celeb news Olivia Rodrigo talks about plagiarism, doesn’t confirm or deny Vampire is about Tay

[ImpressMeMuch]

7 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

Your personal attacks aren't a good look girl, it says more about you than it says about me Again, if you're so sure Taylor plagiarised these artists to the point they should be paid royalties, then you should send their lawyers a personal letter attaching your 100% "NON-FRAUDULENT!!!" evidence and inviting them to collectively sue Miss Taylor Alison Swift, it won't be the first time someone tries to do so anyway 

again girl that wasn't me lol

 

my point was just, let's not act like the courts are the perfect answer free from bias for a a rich, white celebrity

 

 

[awesomepossum]

54 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

They all have the freedom and money to sue Taylor for plagiarism if they want to, let's see who the court sides with based on actual evidence, just like Taylor did. 

Yeah but they don't want to. I don't even know what you're talking about with the last part. Are you under the mistaken impression that this issue with Olivia went to court? It didn't 

[lacy]

8 minutes ago, ImpressMeMuch said:

again girl that wasn't me lol

 

my point was just, let's not act like the courts are the perfect answer free from bias for a a rich, white celebrity

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Yeah but they don't want to. I don't even know what you're talking about with the last part. Are you under the mistaken impression that this issue with Olivia went to court? It didn't 

If ya'll are gonna argue can you make it funny like that guy earlier who was just calling everyone old and ugly

[barbiegrande]

4 hours ago, orange22 said:

 

It’s crazy because Swifties had everyone trying to demonize Scooter like this was a Kesha/Dr Luke situation, when it was really just a rich white male making a higher bid than a rich white woman. 

[enchanted0]

21 pages  ngl I feel kinda bad for Olivia there are like 3 people using GUTS album thread… hopefully you guys at least stream her album next week

[lacy]

Just now, barbiegrande said:

It’s crazy because Swifties had everyone trying to demonize Scooter like this was a Kesha/Dr Luke situation, when it was really just a rich white male making a higher bid than a rich white woman. 

Not really, it was never a bidding war because Taylor never even got the opportunity to bid.

 

I'm still for demonizing scooter, weird of him to gatekeep her own masters from her. However I'm glad it happened because it's thanks to this mess we got Taylor's Versions.

 

Regardless, she doesn't need credit on Deja Vu and she is not inna cent this time

[Communion]

4 minutes ago, lacy said:

Not really, it was never a bidding war because Taylor never even got the opportunity to bid.

 

I'm still for demonizing scooter, weird of him to gatekeep her own masters from her.

Wait - Scooter didn't gatekeep them - he was the other buyer. Scott was the one who didn't let Taylor make an offer. Y'all don't even know what rich person you're supposed to be hating in defense of another rich person. 

[Trainwreck]

9 minutes ago, lacy said:

 

If ya'll are gonna argue can you make it funny like that guy earlier who was just calling everyone old and ugly

I just saw that  and not him coming for his fellow livies too poor thing I hope he's doing better now

[orange22]

5 minutes ago, lacy said:

Not really, it was never a bidding war because Taylor never even got the opportunity to bid.

 

I'm still for demonizing scooter, weird of him to gatekeep her own masters from her. However I'm glad it happened because it's thanks to this mess we got Taylor's Versions.

 

Regardless, she doesn't need credit on Deja Vu and she is not inna cent this time

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/07/06/taylor-swift-dad-email-catalog-deal/

[lacy]

Just now, Communion said:

Wait - Scooter didn't gatekeep them - he was the other buyer. Scott was the one who didn't let Taylor make an offer.

Yeah, but did taylor not then try to buy them from scooter just for him to gatekeep them?

[Rep2000]

14 minutes ago, enchanted0 said:

21 pages  ngl I feel kinda bad for Olivia there are like 3 people using GUTS album thread… hopefully you guys at least stream her album next week

Ikr! And now 🛴 is talked about. This article and the interviewer did nothing but a disservice to Olivia because clearly Taylor is the center of the conversation again, when she literally hasn't said a word.

Imagine how tired we are.

[loveisdead9582]

7 minutes ago, lacy said:

Yeah, but did taylor not then try to buy them from scooter just for him to gatekeep them?

This was what I thought? I swear it was released that she offered the exact price he paid ($300 million) and he either didn’t respond or he turned down the offer - likely thinking he would make more by keeping them. 

[lacy]

2 minutes ago, loveisdead9582 said:

This was what I thought? I swear it was released that she offered the exact price he paid ($300 million) and he either didn’t respond or he turned down the offer - likely thinking he would make more by keeping them. 

Taylor said that she tried to enter communications, wasn't given a price, and before they could even start negotiations she would have to sign an NDA blocking her from saying anything about scooter that isn't positive. Essentially she'd have to silence herself to even have a chance at buying them back. Weird behavior.

 

But anyways, **** scott, **** scooter, and **** taylor

 

Stream guts on friday!

 

[lacy]

15 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

I just saw that  and not him coming for his fellow livies too poor thing I hope he's doing better now

Sorry sweetie maybe you misunderstood.

 

I don't want to take sides in this argument idek who is right, I'm just asking if ya'll can make it funny

[loveisdead9582]

Just now, lacy said:

Taylor said that she tried to enter communications, wasn't given a price, and before they could even start negotiations she would have to sign an NDA blocking her from saying anything about scooter that isn't positive. Essentially she'd have to silence herself to even have a chance at buying them back. Weird behavior.

 

But anyways, **** scott, **** scooter, and **** taylor

 

Stream guts on friday!

 

Ah. That was it. A no win situation for Taylor to get back the masters to her own music. Glad to see that she’s winning in the end. 

[Communion]

27 minutes ago, lacy said:

Yeah, but did taylor not then try to buy them from scooter just for him to gatekeep them?

 

19 minutes ago, loveisdead9582 said:

This was what I thought? I swear it was released that she offered the exact price he paid ($300 million) and he either didn’t respond or he turned down the offer - likely thinking he would make more by keeping them. 

But the only reason Scooter bought them was so he could turn a profit. He literally bought them, flipped them, got a profit to increase the value of SBProjects, and then sold SBProjects for even more money from HYBE. That's not "gatekeeping" like as though this is some romantic relationship burdened by domestic abuse.  Taylor was never going to give him the profit margin and extended royalties he wanted, based on what *she* said about it being personal for her. 

 

He, as a rich dude, bought a highly valuable asset and took advantage of its value, pissing off a rich woman who herself wished to leverage those assets in her next record deal. We can think artists SHOULD own their masters while acknowledging that 99% of artists DON'T and this is an industry norm and that Taylor got burned by business-as-usual practices, not some spiteful campaign against her. "Scooter bought these to HARM ME" works to sell albums to fans but not when it comes to applying common sense.

 

Of course all of these rich people should be paying an effective tax rate of 90%, but the victimization angle has NEVER worked when examined because Taylor's entire point was that it WAS personal for and she did not want a man she hated to profit off of her work.

 

Like it requires thinking it was ALSO personal for Scooter and that he somehow rounded up hundreds of millions of dollars just to spite her.  Why would someone looking to upsell want to sell you something you DON'T want them to make money off of?

Edited September 3, 2023 by Communion

[NausAllien]

8 minutes ago, lacy said:

Taylor said that she tried to enter communications, wasn't given a price, and before they could even start negotiations she would have to sign an NDA blocking her from saying anything about scooter that isn't positive. Essentially she'd have to silence herself to even have a chance at buying them back. Weird behavior.

 

But anyways, **** scott, **** scooter, and **** taylor

 

Stream guts on friday!

 

That's what Taylor said.

 

Remember when she claimed she didn't know Kanye was making a song about her. And not only she knew, but she gave him her blessing. The only part she didn't know about was the used of the b-word. Everything else she knew and she was planning how to spin it into something positive for her.

 

SHE'S A KNOWN LIAR

[loveisdead9582]

6 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

But the only reason Scooter bought them was so he could turn a profit. He literally bought them, flipped them, got a profit to increase the value of SBProjects, and then sold SBProjects for even more money from HYBE. That's not "gatekeeping" like as though this is some romantic relationship burdened by domestic abuse.  Taylor was never going to give him the profit margin and extended royalties he wanted, based on what *she* said about it being personal for her. 

 

He, as a rich dude, bought a highly valuable asset and took advantage of its value, pissing off a rich woman who herself wished to leverage those assets in her next record deal.

 

Of course all of these rich people should be paying an effective tax rate of 90%, but the victimization and personal angle has NEVER worked on this when actually examined because Taylor's entire point was that it WAS personal for and she did not want a man she hated to profit off of her work.  Why would someone looking to upsell want to sell you something you DON'T want them to make money off of?

From a moral standpoint, Scott not even allowing Taylor the opportunity to purchase them (the masters to HER SONGS, you know, the ones SHE wrote, sang, played instruments on, etc) means that the entire deal was a bit shady to begin with. Scooter could’ve had a great PR moment and not lost any money by selling them to her at the exact same price he paid (im sure that if he asked for any sort of legal fees, etc she probably would’ve paid for those too). It would’ve made him look good and probably could’ve gotten him more clients because of the gesture of goodwill. 
 

I’d say it’s odd that you’re supporting Scooter but…. Choices. 

[loveisdead9582]

5 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

That's what Taylor said.

 

Remember when she claimed she didn't know Kanye was making a song about her. And not only she knew, but she gave him her blessing. The only part she didn't know about was the used of the b-word. Everything else she knew and she was planning how to spin it into something positive for her.

 

SHE'S A KNOWN LIAR

The full phone conversation eventually leaked. Taylor didn’t know that he was going to say what he eventually said on the song. That is why she was upset. Context is incredibly important. Name dropping someone in a positive way is beneficial to both the artist releasing the song and the artist being mentioned. Kanye hiding his true intentions and not giving her the full lyrics eliminated her ability to make an educated decision that she felt was best for her. 

[lacy]

7 minutes ago, loveisdead9582 said:

From a moral standpoint, Scott not even allowing Taylor the opportunity to purchase them (the masters to HER SONGS, you know, the ones SHE wrote, sang, played instruments on, etc) means that the entire deal was a bit shady to begin with. Scooter could’ve had a great PR moment and not lost any money by selling them to her at the exact same price he paid (im sure that if he asked for any sort of legal fees, etc she probably would’ve paid for those too). It would’ve made him look good and probably could’ve gotten him more clients because of the gesture of goodwill. 
 

I’d say it’s odd that you’re supporting Scooter but…. Choices. 

I can follow the logic of he made an investment, he wanted to profit, but how hard is it to hear out her offer / make a counter offer without forcing her into silence before any sort of a discussion can take place? even if he said don't mention the prices i ask for in the nda that'd be reasonable, but to say she can't say anything about him unless its positive? i--

[Communion]

12 minutes ago, loveisdead9582 said:

From a moral standpoint

What morals? These are all rich sociopaths buying assets and trading imaginary money greater than most Americans will make in their lifetime back and forth for personal gain. 

 

Acknowledging that Scooter was demanding to make a profit from what he bought =/= agreeing with his choices. It just means I am not a 12-year-old being emotionally exploited by Taylor hoping some parasocial relationship can be weaponized to financially punish the other rich person who bought the assets she wanted and that this isn't actually about some moral good or not.

 

Again, these are ALL INDUSTRY NORMS. 99% of artists DO NOT own their masters. It's why many fans were angry Taylor got laughed at by certain tables of execs during her speech at the Billboard Woman of the Decade event. Because the industry *does not* actually agree with her, which is why Scooter has not been pushed out, but further rewarded.

 

I can see the moral argument that artists should own their work while not being emotionally moved by Taylor feeling personally victimized that she wasn't allowed to join the upper-echelon of the Top 1% of music industry execs. 

 

Her choices were to either give Scott another 6 albums for her first 6 or give Scooter what would have been at least $600M.

 

If she didn't find any of these choices sufficient or fair, I'm personally not that moved by these as "troubles" to have, especially if then in the same way she has no qualms with industry norms like snatching up 50% of a song she had no hand in creating over out-dated sampling agreement norms.  

Edited September 3, 2023 by Communion

[Rep2000]

22 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

That's what Taylor said.

 

Remember when she claimed she didn't know Kanye was making a song about her. And not only she knew, but she gave him her blessing. The only part she didn't know about was the used of the b-word. Everything else she knew and she was planning how to spin it into something positive for her.

 

SHE'S A KNOWN LIAR

And now Kanye is brought up.

Do we want to dig it up again with receipts to prove you just lied, the only Scooter stan?

[Gui Blackout]

Yeah this thread has run its course 

[WildHeart]

10 hours ago, sourprint said:

at least tag me you ******* moron. ur an old ass man whos hatred is inexplicable for olivia. you are a sick individual backed by atrls mod team

 

10 hours ago, DeepEnd said:

You need to be medicated and hospitalized 

 

10 hours ago, sourprint said:

i dont even care about what yall miserable ******* asses talk about olivia. i myself am not mentally unwell but some atrl members hate this 20 year old woman so much its only inexplicable. im happy being a healthy guy turning 20 soon who still looks abt 14 meanwhile yall are old and bitter and thats what you are! **** YOU

 

10 hours ago, sourprint said:

what are you laughing abt? ugly 

This thread i-

[starsailor]

How a song about an older guy who deceives a younger girl is about Taylor Swift? Just like Olivia Rodrigo, I’m surprised that people interpreted the song like that lmao.

 

Anyway, I’m rooting for Olivia Rodrigo’s success with her new album. I’m not part of her fanbase and I’m too old to care about her songs, but she seems like a great artist with a brilliant future. Vampire is very cool actually.