5 ms·

I wouldn't call it a money grab (TSwift already has a net worth of over $400 million. She's not worried solely about money). I think it's more of a giant, publ

I wouldn't call it a money grab (TSwift already has a net worth of over $400 million. She's not worried solely about money). I think it's more of a giant, public middle finger to Scooter Braun: "you won't sell me my masters? Fine, I have enough money and spare time to re-record them AND it won't hurt my career a bit, because my fans love me enough to buy something I've literally already released." edit: TS probably worries some about money like most rich people, but it's likely not her primary motivation

imwillofficial 6y ago
“Person has a net worth of over $xxx million, they are not worried about money.” Stop and think that through. If this were true the banking industry as we know it would not exist. I’d like to think above some dollar amount I’d stop worrying about money and just do what I love, but who knows? I’ll tell you when I make my first $400 million.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I think there are probably more people that make ~$5-10 million and chill out than there are people north of $100 million. Lots of people likely do keep doing productive things that they enjoy, without the number mattering much. People at the top of banking are likely motivated by things like status and winning as much as by how many millions they have.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    If you're the type to chill out when you've hit a certain amount you're unlikely to climb to $100m - as you've already chilled out long before. Bill Waterson vs Jim Davis.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      My intended meaning was that I believe it is likely that people motivated primarily by money tend to run out of that motivation once they have $10 million. It doesn't buy a yacht or a mansion in the most famous places, but that's about it.
- packetslave 6y ago
  Fair. I'm just saying she's probably not ONLY motivated by earning more money to feed her cats. If it was all about a cash grab, she'd be releasing more new music, which would (presumably) sell better than re-treads of her first 6 albums. She's already released two new pandemic albums, it's not like she's likely to run out of things to say anytime soon.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nickysielicki 6y ago
I agree, but I feel you've missed the biggest part: if anyone wants to license the song for usage in a commercial / TV show / whatever, she can undercut Big Machine at any price she wants. There's a market now where there otherwise wouldn't be one. It's more like, "You won't sell them to me? I'll introduce a viable alternative to them and drive the value of both to zero."
- packetslave 6y ago
  IIRC, she can already deny licensing for her music -- even though Big Machine owns the publishing, she still owns the songwriter rights. There are about 9,000 exceptions (music law is hard), though, so I'm not 100% sure. But you're right that she can regain licensing rights AND screw Big Machine at the same time by re-recording. I'm sure that crossed her mind.
eric_b 6y ago
She was given the opportunity to purchase her masters and she thought the price was too high. So they sold them to someone who would pay more. It's definitely about the money to some extent - she wasn't willing to pony up what it would take to buy them.
- packetslave 6y ago
  That's one side of the story. TS's side is that Big Machine refused to sell her the rights unless she signed a new contract with them, which she didn't want to do.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Specifically, they wouldn't even negotiate unless she signed an NDA with a nondisparagement clause. Which she wouldn't do, and I wouldn't either: never agree to nondisparagement without substantial consideration.
    - skedaddle 6y ago
      If this really came down to a nondisparagement clause that would be shocking. Getting to make an offer on the rights to some of the best selling music of all time is itself substantial. This explanation would also diminish the emotional/moral attachment Swift still claims to her earlier works -- owning the masters meant a lot to me, but not as much as this tumblr post? The world of celebrity is bizarre so I don't know, but I think there has to be more to it than that. Either that they were never for sale to her, or the price was too high.

imwillofficial 6y ago

“Person has a net worth of over $xxx million, they are not worried about money.” Stop and think that through. If this were true the banking industry as we know it would not exist. I’d like to think above some dollar amount I’d stop worrying about money and just do what I love, but who knows? I’ll tell you when I make my first $400 million.

maxerickson 6y ago
I think there are probably more people that make ~$5-10 million and chill out than there are people north of $100 million. Lots of people likely do keep doing productive things that they enjoy, without the number mattering much. People at the top of banking are likely motivated by things like status and winning as much as by how many millions they have.
- bombcar 6y ago
  If you're the type to chill out when you've hit a certain amount you're unlikely to climb to $100m - as you've already chilled out long before. Bill Waterson vs Jim Davis.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    My intended meaning was that I believe it is likely that people motivated primarily by money tend to run out of that motivation once they have $10 million. It doesn't buy a yacht or a mansion in the most famous places, but that's about it.
packetslave 6y ago
Fair. I'm just saying she's probably not ONLY motivated by earning more money to feed her cats. If it was all about a cash grab, she'd be releasing more new music, which would (presumably) sell better than re-treads of her first 6 albums. She's already released two new pandemic albums, it's not like she's likely to run out of things to say anytime soon.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nickysielicki 6y ago

I agree, but I feel you've missed the biggest part: if anyone wants to license the song for usage in a commercial / TV show / whatever, she can undercut Big Machine at any price she wants. There's a market now where there otherwise wouldn't be one. It's more like, "You won't sell them to me? I'll introduce a viable alternative to them and drive the value of both to zero."

packetslave 6y ago
IIRC, she can already deny licensing for her music -- even though Big Machine owns the publishing, she still owns the songwriter rights. There are about 9,000 exceptions (music law is hard), though, so I'm not 100% sure. But you're right that she can regain licensing rights AND screw Big Machine at the same time by re-recording. I'm sure that crossed her mind.

eric_b 6y ago

She was given the opportunity to purchase her masters and she thought the price was too high. So they sold them to someone who would pay more. It's definitely about the money to some extent - she wasn't willing to pony up what it would take to buy them.

packetslave 6y ago
That's one side of the story. TS's side is that Big Machine refused to sell her the rights unless she signed a new contract with them, which she didn't want to do.
- samatman 6y ago
  Specifically, they wouldn't even negotiate unless she signed an NDA with a nondisparagement clause. Which she wouldn't do, and I wouldn't either: never agree to nondisparagement without substantial consideration.
  - skedaddle 6y ago
    If this really came down to a nondisparagement clause that would be shocking. Getting to make an offer on the rights to some of the best selling music of all time is itself substantial. This explanation would also diminish the emotional/moral attachment Swift still claims to her earlier works -- owning the masters meant a lot to me, but not as much as this tumblr post? The world of celebrity is bizarre so I don't know, but I think there has to be more to it than that. Either that they were never for sale to her, or the price was too high.