that they’ll allow me to use my music only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I’m both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun.
I feel very strongly that sharing what is happening to me could change the awareness level for other artists and potentially help them avoid a similar fate. The message being sent to me is very clear. Basically, be a good little girl and shut up. Or you’ll be punished. This is WRONG. Neither of these men had a hand in the writing of those songs. They did nothing to create the relationship I have with my fans. So this is where I’m asking for your help. Please let Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun know how you feel about this. Scooter also manages several artists who I really believe care about other artists and their work. Please ask them for help with this - I’m hoping that maybe they can talk some sense into the men who are exercising tyrannical control over someone who just wants to play the music she wrote. I’m especially asking for help from The Carlyle Group, who put up money for the sale of my music to these two men.
I just want to be able to perform MY OWN music. That’s it. I’ve tried to work this out privately through my team but have not been able to resolve anything. Right now my performance at the AMA’s, the Netflix documentary and any other recorded events I am planning to play until November of 2020 are a question mark.
I love you guys and I thought you should know what’s been going on.
Taylor
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…
2) What does her net worth have to do with this? She is an artist that wants to perform the songs that she wrote. Was she allowed to complain if she wasn't rich or what?
Everybody knows social media is a fast way of resolving issues with big companies. And the more famous you are, the better and faster it works.
Disallowing an artist to perform her own music also feels like legal bullying to me, she is just fighting back. Let's see if it works.
PSA: I just prepend https://outline.com/ to the URL of a FB post to get the actual text (as FB domains are resolved to 0.0.0.0 in my house).