Taylor Swift acts like a child at nearly 30!

[Anonymous]

Swift is throwing social media hissy-fits because she doesn’t like the guy who bought the rights to her old music. She wrote it was “gross”. I mean, come on - deal with it like the adult you are, Taylor. You were given the opportunity to buy your old music and you declined. Your father, a major shareholder in your record label approved the sale.

So what’s the “Scooter Braun is a bully” and “gross” on social media.

Grow up hand handle business like a businesswoman. Your way too long-in-the-tooth for words like “gross”.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure all the women on DCUM who throw the word "gross" around are older than Taylor Swift.

[Anonymous]

She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Her father owned like 5% of the company. What makes you think he could have stopped the sale?

[Anonymous]

What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

Because record label contracts are hugely asymmetrical, even for Taylor Swift. I guess you don't care...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

Because record label contracts are hugely asymmetrical, even for Taylor Swift. I guess you don't care...

+1. And the only way for that to change is for the industry dynamics to be mad especially public so that public pressure can do its work.

[Anonymous]

This is my issue with her. Really like her music, it's fun and catchy (honestly - liked some of her older country songs she released when she was younger even better than her current music) but she acts like an immature teen. And I say that as someone who wasn't even aware of this recent drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her father owned like 5% of the company. What makes you think he could have stopped the sale?

He didn’t have to approve the sale. And he did.

NP here. I like Taylor Swift and haven’t got a clue who this Scooter guy is, but Taylor has gotten a lot of publicity and support for being the victim and the child over the last 15 years. I have to agree that her “victim act” is getting old.

Time to grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

+1. I read that they didn’t tell her father about the sale because they didn’t to take the chance that he would tell Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

Because record label contracts are hugely asymmetrical, even for Taylor Swift. I guess you don't care...

+1. And the only way for that to change is for the industry dynamics to be mad especially public so that public pressure can do its work.

Come on! Calling someone “gross” and a “bully” isn’t the way to do it. Taylor is nearly 30! Calling the new owner of her early work a poop head and meanie isn’t working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

+1. I read that they didn’t tell her father about the sale because they didn’t to take the chance that he would tell Taylor.

Not true. And this I know for a fact. Her father and the former owner both told Taylor about the sale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her father owned like 5% of the company. What makes you think he could have stopped the sale?

He didn’t have to approve the sale. And he did.

NP here. I like Taylor Swift and haven’t got a clue who this Scooter guy is, but Taylor has gotten a lot of publicity and support for being the victim and the child over the last 15 years. I have to agree that her “victim act” is getting old.

Time to grow up.

Agree. She’s way too old and way, way too rich to play the poor-little-Girl card.