True enough as a matter of legal rights, but nothing in the law requires the label to hold the songs hostage to the detriment of the listening public, or to display such ingratitude to the artist who built their label. In the long run, that's a self-defeating posture. https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1195137656012849152 …
-
-
This sounds more like a classic no-compete. She changed labels, and the label says you can't use the stuff you sold us for X amount of time, not "never", but a reasonable amount of time for them to recoup their investment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Always the case unless govt thumbs scale. Fans want (called demand), owner sets price and sometimes says 'won't deal.' If TS owned, ts and cs would just be different. 'If you want live, you can buy ticket at a price I set' or 'I'll do on TV to goose demand for recorded and live.'
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mark Dice is wrong. Swift didnt sell the rights. When she changed record labels last year, she tried to buy the rights to her music. Instead, the old record company intentionally sold them to Scooter Braun - someone Swift & others had a longtime feud with - to spite her.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.