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

[loveisdead9582]

1 hour ago, lacy said:

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--

This. But if she was willing to pay him the exact amount that he spent (and theoretically any legal/travel or other expenses paid in the acquisition of said assets) would it not be a fair deal and also put him in a positive position? While the short term earning would be null and void, the long term potential would’ve been worth it. Showing empathy, being fair, and having one of the most popular artists in the world speaking highly of you can only benefit your career. 

58 minutes ago, Communion said:

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.  

1) yes. Of course these rich men are making deals with more money than most people will see in their lifetime. 
 

2) Scooter was obviously enticed by the idea of making a profit off of these masters. Who wouldn’t be? The problem is that he acquired the masters in what could only be described as a money hungry power grab. Refusing to have any sort of open and honest communication about making a deal to sell then to the person who had a massive hand in creation of said content just shows how shady he was. As I stated above - he could’ve leveraged the sale/return of the masters in a way that would’ve benefitted him from a PR standpoint and could’ve used this to both gain more profitable clients or even started his own label to gather more artists. 
 

3) 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”. She seemed to have every intent to acquire the masters above board but he didn’t want to work with her. No one signs an NDA without knowing what the terms to the agreement are in the first place. If he tried to screw her over or the deal didn’t go through, the NDA would prevent her from speaking on the topic regardless of the outcome. 
 

4) I feel like we are derailing an entire thread about Olivia. I personally feel that if Olivia had gotten permission to use both Deja Vu and Good 4 U from the artists she would’ve have had to pay that much in royalties. To only do it after the fact and ONLY have to pay 50% is a minor slap on the wrist. Ariana Grande had to relinquish 99% of the profits from 7 Rings and she actually got permission to use the sample before the release. 

[WildHeart]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

"Scooter bought these to HARM ME" works to sell albums to fans but not when it comes to applying common sense.

Why does the same common sense ignore that Scooter literally managed Kanye and had his hand behind the 2016 hate train? 

 

Him posting posts about "buying Taylor Swift" is really not helping your argument about him keeping things "business related" either 

1 hour ago, Communion said:

Because the industry *does not* actually agree with her, which is why Scooter has not been pushed out, but further rewarded.

Really? How shocking that the industry which exploits artists doesn't want same artists they exploit to own their albums...

I wonder if studios also got mad at her for releasing The Eras Tour movie with theaters directly and disagree with her decision 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Artistofthedecade

[Communion]

13 minutes ago, Artistofthedecade said:

How shocking that the industry which exploits artists

Yes, the music industry *business* is bad and cruel to artists for the sake of profits. Commodifying art is bad.

And that is the exact reason why Taylor deciding to join in on the same industry games for profit at Olivia's expense is disappointing. 

 

17 minutes ago, loveisdead9582 said:

if Olivia had gotten permission to use both Deja Vu 

Ariana had to get permission for My Favorite Things because it directly utilizes the melody and lyrics - and even then, Rodgers & Hammerstein's estates demanding 90% of the publishing didn't exactly generate them *positive* media coverage, with most of the headlines framing the request as wild and surprising that Ariana agreed to it. It also exposed a trend of these ridiculous demands often being made by the estates of singers and artists who have passed and whose families themselves are looking for further payouts. The Gaye family didn't walk away from the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit looking good to most people.

 

If Taylor had sued Olivia in court over "the vibe" of the yelling in the bridge, she would have either lost or set musical legal precedent seen as ridiculous and harmful to artists in the vein of Marvin Gaye. There's no way to work out her as doing the right thing here. Stop trying. 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to answer - do you think Taylor should have the largest publishing share on a song she wrote not a single lyric or melody on and did not produce?

Edited September 3, 2023 by Communion

[uusagii]

Lock this fat

[fijitears]

5 hours ago, maat said:

That white lady and her Parmesan brand literally stole money from an immigrant teenager to finance their failing career.

LMFAOOOOOO WTF 

[Nova_23]

why is she talking about taylor? i thought she’s been so busy and in europe? what happened? album pre-sales not where they’re supposed to be? 

[kyoshi]

2 hours ago, awesomepossum said:

Why did you leave out the other ones I mentioned? Oh, right, we all know why 

Because the others made sense, so you really believe he invented that phrase then or what?

 

Keep pointing out the obvious, you didn't read what i was replying to, did you? That khia wasn't gracious towards taylor at all, that's why I asked if yall wanted taylor to do the same with olivia? 

[Villas]

I don’t think you guys have this same energy at GUTS album thread. At least, y’all should pretending better 

[Born to Run]

When was the last time we had a thread hitting 500+ replies in 24 hrs.. Olivia is too relevant I fear

[byzantium]

Wow, 22 pages?  ATRL told me no one cared about Olivia and yet here we are on the 22nd page discussing her.  

[Credit]

it really is pretty obvious from the lyrics unless one has swiftie goggles on

[JustHoran]

22 hours ago, KingWitch said:

She kinda used Taylor for the fanbase then discarded her once she didn't need her , huh?  Nice marketing strategy though.

I mean it's the same girl who used her ex and Sabrina Carpenter to make her career. She would've been nothing without that scandal blowing up and making that song a hit.

 

Meanwhile, her ex almost died from the stress of all the death threats, etc. and she still said NOTHING to her fans to tell them to stop  

 

 

 

Joshua calling her out and exposing her for who she truly is.

Edited September 3, 2023 by JustHoran

[Alex21kw]

Artists write about real people. Taylor Swift included (and she's not being very subtle about it). Taylor shouldn't be reprimanded for that, it's her art and her experiences. Olivia shouldn't either. Using "Olivia used x and y for clout and didn't address the drama after which caused x to become suicidal" as an argument to hate on Olivia is immature and hypocritical.

 

 

Spoiler

For years, I was never sure if we were friends or not. She would come up to me at awards shows and say something and walk away, and I would think, 'Are we friends, or did she just give me the harshest insult of my life?' " Swift recalled. Then last year, "She did something so horrible. I was like, 'Oh, we're just straight-up enemies.' 

 

You’re in a Rolling Stone interview, and the writer says, ‘Who is that song about? That sounds like a really intense moment from your life.’ And you sit there, and you know you’re on good terms with your ex-boyfriend, and you don’t want him—or his family—to think you’re firing shots at him. So you say, ‘That was about losing a friend.’ And that’s basically all you say. But then people cryptically tweet about what you meant. I never said anything that would point a finger in the specific direction of one specific person, and I can sleep at night knowing that. I knew the song would be assigned to a person, and the easiest mark was someone who I didn’t want to be labeled with this song.

 

[Hexchromatica]

She didn't confirm it because she knows Taylors fanbase are vicious and relentless

 

Taylor thumbnails defending her like she can do absolutely no wrong, what's new. Our faves can have faults too, it's ok!

 

Compensation for similarities is fair. Taylor isn't looking to be fair, she uses the people around her to widen her cheque book at every possible opportunity. Bleeds her fans dry, her musical counterparts.. 50% is extortionate for a 5 second similarity 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Hexchromatica

[Hexchromatica]

2 hours ago, byzantium said:

Wow, 22 pages?  ATRL told me no one cared about Olivia and yet here we are on the 22nd page discussing her.  

We're only on 22 pages because Taylor is doing something extortionate and her 'can do no wrong' fans are rushing to defend her 

[Bey'Knight]

22 hours ago, dumbsparce said:

This girl is so boring and whatever pr advice she's taken is completely outdated and snooze-inducing. She's asked about the 2 people she has beef with and plays dumb. Her team really thinks that that's what's gonna make her scandalous/edgy instead of giving out a clear answer like a normal adult. Is this really what y'all stan?

Or or … maybe she’s not trying to be scandalous or edgy. Disappointing for a fodder-farming stan, I know but alien as it may seem a concept, some people do not aim to be in the eye of the storm. 

[Theluckyone]

5 hours ago, Communion said:

Yes, the music industry *business* is bad and cruel to artists for the sake of profits. Commodifying art is bad.

And that is the exact reason why Taylor deciding to join in on the same industry games for profit at Olivia's expense is disappointing. 

 

Ariana had to get permission for My Favorite Things because it directly utilizes the melody and lyrics - and even then, Rodgers & Hammerstein's estates demanding 90% of the publishing didn't exactly generate them *positive* media coverage, with most of the headlines framing the request as wild and surprising that Ariana agreed to it. It also exposed a trend of these ridiculous demands often being made by the estates of singers and artists who have passed and whose families themselves are looking for further payouts. The Gaye family didn't walk away from the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit looking good to most people.

 

If Taylor had sued Olivia in court over "the vibe" of the yelling in the bridge, she would have either lost or set musical legal precedent seen as ridiculous and harmful to artists in the vein of Marvin Gaye. There's no way to work out her as doing the right thing here. Stop trying. 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to answer - do you think Taylor should have the largest publishing share on a song she wrote not a single lyric or melody on and did not produce?

I’m the biggest swiftie around but I got to agree, this isn’t a good look for Taylor. 50% share is way too much. 

[réveuse]

7 hours 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

Hey babes, did you know that in 2020 Taylor was telling the truth the whole time?

[Taylor fanboy]

8 hours 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

 

46 minutes ago, réveuse said:

Hey babes, did you know that in 2020 Taylor was telling the truth the whole time?

Didn’t know COVID symptoms could be lack of internet connection.

[réveuse]

5 minutes ago, Taylor fanboy said:

 

Didn’t know COVID symptoms could be lack of internet connection.

These people on this site...

[Alex]

needed a good laugh today. thank you livies.

 

[Movimento Perpétuo]

22 pages

[ForgottenSoul]

50% Jesus...

 

Anyways I love both Taylor and Oliva. 

[ForgottenSoul]

On 9/3/2023 at 8:10 AM, JustHoran said:

I mean it's the same girl who used her ex and Sabrina Carpenter to make her career. She would've been nothing without that scandal blowing up and making that song a hit.

 

Meanwhile, her ex almost died from the stress of all the death threats, etc. and she still said NOTHING to her fans to tell them to stop  

 

 

 

Joshua calling her out and exposing her for who she truly is.

They both tried to use Olivia also and failed?? 

Edited September 4, 2023 by ForgottenSoul

[NausAllien]

6 hours ago, JustHoran said:

I mean it's the same girl who used her ex and Sabrina Carpenter to make her career. She would've been nothing without that scandal blowing up and making that song a hit.

 

Meanwhile, her ex almost died from the stress of all the death threats, etc. and she still said NOTHING to her fans to tell them to stop  

 

Because Taylor did SO MUCH to stop her fans from harassing her exes...

 

I still remember how Jake Gyllenhaal was harassed when Red was re-released and Taylor did absolutely nothing to stop her fans. Not to mention all the journalists that her fans threaten, doxx and harass every single time someone criticizes her.

 

GIVE ME A ******* BREAK!