But she saw it as an opportunity to play the victim for the 50th time and drain the pockets of her cult […] with those stupid ass re-recordings
This is what I came to post. About how funny it is that she waited until she milked her fans to buy the same 5 albums for a second time (? not sure how many of the re-recordings she did and I can’t be bothered to look) to buy these back.
I think I mayhave heard 2-3of her songs, so no Swiftie here.
She’s a Billionaire. She creates value. She offers it to people who willingly buy it.
Nothing like billionaires who manipulate markets, hoard resources, or land, or housing.
Yes, I’ve heard the jet controversy, and there are other questionable things, I’m sure, but in the Billionaire context, I’d say she’s on the decent side of the spectrum.
She might not need sympathy, but in a conflict between artists on one side and record labels and private equity on the other, for me at least who I’m backing is pretty easy.
Better she has them than the other side, and no one has to buy a new copy. It’s not like a video game release where they kill the original server.
It’s not a false dichotomy, those were the two outcomes of the struggle for ownership of her masters. We might want other options, but I think it’s a step better than private equity keeping ownership, don’t you?
It’s fine to assert both your viewpoints as a moral goal and value. Alas, us just making assertions and statements of morality doesn’t end Capitalism or less to reallocation of resources in a more sustainable, equitable manner.
People have sympathy for artists that have been screwed out of owning their own music by middleman record labels - a tale as old as record labels themselves?
And this artist in particular, while imperfect, gives a whole lot of money to positive charities, is pro trans rights, pro LGBT, and anti Trump.
This is what I came to post. About how funny it is that she waited until she milked her fans to buy the same 5 albums for a second time (? not sure how many of the re-recordings she did and I can’t be bothered to look) to buy these back.
I can’t imagine this kind of greed.
I think I mayhave heard 2-3of her songs, so no Swiftie here.
She’s a Billionaire. She creates value. She offers it to people who willingly buy it.
Nothing like billionaires who manipulate markets, hoard resources, or land, or housing.
Yes, I’ve heard the jet controversy, and there are other questionable things, I’m sure, but in the Billionaire context, I’d say she’s on the decent side of the spectrum.
She’s OK by me.
Everyone taking her side like “ohhh won’t someone pleeeeease have sympathy for this blood-sucking billionaire?!?!?!” in here make me SICK.
FUCK OFF
You are correct and so is Marte.
She might not need sympathy, but in a conflict between artists on one side and record labels and private equity on the other, for me at least who I’m backing is pretty easy.
Better she has them than the other side, and no one has to buy a new copy. It’s not like a video game release where they kill the original server.
false dichotomy.
art belongs in the public domain.
no billionaire has the right to exist.
It’s not a false dichotomy, those were the two outcomes of the struggle for ownership of her masters. We might want other options, but I think it’s a step better than private equity keeping ownership, don’t you?
It’s fine to assert both your viewpoints as a moral goal and value. Alas, us just making assertions and statements of morality doesn’t end Capitalism or less to reallocation of resources in a more sustainable, equitable manner.
You are a truly sad individual.
and i am never showing up on your feed again. BLLLLLOCKED :D
Yeah it’s crazy how much sympathy there is in here. Wild.
People have sympathy for artists that have been screwed out of owning their own music by middleman record labels - a tale as old as record labels themselves?
And this artist in particular, while imperfect, gives a whole lot of money to positive charities, is pro trans rights, pro LGBT, and anti Trump.
Gosh, how hard to comprehend the sympathy.
deleted by creator