Taylor Swift ‘is so upset and has zero regrets about making this public’

iHeartRadio Wango Tango Show

As I said on Monday, if we’re simply talking about whether an artist should own their masters, or whether an artist should always be able to have the “first crack” at buying back their masters, I think that’s something that most people will agree with. It truly sucks that Taylor’s musical work up to Reputation is now the property of Scooter Braun. It would have sucked if her masters belonged to ANYONE besides Swift. But once again, it definitely feels like instead of keeping the argument simple, Taylor had to complicate matters with her Big Snake Energy, misrepresenting what she knew and when and misrepresenting what she was offered and what she turned down. Scooter Braun hasn’t said anything publicly, but he has reportedly tried to call Taylor so they can speak about all of this privately. She refuses to speak to him. But of course she’ll let this leak out:

Since sharing this publicly, a source told E! News that the blonde beauty doesn’t have any regrets about her statement. “No matter what Scooter or any of his people say, Taylor believes he did this to hurt her. She wants the truth about him to come out. She was furious and she still is. She is so upset and has zero regrets about making this public.”

Regardless if she has “enemies,” the source shared that Swift “feels very strongly” about the situation and going public with it.

“Taylor doesn’t care if she has enemies and if all of Scooter’s friends support him. She knows what his intentions are and why he did this,” the insider explained. “She has her friends who will stand by and support her, too. She feels very strongly about this, and standing up to Scooter.” All in all, the source revealed the “ME!” singer isn’t afraid of the entertainment executive. “He doesn’t scare her at all.”

[From E! News]

I know I keep saying this, but again: Kanye says hi. This feels like an absolute repeat of the original Kanye/I-Made-That-Bitch-Famous situation where Taylor acted like the most innocent and attacked martyr in the world, a Little Red Hiding Hood who was shocked when the Big Bad Wolf never gave her a heads-up a song (except he did). Only this time, Taylor is trying to paint white male music executives as the wolves. TAYLOR has made the issue about “what did she know and when did she know it,” and the music executives are already pulling out the receipts. From Page Six:

Taylor Swift knew for months that the rights to her old songs — and her former record label Big Machine — were up for sale but didn’t do anything about it, a source tells Page Six. A source told us on Tuesday that Swift was offered the opportunity to buy her master recordings but “walked away” from the songs in October 2018, after a 10-month negotiation over the sale of Big Machine Records to mega manager Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings.

“In the entire time of negotiations, she never once reached out about wanting her masters,” our source said. Following Swift’s Tumblr post, Scott Borchetta published online text messages allegedly sent by Swift on Nov. 19, 2018, in which she appeared to say that a new deal with a different label meant “more to me” than owning her masters. “Since communication ran dry on our negotiations, I’ve done what I told you I would do and gone out exploring other options,” Swift allegedly wrote to Borchetta about signing with Universal Music Group. “Owning my masters was very important to me, but I’ve since realized that there are things that mean even more to me in the bigger picture. I had a choice whether to bet on my past or to bet on the future and I think knowing me, you can guess which one I chose.”

We’re told Braun was under a non-disclosure agreement throughout the negotiations, which meant Swift wasn’t aware that Braun and his company were the ones lining up to buy the label.

“She decided to walk away,” the source said. “In the 10 months since, she hasn’t reached out once, so how passionate could she have been about them? She got caught crying wolf again.”

Page Six confirmed that as soon as the NDA was up — when the report that Braun acquired the label was published — Braun reached out to Swift and her camp numerous times to privately discuss the deal. Swift hasn’t contacted Braun and “ghosted” him, we’re told. Braun’s purchase of Big Machine Records, which also includes A-list music talent such as Florida Georgia Line, Lady Antebellum and Thomas Rhett, wasn’t solely about Swift.

[From Page Six]

That was my question at the beginning – Swift’s claim was that the only way she could get back her masters was to re-sign with Big Machine and slowly “earn back” her masters one at a time depending on what she produced. Except Borchetta said no, that wasn’t what she was offered at all – if she had resigned with Big Machine, they would have immediately turned over the rights to ALL her masters, and she wasn’t required to produce a certain number of albums to earn them back. So she misrepresented that (and Borchetta has receipts). But my question was whether Swift was offered the opportunity to buy her masters outright, without resigning to Big Machine. Was all of that part of the “walk away” from Big Machine, I wonder?

Save the Children

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

133 Responses to “Taylor Swift ‘is so upset and has zero regrets about making this public’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ctgirl says:

    This is Taylor being the messy girl that she is. No surprises here.

    • C says:

      Exactly. She’s gonna drag this the whole summer. She lied….again. 🙄

    • zotsioltar says:

      How many lies will she get away with? People always seem to take her nonsense at face value which is quickly proven untrue and then she just kinda forgets it happens.

      • Erin says:

        This will help sell a zillion records on her new album. Wonder if that was what she had in mind in the first place?

  2. Arizona says:

    I doubt she was given the opportunity to buy her masters and walk away from the label, only because they were trying to sell the label and that would have made the label much less appealing to buyers. while it’s certainly not ideal, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t offered deals, and it’s practical business. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here. if she had only focused on her masters, I would be in total agreement with her. instead she misrepresented things and made it about her being bullied again. I don’t really know how this ends but I also can’t imagine being 30 years old and talking about having enemies. I also really doubt that scooter did this solely to hurt her, there are other artists on the label and it’s probably just because it’s going to make him a lot of money. She needs to stop thinking that everyone’s actions solely revolve around how she’s going to feel about it.

    • LoonyTunes says:

      The enemies thing. 🙄 You’re not in high school…

      • Aperol says:

        Endless talk about “boys”, “best friends”, “enemies”… it’s really sad. One of the joys of aging is not giving a flying F about things that just drag you down. But she’s going to be 60 and still going on about mean boys and enemies.

    • Some chick says:

      The music industry is a codified system of bullying.

      It always has been.

      If someone as powerful as Taylor Swift can’t get a fair shake, then who can?

      She knows she’s not getting those tapes back any time soon.

      She was smart not to resign to attempt to get them. What is this, the Army? Always pushing for the re-sign and doling out breadcrumbs? It was a crappy deal.

      She has said that she hopes that her situation can illuminate the process and the abuses so newer artists don’t fall into that trap.

      Perhaps, one day, Scooter will become bored with his minor label and sell. Eventually, it will be up for sale. He’s hardly the second coming of Tommy Mottola.

      Most everything is always up for sale, if you wait long enough (&or are willing to pay enough) it could be yours.

      I believe this is how Sir Paul got the Beatles catalogue back from MJ, INC.

      • TOTORO says:

        I stand with Taylor. This news makes me so mad I can’t even read into the details of he said / she said. For all Taylor’s tendencies to play poor me victim and leveraging of the media to manage her reputation and her likability, she’s always been a good business woman that’s managed to navigate the industry famous for exploiting young artists, bands and females in particular. I think she was given a shit deal to earn back her music, which she walked away from. I think she’s taking it public because she knows she’s lost the battle, has no recourse and this is a last resort to say she will not go quietly into the night like all the less powerful ones before her. It’s is as she says, imagine if RED and 1989 was YOUR blood sweat and tears (literally) and it was now owned by someone who you think has been shit stirring that whole Kanye phone call mess for publicity or spite. It would drive me insane if someone I despised at work pulled a deal like that and bragged they owned me. It’s an incident that’s affected her deeply on a psychological level and on her reputation . And there’s nothing she can do about it! And knowing that all power players knew and there was nothing anyone was willing to do because of a contract signed at 15yrs. That’s infuriating and humiliating.
        Scooter is known for “guiding” young stars to success. He seems like an arrogant prick. All his successes, of which there are many, end up as f’d up, addicted, depressed human beings. For all the hate that Taylor gets she’s one of the very few young artists who found success and sustained it without falling apart as they matured. Beyonce is the only other one I can think of and it’s because both artists chose to self manage their business with their parents she probably despised him for the way she’s seen people like him suck others dry.

      • Holly hobby says:

        Let’s get real, if this was such an injustice, she could have sued them. The fact that she blew up this beef and made this about HER means she was not entirely forthright about this whole thing. Also you should read the details of the story. Rule with critical thinking not emotion.

    • Arizona says:

      I don’t see how it’s bullying or a bad deal. It’s pretty standard. I’m not sure about your Army reference – per Scott Borchetta, she would have received ownership of her masters if she re-signed immediately, not based on album output like she claims. I can understand her not wanting to sign – presumably her new label offered her more money in addition to ownership of her masters up front. But that’s something she can negotiate now that she has shown she’s a major artist. She was a new artist when she signed with her original label, and no one knew that she would become Taylor Swift – heck, didn’t her dad have to buy a percentage of the label so that she could be signed?

      I also feel that Scooter seems to be doing pretty well with the people he manages, but I don’t pay tons of attention aside from Ariana.

      • Hollz says:

        But she’d then be under contract with them, and be required to put out albums. It’s not like she could sign with them, get her masters and then NOT put out albums. If they were offering a contract where she’d get her masters but she had to put out the same number of albums, I can see her feeling like she had to earn them back, especially if there was some sort of “slow return” clause.

      • Arizona says:

        According to Scott Borchetta, the new contract was related to length of time, not output. So technically she could have signed for 10 years and not put out an album – of course, that would be a really bad idea if she’s trying to stay one of the largest pop stars, so that wouldn’t have happened. But it sounds like the contract they offered was not that she had to put out the same number of albums, but that she had to be tied to the label for another 10 years (because of how the industry is turning towards streaming as opposed to buying albums).

        I can understand why she chose not to do that. But what she discussed in her blog post would be a misrepresentation of what was offered.

      • Mo says:

        The problem is she knew the label was being sold. So if she had stayed to get her masters, she would now have Scooter in charge of all her new music, as well as her old.

        Everyone is talking about how this would be OK if she were only talking about her music and the masters, but I think she is right to talk about being stuck working with someone she hates and who she feels abused her for possibly the next 40 years, until she gets the rights to her masters back automatically.

        It’s the Kesha problem. The record industry is alone in the creative fields for tying their artists to “personal services” contracts, which means a great deal of control over their lives. This model is designed by men to be signed by other men, with no protection from predation for the signee. Law of the jungle, all’s fair in love and war, applies. If women sign the contracts, they need to understand that part of the price is keeping quiet should any of the abuse turn out to be sexual or misogynistic.

        Taylor may be messy as hell, but she is not wrong to point out that tying people to contracts where someone else controls your creative output for 50 years is wrong. If you make a movie with someone and they are a shitheel, you move on to another film. Weinstein may blackballed actresses, but he didn’t have a contract saying that they had to show up on set whenever he said, and that he could just refuse to release their work and they couldn’t take it anywhere else. People may scream about unions, but this is why Hollywood is a much better place to work than the movie industry.

    • virginfangirls says:

      I doubt he spent 300 mil just to piss off Swift.

    • HotCoffee says:

      She’s been famous and lived that “talented muso’s” in-a-bubble life since, what, 15? She has underdeveloped social skills and possibly also underdeveloped emotional-regulation skills. However I believe her when she said she never specifically approved the misogynistic lyrics by Kanye.

  3. Kittycat says:

    I stand with her

    • OSLO says:

      Me too!!!

    • TheHeat says:

      Me too!
      Why should we believe Borchetta and Braun’s version of events? Have they suddenly proven themselves more trustworthy and less skeevy, somehow? I must have missed that.

      • Arizona says:

        Taylor has a history of lying and manipulating scenarios to make herself look like the good guy, and has provided no “receipts” to her claims, unlike Scott. So until she does so, I’m side-eyeing her version of events.

      • Holly hobby says:

        In the court of law evidence rules. She has not provided anything to back up her story. Unfortunately the big bad label owners did.

        That’s not how it works beyond the playground.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      I do, too.

    • Mego says:

      me too.

    • On this I do too. Suddenly a source to Page Six is receipts.

      • Lady D says:

        Is this the same page Six that spreads farcical Brad Pitt info?

      • Arizona says:

        I don’t know what you mean by a source to Page Six. Scott Borchetta released a blog post on his own website with texts from Taylor as well as a screenshot of the final deal they presented to her – which states that she would receive her masters/videos/etc immediately upon execution of the contract, which would have been for 10 years.

        Which contradicts her statement about having to earn them back piecemeal.

    • Courtney says:

      Me too.

    • Jen says:

      Me too!

    • BorderMollie says:

      Same, and I don’t care for her as an artist either. She’s in the right here. Arts fields too frequently get away with profiting from creator content while shutting out the creators themselves, especially women creators. It’s a much larger issue than Taylor.

      • HotCoffee says:

        She needs to put her energy into promoting a change of the copyright law rather than this petty fight. Raise awareness and the length of time it takes for the masters to revert back could be changed from 35 years to a much shorter time period.

        Under your current copyright law, she has the right to start a process to reclaim ownership, at no cost, 35 years after the song was first published. You have to balance giving record co’s sufficient incentive to take risks in new artists with the rights of artists and creatives to own their work.
        However, she will get a royalty payment every time the song is used, in the interim. However, she has no say over whom the masters owner approves usage to.

      • Erin says:

        She and her father SIGNED the contract in return for making her a superstar. She did not become famous on her own. She signed the contract. Her father had to sign too. Stop the madness! Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it was a bad deal. She is beautiful and rich, but she is not right 100 per cent of the time just because she is beautiful and rich.

    • Izzy says:

      I’m guessing you don’t believe in science either.

      Borchetta and Braun have already dropped the receipts. You can deny all you want, but the waters will keep rising and the temperature will keep climbing…

    • howdy says:

      Me too, the NDA made it so she did not know it was Braun. She is allowed to be repulsed by the knowledge that he owns the work. I am super surprised by the pro-dudes stand on here. I like what she has done, everything is out in the open.

  4. Cidy says:

    Okay, I dont like Scooter – I dont know anything about him besides the fact that everytime I look at him I want to punch him (I think it’s his face) but it does sound like this wasnt some sneaky underhanded way of getting Taylor Swift’s music, it sounds like this is legit business and she either didnt understand (which is unlucky because of how long she has been in this industry) or she is once again pulling a Kanye.

    Her whole narrative is built on people doing her wrong and that she will always come out on top, and it’s so, so frustrating. But it seems like there isn’t a way out of this one, also it’s like.. there is a paper trail here. Somewhere along the way she must have signed some papers and spoken with her father, who knew this was happening.

    • Arizona says:

      I think she thinks rich, powerful, white music executives are going to be the same as other artists, including a mentally ill black man and a reality star. and I just don’t think that’s going to be the case.

      she’s made great arguments re: streaming and things like that, but she has not handled this situation well. LaineyGossip explained it much better than I could lol.

      • Ib says:

        I don’t see why black needs to be in front of mentally ill man —I don’t think you consciously meant anything by it. But just making a correction that it’s not relevant in the comparison you’re making.

      • Arizona says:

        I was making a comparison between the white executives she’s fighting with versus Kanye – her doing the “a mean black man is attacking poor white blonde me!” act was a factor in public perception at the time, and there were articles written about it. It was intentional to point out the differences in the situations. A black man being vilified by a white woman, it matters – whether we like it or not. I notice that you didn’t seem to have an issue with me pointing out that the executives are white?

        (I am not saying Kanye was always innocent in his interactions with Taylor, though. He did some gross things.)

    • Emily says:


      Taylor makes it sound like Braun bought Big Machine to personally hurt her/ control her. Whatever her feelings are about him, it’s unlikely he spent $300 million to get back at her. Not everyone is trapped in high school.

  5. LoonyTunes says:

    Tay-tay lied. Again. She thinks the world revolves around her. Always. That being said, her music is likely what made the package valuable and Scooter knows that. But who would turn down the opportunity of getting such a great investment?

    • Maddie23 says:

      Exactly. Someone would have bought it. Who knows, there are a lot of people out there with a lot of money that are worse than Braun. I’m just sick of Taylor with her damsel in distress act all the time

  6. CharliePenn says:

    Wait… she paints herself a victim, lies/manipulated the facts to make herself look more like a victim, and refuses to apologize or take any personal responsibility for this situation…. is she doing some untreated borderline personality performance art out here?! It’s not a good look, Taylor!

  7. Eliza says:

    They would NEVER let her buy before they sold. You think he could get 300mil for the entire label if her masters and/or contract weren’t included? That’s why they wanted her to resign, to give buyers something to offer instead of masters. He’s been looking to sell for a long time. Her master’s alone aren’t worth 300mil, but he could not get the same money selling masters to her and selling the label to someone else. Bundled is the only way.

  8. Caity says:

    To be clear she was never given the opportunity to buy her masters separate from the big machine label. The big machine sale price is significant less without her catalogue.
    Anyone following the music industry knew borchetta had been planning to sell big machine for a few years. He went and signed a bunch of artists as part of making the big machine sale more attractive.
    Taylor would have had to commit to big machine for another ten years to get her masters.
    Also, a lot of smaller artists have come out and spoken about the way scooter and his team mishandled their careers. He’s responsible for pushing biebs and Ariana to work at times when their mental health is so fragile. Scooter is not a good person.
    Taylor was trying to make the point that borchetta deeply personally screwed her, lots of labels were bidding for big machine (because of Taylor’s catalogue) borchetta chose the guy taylor feels has a personal vendetta against her. I’m guessing she’s interacted with him in the past and knows how slimy he is.

    • C says:

      Why Scooter has a personal vendetta against her? (I’m asking it cause I really don’t know)

    • Mc says:

      I agree 100%

    • Kate says:

      Yeah that’s how I read everything too. She wasn’t given the opportunity to buy back her masters she would have had to commit to staying at a label with an uncertain future. Imagine if she had stayed there to get her masters and then it still would have been sold to Scooter whom she apparently hates? Much smarter for her to walk away. And although everyone acts like grown men are doing logical business deal and she is so high school for thinking they did something to spite her – um, I’ve seen Nashville, I know how this works (haha but seriously). Borchetta gets pissed she didn’t re-sign with the label making his sale price higher (and to boot she writes a high horse type text about betting on her future and *middle finger*) so he says ok F-U I’m selling to this guy then.

      • schmootc says:

        Humans can be remarkably petty, no matter their gender, age, etc.

      • Carrie says:

        Every business woman knows what this is too. Taylor is calling it out. Good for her. Business practices victimizing women won’t end unless we push back and call it out. Every single time.

        Just because it’s always been done that way doesn’t make it right.

  9. lisa says:

    Can easily understand her being upset. mad. angry that someone she hates owns her music. That’s very understandable. But the business side of this is they didn’t have to let her buy back her catalog. They didn’t have to make this business deal beneficial to her. She doesn’t have a say as to who buys one company over another. Or what they do with it after. It’s personal to her. But it’s business to them. And what does going public do? It’s not going to change the facts. I know some are saying it is about “bringing awareness”. I don’t think it is. She could have done an interview and shown a light on how the Artist gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop. She could work to organize other artists to try and make some changes legally. But this is a done deal.
    Now it is some childish high school thing of grown adults taking sides like they are kids. Handle you business like an adult.

    • Christina says:

      Lisa, everything you said. This is a business. Braun is a jerk, but the people in the business are in it to make money. The creatives are a commodity. It’s capitalism.

      I ran across an article yesterday that discussed how no one in any business owns their work product in the United States unless you are the owner of the company: that is the capitalist model. It’s soul crushing, because we intuitively believe that our work belongs to us. But we sell what we do to make a living. In the music industry, the financial gain is bigger, so the stakes can be higher.

      This is a much bigger issue than a Taylor Swift. Being “team Taylor” because people want fairness makes sense to me, but capitalism simply isn’t fair. It’s about making money. Tom Friedman in the NYTimes just published a piece where he said that the top 10% of people in this country make twice as much as they did and that the top 1% makes much, much more. That’s where Taylor and Scooter live. Most of us don’t.

      Like it or not, it’s the price we all pay to be “free”, but no one feels free. If you want to live in the US and not be effected by this, you have to go off the grid, like the Unibomber. None of us own our work. Taylor Swift wants capitalism to work in just her favor; a lot of people do. I don’t have the power to fight back like that, and I don’t feel entitled to get more than all of you get. I want to be treated fairly, too, and I personally am compensated appropriately for the work I provide, but I don’t own the worK. How she is doing it, in this entitled way that many white women employ as victims of the system that crushed so many of us who weren’t born feeling entitled to fight back and who are punished severely when we do, grates on people like me who are forced to be pragmatic to feed our kids and pay the rent. A lot of us suck up a lot of crap. She needs to play this differently. The Scooter Braun’s of the world can only be beat back if people with a lot of money, LIKE TAYLOR HAS, use their success to BUY these businesses and show that money can be made without cruelty or misogyny. Or we can become something other than a Capitalist democracy. Fight smart, and don’t whine about how unfair it is, demonstrate why it isn’t fair. Kim and Kanye and white lies are irrelevant. Many, many people are enduring much, much worse.

      • HotCoffee says:

        Cristina, is it really that bad though? An engineer uses her company’s equipment and IP to develop a patented technology; that’s by right the company’s property. On the other hand someone like Swift can write a song in her bedroom using no resources from the record company but the record company is the one that gives her song the marketing exposure (invests money in doing so).

        If you want to own your inventions and creations, make sure you document you did it in your own time.

      • NightOwl says:

        Is the work product ownership different in non-US countries? I’m so conditioned to think work product when employed is the property of the employer unless there’s a specific carve-out.

    • brooklyngal says:

      I agree with you Lisa. Taylor has every right to be upset but it’s business, not personal. It reminds me of how pissed Paul McCartney was when Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog. It happens – its business and sometimes its not favorable or in your best interest. I got the impression that Taylor knew she would lose her masters but chose to move on (for whatever reason) and is now pissed because Scooter owns her masters and she doesn’t like him. It’s petulant and childish. She’s too rich and powerful to not be able to handle her business better. And telling her version of the narrative and obfuscating things to suit her narrative does not do her any favors. Like when she said Kanye never called her. Or when she said she learned about Scooter’s purchase of her masters as it was announced to the world. Not quite the truth. Also, for what it’s worth, the bidding process is super confidential for so many legal reasons, no matter whether it’s a multi-million dollar company or a record label being bought. Still trying to figure out why Scooter is persona non grata and not the owner of the record label that sold to Scooter.

  10. Becks1 says:

    This is such a messy situation.

    I think the debate over owning her masters is important for the music industry in general, as Kaiser says in the post.

    But Taylor is just so messy here. Scooter may actively dislike her. But I doubt he spent 300 million on Big Machine just to annoy/hurt Taylor. It seems like it was more just a business transaction.

    This could have been a good opportunity to discuss how the music industry works, the downfalls of it, etc, – and instead Taylor is just being Taylor.

  11. Snap Happy says:

    Her new song came on the radio last week and I remember thinking she must have a huge ego to keep churning out songs that basically say, “I’m the best thing you ever lost.” This whole story is about competing egos and very rich people power moves. I think she really bit off more than she can chew here. These men will not forget this. I have no idea’ what scooter’s motivation is. He could very well have bought this label to spite her as some form of payback for everything with Kanye? I do feel bad for her that someone she clearly dislikes owns her masters. And that’s the thing, those are her feelings. She doesn’t have to prove why she doesn’t like him. They can’t prove that she does like him. These are her feelings.

  12. Digital Unicorn says:

    Taylor has every right to be pissed and to own her masters, esp as they are owned by someone she hates who WILL milk it for all the money he can get as lets face it, he bought the label to make money off her. But there are more mature ways of handling the situation from everyone involved. She is clearly not over snakegate and blames Braun for what happened.

    I would not be surprised if she was offered the chance to buy the label. Borchetta got greedy with that asking price and he only got it because of Taylor. But then again given he and Braun are ‘friends’ you gotta wonder what kind of arrangement they have as there is no way Taylor’s masters are worth that alone – bigger and more powerful companies walked away from the sale as the price got too high for what is essentially a small label that used to have one very big money maker.

    Either way this isn’t over, Braun as owner of the master rights can license out her catalogue to streaming services, release compilation albums etc.. without her permission. As publisher she has to give permission over the use in media projects such as tv ads, sampling etc.. so she can limit his money making plans that way.

    As I said yesterday, I hope Taylor’s lawyers and accountants are on the ball – Braun now controls the profits from the masters and if he gets ‘creative’ with accounts he could limit how much money she gets as her %.

    • Purplehazeforever says:

      Her lawyer said she wasn’t offered the opportunity to buy the label or her masters outright.

    • Arpeggi says:

      Her dad was on the board of BMR, he was aware of the sale and he profited from it. This didn’t happen out of the blue! And yeah, the Stones, the Beattles, Prince, Radiohead: most musicians didn’t have the rights to their masters of their first (or more) recording contracts. And recording companies won’t let you walk away with them if you decide to sign with a competitor/create your own LLC because they’d lose a ton of value, it’d be a bad business deal.

      TS is allowed to be angry, but everything is perfectly legal and was a long time coming so she’s not allowed to act surprised by the outcome (or she needs to talk to her team/dad more). No one spends 300million for a vendetta, she has to get over it.

      • Carrie says:

        Ah. Business and SEC rules … never mind, I’m out.

        Wondering what the vendetta is against Taylor on this matter. Extreme vitriol around this.

  13. Vv says:

    I’m trying to understand why she keeps saying that this is personal?
    As in he bought that company just to get back at her for something and that he’s been tormenting her for years.
    Maybe there’s something we don’t know about their relationship? Like something truly bad he did to her or that went down between them? Idk….

    • Arizona says:

      I’m confused by that myself. The only things she brought up were things that his clients did/said to her that she seems to think he’s responsible for, but I don’t see any evidence that 1) he’s actually responsible for it and 2) he has such a vendetta against her that he’d spend $300 million just to stick it to her.

    • ema says:

      I’m guessing given that he managed Bieber when he was with Selena, who is very close with Taylor who made it known she did not like their relationship, there are social overlaps and things that have gone on behind the scenes that the public might not know about– esp if Braun was Kanye’s manager when the Famous video came out (lyrics aside— the video was completely disgusting and there’s been no receipts that she gave permission for THAT). And he would spend $300 million to stick it to her if he does things with her music that he knows she doesn’t want done AND that will make him loads of money. He didn’t buy it JUST to stick it to her.

    • Carrie says:

      It’s in her statement

      Note her reference to “revenge porn video”

      She’s right to call this out. I’ve not agreed with her in the past but after metoo there is no way this should be difficult to see. Unless it’s willful ignorance.

  14. Mary says:

    Would it’s make any business sense for label to sale Taylor her master and significantly bring down the value of the label. Would you sell your Asset. It appears to me The record label offered her a compromise. If you resign we will immediately give you your masters. Which meant the record label would still have her as an asset which would keep the value of the label. Taylor wanted the whole cake and didn’t care what it meant for the label that made her famous . Then she goes into attack a buyer and try to destroy that buyer’s reputation. Taylor is a selfish brat . For months she knew that Record label was up for sale , she knew her masters where part of the record label. She went out got herself a lucrative record deal and now that the label has gotten itself a deal she is mad. Is she the only one allowed to make lucrative business deals . What a brat

  15. Rapunzel says:

    Here’s my thoughts on how this went down:

    1. Borchetta offered Tay immediate ownership of her masters, for no albums, but a length of time under contract. This is proven by the receipts he posted. Whether this any better than being forced to do a certain output is debatable.

    2. Tay knew Borchetta was selling out and decided to go somewhere else, rather than herself to some as yet to be known new label owner on Borchetta’s label.

    3. Tay was fine with everything, at least in the texts that were leaked.

    4. Tay probably thought she’d try and acquire the masters outright from whoever the new owner was.

    5. Braun bought the label and now Tay is just mad it’s him.

    My conclusion: Taylor didn’t really care about not owning her masters until Braun bought them, because he’s a jerk, and so now she’s trying to make it seem like she was victimized.

    Extra theory: she’s trying to bully Braun so he’ll feel obligated to sell her back the masters. And it’s not working.

    Tay sucks for her martyr complex and for needlessly bringing Kanye, Kim and Bieber into this. Braun sucks cause he’s got a history of douche behavior and probably just bought Tay’s masters to own her. Borchetta sucks for selling Tay’s work to a man he had to know she hated, which he probably did to get back her not resigning. And the music industry sucks cause folks should own their own work.

    • C says:

      You nailed it!
      “she’s trying to bully Braun so he’ll feel obligated to sell her back the masters.” if she really thinks that way, she’s more delusional than I thought. This is business, he’s not gonna sell to her just because she has angry
      minions to defend her.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      ^ THIS!

      However I would add that her current record company, Universal Music, was interested in buying BMG and she likely knew this and though she could get them back that way but they pulled out as the asking price got too high. A business deal happened and she wasn’t happy at the outcome, however I do understand why she is upset that it was Braun who bought them. This is a man who drove Bieber to the point of a breakdown. Braun thinks he’s a svengali but he a POS bully who isn’t a power player in the music industry (but thinks he is).

      • Cinnamon says:

        I think you are right which makes me wonder why she did not broker the sale between Big Machine and Universal? Couldn’t she have stayed with Big Machine and thus driving their price up under the condition that the company be sold to Universal. She would be working for Universal through Big Machine and get her masters. Everyone would have gotten what they wanted.

      • ToiFilles says:

        @Digital. I also wonder if her most recent return to pastels & butterfly was a bid to win the latest crop of tweens & perhaps secure a new audience that UMG could bank upon for BMR bid. I can see them going for that formula because it worked so well for her in the country music scene, & made BMR a such a powerhouse.

        I also wonder why no one brings up Dan Dymtrow with this particular drama. He was the manager that her father fired just before she signed w/ BMR – citing a contractual error. In Dymtrow’s lawsuit, he said that her father schemed to get rid of him to avoid paying a fortune in commissions when the BMR deal went through.

        I’ll bet Dan’s having a good laugh over this one.

    • Arizona says:

      I agree with all of this, especially your last paragraph (although I question that Braun has such a vendetta against Taylor that he’d spend that kind of money just to get back at her for…something?).

    • Christin says:

      This seems to sum it up. I’m “team no one” on this one, because it does appear she made a choice last year in terms of her priorities. She gambled and is now crying over how it all played out.

      That article excerpt from her side sounds incredibly immature. She is trying high school tactics against business people who fully know her history.

  16. Nev says:

    Kanye says hi.
    Everytime I see that I chuckle. Thanks.

  17. Julie says:

    She’s insane if she really thinks Braun did this to hurt her. This is a massive acquisition for him that’s going to take a very long time to pay off for him and his investors. He’s not a billionaire who can afford to spend $300 million just to further some petty beef. This is a gigantic investment for him, by far the biggest he’s ever made, and it’s stretched him and his company to their financial limits. She’s trying to frame this as David and Goliath, but she’s actually closer to being the Goliath here. She has more personal funds than Braun and is just as capable of attracting investors. She could have outbid him if she’d actually tried.

    I’m not sure why people keep talking about Swift not being given the option or opportunity to buy, like you need to be personally asked to before you can make an offer to buy something. Nothing suggests she made any serious offers to buy either her masters outright or the label. She was talking to Big Machine about signing a new deal that would include her masters, and negotiating that, but when she went another way that seems to have been it. If she’d made competitive offers to buy and been rebuffed, she’d have mentioned that, so either she made no offers or she made insultingly low offers even she knows better than to mention.

    It’s been known for years that Big Machine was going to be sold sooner rather than later. Swift had every chance to plan, find investors and make some offers, but she doesn’t even hint at doing anything like that.

  18. Gigi La Moore says:

    It’s business, period. Don’t like it, change the law. Look up the De Havilland law. Be a pioneer like Olivia De Havilland and stop trying to win in the court of public opinion. Nope, Taylor would rather whine. It’s not a pretty look, dear.

  19. I guess I’m not seeing the receipts.

    Did she know the label would be sold? Yes.
    Did they negotiate for months on whether she’d remain with the label and chose to walk? Yes
    Did she know there was an offer on the masters that she felt wasn’t a good deal for her future and walk away? Yes.
    Did she refuse a call from the dude that “bought her?” Yes.

    None of this information is new and acknowledged by both sides.

    Her claim was she would have to resign and earn back her work. This doesn’t dispute that assertion, the only thing New is it wasn’t tied to X number of albums but to time….which translates to, you either work for us or you don’t work AT ALL for so many years.

    • Arizona says:

      Scott states that once she re-signed for a period of time, she would have ownership of her masters immediately upon re-signing. So if she stayed for ten more years, she could have made only one more album and had all of her masters.

      Taylor states that if she re-signed, she would have earned back her masters piecemeal, based on output – she would have had to make 6 more albums in order to own all of her current masters. If she only made 1 album in that ten year span, she would have only earned back 1 album of masters.

      That’s a pretty big difference, IMO. And only one of them seems to have produced any receipts for their claim.

      • They negotiated for months, I have no doubt there were several versions offered by both sides. Offerings details on one deal does not preclude there having been others on the table.
        As to only having to put one one album in ten years, that would end her career. She literally couldn’t work for anyone else, hence the line of betting on her future rather than giving it up to own her past.

      • Arizona says:

        I’m not saying it would make sense for her as an artist to only release one album in ten years. I’m just saying that the deal she says she was offered is different from the deal shown, and that matters.

        It doesn’t preclude other offers – but it would show that she was offered more than one option, which she doesn’t mention.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        @Arizona: I seriously doubt it was just a deal where she just signs for 10 years & she gets her masters back. It’s implies she has to make albums. Yes, it would be helpful if she’d back up her Tumbler post with what she’s talking about. I still support her argument she’s entitled to own her masters even if Taylor got sidetracked with bullying complaints. I think the issue here is she gambled that Universal was going to buy her former label & she lost that gamble. It’s personal to her because Borchetta likely was pissed she walked away from her label & refused to allow her to buy her masters outright because he needed them to sell it. Universal already having signing Taylor wasn’t going to spend another $300 million to help her acquire her masters back. It’s now with Braun, who manages Kanye & Bieber..so yeah, I see why she’s angry. I also see why she attacked.

      • Arizona says:

        @Purplehazeforever Did you read the final deal offer that BMG made to Taylor? Scott Borchetta released it. It dictates what her terms were, and what theirs were. It literally says that it would be a 10 year contract and she would get her masters, photographs, videos, etc upon execution of the contract (ie. when the contract starts). She wanted it to be 7 years.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        @ Arizona: yes, I did. I read it. She made an offer of 7 years, they countered with 10 years. My point was Taylor didn’t back up her claims she’d have to produce an album to get an album back. All we have is Borchetta’s receipts. I can’t imagine it was just here you sign for 10 years & do nothing while we give you your masters back. I guess it’s possible. It implies she had to make albums…at least to me.. unless they are clauses we aren’t seeing. Her lawyer released a statement yesterday stating she wasn’t offered a deal to buy her masters “outright” or purchase the label. I think she has every right to own her masters. If this deal wasn’t the best deal for her to acquire them, I understand why she walked from it. I understand her bitterness because I think she believed she was going to be able to acquire them at a later date. There’s probably more to this than we know and I think maybe she feels Borchetta stabbed her in the back.
        That being said, her post did detract from that. She’s still going on about the “Summer of Receipts” ( lol Kim releasing the phone call). She’s 30. I mean at some point we need to grow up. She’s probably throwing them under the bus to make a point but Borchetta & Braun are not sympathetic here, either. No, she is. It’s a cutthroat business. And she’s bitter because she gambled & lost.

  20. DS9 says:

    Scooter is a douche but he didn’t spend $300 mil or whatever his part is to stick it to Taylor Swift.

    This really should have been an easy argument to “win” but Taylor had to go make it a personal crusade and stretch the truth while she was at it so here we are.

    And yeah, I’m honestly going to need better evidence than a tenuous tie to the snake receipts if she wants me to believe Scooter did this deal just to be mean.

    Big Machine is more than Swift, isn’t it?

    • It isn’t anywhere in the ballpark of $300 million without her, so in a sense, no it isn’t much more than TS without her catalogue. Which would be why selling them outright to her wasn’t on the table.

      • DS9 says:

        That wasn’t my argument though. Idk what was offered to her but given that the label is worth more with her signed to a new contract, I find it hard to believe negotiations did not involve a slew of ways to try to keep Tay AND the masters.

        My argument, to be clear, is that Big Machine is a whole package in addition to Swift’s masters. Acquiring it for the primary purpose of hurting one person is a level of petty ridiculousness reserved for 50 Cent, if Fofty had that kind of coin.

        I think what’s clear here is that Taylor is this level of petty. She believes Scooter is out to get her because she has shown herself repeatedly to be the kind of person to take business very personally and nurse those grudges for years. (See: Katy Perry and some backup dancers)

        To be clear, she had very good arguments to go on between the issue of ownership of one’s work and Braun’s questionable management of Bieber and other acts. Instead, she went with Scooter making her cry in the Kimye aftermath.

  21. Derriere says:

    If Taylor truly wanted control over her music, she is rich enough to produce her own music w/o a label. She doesn’t want and never wanted that kind of responsibility and risk for her career. So again, I ask you…why are we still feeling sorry for this girl (she is certainly not carrying herself like an adult.)

    I’m getting grade school arguments and no one is playing the game on that level. Did she think her bosses wouldn’t be archiving her text messages and emails? This is business, Taylor! Of course they wouldn’t let you just buy your masters without putting in more work. They have other artists to think about. They are considering their bottom line.

    I feel bad that she clearly didn’t like her deal, but I can’t feel sorry for willful ignorance or misrepresentation.

  22. L says:

    I’m all for Taylor (and other artists) having the right to owning their masters.

    But Taylor seems to make this issue about her own feelings towards Scooter, and not wanting to talk to him just seems so childish. I know it’s difficult to have conversations with someone you don’t like (and especially when that someone is a powerful man) but she needs to talk to HIM and not just leak out information through magazines about how she feels. She has lawyers and other handlers she can bring with her if they ever schedule a meeting together.

    She is a powerful business woman and it sounds like she made a bad business decision. She had opportunities to «earn» back her masters but she declined. Anyone could have bought BMR and they would have had her masters. Would she still be *this* upset over someone else owning/buying the company?

    This is a mess and with no proper communication between both of them and everyone else involved.. I just.. atleast they need to talk you know?

    • Digital Unicorn presented a theory upthread that made a lot of sense. In that her new label was considering the purchase of Big Machine and there was a chance of acquisition through that route. That would have made good sense for both her future and ownership of her masters.
      Now whether the price got inflated and priced her new label out or shady dealings by the Scotts is good gossip speculation, but the theory she would acquire eventually through her new label is a good one.

  23. paranormalgirl says:

    Good Goddess. In the immortal words of Elsa, Let it Go

  24. Case says:

    A power move would’ve been for HER to buy Big Machine and turn it into a record label that doesn’t require young artists to surrender their masters.

    But no, we’re taking the crying and lying route again.

  25. Lu says:

    The music industry hasn’t had its MeToo moment yet, but I am willing to bet every meagre penny I have that in any future reckoning, Scooter Braun will feature prominently.

    I think that’s what TS means by grossed out. I think she knows a lot she cannot say publicly. I think that’s why she’s so disgusted that Borchetta has sold the company to Braun.

    “It’s just business” – the point is, MeToo means nothing, and will continue to mean nothing as long as business decisions like this are put before the personal behaviour of powerful men.

    TS has clearly gone out of her way to avoid being professionally associated with Braun; this deal means she is now inextricably – and powerlessly – linked to him. I think it’s ok that she is angry at Borchetta for putting her in that position.

    • Holly hobby says:

      You’re talking about a woman having a person decade petty beef against another woman because she “stole” her dancers. I doubt snake girl is on a metoo crusade. It is all about her and her butt hurt feelings. Let’s not overthink she’s doing this for the greater good.

      • Arizona says:

        Well now her version is that her and Katy’s issues were because of the media pitting women against each other. Because her personal vendetta against Katy was really about sexism in the media, apparently. -_-

    • Becks1 says:

      For #metoo? people keep thinking he will feature prominently, but I highly doubt it.

      ETA and let me be clear. he’s a douche. He’s always been a douche. But that doesn’t mean he’s the next Harvey Weinstein.

  26. Cee says:

    I understand why she’s upset. I would be upset too if my masters belonged to someone else. However, they never belonged to her.
    Were Taylor as egocentric as a lot of people paint her out to be, she would have realised that HER catalogue and HERSELF were the most valuable asset/product for BM. Borchetta had every right to sell the company at the highest price possible. Taylor should have known, given how good she seems to be at the business side of the music industry, that had she signed to another label and left with ownership of her masters, then BM’s value would have decreased. Borchetta would have been an idiot to let this happen. She was given the choice of resigning and owning her body of work, and she decided to pass on the chance (her reason for doing so is legit). But she can’t lash out at Borchetta – he made the best business deal within his power.

    Many are wondering why she didn’t purchase the label herself in order to gain ownership of her masters – I doubt she has 300M in cash. And if she did she would then be responsible for other artists and their careers. Why would she want to become an executive when she’s an artist?

    • DS9 says:

      I think this comment sums things up rather well. Taylor made the best deal for her situation. Borchetta made the best deal for his.

      Those who are outraged on her behalf are upset that there wasn’t an offer that gave Taylor everything she wanted without costing her more than she was willing to give.

  27. stacey says:

    She is a very hard person to have any sympathy for.

  28. Yawn says:

    I’m just curious about why everyone thinks Braun is such a horrible person. Drove Bieber to madness by working him too hard? Well Bieber is still by his side and seems to think of him as a good friend, damn near family…. Yeah Braun admitted he though about ruining Ariana when she first left him, but he didn’t do it, and she resigned with him- it’s most likely for business reasons that she did and not because she thinks of him as her best friend, but I hardly think she would choose to associate so closely with someone she thought was a horrible horrible person.

    Does anyone know why scooter is so “horrible”? He’s a business man, so they all kinda have a level of shadiness about them, but why is he being reported as SO BAD- anyone have any “receipts” on that?

  29. Lory says:

    I agree that Taylor loves to play the victim, and in this case it’s the little girl who cried wolf. When she makes a legitimate claim, it’s hard to believe her. But Scooter Braun liked and then deleted a post on Twitter “When your friend buys Taylor Swift”. It sells of misogyny and a personal vendetta. He didn’t say “When your friend buys Sheryl Crow”, who also has an impressive catalogue of music. Just because this has been happening in the music business forever doesn’t make it right. It may be “just business” to the other male execs involved, but it’s personal to the artist.


  30. N says:

    Isn’t playing the victim her shtick? Both Scrawny and BMR creeper were obviously wanting some attention for this deal.

  31. Shannon Brown says:

    100% for Swift. I remember to this day Prince writing “slave” on his cheek and changing his name just to get from under his record label. The business is geared against the artist, who are simply assets. Swift, undoubtedly, was the most profitable asset. Her being kept in the dark is not surprising, and I for one hope she gets her masters, and that she wins this fight. On a side note, Swift advocated for higher royalties from Apple for all artists. She certainly didn’t have to do that.

    • Carrie says:

      Same. Thanks for contributing substance to this. People are determined to be personally right rather than focus on the business process, tactics, and especially the misogyny Taylor’s trying to emphasize here.

      Prince, George Michael, on and on… they knew. It’s well known I think that George was set up for the bathroom bust for instance, due to contracts dispute.

      All the details of the deal the company is focusing on is deflecting. Everyone is missing it. Hopefully not on purpose.

  32. MLouise says:

    There was likely a clause in the deal providing that should she not release six albums by a certain date the rights would revert back to the producer to the extent her part of the deal (releasing new albums) was not satisfied, ie if she released three, she keeps three.

    easy to say property would pass on closing date and remain silent on other conditions undoing this.

  33. Sparky says:

    I personally think Taylor knew she was going to take a lot of heat and attract the usual criticisms of her being whiny or playing the victim. She went public anyway to avoid Scooter using her music in an embarrassing way, such as on the Kardashian shows, or letting Kanye sample her music. If Scooter were to do that now he really would look awful.

    • Arizona says:

      She wouldn’t have attracted those criticisms if she didn’t make the whole thing about Scooter making her cry and Kimye and bullying and illegally recorded phone calls, though.

      If she had focused simply on the masters part of it, I think most people would have been on her side.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        I’m still on her side, Arizona. I understand why others aren’t as sympathetic to her but this is about her work. I ignore the rest of it. Kanye & Taylor are going to be feuding for two more decades at least over his upstaging her @ the VMAs & the “summer of receipts”.

      • Sparky says:

        @Arizona-My point was that she was willing to take the criticism as long as she could ultimately protect herself. She made a stink, and the stink is what’s going to keep this in people’s memories, and now it will be really noticeable if he uses her music in the wrong way.

      • Arizona says:

        And my point was that she could have avoided all of those criticisms by focusing on the industry failing to provide artists with the opportunity to own their work, and not mentioning “incessant manipulative bullying” and “illegally recorded phone calls.” She made a stink, and it got on her as well, IMO. Because her stink wasn’t really about not owning her masters. It was about who owns them now. I can’t ignore the rest of it when she made that her primary problem, NOT failing to own her masters. Shrug. That’s me, though.

        I don’t think Scooter, Borchetta, Bieber, or Kimye are blameless perfect angels (in fact, I don’t really like any of them) – but neither is Taylor, and by turning this into bullying and faux-feminism, she lost me. If she wanted to talk about the industry-wide issue of artists not being able to outright own their masters once they’ve proven to be successful, I am right there with her. If she wants to talk about being bullied (when she has been an unrepentant bully multiple times) and crying, she’s lost me.

        I doubt Scooter is going to use her masters in the wrong way, and I doubt he would have even without her saying something – if suddenly Kanye was sampling her work, people would take issue and it wouldn’t be a good look. Besides that, I’m pretty sure since she owns publishing rights she has to sign off on whether he can use it anyway, so it’s a moot point.

  34. S says:

    All of these rich, famous and powerful people need to shut up forever about how they’re being “bullied,” and whatnot. But, at the same time, I don’t quite get all the Swift hate, both now and with the Kim-Kayne sitch.

    I am not even close to a ‘stan (way out of the age demo), and for sure think she’s a drama queen putting the best spin on a story, but, at the same time, like, both here and in the Kayne-Kim situation, even if you actually did have a heads up, it still totally sucks.

    Kayne is a well known misogynist with an ego the size of New Jersey, and even if he gave Swift a heads up on the “I made that bitch famous” line (which, no, Kayne, you did not make Taylor Swift a thing), there’s A) no way she knew about that super-gross video and B) it’s like asking, ‘Hey, do you mind if I, a famous person, make fun of you, another famous person?’ You’re a dick if you say no. I just never got a Taylor’s a snake vibe from the scenario. Mainly because Kayne is, was and always has been pretty gross and majorly messy.

    Just like this Braun guy appears to be. Talking about “owning” Taylor Swift, just like Kayne talked about “making her famous.” Not owning her masters is a crappy, industry-wide practice that, while sucks, I agree isn’t sexist against Swift. BUT these men? They way they talk about and treat her? Well, that DOES reek of sexism, full-stop. And owning Swift’s masters means this guy COULD really mess with her image/life/etc. I get why she’s upset by that, no matter when she did/didn’t learn about it. The same as when she heard the full song/video back with Kayne.

    I’m not sure any of these very, very rich people deserve all that much sympathy, but to the degree I care, the same way I’m Team Ex when Swift dishes about her former loves in lyrics (TMI), I’m Team Taylor on a 20-something woman being dissed by gross, grown-ass men.

    • Original T.C. says:

      That may be the case but Taylor Swift is also anti-Women from calling her ex-boyfriend’s GF a slut to her attacking Tina Fey. The only woman she’s a fan of is herself. And best of all, she’s manipulative and a liar. She started a fauxmance with squeaky clean ‘good guy’ Tom Hiddleston hoping his reputation would shield her when she was outed as a liar. Blaming the messenger doesn’t change the facts of the message.

      On the other hand these industry people should learn not to pick a fight with her. She will reduce them to her stunted emotional age of 13 and beat them to a pulp in the media as the current reigning queen of petty! So team no one.

  35. Holly hobby says:

    No honey Scooter didn’t buy the label to hurt you. It was an investment and there were other big acts on this label as well. How she turned this into a personal ordeal is beyond me.

    This practice of artists not owning their masters have been going on for years. It’s not right but that’s the way it is. It is not something used against solely her. Snake baby should just stop it.

  36. Beach Dreams says:

    This little drama is perfect timing to drum up attention for her upcoming album…especially since her first two singles haven’t landed so well with the general public (by her standards). I thought she’d rally back after the average (again, for her) performances of Reputation’s singles. It’s possible she’s not choosing the right singles, or there might be something about her musical direction that isn’t clicking with people as of late.

  37. MariaS says:

    Taylor Swift does not own her masters for the same reason MOST musicians don’t: she signed a deal as a teenager giving away her publishing rights (to songs that didn’t yet exist) in exchange for the record company’s resources: cash advances, production, and distribution. The record company took a risk on her as an unknown and it worked out very well for them. To now characterize that situation as bullying is ridiculous; it’s standard in that industry and only works for the record company if the new artist is actually successful; most aren’t. YES, it’s unfair – songwriters shouldn’t be locked into these arrangements until they’re successful enough to try to renegotiate them. But she behaves like she’s being singled out. She’s insanely successful; OF COURSE someone like Scooter Braun would want to purchase her masters – he’s in the business of making money, not caring about whether a 30 yr-old with the maturity of a 14 yr-old is mad at him and writing dramatic posts on Tumblr.

    • Goldie says:

      Just to clarify, Taylor didn’t sign away her publishing rights. She still owns them. It’s her masters, which are the original recordings of her music, that she doesn’t own. If she had lost her publishing rights, then I would be livid on her behalf. She wrote the songs and absolutely deserves credit. Regarding ownership of the masters, I realize I’m in the minority, but I think it’s debatable as to who really “deserves” to own them. It takes a village to make an album. One could argue that if the record label is paying for the studio sessions, hiring producers, sound engineers, musicians, it’s reasonable for them to have ownership of the recordings. I can also understand why the artist’s feel that they should own their own music. Maybe ownership could be spilt between the artist and the label. But I think it’s a bit more complicated than the narrative that mean, controlling record executives are stealing the artist’s work. I think there is a ton of abuse, manipulation, and toxic behaviour in the music industry for sure, but I’m not sure if that’s what’s happening here.

      • Arizona says:

        You make a good point in that there’s a lot of other people who contribute to those recordings. Ultimately it’s under her name and album, but there’s a lot of other people’s “work” on that album that also have no control on how it gets used. Interesting.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh I didn’t know this.

        So if someone wants to use the ORIGINAL version of “love story,” they go through scooter.

        but if someone wants to quote the lyrics, its through Taylor?

  38. amp122076 says:

    It’s a business deal, not bullying!! Scooter Braun didn’t spend $300M just to “bully” the biggest pop star in the world. He bought her catalogue because it has value. Taylor passed on an opportunity to purchase her music. Someone else bought the asset.

    It’s hypocritical and troublesome to have both a persona of “independent business woman in command of an empire” and then also pull a “my feelings are hurt because mean (“gross”) men are bullying me” card.

    Either she has the chops to play at this level of business or she doesn’t but constantly reshaping the narrative as a victim when she doesn’t “win” is very tiring.

    • HotCoffee says:

      I totally agree with you. I think she’s being very immature in all this, even though I completely understand her frustration as an artist at having someone you don’t want owning your work owning your work.

  39. Prairie Dawg says:

    I guess TS being the “artist” excludes all the other massive contributions made by countless writers, producers, audio engineers, backup vocalists, musicians, etc…how come they wouldn’t get the “first crack” at buying the masters? It’s not like she’s this sole creative genius. She’ll be alright, her incessant privileged whining is too much to bear.

  40. Vanessa says:

    I wonder if this happen to Beyoncé would half the people who are so adamant defending Taylor would they do the same for Beyoncé . I don’t think so everyone would be calling Beyoncé all sorts of names and taking pots shots at Beyoncé Taylor had the opportunity to get her master back she got a better offer at a new label . So she let the master issues go it’s only a problem now because she doesn’t like scooter as person got personal reasons I don’t believe Taylor when she says scooter has made her cry and bully her .

    • Arizona says:

      Beyonce wouldn’t release a blog post complaining about how she’s bullied and people made her cry. she would make it about how as an artist, she should have the rights to her masters. she also doesn’t have a history of playing the victim or lying/manipulating situations to make others look like the villain.

      so not a great comparison.

      • Vanessa says:

        my point was their a completely double standard when it’s comes to Taylor swift on here people rush to defend her at all cost even if she in he wrong . But let this happen to Beyoncé a lot the poster would be really quick to called Beyoncé uneducated and a lot of posters will be on scooter side but because it’s Taylor swift a lot people are quick to defend her .

      • Christy says:

        And because it’s Taylor Swift a lot of people will automatically be against her as well. There are plenty of people just waiting for something to bring her down because they don’t care for her.

  41. Jester says:

    The negative controversy works in Taylor’s favor. There’s now a cloud around her old songs that any use of them would immediately invite scrutiny (on whether she approved of them or not). She just made it more difficult for Braun to do whatever he wants with them. And perhaps she could force him to come to the table and re-negotiate for the masters. It’s worth a shot for her, if the endgame is owning them.

    • Vanessa says:

      I don’t think Taylor cares about owning her master as much as her fans and people think she had a chance to get them back . She choose to another way and go to a different label she knew that big machine record was being sold it’s only problem now for her because she doesn’t like the person that Scott sold the label too she is viewing this as a personal vendetta against her when in reality it’s not about her it’s about business. Taylor is not the savvy business woman her fans and some people on here like to claim she has a team around that makes looks good .

      • Carrie says:

        She stated she does care and why. In any event, this is free PR for her and a stance which will forever linger and be attached to her previous work. It’s good self protection and she never has to address it again.

        She’s doing a few things with this statement, business wise. On the flip side, as Katy Perry realized, Taylor has a voice and a powerful position on the world stage. Advocating for artists, women, better political candidates, are all important causes. That matters to Katy, and why I’ve always preferred her to Taylor. They’ve both grown and learned. Taylor’s statement will keep pressure on those more important issues on a global scale. Also, it raises + extends her profile.

        She’s doing a good thing here, and using her own experience openly for same. Good for her.

  42. Yes Doubtful says:

    It’s business Taylor. You got outplayed. Take the L and your crappy new singles and have a seat.

  43. phaedra7 says:

    @Carrie. Yes, Hiddles is doing much better now: Along with glowing reviews and accolades 👏 for the play he’s working in “Betrayal”, he will be performing his role in that same play on Broadway (NYC) very soon. He got away from “Typhoon Taylor”! 😃

    • Carrie says:

      I saw a headline but didn’t read. Thanks for this news. I’m thrilled for him!

  44. SM says:

    “No matter what Scooter or any of his people say, Taylor believes he did this to hurt her” – that’s pretty much everything you need to know about Taylor. She makes everything about herself and her being the victim. It is a record label, so this purchase is not solely about her. The fact that this info comes from her camp just amplifies how egoist and self centred she is, because she is fine with saying something like that out loud and invoke this stupid argument as her defense. Also I am not quite sure I get what the fuss is about? The label existed and they pretty much kept their power grip on the artistic creations of everyone who were signed with them before it was sold and bought by this guy now, so the problem of label’s monopoly over artists is not a new thing, the label will just have a new boss and that is pretty much it.