At the end of last year, the famous singer Taylor Swift revealed that his music copyright was sold on social networking sites, and exposed the “dark side” of the American music industry to the public.
Shenzhen Translation Bureau is its compilation team, focusing on technology, business, workplace, life and other fields, focusing on introducing new foreign technologies, new perspectives and new trends.
Editor’s note: At the end of last year, the famous singer Taylor Swift revealed that his music rights were being sold on social networking sites, showing the “dark side” of the American music industry to the public. In the face of strong capital, how do artists protect their intellectual achievements? In the face of programmatic business transactions, what role can the celebrity’s network influence play? This article was translated from The New York Times by Kate Kelly, Joe Coscarelli, and Ben Sisario. The original title was “‘ How Taylor Swift Dragged Private Equity Into Her Fight Over Music Rights. ”
An open letter from Mould
At the end of 19, there was a big earthquake in the American music industry: well-known female singer Taylor Swift published an open letter on social media, hoping that Carlyle Group-the scale of the world One of the largest private equity holding groups-helping themselves to reclaim the copyright of old songs, and calling on their fans to pay attention to this complicated copyright dispute for the general public.
Moldy explained in an open letter that her former record label Big Machine Label Group (part of Scott Borchetta) was acquired by Carlyle Investment Group’s Ithaca Holdings, which led to her early The copyright ownership of the songs has changed. At the upcoming National Music Awards in November, the former record label tried to prevent her from singing her classic songs at the awards site because those songs “no longer belong to her.”
At the same time, Taylor Swift is also encouraging fans to confess their blame to Scooter Braun, an agent of Itacha Holdings.
Who is Coster Braun?
Braun is one of the core characters in this storm.
People who are familiar with the American entertainment industry will not be unfamiliar with this name: he has discovered a group of pop music stars including Justin Bieber, is the star agent in the circle, but also at the same time Swift’s “Dead Rival”.
What’s between Swift and Brian?What is the grudge? In simple terms, Brian is the agent of rapper Kanye West, and the West, who is known as “Kanye”, is Taylor Swift’s old enemy.
However, destiny is still a joke on mold and mildew: After the acquisition, it is precisely the “enemy camp” that has since acquired Swift’s music rights.
Braun publicly responded that after Swift threw out an open letter, her fans swarmed up, causing him and his family to receive death threats.
Shortly after the acquisition was completed, Swift threatened in an interview to re-record her fame. This approach is likely to cause damage to Brian, who holds the copyright of Swift’s old album. Brian responded by saying that Swift had been telling the story as a victim, but in fact she had refused to negotiate for the past six months.
Then, on November 14, 2019, Swift posted a new post on Tumblr, saying that Brian and Pochetta (that is, Borchetta, the founder of Big Machine) threatened her to “be good “Girls, close your mouth obediently”, also said that the two men threatened to prevent her from performing at the National Music Awards and refused to provide relevant music for Swift’s Swift documentary being filmed by Netflix.
From copyright disputes to political issues
Behind this copyright dispute is the impact of the superstar ’s influence on the social network on the music industry, and also exposed the contradiction between privately held investors and artists-investors often suit He has a big belly and is good at negotiating with the boards of major companies in the music industry, but he doesn’t know how to deal with these distinctive entertainment stars.
A person in the circle described the New York Times as: “People in private equity companies equate music copyright with real estate rights, but this is not the case. They are facing a living, An artist who can breathe! “
The effect of this open letter from Mildew has met expectations: The public’s strong response has attracted the attention of the Carlyle Group. According to people familiar with the matter, Carlyle has taken action to prompt Braun to contact Swift and encourage the two sides to discuss copyright issues.
With the fermentation of this incident, this copyright dispute has become a controversial political topic: Some members of Congress have even started to use this as an opportunity to attack the current private equity system in the United States.
Carrey’s involvement also makes people more and more relevant.Note this problem. It can be said that at a time when the public’s greedy habits of big companies are becoming increasingly intolerable, and the voice of equal rights between men and women is getting louder and louder, Swift, 29, shakes out the dark and complex disputes within the music industry to the public, making himself a It can mark the famous cases of an era.
Astronomical numbers behind copyright
According to information disclosed to the New York Times by people familiar with the matter, no agreement has yet been reached. According to Swift’s team feedback, they will only accept an agreement to retake the recording rights of Swift songs from Big Machine. It is reported that such a redemption agreement is likely to cost Swift hundreds of millions of dollars.
Swift’s desire to regain ownership of her work and additional rights has made her a very rare presence in the pop music world.
In contrast, there are few popular singers who are active in the music industry-such as the famous singer Jay-Z, Janet Jackson, etc.-few people can truly control the copyright of their works, more In many cases, artists enter the copyright obediently in exchange for the company’s risk-taking and financial support for their acting career.
Swift does not hide his desire to regain ownership of his intellectual achievements.
In the new contract with Universal Music Group, an important agreement is that Swift can fundamentally control the work, and has the final decision on the use of music. The contract for returning copyright to artists has been described by some in the industry as “the most valuable contract in history.”
The long struggle between mold and injustice
Using social networks, Swift fights against inequities in the music industry. The more famous case in recent years is her fight with Apple and Spotify.
Before 2015, you could listen to Swift’s songs for free during the trial period of Apple’s streaming music service. In the face of this phenomenon, Swift accused Apple in an open letter on social networking sites, saying that “neither of us asked you for a free iPhone, so please don’t ask for unpaid music.” Soon after the news came out, the giant consumer electronics industry rarely yielded.
At the same time, at the end of 2014, Swift also took the lead in boycotting streaming free music services led by Spotify, and the latter was willing to make new albums available to paid users only three years laterAnd she announced her return to this platform.
The battle against private equity has also been drawn for a long time: since June last year, the Carlyle Group has been mentioned publicly by her.
On June 30, 2019, Brian officially took over the music rights of six of Swift’s early records (each of which has many well-known works) from Big Machine, and can use these music “Make money in any form at any time”, including putting it on music streaming or putting it in a Hollywood movie.
Ithaca reportedly bought Big Machine for 300 to 350 million, and “sold” Swift to Brian.
Swift wrote in an open letter that the deal would make Brian and Pochetta “always control a girl who doesn’t want to work with them.”
Carlyle, the “human flesh”: From music copyright to the war in Yemen
It is reported that Carlyle now owns a third of Ithaca’s shares. Currently Carlyle ’s stake in Ithaca is overseen by Sammons, who is also the head of the Carlyle Group ’s media, retail and customer base.
Sammons is well aware that this acquisition means that they will have to come in contact with an outspoken pop star ever since. But given the huge profits of buying Big Machine-every Swift album is a cash cow, and other Big Machine artists have great investment potential-Sammons thinks it’s worth the risk.
As expected, this pop star is indeed outspoken.
Swift’s continuous public development voice has made fans active: They even started to learn about the Carlyle Group’s business. It was later discovered that some of Carlyle’s investors controlled the manufacture of aerospace components and used them to support Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen.
Therefore, a netizen joked on Twitter: “When you think about how to stand in the team, you will find that either you support Swift or you support the Yemen war.” This tweet More than 3700 reposts.
Follow-up: The other party is friendly, but will the copyright be returned?
Soon, Sammons saw Swift’s post on his phone. According to the people around him, Sammons quickly contacted Brian and others to get together to discuss how to soothe Swift. It is said that returning the copyright of the old album to her is also included in the discussion.
Soon, they invited Swift to discuss solutions through public and private channels.
Brian issued a statement on the social networking site Instragram. On the one hand, he believes that Swift needs to be aware of how his actions threaten Brian’s family to death. On the other hand, he said “I hope we can Get together and look for solutions “and added” I am open to all possible solutions “ .
The New York Times analyzes that although Brian expressed his openness on social networking sites, in fact he is likely to be reluctant to sell the rights to the six albums.
Analysis indicates that Big Machine is a vital part of Ithaca’s expansion strategy and will not give up these six album copyrights so easily. Currently, Ithaca has invested a lot of money in the field of music publishing, and has also begun to invest in the management of artists and investment in film production. In other words, Brian, 38, is likely to take this opportunity to become the next David Geffen, a leader in the industry, not only owning his own record company, but also a top producer in Hollywood.
Is private equity a double-edged sword?
For a long time, private equity has played a vital role in the music industry, and the results have been mixed.
Sometimes, this form of fundraising is going well. For example, in 2013, the private equity fund KKR Group received double income from its investment in BMG Records.
But other times, this form of private equity can have disastrous consequences. For example, on the eve of the 2008 financial crisis, the British private equity firm Terra Firma acquired the EMI Group in a highly leveraged transaction, with a total investment of about $ 8 billion. Four years later, the deal made a serious loss, and Terra Firma had to quietly drive away top artists, including the Rolling Stones, to fill the financial gap. After these artists left, they evaluated the management measures of the former company very harshly.
In short, the relationship between artist influence and assets is more complicated than expected.
Music publisher PinCus now advises financial companies specifically, he once said: “Whether the power of international superstars can shake the music asset value, this kind of question is difficult Quantified in a spreadsheet. “
Translator: Michiko