I get what you’re saying, but letting the Alt-Right dictate the narrative to the extent that the rest of us can’t call out the people they falsely portray as bogey men when they do things worth calling out seems like a imprudent strategy.
If I were in her position, I’d probably have mentioned Soros as well precisely because he seems like the sort of investor who does actually care about ethics, Berkshire Hathaway is one of the largest and most diversified investment firms in the world, there’s an excellent chance Soros didn’t personally know anything about this, and even being a top-selling musician it can’t be easy to get the attention of a billionaire investor who seems to spend most of his time attending to his business and who seems entirely uninterested in publicity.
I might have said something shorter to that effect, but I wouldn’t refrain from calling him out merely because the disingenuous Right would twist it. Dancing to their tune won’t go well for the rest of us.
UBI, yes, as a general principle.
But implying that abolishing copyright might be a solution to / remove the need for record companies is a very simplistic approach. Record companies do a lot more than just administer copyrights, you know, and UBI for musicians is not going to change that one bit.
You seem to be assuming that @tlwest is employed. They may be self-employed or, indeed, an employer themselves.
I’m not saying let conservatives* dictate things, just pointing out that we should be prepared to counter them when they try to defend the system of billionaire greed by pretending that Swift is an anti-Semite.
Soros is no saint, as anyone who knows about Black Wednesday is aware. And I’m fine with Swift calling out his family fund for participating in the toxic private equity world.
[* if anyone tries it, it will be more a “free”-market fundie/neocon thing than an alt-right one.]
Almost 50 years ago similar behavior in the Jamaican music industry was exposed in The Harder They Come. Maybe it is time for a remake/re-imagining, with Swift in the Jimmy Cliff role?
Good point. I do sometimes get the sense that because the Right doesn’t care about the truth and cynically trollies the Left, the Left sometimes rolls over for it, and I’ll admit that irks me. But I absolutely agree with being vigilant about it, so thank you for clarifying that’s what you mean.
Another good point. I meant more the antisemitism that was always there but is on the rise with Alt-Right fascism. Of course, at the end of the day the Alt-Right is the mercurial weapon of Gordon Gekko neocons who though they lost direct control still take full nihilistic advantage of.
I read it that she sets music apart from - and implicitly “better than” - other forms of creative endeavour. It’s all in the emphasis, I suppose, but it seems to me that reading it any other way is special pleading. YMMV.
Regardless, with a net wort north of US$350M, I struggle to muster a lot of sympathy. Is her ex fucking with her? Absolutely. Is he being an utter dick about it? Of course he is. Will she be ok anyway? Yeah, I think she’ll be fine.
That isn’t what this controversy is about. It’s about harassment. The asshole who bought her catalog is actually losing money on it in order to fuck with her.
It’s hard to root for someone as wealthy as Swift, but at the same time, it’s easy to root against a privileged asshole heaping abuse on a woman.
I think this is where the narrative gets confused. She is justifiably pissed that her ex (legally) bought the back catalogue just to (legally) fuck with her. Trying to turn that in to some kind of crusade for a higher cause though … that rings hollow.
Edit: ex in the sense that the had a previous business relationship. Not girlfriend/boyfriend.
Hollow or not, it’s drawing a lot attention to how private equity and the ultra-wealthy loot and hoard art in addition to how their greed destroys real value in companies and entire economies. That billionaires are disturbed by this is a good thing, so I’ll take it.
Okay, you say “you can license your works”, but you seem to envision some state imposed restrictions on that licensing (“However you always keep the copyrights”). Like, you can’t license in perpetuity, or what, can’t license for 100 years?
I’m just saying that licensing for “100 years after the artists death” is essentially giving up copyright, as far as the original artist is concerned. But you say you want a system where you can’t give up copyright, but can still license on whatever terms you want?
Just, like, there seems to be some conflict here. I understand the motive about not wanting artists to be taken advantage here (and these private equity firms are shitweasels, so I don’t like playing devil’s advocate), but it seems like we either have to place strict restrictions on how artists can license their work (which restricts their freedom to enter into contracts) or…
I dunno. I was going to say “let adults enter into contracts as they see fit”, but I understand the power imbalance here… I’m just also a little uncomfortable about using the legal mechanisms of the state to prevent artists from entering into certain types of contracts.
Hmmm. I guess I’m saying, it seems complicated to me.
I think you are confusing Urheberrecht (creator’s rights) with Vervielfältigungsrecht (copymaking rights). This isn’t specific to Germany, but is the case in most Bern Convention nations.
Copyright and creator’s rights is a Byzantine world, but luckily we have @doctorow here who is an actual lawyer and really, really knows this stuff inside and out—unlike me, to be honest. I only know fnords.
