celeb news Scooter on Taylor Again: "I was open to selling catalogs back at a fair market value"

[omni]

Me when I lie

[JCsNumba1Fan]

I don’t believe anything that comes out of Scooter’s mouth. Even if he told me what he had for breakfast this morning….

And I am not a Swiftie. 

[SleepingTigers]

Hopefully this means 1989 TV is right around the corner I’m tired of waiting. 

[TiaTamera]

On 4/29/2022 at 12:19 AM, More Than A Melody said:

He’s a douche and she deserves to own her masters. And I don’t believe for a second that he was open to dialogue without something in return.

 

 

With thar said, it does bother me that we treat Taylor’s masters as this relic when most artists don’t own their masters unless they were lucky enough to go in on negotiations in a position of power. Harry is lucky enough to own his, but I think he’s one of the only examples in mainstream who can say he owns his entire catalogue nowadays.

 

I can’t imagine Abel or Dua or Justin or Adele own all their masters. Maybe for later work, but certainly not for all of it. When it first blew up people were saying that Taylor talking about her masters would open the conversation for other artists to demand theirs, to reevaluate how these things are handled. But that didn’t happen, it’s just a conversation about her masters over and over either because she’s releasing her re-recordings or because this douche brings it up again.

 

I just feel bad for all the artists who will never own their art and who don’t have the luxury to re-record their own material and repackage it to market themselves.

I wonder if any of these artist signed NDAs to not speak about owning their masters

[More Than A Melody]

11 minutes ago, TiaTamera said:

I wonder if any of these artist signed NDAs to not speak about owning their masters

Idk I tend to think NDAs are more of a scare tactic than an actual tool and if the artist is big enough they know they can't actually get in trouble for saying things a certain way. It's kinda hard to hold up an NDA in court and it might be worth it to pay a fine for a very rich artist.

 

With that said, I do think it's the case for small artists. Or perhaps, for artists who are still with their original label who want to play nice to not get on their labels' bad side.

[Gaia]

I highly doubt either of them have been completely honest. But the Swifties who believe everythigg be from Taylor’s mouth, no matter how much sense it makes, are a little ridiculous. 
 

Taylor could say Scooter casted a voodoo spell on her to take her first child and y’all would still believe it. 
 

I would be inclined to believe, he offered to sell to Taylor at market price as he stated, and Taylor did not want to pay what randos would pay for her own music rights. 
 

Scooter is not some Elon Musk. If Taylor offered to pay full price for her masters no way would scooter reject it to be petty. He’s not some ultra rich billionaire who can be that petty just to be petty

[Bacratto]

Lying *****. He should've postponed the deal until all parties where there. What about his NDAs? 

[Anna-Artdeco]

5 hours ago, Gaia said:

I highly doubt either of them have been completely honest. But the Swifties who believe everythigg be from Taylor’s mouth, no matter how much sense it makes, are a little ridiculous. 
 

Taylor could say Scooter casted a voodoo spell on her to take her first child and y’all would still believe it. 
 

I would be inclined to believe, he offered to sell to Taylor at market price as he stated, and Taylor did not want to pay what randos would pay for her own music rights. 
 

Scooter is not some Elon Musk. If Taylor offered to pay full price for her masters no way would scooter reject it to be petty. He’s not some ultra rich billionaire who can be that petty just to be petty

The point isn’t the money, the point is that he effectively tried to silence her by making her sign an NDA BEFORE even quoting a price which is highly unusual and unacceptable.
 

Imagine somebody trying to sell you something (your own work at that) and they make you shut up and stop making noise before even beginning the deal. Will you go ahead with it? No sane person would. Why? Because after that NDA, he could put in any sort of financial or legal conditions, he could quote a ridiculous price or still continue to benefit from the royalties and the world wouldn’t even know because Taylor would be bound by an NDA? 
 

How can anyone not see how exploitative this is? 
 

Some of the stans here are straight up foolish and evil with their dickriding of Scooter because they don’t like Taylor. Please use some critical thinking skills.
 

 

[chosensparkles]

why would I believe this man and the puppets he calls his clients? when they happily posted these on their insta stories

[Badgalbriel]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:13 PM, brazil said:

What I'm getting is that Taylor just didn't have (or want to spend) the money to buy her masters, so she decided to release her own versions instead and milk her fans. Anyone else? 

You are always posting something so ******* dumb whenever it's about Taylor. Jesus. 

[Badgalbriel]

22 hours ago, Gaia said:

I highly doubt either of them have been completely honest. But the Swifties who believe everythigg be from Taylor’s mouth, no matter how much sense it makes, are a little ridiculous. 
 

Taylor could say Scooter casted a voodoo spell on her to take her first child and y’all would still believe it. 
 

I would be inclined to believe, he offered to sell to Taylor at market price as he stated, and Taylor did not want to pay what randos would pay for her own music rights. 
 

Scooter is not some Elon Musk. If Taylor offered to pay full price for her masters no way would scooter reject it to be petty. He’s not some ultra rich billionaire who can be that petty just to be petty

He agreed to sell them if she signed an NDA before even talking about pricing. That's not a lie. 

[thetea]

On 4/29/2022 at 4:19 PM, More Than A Melody said:

He’s a douche and she deserves to own her masters. And I don’t believe for a second that he was open to dialogue without something in return.

 

 

With thar said, it does bother me that we treat Taylor’s masters as this relic when most artists don’t own their masters unless they were lucky enough to go in on negotiations in a position of power. Harry is lucky enough to own his, but I think he’s one of the only examples in mainstream who can say he owns his entire catalogue nowadays.

 

I can’t imagine Abel or Dua or Justin or Adele own all their masters. Maybe for later work, but certainly not for all of it. When it first blew up people were saying that Taylor talking about her masters would open the conversation for other artists to demand theirs, to reevaluate how these things are handled. But that didn’t happen, it’s just a conversation about her masters over and over either because she’s releasing her re-recordings or because this douche brings it up again.

 

I just feel bad for all the artists who will never own their art and who don’t have the luxury to re-record their own material and repackage it to market themselves.

I agree. It doesn’t seem to have opened any doors for music ownership for new artists yet, maybe in the future, her actions now will change the industry though.

On 4/29/2022 at 4:23 PM, feelslikeadream said:

This isn't true though. I saw a lot of press about how Olivia owns her masters and how that came directly from her seeing Taylor's fight over hers. You're naming artists who debuted before Taylor v. Scooter when you need to see what happens with newer artists in order to understand Taylor's impact on this topic.

most new artists don’t have room to negotiate with record labels. Olivia could since she was already an established star. Aspiring artists can’t negotiate to own their masters when drawing up record deals

[thetea]

On 5/1/2022 at 3:06 AM, awesomepossum said:

That's true, she could have. Do you think she would have? I don't believe that if her and Scooter were offering the same price that they would just push her out of the deal for no reason. Nor do I believe that Scooter would have not sold them to her for the price he sold them to someone else. She could have outbid them even. That just makes no sense that he wouldn't accept that out of spite.

I don't believe she feels she should have to pay the full market value because she obviously believes they 'rightfully' belong to her. She has said that many times. I don't agree that they 'rightfully' belong to her.

She is making a lot of money and breaking a lot of chart records with the re-recordings. She's also helping to fortify her brand after it was somewhat tarnished with the Kimye situation and the 2016 election (her not endorsing Clinton after claiming to be a feminist through all of 2014 and 2015 when she was trying to sell her album). It seems like she has found a way to position herself as a victim, yet again, and it's all working out very well for her financially and legacy-wise. But I'm not buying the narrative she's selling here. It just doesn't add up. It makes more sense that she's leaving out relevant details and framing the situation in a way that benefits her, as she is known to do. 

I agree. Both of them seem to be trying to spin the situation in their favour. The way Taylor worded that statement she released sounded very carefully worded and victimised her, which makes me think that there’s more to the story that she and scooter are hiding.

Scooters also trying to spin the narrative as well but it’s not nearly as effective as hers was and people aren’t responding to it.

[Tropical]

I mean artists kinda shouldn't own their masters in a way? It's the whole reason they got paid in the first place - to create a product. You think I get to personally own the briefings and reports I write for my job?  Poor little rich girl vibes tbh.

[thetea]

9 hours ago, Tropical said:

I mean artists kinda shouldn't own their masters in a way? It's the whole reason they got paid in the first place - to create a product. You think I get to personally own the briefings and reports I write for my job?  Poor little rich girl vibes tbh.

i kinda agree. labels owning artists masters is the way that they protect their investment. however, i think that the fact that her masters were never offered to her for sale was wrong. she should've been offered the opportunity to own her masters