and she wanted to re-record and release her old songs

they'll both be fine I don't see the issue at all (not that it would matter if scooter was financially ruined by this either)

you're expecting me to press play on a taylor swift song OP?

She makes good music so id assume so

I was wondering the same thing

someone paid $300,000,000 for the rights to those songs though

if this loophole is legal how tf do masters (of LIVING artists) hold any value whatsoever? it surely doesn't cost an artist more than a few hundred thousand dollars to re-record music

Own your masters

Then this becomes a non issue

Can't he just sue her for "copying" the song he owns. Or is it only not done cause it'd be a bad look. But clearly he didn't care in the first place

they're her songs though i literally don't care who paid however much for it

like her music or hate it she's an actual artist and writes her own s***. idc if she knowingly signed a bad deal or anything in between. she had lots of help of course but those songs are her songs. idc if someone poured millions into it to profit off someone else's art

You'd think Swift's contract with Big Machine might prevent her from re-recording her old music, but she can legally do so for two reasons, according to Dina LaPolt, an entertainment attorney who represents Steven Tyler, 21 Savage, and several other high-profile artists. Firstly, while Shamrock Capital owns the master rights to Swift's first six albums—or in other words, the sound recordings on those albums—Swift owns the publishing rights. (Because she wrote her own songs, she retains the rights to the lyrics, melodies, and compositions that comprise them, and she doesn't have to ask permission from or pay anyone to use them how she sees fit.) Secondly, the "re-recording restriction" in her contract with Big Machine—a standard part of any record deal, which long prohibited her from recording new versions of the songs she released through the label—has reportedly expired. When Swift releases new versions of her old songs, she'll own both their master rights and their publishing rights, earning every penny they bring in and securing unilateral control over how they're used.

vice.com/en/article/k7a7ka/why-taylor-swift-re-recording-her-old-music-scooter-braun-explained

1. She retained the rights to the actual elements of the song
2. Braun/Shamrock owned the recordings
3. The contract saying she cannot re-record expired

So if you're an insane demon like OP, you can look at #3 and see that Braun/Shamrock had "protection" from this play devaluing their investment. It just ran out.

there's still time to delete this

You think Prince wanted the masters with his masters

You greedy b******s sold tickets to walk through his house

Im surprised you aint auction off the casket

They'll probably sue her within the next year

He doesnt own the song

He owns the WAV files for the OG version essentially

The lyrics, melody are all Taylors

i thought y'all was talking about young scooter

i dont think its intellectual property tho is it?

he owned the literal master recording and things that sound identical to it. not the lyrics or another rendition of the song. As long as you can distinguish the songs she's allowed to do it

its not an attractive move to a lot of people but she had the time and resources. like even for her it was the worst possible way out of this

she's sending a great message as well and I'm all for it

I guess the question is, at what point does it not become the same? Couldn't she take the original song, change the instrumental slightly and make the mixing different and call it a new song? I'm guessing not. But maybe it has to be different enough so that it's not considered the same song

I own my own masters
You know I ain’t missin' no royalty statements

lol new one sounds a lot better vocally and mixing/mastering wise. good for her

i think we gotta think of it like a file like someone above said. like these businessmen owned the recording of her voice, the instrument sounds, etc... like those literal files belong to them so technically i dont think she can alter them either since it'd be altering their property.

but since she still owns the lyrics and melody as the creator of the song she has the publishing rights for it. so she can sing these songs and re-record them, and as long as its slightly different and maybe even the title ("Taylor's Version" is attached to the new recordings), then it legally counts

its kinda confusing but basically the owner of the master only owns the original song recording, not new ones. and Taylor is allowed to make new ones because she is the author of the sound and still owns the lyrics

He owns the recording

Shes free to do whatever she wants with the lyrics, including record them again

This whole situation makes it seem like owning your publishing is better than owning your masters

love story such a fking slapper