In the wake of Sunday’s blockbuster announcement that Scooter Braun has acquired Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group — and with it the rights to Taylor Swift’s first six albums — most reports have noted that Swift could have purchased the rights to her music and/or the label itself. While that is true, the playing field was not quite as level as it might seem.
Parsing the statements from both Swift and her attorney Donald Passman, it is clear that she was not offered the opportunity to acquire the rights to her music without signing a new deal with Big Machine, under terms she herself said were not acceptable. Her Tumblr post from Sunday begins: “For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in.” It is worth noting that nowhere in her statement does she say she was not offered any opportunity to buy her masters, as many have reported.
Passman’s statement on Tuesday reads: “Scott Borchetta never gave Taylor Swift an opportunity to purchase her masters, or the label, outright with a check in the way he is now apparently doing for others.” While Passman declined Variety’s request for further comment, a source close to the situation confirmed that Swift was not offered the opportunity to buy either her masters or the label without signing a deal that would bind her to Big Machine, apparently for another 10 years, and whomever Borchetta chose to sell the label to.
“I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past,” she wrote.
In his blog post titled “So, It’s Time for Some Truth,” Borchetta writes, “As you will read, 100% of all Taylor Swift assets were to be transferred to her immediately upon signing the new agreement. We were working together on a new type of deal for our new streaming world that was not necessarily tied to ‘albums’ but more of a length of time.” Those terms, judging by the excerpt of the deal memo he posted, were proposed as seven years by Swift’s team and 10 years by Big Machine — the contract was never signed, so presumably that is one of the terms on which the two sides did not agree. (Reps for Swift and Big Machine either declined or did not immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment.)
Informed observers might say: “Duh! Of course he wouldn’t let her just buy her masters!” Although Big Machine still has strong artists on its roster, obviously Swift’s catalog represents an overwhelming percentage of its reported $300 million value — and apparently Borchetta made the calculation that he’d get a better deal selling the label with Swift’s masters than selling the two assets separately.
And despite the seeming disingenuousness of some of the other comments from Swift and her camp — Braun and Borchetta had been conspicuously bro-ing down for weeks and insiders, particularly the industry trade Hits magazine, had speculated loudly that something big was afoot, so the claim that her camp did not know the sale was imminent is almost on the level of climate-change denial — in the context of her stated feelings about Braun and her history with him, her comment that she “walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future” is at the core of the situation.
That is the unique disadvantage at which artists can find themselves when trying to acquire the rights to their past work — which amounts to, “You can buy it if you agree to give me more” — and the reason why this particular playing field is not as level as some might maintain.
I think many people forget that the record company puts faith–and alot of unrecoupable money–into new artists, so it goes without saying that they would keep the masters that they have helped to create. Duh. However, we know of 2 foolproof ways for artists to own their own masters, but we’re not sharing…..
All artists should own their music in which they poured their heart and soul.
Scooter had no business purchasing the label knowing full well it would irk Taylor. I would be mad too if my entire life’s work was taken over by someone I detest.
If he really cared abt Taylor like his wife said in the post, he wouldn’t have purchased the company.
Seems to me more of a revenge scheming by him.
Also his allegations that she was given a chance to buy her labels is complete bullshit. The offered deal was extremely unfair and would have ended up giving scooter more leverage than he currently holds. She made a very good decision of leaving such a horrible label.
#TeamTaylor #IStandWithTaylor
She should have thought about owning her masters when she signed her original contract.
But of course, greed motivated her then; just like it motivates her now.
When she started, she had no way to find a label that would allow her to own her masters. The industry was very different back then.
Once she became popular enough to coerce another company to go her way, she did so.
Thats not greed. There were no options
So it IS true. PRIDE goeth before the fall.
Americans are guaranteed Freedom of Expression… Freedom of Conscience… and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
.
In the light of this “business arrangement” between SO.B. 1 (i.e., Scooter Braun) and SO.B. 2 (i.e., Scott Borchetta), a reasonable question to be asked, is: “Is this ‘business arrangement’ directly and/ or indirectly putting a ‘chilling infringement’ on Taylor Swift’s FREEDOM of Expression, FREEDOM of Conscience and her PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (in how she’ll henceforth pursue her Expression, Conscience and Happiness)?… and if so, how so?” And if there’s a Constitutional Case to be had, then this case should be presented before a competent Constitutional Court. But I– at least– recognize an infringement on her Expression, her Conscience and on her Happiness!
.
Please!… no emails!
.
P.S.:…
.
There is also the need to give serious consideration to evidence of a violation of Article 27.(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… and, which reads:…
.
Everyone has the right to the protection of one’s MORAL and MATERIAL INTERESTS resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he (one) is the author.
.
And so and thus, it must be asked: “In the light of a breach of an artist’s FREE Expression, FREE Conscience and HAPPINESS (a component of one’s, ‘MORAL INTERESTS’… though, distinct from the said MORAL INTERESTS reflected in one’s scientific, literary or artisitc expression [avered before, during or after-the-fact]!… let alone, an artist’s MATERIAL INTERESTS!), are such ‘Business Arrangements’ a direct and/ or indirect breach of the intent of the clear wording in Article 27.(2) of the UDHR?”
.
The “financial underwriting” by Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group of Taylor Swift’s music notwithstanding (i.e., such underwriting doesn’t negate the concerns of my ensuing comment), it must be asked how Borchetta’s “financial contribution” to Swift’s work, EARNS Borchetta (and the Big Machine Label Group) the “CONTROLLING SHARE” of Swift’s MATERIAL INTERESTS!… and if such a contribution does not warrant a CONTROLLING SHARE by way of a legal interpretation of Article 27.(2) of the UDHR, then maybe Swift’s MATERIAL INTERESTS– as may be the case with many other artists– are her’s REGARDLESS OF THE FINANCIAL KICKSTART THAT WENT INTO THE INITIAL CREATION OF SWIFT’S “SWIFT MACHINE”! And further, I’d ask those interested in the ethics of this transaction, to consider how much a bank deserves in facilitating a customer with a loan at the local bank!… financially contributing to an artist’s “creative enterprise” is one thing, but, EXTORTING FINANCIAL GAIN BY PROFFERING THAT THE MATERIAL INTERESTS OF AN ARTIST BELONG TO THE PERSON (OR GROUP!) THAT/ WHICH HAS/ HAVE UNDERWRITTEN THE ARTISTIC SPEECH (AND BEYOND A LEGALLY DEMONSTRATED REASONABLE EXTENT!), IS TO USURP THE MEANING OF Article 27.(2) OF THE UDHR (AND THEREBY, GIVING MORE POWER TO “FINANCIAL BACKERS” OF AN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, THAN SUCH ARE ENTITLED!)! And, also, just because a “financial backer” is aware of the “public financial interest” in an artist’s work, does this knowledge give a backer a RIGHT to invoke some kind of EXTORTION TACTICS in order to secure more “financial return” for the initial financial contribution provided for the artisitic expression? EXTORTION should be seen for what it is!… A C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L A-C-T!… and no Governance (or Legal Defense!) should countenance it, IN THE G-U-I-S-E OF “DOING BUSINESS”!
Awww, poor baby.
@kbar “But no deal could happen till the contract negotiation with Swift were resolved. Never gonna happen. Especially with Swift already signed to a rival company.”
Another way you can also look at this is, as a result of Taylor Swift rejecting Big Machine’s offer of 10 years with them and going toward another rival company, Big Machine retaliated by selling Swift’s masters to Scooter for a measly 300 million.
Most artist don’t have their masters. She always had to play the victim and it’s getting old quick
Well boo F’n hoo. Even if it was an inside job to keep the master rights out of her hands she’s still more than half a billionaire.
Borchetta and Braun have been pals for year. It has been widely known for YEARS that Borchetta was looking to sell Big Machine. But no deal could happen till the contract negotiation with Swift were resolved. Industry inside speculation that they were putting together a deal could reasonably have been misinterpretation or simply wild speculation.
Borchetta may have made a good faith offer to Swift, with terms that were beneficial to Big Machine. But he stated in a podcast that he had accepted several years ago that Swift would not remain with the label, so he did the best he could for himself and the company.
The place where Borchetta failed was in how he handled the communication with the person who had an interest in how the companies biggest asset, Swift’s Masters, were managed. Swift has rights as the songwriter, and who ever own’s the Masters will have to get her permission for some things.
Borchetta had to maintain the value of the company, and Swift’s masters were the crown jewel. If he told her about the deal ahead of time, she might offer to match what ever deal someone else made. And he couldn’t do that. He made it very clear that he would not be beholding to any artist. The artist that worked for him was now the boss???? Unless he walked away completely, he would still run Big Machine (as he does under this deal). Swift would likely have had to pull togeather some capital to make the deal, and the other investors would likely have been… other artist. Borchetta working for the artists? Never gonna happen. Especially with Swift already signed to a rival company.
Thank you for your comment and for throwing some light to this whole thing.
If a 10 year contract was offered the question is was that ever contract negotiable?
congratulation to taylor swift, i love her, a good artist
Soon a New Song from Swift, Swoft about her Trials and Many Boyfriends she has bated to…Gloom and Despair And Agony On Me, Deep Dark Depression.
Taylor Swift Couldn’t Buy Masters Without Signing New Big Machine Deal
And she could’ve bought the Beatles publishing after that.
Borchetta and Swift were in a partnership for over 14 years. This seems like a bad breakup when two people grow apart. Brochetta is 57 years old and Taylor is 29. Borchetta failed in not managing this breakup better. There should have been more respect towards Swift. They should have been praising her achievements – She is only 29 years only and her 6 albums (around 60 Master Song Recordings) just sold for $300 million. Wow. How many female songwriters have achieved that before the age of 30? Where is the R-E-S-P-E-C-T? That is what Swift’s post is about. She is 29 and wants respect from the boys club.
@MJC Actually, on one of the previous articles here on Variety,Borchetta did notify Swift that her masters were in the process of being sold, she just did not know who was that someone who was in the process of buying them, assuming had it been someone else other than Scooter who was buying them she may not have cared.
I’m sure there will be a song about real soon.
That’s just the music industry! There has always been shady business, especially when you’re talking masters and publishing rights. Unfortunately, artist are often more eager to get their product to the masses than to fight for their masters/publishing and future. Businessmen are all too aware of that dilemma and the music business went about exploiting new artist in this manner. In fact, the forfeiture of the publishing was/is the norm for new artist when dealing with record companies. It’s sad that Taylor wasn’t able to obtain the masters but, that’s the business – always has been that way!
No, she did not lie – Swift was never even given a chance to buy her Masters or the company – she was offered one choice – to re-sign for 10 years – why is a man allowed to buy something – but a woman must offer her services? We all know what this is – and it is not a good look for Scott or Scooter.
@Ricky “why is a man allowed to buy something – but a woman must offer her services?”
Why are making it look like that it only happens to women artists when it also happens to men’s artists as well?
And if she really want to own her masters back then she did have the opportunity to do so, regardless how distasteful the contract really is, although, there is nothing mentioned here about her negotiation involving a lawyer.
This is not a surprise. No record company in their right mind would sell back their masters without getting something in return. What Big Machine did (offer to give back masters in exchange for singing a new contract) is typical industry practice. This way the label gets something they want (keeping the artist at the label) and the artist gets something they want (their masters)
Yeah it is no surprise. It’s no surprise because numerous artist have complained about it. Taylor Swift has made them more than enough money for them to sign over her master’s. She isn’t a one hit wonder. She’s been 1 of the top selling female artist of the millennium. This wouldn’t be so distasteful is as warner brothers did with Prince they offered him a 2 album deal to sell back his master’s. They attempted to lock her into a 10 year deal. She had already been working with them for 13 years and they have already made at least 400 million between album sales and single sales. I know it’s business but they tried to screw her royally.
Do you know how a business runs? Why would a business owner hand over the crown jewel of his assets? That makes zero sense to a business owner like myself. My business depends on 30 software developers, who wrote most of my code…so that means I need to hand over my patents and assets to them when I sell my company? What are we in the Socialist state of Swift?
As someone who works in Publishing, which is a similar industry. What should of happened is the accountants at Big Machine should of created a fiscal evaluation of Swifts masters for the next 10+ years, and used that as a price tag. Then as part of the deal they would stipulate that over the next 10-50 years or even in perpetuity Swift would owe Big Machine/whoever owns it a royalty or a guaranteed cost of x amount per year based on the money made off of the masters. It essentially reverses the ownership/payment structure of the current situation. It is also highly common for this to happen in the Publishing world for a big author who wants to switch publishing houses, but wants to keep their entire backlist in one place. Its usually done by either the author themselves, or their new publishing house. The issue here, which I’ve experienced in similar negotiations myself is Switch is the financial backbone of Big Machine, and the company is worthless without it. The way this should work is, Big Machine and its potency buyer should of jointly enter negotiations with Swift, so that the buyer and Big Machine would jointly be the cash beneficiary of the transaction. In other words, Borchetta’s would be selling Big Machine for a fraction of what he did, but he’d also get some monetary compensation for selling Swift back her masters as well.
Yes, Swift is technically playing the victim, but she is also using her status as the biggest selling artist of the 2000’s to a major problem within the music industry. Kelly Clarkson although not to the same level, but had pointed out similar issues as soon as her Iron clad American Idol contract was up with RCA, and jumping to Atlantic.
The bottom line of this is that Borchetta wanted to get a big a payout of his selling of Big Machine as possible, and without Swift’s masters, the company just becomes another tiny indy label. It would be like Facebook trying to sell itself to Google, but before they sell themselves Mark Zuckerberg wants to purchase all the rights to Facebook.com and any other of their products he had a hand in creating. Thus although although Facebook would still have value without its namesake product, would would want to buy it? Its basically one of the main arguments against capitalism, in that the worker gets screwed as the owner gets rich.