Reply
  • Feb 18, 2021

    tell me how this isn't the exact same intellectual property?

    what's the point of copyrights if you can override them this easily? How is this fair to Scooter ?

  • Feb 18, 2021

    intellectual property is fake

  • Feb 18, 2021

    you tell me

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply

    She can prolly just call each song an interpolation

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply

    Fair to scooter

  • Feb 18, 2021
    Mesaih

    Fair to scooter

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply
    Dump Gawd Triz 50

    She can prolly just call each song an interpolation

    that confuses me though bc you gotta give publishing credit when you do that

  • EuroNymous 馃
    Feb 18, 2021

    Idk

    But this version is better then the og

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply

    I thought scooter sold her masters

  • EuroNymous 馃
    Feb 18, 2021

    All you need to know is she gonna make a lot money and she can have own her masters

  • jsullivan2413

    that confuses me though bc you gotta give publishing credit when you do that

    She can give credit but still owns the rights to her own song

    Idk industry politics are weird

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply

    it's not an identical re-recording. she made a better song

  • Feb 18, 2021

    Scooter already sold it and secured the bag :kanyeshrug:

  • Feb 18, 2021

    He owns the sound (like the actual music) she owns lyrics/melodies

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply
    pussy bacon

    I thought scooter sold her masters

    ok it seems he bought then sold, so Scooter already took his dub. but how is this fair to the investment fund that paid $300 million + for them?

  • Feb 18, 2021
    NiceLikeChrist

    it's not an identical re-recording. she made a better song

    its virtually identical

  • Feb 18, 2021

    We need that industry guru in here again

  • Scooter should sue her for copyright infringement.

  • Feb 18, 2021

    you're really caring about what's fair to scooter in this?

  • Feb 18, 2021

    Taylor owns the songs, they own the old recordings

  • Feb 18, 2021

  • Feb 18, 2021

    The fact that it鈥檚 not identical is irrelevant. Copyright law works on whether the material is similar to a strong quality (i.e. not the quantity; though in this case it clearly satisfies both).

    My guess is that she鈥檚 probably infringing the intellectual property and is breaching copyright, but Scooter/his label as the owner of the initial IP probably isn鈥檛 bringing a claim. There鈥檚 probably an agreement between the parties, as they鈥檝e already made their money from it.

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply
    Katsura

    ok it seems he bought then sold, so Scooter already took his dub. but how is this fair to the investment fund that paid $300 million + for them?

    I think he'll be fine

  • Wont someone please think of scooter brauns pockets

  • Feb 18, 2021
    1 reply
    Dump Gawd Triz 50

    I think he'll be fine

    same applies to Taylor