Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scooter Braun Buys Taylor Swift's Masters, Drama Ensues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taylor is always beefing with someone for the last few years. She is the Nicki Minaj of pop.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by spiritboy View Post
      Well, i don't care about what you guys think about this situation, i also won't read essays on this issue. I do think Taylor is right and nothing will change my mind. I also don't think anything wrong with her behavior. It's her work, she can do whatever she wants to do with them.
      ... except she can’t, because she doesn’t own the masters.

      For a bunch of music fans there’s a lot of users here who don’t understand how the industry works.
      Queuing for Girls Aloud reunion tickets since 2013

      #FreeBritney

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ewokguy15 View Post
        JeremySpears, still wondering what makes Scooter an asshole or whatever you keep referring to him as . . . you have been very quiet since your childish rant Yesterday.
        You again...

        Yeah as I said I've said everything that needed to be said from my side and I was done with the topic on here since it’s always the same "point" against Taylor from the same people extended to long paragraphs. Maybe you can read that again.

        But yes Scooter Braun is an asshole, an evil piece of shit, everything else I called him and all other words you can find to describe a walking piece of garbage like him. That quote from Selena Gomez said everything that needs to be said about him and the situation. It’s not just your usual business but it’s about power, greed and manipulation. Taylor did not want her masters to be sold to Scooter out of all people. He had the chance to sell the masters to her but he didn’t. It’s funny to me how people keep calling Taylor out for her "bitterness" but try to justify him not selling the masters to Taylor because she wouldn’t take his bullshit and defended herself. The double standards and middle age views are real. If he was such "a nice guy who was just doing business" he should’ve had no problem to sell HER music back to her. That was straight up evil. When things got dirty between him and Taylor last year he reposted an Instagram story that said he had "bought Taylor Swift" and you and him know exactly what he was trying to do with that, not to mention that he treated her like an object by doing that. Scooter is a bully who spent the last two release nights of his clients' albums liking hate tweets against Selena Gomez and don’t get me started about the hate accounts that he supports on various social media platforms. How old is that man? 12 or 40?
        Politicians such as Elizabeth Warren f.e. have sided with Taylor and so have countless other celebrities, including ones that have had issues with Scooter themselves such as Hilary Duff, Cara Delevingne and Selena of course. He was fired by Hilary Duff and even Ariana for a while (the Ariana & Scooter relationship is a whole different story but he’s been an asshole to her too and her fans hate him) and even Justin Bieber, who still blindly supports his manager, has stated how Scooter overworked him, thinking about the money instead of his health. Scooter also forced Justin to visit the president of Israel which he didn’t want to do. The Wanted was managed by Scooter and they said that they were were encouraged to throw wild parties and "behave as raucously as they desired", something that he probably also told Justin which could’ve led to his breakdown in addition to Scooter overworking him. Madison Beer talked about how he promised her the world, then dropped her and tried to sabotage her career. He’s said to have sabotaged Victoria Justice's music career so that Ariana could become more famous and while that is not confirmed I wouldn’t put it past him. Not to mention that he’s Kanye West's manager and was part of his anti Taylor campaign years ago and I don’t need to say more about that because I'd be opening a whole new can of worms.
        Scooter trying to silence Taylor several times should be a red flag to everyone but somehow it isn’t because we’re talking about Taylor Swift and Scooter is just a nice guy doing business.
        Also that man is literally connected to a company that actually funds war crime and and a real genocide in Yemen. So yes he’s an asshole and that’s putting it mildly.

        Now btw a thing I want to clarify about this whole situation is that yes it’s true that Taylor knew about the sale beforehand but she did not know who they were sold to. However, even if she did that wouldn’t change a thing since Carlyle Holdings came into the picture before Scooter. It’s not exactly true either that Taylor had a chance to own her masters and that she refused to take it. It was another manipulative act where Taylor was offered a new record deal with the label where to gain her masters, she had to EARN them back with new albums she creates. That deal would’ve put her in an endless loop of trying to get her masters so that "offer" was evil too.

        The last (read that again) thing about this topic that I'm going to say is that every other fandom would be angry as well if the same situation happened to their faves. And don’t act like that is not true.
        Last edited by JeremySpears; Thu November 19, 2020, 08:07.
        Britney Spears • Janet Jackson • Christina Aguilera • Michael Jackson • Selena Gomez • Hilary Duff • Taylor Swift • Justin Timberlake

        Comment


        • Very good, informative post!

          Originally posted by menime123 View Post

          I think you misunderstand.

          There is a different between owning ‘the song’ (publishing rights) and ‘the masters’ (the original recording of a song).

          Taylor owns the publishing to her own music, but not the original recordings. So she is allowed to re-record ‘the songs’ (her property) but must seek permission to use the existing recording of her songs (not her property).

          Dolly Parton wrote ‘I Will Always Love You’ so she owned the song. She does not own her own her original recording of it because she sold the recording to her label - same as Taylor, and same as everyone who signs to a major label. All artists sell their recordings to their label.

          When Whitney recorded the song Dolly had to give permission, not the label, as it had nothing to do with them. Elvis wanted to cover the song back in the day too, but Dolly refused permission because his manager insisted that if Elvis recorded it, Dolly had to sign over 50% of the publishing rights.

          The Beatles were duped out of both their masters and publishing when they first got started, signing both away. So Paul McCartney has never owned his ‘songs’ or ‘the original recordings’ to music that made him famous.

          When he told Michael Jackson to get into song publishing and to keep hold of his own songs, MJ went and bought The Beatles publishing... much to Paul’s annoyance
          For now, I'm Team Taylor.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeremySpears View Post
            The last (read that again) thing about this topic that I'm going to say is that every other fandom would be angry as well if the same situation happened to their faves. And don’t act like that is not true.
            So true. But because this is Taylor, the most hated woman on kmix, people come quickly to call her whatever. She can never do any good, some people are just waiting for to make a mistake so they shout about that. If this was any other artist they wouldve supported that one.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by menime123 View Post

              ... except she can’t, because she doesn’t own the masters.

              For a bunch of music fans there’s a lot of users here who don’t understand how the industry works.
              She's doing whatever she wants, by re-recording them. No one will use old recordings, just wait and see.
              Cha Cha Instructor

              Comment


              • Originally posted by spiritboy View Post

                She's doing whatever she wants, by re-recording them. No one will use old recordings, just wait and see.
                Taylor is still walking a risky line. She’s within her rights to re-record her music and I don’t judge her for that at all (why would anyone) but whoever owns her masters can still do what they want with them - unless Taylor contractually has to authorise the use of the recordings.

                I suspect she doesn’t, which is part of her anger in this.

                So potentially expect to hear Taylor singing ‘Shake It Off’ on a cereal commercial and to have her songs appear all over every kind of media. I mean they could even easily approve ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ on condom or sex toy adverts.

                The owners can potentially license the master recordings out to whoever they want, and if Taylor attempts to de-value the recordings then they’ll just lower their price so any company can afford to use them - the owners will make their money back.

                I’m not sure how it works with radio, but I guess radio will play which ever version has the cheapest rights too. They might even be allowed to release a hundred compilation albums and more importantly - have access to a load of unreleased songs from each era. Who knows what they have in the vault?

                Basically, this could get very, very messy.
                Queuing for Girls Aloud reunion tickets since 2013

                #FreeBritney

                Comment


                • As far as i know she owns publishing rights for her work which would prevent Scooter & co. from using them without Taylor's permission. Correct me if i'm wrong JeremySpears
                  Cha Cha Instructor

                  Comment


                  • The ever changing narratives about this situation is what causes people to be suspicious of Taylor.

                    Prime example one - Taylor last year, because of this I am not allowed to perform my songs on TV.

                    Her fans - Taylor has control so she can do whatever she wants and she decides what happens.

                    What her fans are not getting is that Scooter was under NO OBLIGATION to sell those masters to Taylor if he didn't want to. Especially after the way she trashed him in the media and press, prior then saying oh by the way can I buy those from you now ?

                    Very naive of Taylor to be honest.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by menime123 View Post

                      Taylor is still walking a risky line. She’s within her rights to re-record her music and I don’t judge her for that at all (why would anyone) but whoever owns her masters can still do what they want with them - unless Taylor contractually has to authorise the use of the recordings.

                      I suspect she doesn’t, which is part of her anger in this.

                      So potentially expect to hear Taylor singing ‘Shake It Off’ on a cereal commercial and to have her songs appear all over every kind of media. I mean they could even easily approve ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ on condom or sex toy adverts.

                      The owners can potentially license the master recordings out to whoever they want, and if Taylor attempts to de-value the recordings then they’ll just lower their price so any company can afford to use them - the owners will make their money back.


                      I’m not sure how it works with radio, but I guess radio will play which ever version has the cheapest rights too. They might even be allowed to release a hundred compilation albums and more importantly - have access to a load of unreleased songs from each era. Who knows what they have in the vault?

                      Basically, this could get very, very messy.
                      Her fans are claiming that no one can do anything like that with the masters without her permisson and have gone so far as to claim that because she owns the publishing she can remove them from streaming services whenever she wants ?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by menime123 View Post

                        Taylor is still walking a risky line. She’s within her rights to re-record her music and I don’t judge her for that at all (why would anyone) but whoever owns her masters can still do what they want with them - unless Taylor contractually has to authorise the use of the recordings.

                        I suspect she doesn’t, which is part of her anger in this.

                        So potentially expect to hear Taylor singing ‘Shake It Off’ on a cereal commercial and to have her songs appear all over every kind of media. I mean they could even easily approve ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ on condom or sex toy adverts.

                        The owners can potentially license the master recordings out to whoever they want, and if Taylor attempts to de-value the recordings then they’ll just lower their price so any company can afford to use them - the owners will make their money back.

                        I’m not sure how it works with radio, but I guess radio will play which ever version has the cheapest rights too. They might even be allowed to release a hundred compilation albums and more importantly - have access to a load of unreleased songs from each era. Who knows what they have in the vault?

                        Basically, this could get very, very messy.
                        That΄s not true! The only way her music will be on commercials is if SHE agrees to it. The owner of the masters will "only" make money for every stream, song downloaded, album bought etc. As she will too. But they cannot license her music for commercials, tv shows whatever. That can only happen with her authorization.
                        "Complaining is an advertisement for stupidity"

                        Comment


                        • The same way she doesn't own the merchandise or the cover art of her albums. When she re-releases her first albums they will have a diferent cover art.
                          "Complaining is an advertisement for stupidity"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by InFamous View Post

                            Her fans are claiming that no one can do anything like that with the masters without her permisson and have gone so far as to claim that because she owns the publishing she can remove them from streaming services whenever she wants ?
                            If that’s in her original contract then possibly, I’m not privy to the details. However just because she owns the publishing I don’t think that means she has an automatic right to remove them from streaming, but again, it depends on the contracts in place.

                            One thing I do know is over the last decade or so, major artists no longer sell their masters as per a recording contract - they license them out to a label. I support all artists in any medium owning their work, you just can’t act out when things don’t go your way.

                            Queuing for Girls Aloud reunion tickets since 2013

                            #FreeBritney

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AlphaMale View Post
                              The same way she doesn't own the merchandise or the cover art of her albums. When she re-releases her first albums they will have a diferent cover art.
                              It depends who owns the copyright to the image, but I’d imagine she’ll just use photos from the same sessions. The re-recordings are going to be basically deluxe editions anyway.
                              Queuing for Girls Aloud reunion tickets since 2013

                              #FreeBritney

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by menime123 View Post

                                If that’s in her original contract then possibly, I’m not privy to the details. However just because she owns the publishing I don’t think that means she has an automatic right to remove them from streaming, but again, it depends on the contracts in place.

                                One thing I do know is over the last decade or so, major artists no longer sell their masters as per a recording contract - they license them out to a label. I support all artists in any medium owning their work, you just can’t act out when things don’t go your way.
                                Yeah her fans are basically making all these claims about oh Taylor can do this and Taylor can do that. None of them really have a clue what she can or can't do tbh.

                                You would think if she could have removed them from streaming she would have done so as soon as Scooter bought them.

                                Comment


                                • There was an article explaing all that that I've said, I just can't find the link now. They even explained that re-rrecording her albums it's not a great move, because even if Universal throws a lot of money promoting this new releases and she gets promo from spotify, it will only work for a year or two. After that, spotify's algorythm goes back to normal and people will be listening to her first recordings anyway. And as people grow older they will want to listen to that song of hers that remembers them of a certain time or feeling. So eventually people will go back to her initial recordings and although she will continue to make money from that, so will the company who wons the masters.
                                  "Complaining is an advertisement for stupidity"

                                  Comment


                                  • But of course that I understand her point of view. She's in a position now that she could buy back her masters and was not given a fair chance to do so.
                                    "Complaining is an advertisement for stupidity"

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by InFamous View Post

                                      Her fans are claiming that no one can do anything like that with the masters without her permisson and have gone so far as to claim that because she owns the publishing she can remove them from streaming services whenever she wants ?
                                      She owns the publishing rights so she can block Scooter and new owners from using it on any media. They need her permission to use any of her songs on a movie, trailer or a tv show or an ad. She won't be able to remove old albums from Spotify but i'm sure she'll make a lucrative deal with them so that newer material will come first when searched for Taylor Swift.
                                      Cha Cha Instructor

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by spiritboy View Post

                                        She owns the publishing rights so she can block Scooter and new owners from using it on any media. They need her permission to use any of her songs on a movie, trailer or a tv show or an ad. She won't be able to remove old albums from Spotify but i'm sure she'll make a lucrative deal with them so that newer material will come first when searched for Taylor Swift.
                                        But Scooter has sold the masters on so I don't see why you keep saying Scooter wont make this or Scooter wont make that ? He clearly knew this when he purchased them and just used it as an investment for the year. Also he was smart enough to negotiate that if the masters do make money in the future he will get a cut of that. Also, I have never seen or heard a Taylor song in any movie or ad so I don't know why people are fixating on this as if there has been regular occurances of her music being used in such settings.

                                        Also I would like to repeat again that Miss Selena Gomex claim that Scooter "robbed" Taylor is completely without substance. Scooter simply purchased an investment that was up for sale. Money was exchanged, it was all totally legal. Miss Gomez should count herself lucky that she was not sued for public defamation im my opinion.

                                        And finally JeremySpears your post against Scooter is just a list of he said she said with no proof of anything. A biased stan opinion blindly thinking that Taylor is perfect and never at fault. ​​​​​​​
                                        Last edited by InFamous; Thu November 19, 2020, 22:33.

                                        Comment


                                        • ^ I don't know what's your occupation but would you like if a thief breaks into your home, robs you, then sell your stuff to other people? And how do you know Scooter is telling the truth? I never believe that man, the truth will come out eventually, just like it did with Kimye drama. Scooter made a deal with new buyers that he will get a cut from royalties for a certain amount of time. When it expires and Scooter no longer benefits from this deal, Taylor is open to deal and work with them. Anyway, please don't quote me on this subject anymore cause whatever you'll say won't change my mind.
                                          Cha Cha Instructor

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by spiritboy View Post
                                            ^ I don't know what's your occupation but would you like if a thief breaks into your home, robs you, then sell your stuff to other people? And how do you know Scooter is telling the truth? I never believe that man, the truth will come out eventually, just like it did with Kimye drama. Scooter made a deal with new buyers that he will get a cut from royalties for a certain amount of time. When it expires and Scooter no longer benefits from this deal, Taylor is open to deal and work with them. Anyway, please don't quote me on this subject anymore cause whatever you'll say won't change my mind.
                                            My occupation is completely irrelevant to this topic. Like it has nothing to do with anything.

                                            Again, he didn't break in anywhere or rob anyone. He legally purchased something that the record company were selling.

                                            You are pushing a false and incorrect narrative.

                                            LOL, I don't care about changing your mind. I have been giving my opinion. You are free to Think whatever you want. You quoted me first so whatever bro. If you dont want to discuss dont discuss.
                                            Last edited by InFamous; Thu November 19, 2020, 23:20.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by spiritboy View Post
                                              ^ I don't know what's your occupation but would you like if a thief breaks into your home, robs you, then sell your stuff to other people? And how do you know Scooter is telling the truth? I never believe that man, the truth will come out eventually, just like it did with Kimye drama. Scooter made a deal with new buyers that he will get a cut from royalties for a certain amount of time. When it expires and Scooter no longer benefits from this deal, Taylor is open to deal and work with them. Anyway, please don't quote me on this subject anymore cause whatever you'll say won't change my mind.
                                              You are speaking nonsense ...

                                              Ms Swift only plays victim card like she does all the damn time.
                                              nekoo.cz - follow me

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by nekoocz View Post

                                                You are speaking nonsense ...

                                                Ms Swift only plays victim card like she does all the damn time.
                                                Exactly, plus my occupation has literally nothing to do with this topic or this discussion.

                                                A completely random thing to bring to the table.

                                                Comment

                                                Working...
                                                X