I agree that if they wanted to sell the whole company - or someone offered to buy it - it doesn’t seem as though, under the terms of her contract, that they were obligated to unbundle her masters and let her bid on them. I hope that one of the good things that come out of this is that new artists will use new…

but the head miner is a naked Russian Jack Black, so....ymmv

Overall I think Taylor got screwed over, he masters were sold to a person who she’s feels doesn’t like her or respect her (I really believe that’s what bothers her most, she knew it was going to happen but was shocked that SB was the one who now has them and didn’t think that Borchetta guy would do something like that…

I think the ire she expresses in her post has more to do with WHO the buyer was than the fact that the company was sold, her catalog along with it. She walked away from the contract/offer to “earn” back her masters a long time ago. She’s had plenty of time since November to write angry Tumblr posts about that…

“still feels novel to see a dick, let alone many dicks, in mainstream TV and movies. That is despite the fact that, according to some, it’s been on the rise in recent years.”

1. Taylor just wanted her masters, Scooter (that name, my God) bought the whole company. Unless Taylor had tried to buy the company for $300 million, you cannot assume that Borchetta picked his offer because he was a man.

Just because he owned a tiny amount of shares (that yes, made him money) doesn’t mean he had any control or knowledge of music industry contracts. This has been a frequent complaint of artists for decades, and even experienced industry insiders have trouble maintaining control over their masters (see The Beatles,…

Oh right but the distinction I’m drawing here is the difference between someone who makes all her music and someone whose basically just a figurehead for the studio’s music production system or music manufacturing process or whatevers. I get what you’re saying, that everybody inks the same bad deals. I was under the…

I see your point. I do think the industry treats artists pretty terribly tho. It takes so much money to record an album, promote, do videos, and tour. Its understandable that artists pay that back out of what they earn per sale, but they earn so little. You can be a number 1 artist and still be broke. 

I was shocked to see vulva in an episode of Too Old to Die Young on Amazon Prime last week (but I guess I shouldn’t have been as Nick Winding Refn intentionally makes his art shocking). So there’s a least one show that heard this call.

Just to add to this, since it was not mentioned, but I think the ire Swift expresses in her post has more to do with the fact that she was never given a chance to buy her masters, but rather to “earn” them back, which is insulting ,and it belittles the work put into her first six albums. 

Also, many creatives don’t own their products when they rely on companies for distribution and marketing.

She owns songwriting rights, and performance rights and gets fees from them, what she doesn’t own is publishing rights any more than an author can sign a book contract have a bestseller then re-release the book on their own.

I mean, Chernobyl had a whole scene of dozens of sweaty men working hard with they dicks out, but do you see journalists crowing about that? noOOOooo.

So a man could buy the business and the catalog for cash, but a woman could only buy it with the indentured servitude of continuing to make new albums for the label? How is that not gender discrimination on the face of it. How is that not illegal, against commercial codes, etc.? If a man can buy a sandwich or a Subway…

True, she is not a poor starving artist—but as the article said, she has opened doors/negotiations for those artists that are. Think back to the whole streaming issue. She said it didn’t affect her, but it affected smaller artists significantly.

In the course of my job, I had to read thousands of recording contracts, dated from 1950-2012. It was eye opening to see how unfair those contracts were to artists earlier in the careers, but interesting to watch how they changed as artists were able to take more control of their careers and music. Janet Jackson’s…

It’s interesting that Taylor, a woman who had a lot more resources than the average artists, got screwed over. Now imagine what happens to the black artists who come from poverty. I also think there’s a lot more to this story than what her side is selling. Her family had enough money to buy a 4% stake in Big Machine…

Sure, but they lose on way more artists than they profit from. This model allows labels to be more adventurous in terms of who they sign and promote, turning over more equity to new and unproven acts would elevate the barriers to entry to joining a label's roster. And as you mentioned artists that can recoup their…

I think that Swift was able to sign a new deal that gives her ownership of her product is fair, as she has proven her market value, but I don’t think it’s unfair that new artists don’t typically own their masters. As long as they rely on labels to make heavy initial outlays in marketing and distribution the deal isn’t…