WHO Is Lying? Taylor Swift Manipulative Bully Scandal, Portland Antifa Attack & Hong Kong
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Kiko Bang
Scooter Braun is a douche bag but Taylor LOVES to play the victim, it's been her thing for a while now, which just makes it hard to even take her seriously. Her claiming to not have known about the deal seems like a lie to make Scooter, Scott & whomever else is involved look much worse (and she has succeeded. Anyway, artistes should own their works but at the same time, if they signed away the rights (whether knowingly or otherwise) then that's on them. The music industry is still a BUSINESS and you either make good business decisions or bad ones. Taylor made a bad one. Sidenote for the losers mentioning Michael Jackson and comparing the ATV/Beatles catalogue situation with this, stop. Paul McCartney & Yoko Ono had the opportunity to buy the entire catalogue but passed which is why MJ bought it. Paul got salty because he thought since he & MJ were friends Mike would sell/gift him the Beatles songs but Mike was a smart businessman & knew the catalogue in it's entirety was a great investment and kept it (though he did gift some black artistes their songs back. Paul KNEW MJ was gonna buy it and said in an interview that he shouldn't be blamed for doing good business, though he later changed his tune due to bitterness. Yoko Ono also gave MJ her blessings when his lawyer contacted her.
reply
Scooter Braun is a douche bag but Taylor LOVES to play the victim, it's been her thing for a while now, which just makes it hard to even take her seriously. Her claiming to not have known about the deal seems like a lie to make Scooter, Scott & whomever else is involved look much worse (and she has succeeded. Anyway, artistes should own their works but at the same time, if they signed away the rights (whether knowingly or otherwise) then that's on them. The music industry is still a BUSINESS and you either make good business decisions or bad ones. Taylor made a bad one. Sidenote for the losers mentioning Michael Jackson and comparing the ATV/Beatles catalogue situation with this, stop. Paul McCartney & Yoko Ono had the opportunity to buy the entire catalogue but passed which is why MJ bought it. Paul got salty because he thought since he & MJ were friends Mike would sell/gift him the Beatles songs but Mike was a smart businessman & knew the catalogue in it's entirety was a great investment and kept it (though he did gift some black artistes their songs back. Paul KNEW MJ was gonna buy it and said in an interview that he shouldn't be blamed for doing good business, though he later changed his tune due to bitterness. Yoko Ono also gave MJ her blessings when his lawyer contacted her.
reply
Lyric LaPlante
I feel like with most of Taylor Swifts points, its a good one but the endless victimizing of herself makes me unsympathetic. Famous & the leaked audio have nothing to do with this change & also she distances herself from her own bullying and responsibilities. Not saying she deserved it, but she hasnt owned any of her own part. Just continues this people bully me for just being me narrative thats harmful. Taylor wasnt the only musician acquired. Making this move solely about her makes me not sympathetic with the greater cause because it only makes it seem like they singled Taylor out and not that this was a big move for many other artist and how they might be effected. Yes Taylor, they made this big move specifically to target YOU. and lets rally for YOU and ignore any other artist that might be effected and I love Todrick but its dangerous to say on a huge platform that you THINK someone is homophobic but with no proof. He might be, I dont know, but thats a big claim to say think in front of but then share that thought with millions.
reply
I feel like with most of Taylor Swifts points, its a good one but the endless victimizing of herself makes me unsympathetic. Famous & the leaked audio have nothing to do with this change & also she distances herself from her own bullying and responsibilities. Not saying she deserved it, but she hasnt owned any of her own part. Just continues this people bully me for just being me narrative thats harmful. Taylor wasnt the only musician acquired. Making this move solely about her makes me not sympathetic with the greater cause because it only makes it seem like they singled Taylor out and not that this was a big move for many other artist and how they might be effected. Yes Taylor, they made this big move specifically to target YOU. and lets rally for YOU and ignore any other artist that might be effected and I love Todrick but its dangerous to say on a huge platform that you THINK someone is homophobic but with no proof. He might be, I dont know, but thats a big claim to say think in front of but then share that thought with millions.
reply
Tom T. Travis
TAYLOR SWIFT: THE BILLIONAIRE WHO THRIVES OFF BEING A VICTIM. Sorry Taylor, you signed a contract that made you a BILLIONAIRE and a household name. Lots and lots of people are beyond gifted musically. Whatever clicked in your situation happened as it did. You are permanently mega-rich, as are generations of Swifts to follow. This, and you never have to work a day in your life again if you don't want. ALL your dreams came true. Thank the people who helped catapult your status to permanently never having to worry about a thing ever again. Nope, never a thanks from Taylor. Just more IMA VICTIM. What's next? An album about how the industry victimized your way to becoming a billionaire? Get over yourself. Plenty of people better than you have had to work harder than you, and longer than you, and still haven't been discovered. Shut up with your perpetual victimhood nonsense and GO HELP OTHERS GET DISCOVERED Think contracts should be different? SIGN YOUR OWN NEWLY FOUND TALENT EXACTLY HOW YOU THINK CONTRACTS SHOULD BE LIKE.
reply
TAYLOR SWIFT: THE BILLIONAIRE WHO THRIVES OFF BEING A VICTIM. Sorry Taylor, you signed a contract that made you a BILLIONAIRE and a household name. Lots and lots of people are beyond gifted musically. Whatever clicked in your situation happened as it did. You are permanently mega-rich, as are generations of Swifts to follow. This, and you never have to work a day in your life again if you don't want. ALL your dreams came true. Thank the people who helped catapult your status to permanently never having to worry about a thing ever again. Nope, never a thanks from Taylor. Just more IMA VICTIM. What's next? An album about how the industry victimized your way to becoming a billionaire? Get over yourself. Plenty of people better than you have had to work harder than you, and longer than you, and still haven't been discovered. Shut up with your perpetual victimhood nonsense and GO HELP OTHERS GET DISCOVERED Think contracts should be different? SIGN YOUR OWN NEWLY FOUND TALENT EXACTLY HOW YOU THINK CONTRACTS SHOULD BE LIKE.
reply
Jade R
I think the record label wanted to sell and they couldnt do that without Taylors back catalogue, she is the biggest artist on that label, they offered her her back catalogue if she stayed affiliated with the label meaning that the label would retain its future value with distribution\promotion etc deals for Taylor's future work, which she would own the masters, videos, promo, images everything for. if taylor left with her music the label would be left in a weak position. taylor will be fine. it seems like its just straight business to me, it makes sense from the labels stand point. Im not sure if taylor knows what shes doing by twisting the narrative or if shes just upset and sees it this way, however im sick of her shit. and even more sick of big business, i care less about this than how big corps are poisoning ground water and exploiting everything under the sun for greed, her rants are too often self serving, platitude filled arse vomits dressed as concern for the greater good of humanity.
reply
I think the record label wanted to sell and they couldnt do that without Taylors back catalogue, she is the biggest artist on that label, they offered her her back catalogue if she stayed affiliated with the label meaning that the label would retain its future value with distribution\promotion etc deals for Taylor's future work, which she would own the masters, videos, promo, images everything for. if taylor left with her music the label would be left in a weak position. taylor will be fine. it seems like its just straight business to me, it makes sense from the labels stand point. Im not sure if taylor knows what shes doing by twisting the narrative or if shes just upset and sees it this way, however im sick of her shit. and even more sick of big business, i care less about this than how big corps are poisoning ground water and exploiting everything under the sun for greed, her rants are too often self serving, platitude filled arse vomits dressed as concern for the greater good of humanity.
reply
BobIV123
2: 30 Ok, first of all, they have no obligation to give you an opportunity to buy your song IP from them, second of all, if you sign a contract at age 15, you cannot legally be bound by it unless you choose to be (even after signing it. Neither of these are a secret. If you're signing a contract, you're responsible for knowing its contents and if you sign a binding contract to sell your intellectual property rights for money, it doesn't make you a victim. In fact, in my personal opinion, selling something to another party for personal gain and then using social media to attack them for their use of it is at best a morally ambiguous move and, depending on the circumstances, arguably a form of extortion. Crocodile tears.
reply
2: 30 Ok, first of all, they have no obligation to give you an opportunity to buy your song IP from them, second of all, if you sign a contract at age 15, you cannot legally be bound by it unless you choose to be (even after signing it. Neither of these are a secret. If you're signing a contract, you're responsible for knowing its contents and if you sign a binding contract to sell your intellectual property rights for money, it doesn't make you a victim. In fact, in my personal opinion, selling something to another party for personal gain and then using social media to attack them for their use of it is at best a morally ambiguous move and, depending on the circumstances, arguably a form of extortion. Crocodile tears.
reply
Maura Whitley
I stan with Rose citythese proud boys have been making antagonistic demonstrations all over Oregon. The antifa community here, while sometimes violent like the proud boys, actually do community work for Oregon residents, particularly in the LGBTQ+ community. As well as being heavily involved with local politics. Don't agree with the reporter being attacked, but also keep in mind, the 3 people arrested, that they smeared their faces, are good people who weren't involved in assaulting him. Now they face retaliation and scape goating. Meanwhile, none of the proud boys photos have been circulating, and they will probably receive slap on the wrists like my local nazis, Jimmy Marr and Andrew Oswalt.
reply
I stan with Rose citythese proud boys have been making antagonistic demonstrations all over Oregon. The antifa community here, while sometimes violent like the proud boys, actually do community work for Oregon residents, particularly in the LGBTQ+ community. As well as being heavily involved with local politics. Don't agree with the reporter being attacked, but also keep in mind, the 3 people arrested, that they smeared their faces, are good people who weren't involved in assaulting him. Now they face retaliation and scape goating. Meanwhile, none of the proud boys photos have been circulating, and they will probably receive slap on the wrists like my local nazis, Jimmy Marr and Andrew Oswalt.
reply
Iron Wing Artist
hey man I'm really disappointed in the way you handled the Portland protests, the police admitted to have no evidence backing the use of cement milkshakes, and the journalist Andy Ngo has countlessly proven to be homophobic and islamphobic by dangerously editing an islam panelists words to suit his own extremists prejudices and by denouncing severe hate crimes against Portlands LGBTQ community as hoaxes. All of his articles are created to instigate fire and violence, using fear mongering and race baiting to drive his issues home. This attack is ironic considering how he treats serious deaths and attacks against black live matters and lgbtq protestors.
reply
hey man I'm really disappointed in the way you handled the Portland protests, the police admitted to have no evidence backing the use of cement milkshakes, and the journalist Andy Ngo has countlessly proven to be homophobic and islamphobic by dangerously editing an islam panelists words to suit his own extremists prejudices and by denouncing severe hate crimes against Portlands LGBTQ community as hoaxes. All of his articles are created to instigate fire and violence, using fear mongering and race baiting to drive his issues home. This attack is ironic considering how he treats serious deaths and attacks against black live matters and lgbtq protestors.
reply
Joshua Peal
So, while the Taylor Swift thing is interesting and celebrity issues in general. why should we care? Swift got a bad deal, maybe/maybe not. Plenty of people get bad deals but Swift can make one new album and make more than many people do in a lifetime because all they get are bad deals. Why is there more outcry for her than the out cry for those in our country that really need help? The homeless? Veterans? Single parents especially in low income areas? Water use in agriculture? Stuff that actually affects us intimately. Sorry for the venting.
reply
So, while the Taylor Swift thing is interesting and celebrity issues in general. why should we care? Swift got a bad deal, maybe/maybe not. Plenty of people get bad deals but Swift can make one new album and make more than many people do in a lifetime because all they get are bad deals. Why is there more outcry for her than the out cry for those in our country that really need help? The homeless? Veterans? Single parents especially in low income areas? Water use in agriculture? Stuff that actually affects us intimately. Sorry for the venting.
reply
JustPassingThrough
It does seem likely that Big Machine was not intending to make it easy for T-Swift to get her music. However, it also seems plausible that she simply wasn't diligent enough. Either away, although I am not sure just how much guff Scooter is actually due, I understand her general outrage with the situation. Having said that, she should have addressed the negligent way Big Machine (allegedly) went about transitioning her music, rather than creating a shaky hit piece on Scooter. That's my two cents.
reply
It does seem likely that Big Machine was not intending to make it easy for T-Swift to get her music. However, it also seems plausible that she simply wasn't diligent enough. Either away, although I am not sure just how much guff Scooter is actually due, I understand her general outrage with the situation. Having said that, she should have addressed the negligent way Big Machine (allegedly) went about transitioning her music, rather than creating a shaky hit piece on Scooter. That's my two cents.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
14:23
19:58
13:47
14:24
17:20