Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Rick Beato"
channel.
-
Look, the record company paid for the production of your song, and what they get is the ownership to the masters. Creating directly replicating products against the original masters is just very disrespectful.
Taylor Swift was an employee that was employed by Big Machine Records, her work, paid for by them is owned by them. Now she utilized a loophole in the contract to create replicating products that she can own, but nobody does that. It's bad manners.
It's like this, if you hire somebody to design you a proprietary product which you plan to sell. Right after they design you that product, they sold the product to your competitor, or in this case, they just make the product themselves.
You see how wrong that is? That is unacceptable business conduct. You does that in any professional company in technical field, it's called violation of patent. And if you think patents are not important, it's what that saved your life from Covid. Without the protection from patents of invention, no company would dare to take a risk on developing new products, one of those field is medicine, most recently the vaccine.
What Swift did is creating a precedent that record company shall never make the mistake of again. They can't allow sole ownership of the song composition to the writers because very easily the entire song can be re-recorded and then brought to compete with the original recording.
What she did was not empowering, or inspiring, it's legality exploitation.
1
-
1