Yeah, and it sucks the way it happens.
Donāt you think any commodity only has monetary value because itās part of a market?
I meanā¦ If you canāt buy, sell, and trade it, then itās not a part of a market. Right?
I donāt care. Have you ever written a song?
You clearly side with the smarmy business folk that have the money to make more money off someone elseās work. Thatās fine, you are certainly entitled to feel that way. I think it sucks and I think itās lame that the originator of that work can be rendered powerless by people that have nothing to do with the creative work. You may technically be right that music is ājust a commodityā. But I see it as more than that. I think it should be more than that. You will not change my mind.
I understand that music at Taylor Swiftās level is a savage business and lots of people have their hands in her cookie jar. Thatās the biz. She entered into that biz on her own. I still donāt like that she canāt own her own creations. This Scooter scumbag clearly has some type of personal vendetta against her.
It would be a lot worse if the law didnāt recognise intellectual property as having value. But since it does have value, then the owner has the right to sell it, and/or to receive revenue from its exploitation.
If your argument were to be applied consistently, then a painter would have the right to sell a painting, then dictate to the owner what they can and canāt do with it.
I have - plenty. And I have signed multiple record deals. I have no problem with the record company owning the masters, because they are always more likely to do a better job of promoting it and selling it than I am.
You donāt lose control of the rights to a song just because youāve sold a master recording of it. You are still entitled to publishing royalties every time the song is sold in any format or performed/broadcasted to an audience.
I donāt know the details of Ms. Swiftās deal but normally the artist will also get artist royalties (a cut of the sales profits) every time a copy of the master is sold. So although she may not have control of the masters, sheās still receiving revenue from its exploitation.
Not sure what you mean by āsavageā, but there are laws to protect the owners of intellectual property. You canāt just do what you want with music, it is heavily regulated these days.
So is she allowed to do it or not JK?
Yes, thatās exactly what I think should happen.
Some of you inexplicably prefer the corporatized sterilized version of buying and selling art. I donāt.
Iām just guessing here, but Iām thinking Ms Swift has strong feelings about her own songs, and she doesnāt like them being used like poker chips between slimy characters that had nothing to do with her music while sheās not even able to get them back. I can understand that. I get it. Thereās nothing wrong with that.
Wrong. You can actually do whatever the hell you want with music.
You seem to be confusing the songs with recordings of them. She still owns the songs, itās the recordings of them she doesnāt own.
So you would have no problem with me recording one of your songs it and monetising it?
Have you ever signed a record deal? You have a warped and incorrect view of the way recording contracts work. I donāt see my label as āslimy charactersā, I see them as someone who was prepared to put money up front to back my band, taking a big financial risk in the process.
Lol okay then rock on rockstar.
I do understand how record deals work. Iāve personally only been a part of small deals and Iām glad Iām out of them. I wouldnāt sign a ādealā with the way they are now. You are technically right of course. Iām not saying youāre wrong. Iām saying that I donāt like that model and I think it should be different with more control left to the artists and less control left to the bean counters. You donāt have to agree. Why would you? You are obviously happy to be part of that system.
Itās ok to understand why something exists and still dislike it. You donāt have to love gravity to recognize that it exists. But you do have to understand it in order to build airplanes.
I think everybody on here understands how/why the music business is the way it is. Some people like it, and some donāt.
Itās a sideways kinda comment but I still remember the gut wrench when I realised that I could not perform any of the songs I wrote while I was contracted to EMI, for 5 long years afterwardsā¦ Yep I was dumb, but they were pretty mean and nasty when I walked away. My naĆÆve incredulity that I couldnāt sing my very own songsā¦ ouch.
1 Like
Written, sold, published, licensed, recorded. Yup. All of it.
Thatās the way the world works my friend.
That person would have something to do with it because they invested money in it.
Then agree to disagree with you there.
I think heās just another guy trying to make an honest dollar (and quite good at it) 
In my opinion yes. She is.
He theoretically could ātryā to stop her, but it would be a HUGE blessing to him if she re-records and re-releases that material. Iād be willing to bet that heāll never raise a hand against it if she does.
Sorry to hear this @Emma. Itās unfortunate when it happensā¦ that expectations sometimes get lost in the āfine printā. Some wealthy folk are very kind, others are very nasty. I guess the saying that money makes you more of what you already are is sooooo true.
1 Like
@Jonathan can you post a link to some things youāve written, Iāve heard works by everyone else in this discussion except you, if you donāt mind. (Donāt violate any agreements though) 
Because it would get her off his back and also promote the original masters?
I published a crap ton of educational content for this company, but you canāt see it unless youāre a school teacher with an account
VV this was a performance at a theater artist festival in Charleston South Carolinaā¦ I find canāt any actual live show performance clips onlineā¦ it looks really bizarre out of context, but I did write this. The accompaniment is directly from the MIDI piano on the Sibelius file
If she re-records her own stuff at her own expense and re-releases it, the guy who owns the publishing still gets half of whatever she makes off of it. ā¦and then if any of those new masters get played on the radio or streamed, he STILL gets half of it.
Thereās a sort of weird way things are set up here under Title 17 of the United States legal codeā¦ we have a legal structure called the āidea-expression dichotomyā. The song itself is the idea, and the āfixedā recording (the master recording) is the āexpressionā.
In terms of royalties, those are split 50-50. Say a physical disk has only 1 song on it. That disk sells for $1 (one US dollar). 50 cents goes to the publisher, 50 goes to whoever owns the master. So once that dollar is split, THEN all revenues are divided among the contractual participants pursuant to the contractual agreements made between co-writers, managers, and distribution/streaming organizations etcā¦
Say a song gets re-recorded for use in a film. A sync license is issued by the publisher to the movie companies āmusic supervisorā. The film company pays the publisher though Harry Fox up front for the sync license. Additionally, as revenue is generated from the movie, the royalties are also paid to the publisher, then the PUBLISHER pays the songwriters according whatever the countries ācompulsory licensingā rates are. I know this wasnāt necessarily an issue of film, but thatās an illustration of how the idea/expression dichotomy plays into the royalty system, and why I think sheād be doing him a favor if she re-recorded and sold new masters.
Another good example is if the artist makes a live music video of material owned by a label theyāre no longer a part of and sells it on DVD. Thatās sort of like making a new master. The publisher could theoretically serve a subpoena on the artists to try and stop them from releasing the DVD by WHY?? Why would they?
The publisher would have very little to gain by preventing the artist from making the publisher more money for themselves with virtual no cost into the production!
1 Like
I think that was a pretty valid question, and I also think AJās summary of what a record deal essentially is, is pretty fair and balanced. And accurate.
More control left to the artist??? Really? Control over WHAT? There are a lot of different ways investment deals structured in this business. The artist is gonna get whatever ācontrolā the ābean countersā are or are not willing to acquiesce. If they donāt like it, then thereās a real simple solution. USE YOUR OWN MONEY.
It seems to me thereās an overarching problem in the logicā¦ and that is that the music industry āshould beā somehow inherently different than any other industry (banking, transportation, real estate, food services etcā¦). Iām sorry, but what the hell makes a musician any more entitled to an investors money than a common civilian applying for a mortgage for a house?
All in all we have to realize Taylor Swift is in a stratosphere we should all hope to attain. She was able to sell her music, perform it, and make a pantload of money on her art, to the point that someone felt it was wise to invest in her. Kind of like K-tel records being able to put out Slim Whitman and Boxcar Willieās greatest hits 30 years after they died. Taylor can write her own ticket going forward if she chooses to control her future, or let others pay her a percentage if she feels they can promote it better.
Most of us, in contrast, wish someone would offer to buy masters no one has ever heard. Sheās part of THE MUSIC BIZ, which changes the decision dramatically. When Sheās 45 and wants to put out an authentic Taylor Swift recording she may approach it differently.
I do agree that it hurts quite a bit and we do what we can to get by. Most of these contracts are brutal, specially for the ones just starting off, ghost writing, composing, recording and correcting errors made by othersā¦ a lot of work I cant even discuss with others let alone claim for mine. I wanted to put a few of my works that I did for T Series on my own album and I couldnt. Once they realized it generated nearly hundred million youtube hits, they snagged it from the moment it caught on gravity. All the artists involved got a much smaller paycheck than they could have had. Then to top that I had to modify and re-record my work significantly in order to call it mine and not be harassed by licensing claims.
I agree that music is a tradeable intellectual property because many people are often involved, other than just the singer song writer. I think artist is both the top and the bottom of the food chain here, just depends on where you look at it from 
2 Likes