What is tearing?
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “Music first sound” (ID: Nakedmusic), author 贰叁叁, editor Fan Zhihui.
The copyright dispute between Taylor Swift and the former company Big Machine has a new follow-up.
On November 18th, Big Machine issued a statement to the National Public Radio (NPR). The statement said, “Big Machine has reached an agreement with the production company Dick Clark (American Music Awards producer) on a license agreement.” Also mentioned, “The recordings of the artists who have already been canceled are not on television or any other live performances. Additional company licenses are required. However, this statement was quickly hit by Dick Clark production company.
On the same day, Dick Clark Production Company subsequently issued a statement to Rolling Stone magazine denying the statement issued by Big Machine: “Dick Clark Production Company has never agreed to cooperate with Big Machine Records, nor Any agreement was reached regarding the production, licensing or release of Taylor Swift’s performance at the 2019 National Music Awards. Any final agreement on this matter needs to be reached directly with the management team of Taylor Swift, and we have no comment.” >
In fact, the copyright dispute on Taylor Swift has been intermittently suspended for half a year on social media, and many of the rights competitions that have been extended during this period have industry-exploratory significance.
Taylor Swift copyrights rights disputes under Rashomon
The cause of all this is due to June this year. Kanye West’s former agent, Scooter Braun, acquired its former Big Swift company Big Machine for $300 million through its holding company, Ithaca Holdings, which owns the recording rights to her first six albums.
But this is a legally compliant acquisition, but because of a post by Taylor Swift in Tumblr, it has become a public opinion dispute on social media. In the post, Taylor Swift claimed that he had not been told in advance that the company was about to be acquired. At the same time, the former company used the recording rights of the six albums to threaten to renew the contract, and even exchanged a new album for the condition of an old album. Come and keep Taylor Swift. But considering the potential risks, Taylor Swift had to give up its Master Recording and switch to Universal Music’s label.
In order to be able to re-own their own recording rights, Taylor Swift wants to take a plan to re-record early music. According to foreign media reports, according to industry practice, the recordings can not be re-recorded within five years, but in addition to the sixth album, the remaining five albums of Taylor have passed this time limit. In other words, the new version of the recording copyright will be completely owned by herself and can be reissued.
It is clear that the former company Big Machine is not willing to watch the recording rights of the recordings on hand quickly depreciate. On November 7th, Taylor Swift issued a statement on social media saying that Big Machine and its former boss and Scooter Braun did not allow her to perform her old songs at the National Music Awards and Tmall Double Eleven, and also in the Netflix documentary. Fragments of previous music cannot appear, unless Taylor agrees not to re-record the first six albums.
So, why does Big Machine limit Taylor Swift to show his old songs on the public platform? In the US Copyright Law, “recorded works” and “recorded works” are clearly divided into . “Recording” is the actual recording of a fixed recording, while “Recording” refers to a work composed of sounds fixed on a medium such as a record. Because the record industry has been in a relatively strong position in the development of the record industry, music songs and recordings are in a parallel relationship, so the owner of the recording copyright also has the right to public performance, which can also limit the work. Public performance (including