Taylor Swift is perhaps the most popular music artist on the planet. However, her rise to stardom was not faced without many legal battles over her music right’s that will have a lasting impact on the industry as a whole. From her early years as a budding country singer to her evolution into a global pop superstar, Swift’s career has been marked by legal disputes and a relentless pursuit of creative freedom.

In 2019, Swift faced significant copyright challenges when her former record label, Big Machine Label Group, was acquired by Scooter Braun’s company, Ithaca Holdings. The acquisition included the rights to Swift’s early master recordings, a move that Swift vehemently opposed. This sparked a highly publicized feud, with Swift publicly accusing Braun of bullying and attempting to control her artistry. Swift eventually announced her decision to re-record her early albums, reclaiming ownership and control over her music.

The legality of Swift’s decision to re-record her music lies in her rights as the songwriter and copyright holder of the underlying compositions. While the melodies and lyrics of her songs are protected by copyright, the sound recordings themselves have a separate copyright owned by the record label.

Swift is fully within her rights to re-record her songs as long as she does not infringe on the rights of the original sound recordings owned by Big Machine Label Group and Ithaca Holdings. By creating new recordings, she can and has already been releasing them independently or through her new record deal with Republic Records, thus retaining ownership and control over her music.

Re-recording her music not only allows Swift to regain control but also serves as a strategic move to assert her artistic autonomy and reclaim her narrative within the music industry. It enables her to make a statement about the importance of artists having ownership and control over their own work, and it provides her with the opportunity to connect with her fans through fresh versions of her beloved songs.

Swift has further emphasized her desire for artistic control by partnering with Republic Records and establishing her own production company, Taylor Swift Productions. This strategic move has allowed her to have a greater say in the creative direction of her music and maintain ownership over her master recordings. Swift’s determination to be in the driver’s seat of her own career has become a symbol of empowerment for artists in an industry often criticized for its exploitative practices.

Taylor Swift’s copyright conundrum and battle for artistic control have had a profound impact on the music industry. Her high-profile disputes have sparked important conversations about the rights of artists, fair compensation in the digital age, and the importance of creative autonomy. By taking a stand and advocating for herself, Swift has become a voice for artists who often find themselves at the mercy of powerful industry forces. Swift’s actions have also prompted changes within the music industry itself. Her decision to re-record her early albums not only allows her to regain control over her music but also serves as a bold statement against the traditional power structures that artists have long struggled against.

Copyright battle’s aside, Swift has also been atop headlines to do her ticket sales. Ticket scalping and resale have been ongoing concerns in the music industry, and Swift’s concerts have not been immune to these practices. Despite efforts to prevent scalping, tickets for her shows have appeared on secondary markets at inflated prices, often to the disappointment of fans who were unable to secure tickets during the initial sale. This has sparked frustration and allegations of unfairness, as scalpers profit from the high demand for Swift’s concerts.

To address these issues, Swift has taken steps to combat ticket scalping and improve the ticket purchasing experience for her fans. She has partnered with ticketing platforms that implement various anti-scalping measures, such as dynamic pricing, ticket limits per customer, and verified fan programs. Additionally, she has advocated for legislative changes to address ticket scalping and protect fans from inflated prices.

Her influence has prompted other musicians to re-evaluate their contracts and seek more equitable agreements with record labels and streaming platforms. As she continues to push boundaries and challenge the status quo, Taylor Swift remains a formidable force in the pursuit of artistic control and fairness within the music industry. Personally, her music is not my cup of tea but it’s safe to say that Taylor Swift’s prowess, business moves, and advocacy will have a lasting impact on the music industry.

I miss the old Kanye…

No but really, I remember the first time I listened to The College Dropout. I was spoiled. As a rap/hip-hop fan, I thought that every album should be that great. Kanye followed it up with hit after hit, cementing himself, not just as one of the most talented rappers, but as one of the most talented musicians of our generation. While this is my opinion, it is hard to argue that his historic rise wasn’t due to incredible talent as he followed up his 2004 debut album with now-classics like Late Registration, Graduation, 808s & a Heartbreak and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, all of which peaked at #1 and went at least triple platinum. (I even liked Yeezus and The Life of Pablo which both went double platinum).

Everyone handles success differently. We’ve seen many young stars fall off early and others able to handle the limelight. As for Ye, it has become increasingly evident that his stardom, combined with mental illness, has turned him into a man who now believes he is untouchable, or as he would probably put it: God-like.

In addition to being a historically great musician, Kanye has supplemented his success with other ventures, especially as a fashion designer. His shoes still sell for thousands of dollars on the secondary market even though they’re pretty hideous.

Kanye, like any successful artist, has developed a devout following. I was definitely a big fan but never considered myself to be a Kanye “Stan”. In case you don’t know what a Stan is, it is a slang term that means die-hard fan. It is a reference to the song Stan by Eminem, in which he raps from the point of view of a crazy fan who murders his pregnant girlfriend because the fictional version of Eminem had not been responding to his fan mail. Kanye’s “Stans” love him and will go to bat for him, probably due to all of the great memories his music has provided them over the years.

Stans will buy his shoes and clothing, go to all of his concerts, and often defend his racist remarks. Ye still has many Stans, even though his last four albums were borderline unlistenable (yes, that’s my opinion but look me in the eye and tell me you like Jesus is King).

It’s hard to admit your childhood idols aren’t who they once were. Usually, that happens to us in sports, as I’m sure most Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers fans could probably relate to right now. (I’m sort of kidding I think Brady will still somehow win another Superbowl). Nonetheless, it is hard to admit the talent has faded from those we once thought to be indestructible.

Over the last few years, however, Kanye has made it quite hard on his Stans to remain on his side as he continues to go on these despicable tirades, support white fascists, run for president, and in his latest work, SAYS HE WANTS TO KILL JEWS.

As a Jewish person whose great-grandparents hid in haystacks in 1940s Poland to avoid the Nazi’s, it’s not a difficult decision for me to say, “yeah, I don’t like this guy anymore”. Not to mention that his music is essentially just Church Choir music these days. I do find it perplexing for anyone to still be defending this man. Unless, of course, you yourself are a white male fascist.

In case you are unaware of his anti-Semitic remarks let me break it down for you: On October 8th, he tweeted that he is “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE”. Not leaving much up for interpretation here, but Kanye goes on (in the same tweet) to claim that he “can’t be Anti-Semitic because black people are actually Jew[ish] too”. If your confused it’s okay, I had to look this one up. What he is trying to reference here is a theory that black people are decedents of Israelites. In fact, Kanye clarified by saying, “When I say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ, who the people known as the race Black really are.” (The tribe of Judah was one of the 12 tribes of Israel.) Kanye is not the only famous person to support this theory.

He also went on to say that he thinks George Floyd died from a drug overdose, and not from the knee of Derrick Chauvin being pinned on his neck for nine minutes. So if you don’t feel bad for Jews being slammed by Kanye, at least (hopefully) you’d find it rather despicable for him to mitigate the death of Floyd. Right? RIGHT?!?!?!?

Soooo Kanye thinks that Black people are Jewish, but that Jewish people are manipulating and controlling Black people. “Milking them for everything they’re worth” he often says. He blames every person who does not want to do business with him on the “Jewish Media”. He specifically called out Ari Emmanuel, CEO of Endeavor and who the Entourage character, Ari Gold, was loosely based on (fun fact), as another powerful Jew doing anything to mute him at all costs.

In an interview last week with Piers Morgan, when asked if he would walk back the ‘Def Con 3’ remark, Kanye laughed it off, admitted it was racist, and said he needs to “fight fire with fire”. So he is blaming Jewish people for everything going wrong in his life, thinks he is actually Jewish, but that Jews are manipulating everyone to “cancel” him. It probably doesn’t help the fact that Pete Davidson (a Jew) was dating his ex-wife and rubbing it in his face.

How are Kanye’s corporate partners/collaborators dealing with the backlash? Well, Adidas finally announced that it is cutting ties with him following the likes of Balenciaga, and various media platforms, including Lebron James’ show, The Shop, that have Kanye content in production. His agency, CAA, dropped him, and it looks like pretty much every partner associated with Ye has finally had it with him.

Adidas said they expect to take a $250 Million dollar hit by dropping Ye, which is kind of an annoying thing for them to point out. Essentially, they are whining, “hey look at us giving up all this money because his STANS still buy his ugly sneakers no matter what he does or say.” Good for you Adidas, so noble of you to give up all that money your making off of a self-proclaimed racist. MAZEL TOV.

Now let me say this: nothing will stop you (or me) from listening to The College Dropout occasionally and reminiscing on the good memories that the “Old Kanye” brought us as a talented musician, and yes, he may still get some royalties from that, but we all need to STOP SUPPORTING THIS MAN. Stop buying his stupid sneakers, stop listening to his terrible music, stop defending him because he’s bipolar. I empathize with mental illness but being bipolar IS NOT an excuse to incite fascism and to blame everything that goes wrong for you on a specific culture or race. This man has consistently showed us that he is a menace, and a threat to the Jewish people by calling on his Stans to share his belief that the Jews “control everything” and are responsible for everything bad that happens in this world. Sounds exactly like something Hitler would say.

Let me spoil something for you. Jews do not control everything. I mean if they are, I guess my secret Jewish Illuminati meeting invitations are getting lost in the mail. But seriously, if Jews DID control everything, I’m sure there would be a lot less people getting away with blatant Anti-Semitism. If we controlled everything, Donald Trump probably wouldn’t have been president (don’t give me that Jared Kushner is a Jew crap). If we did control everything I WOULD HAVE WAY MORE CLIENTS.

Are there a lot of Jews in Hollywood? Absolutely. Are there a lot of Jews in the media? Sure. Are there a lot of Jewish lawyers? Plenty. That does NOT mean every Hollywood exec, media personality, or lawyer is Jewish. In fact, it’s pretty racist to assume that if I say so. If the powerful Jews in those industries go after you for making anti-Semitic remarks… it’s probably because we fear anti-Semitism.

Here’s one thing I do want you to take away from this long winded rant. The reason so many Jews have gravitated to those professions and are indeed considered “powerful” is because 6 MILLION OF US WERE KILLED IN THE HAULACAUST SO WE HAVE DEVELOPED A TIGHT KNIT COMMUNITIES THAT FOCUS ON FAMILY, AND APPRECIATING WHAT OUR ANCESTORS WENT THROUGH TO ENSURE OUR SURVIVAL. WE MAKE SURE TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN TO BE KIND, EDUCATED AND SUCCESSFUL SO THAT WE CAN PUT OURSELVES IN THESE POWERFUL POSITIONS TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE LIKE KANYE DON’T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS AND TO DAMN WELL MAKE SURE THAT ANOTHER GENOCIDE NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

Anyways, although it was a little late, good for Adidas and all of the other companies and people denouncing Kanye West over this. It should not have come to this point, but I’m sure Adidas and Balenciaga will survive without Ye just as they did long before him.

And as for Kanye, I know you had a dream you could buy your way to heaven but too bad you woke up and spent it on a necklace.

What happened in Uvalde, Texas and, unfortunately, many other places this month, year, decade and entire history of this country, is continuously devastating. How can we ever hope to address this issue with so much divide on something that seems so obvious? Let’s try to look at the problem from an Economist’s perspectives.

No, I am not an economist, but Tim Harford is, and his 2005 book, The Undercover Economist, discusses many aspects of price strategy, taxation, and demand-side economics, that can be directly applied to the topic of gun control.

A large portion of the book focuses on an economic concept called negative externalities. Simply put, a negative externality is the harm passed on to others by another person’s own economic decision. For instance, if I choose to drive my SUV, I am causing air and noise pollution to the people around me. I also run the risk of crashing into another car or pedestrian, or adding to a traffic jam. The result of my seemingly innocent decision leads to negative consequences to my neighbors who have no control over my decision-making process.

Harford suggests that, in order to effectively deal with negative externalities, is to either charge people for the risk they are passing onto others, or to reward those who do not cause them. Of course, as we see so often, given the political landscape of this country, getting economic solutions passed is always met with hesitation by both ends of the political spectrum.

In wake of the latest terrible news out of Uvalde, Texas, I believe Harford’s logic can be attributed to the ever-present gun violence issue in America. The negative externalities of purchasing a gun and lobbying to keep guns as a constitutional right are quite obvious. If you don’t think so, let me briefly elaborate. By purchasing a gun you impose various risks onto others in one way or another. Perhaps your gun can be stolen and fall into the hands of someone with worse intentions, maybe you accidentally misuse it and injure somebody else. By purchasing a gun you are also providing gun manufactures with revenue they use to spend on lobbying to keep background checks flimsy. We can go on and on about the societal repercussions of the availability of guns in this country, but we’re still here in the same spot after another horrible tragedy: a stale mate.

How do we get both sides to come together? Is it even possible? Let’s think about this from economist, Tim Harford’s perspective.

It has been proven that even such a despicable tragedy as what happened in Texas won’t yield to any compromise from the pro-gun side of the argument (in this country). As I mentioned, Harford’s logic probably suggest that in order to address this issue, we should find and economic solution that makes nobody worse off. This can be attempted by either a charge on gun owners for the negative externalities they impose on society by merely purchasing and possessing guns and ammo, or we reward those who do not cause them.

Let’s say we take the first route and place a substantially large tax on certain guns. What would happen? The amount of people buying guns would surely go down, but those with enough money would still be able to buy them, once they pay the tax there is nothing stopping them from buying more bullets. What if we taxed bullets? This would make it not just more expensive to buy the initial gun but also more expensive for each use of the gun. Again, only the people who could afford to would be buying and using guns and the poor gun-owners, the demographic that mass shooters typically fall into would either not be able to purchase them or they would have to find other means to purchase them, like a black market. Of course, this isn’t a brand new idea I just thought of, gun-lobbyists would do and have done everything in their power to prevent such taxes as they have successfully for the better part of three centuries.

When considering economic solutions, Harford suggests the only plausible one’s are those that do not make any party worse off. In the first attempt above, the poor gun owners are worse off because they have to pay more money. So what if we came from the other angle? What if people were incentivized to not own guns in the form of a sizeable tax deduction? Say that if you do not own a gun, you were to get a $10,000 tax deduction; this does not harm the pro-gun community as they do not have to pay anymore for their guns, and it pays an economic benefit to those who do not own guns. Gun owners are not worse off financially, and non-gun owners are better off financially. So far so good. But what about the government? They will initially receive less tax revenue due to the deductions handed out, but they can eventually recoup the loss in way of the rewarded taxpayers using that extra savings to make other purchases which would both boost the economy and provide alternate sales tax revenue for the government. Not only that, but if gun purchases go down so would gun-related deaths, which is not only a positive because it saves lives, but those spared lives keep on living and making purchases that add to the economy’s benefit and sales tax revenue down the line as well. In this scenario, all three parties are either unharmed or better off, something Harford would consider a plausible solution. But does this method really stop the root of the problem we are really trying to address: mass shootings?

It would be safe to assume that a casual gun owner would decide that they’d rather have the tax deduction than hold onto their guns. Basic market theory suggests that eventually gun demand would diminish as a result of the incentive, dropping the profitability for gun manufacturers. As their profits decline they have less money to spend on lobbying, and perhaps more significant legislature can get passed as a result. They would also have to raise the prices for guns to recoup the losses from their diminished demand making it even more difficult for people to legally purchase guns. Obviously, the lobbyists aren’t dumb and would see this coming from a mile away, even if it is in the disguise of a benefit for the non-gun owner. However, surely it is harder to argue against a solution that is not directly taxing their consumers or manufacturer, but rather merely incentivizing those who are not creating these negative externalities onto society.

I am not an economist, nor a politician, but hey, it’s just a thought or worth throwing out there. I see a lot of posts as I do each time a tragedy happens. Posts are well and good, and I don’t mean to offend anyone for showing their support, but how do we actually make a difference? We stop fighting about who’s right and who’s wrong and we negotiate. We deal with the situation we are given and we try to figure out a plan that is for everyone’s greater good. I’m not proposing a bullet-proof idea (no pun intended), I am trying to start a progressive conversation that both sides can listen to.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Email me at brandon@skyviewcfo.com.

The history of the seven day week can be traced over four thousand years back to the ancient Babylon civilization. The Jews also believe that G-d created the world in seven days. I guess he/she/they was pretty efficient. So eventually the entire world adopts a seven day week, despite it being based on nothing scientific. The “weekend” developed in the late 1800’s due religious observance for Christians on Sunday, and for the Jews on Saturday (I’m skipping a few chapter’s here but get the point). Alas, we have the five day work week based on what makes very little sense.

Skipping ahead to the 21st century, the 5 day work week is still the norm for most businesses in the United States. But why? Why is working 40 hours over five days per week still “normal”? Surely there must be some evidence or data to suggest that this standard is optimal for productivity and mental health? Well, as it turns, out the exact opposite appears to be true. Before the pandemic, Iceland began to cut their work week and run a study on it’s effects. As it turned out not only did they find that workers were happier (duh), but that their productivity went up working less hours with the same pay. As of July, 86% of Iceland’s workforce has reduced to shorter hours.

For some reason our society believes this myth that the longer we work, the better our life will be, the more money we’ll make, and blah blah blah. We all get that 2 O’clock Friday feeling, when you’re not really being productive, and your just waiting the clock to tick down until you get to the precious “weekend” only for it to end in 48 hours, and go right back to wear you started: Monday. In most professions, 8 hours is a typical work day, some with an unpaid hour for lunch stuck it between, an hour long commute, and the remainder is your non-weekend life. (Some quick math because that’s my thing: There are 24 hours in a day, minus 8 hours for work, minus an hour for lunch, minus two hours for commuting, minus another hour for getting ready, minus 8 hours for sleeping (if you’re that lucky), leaves you with JUST 4 HOURS of awake time that’s not devoted to your job. Of course the Icelanders were happier and more productive with more time. The study showed reports from workers feeling happier because they now had more time to exercise, see friends, be with their family, and do more hobbies. This increase in morale allowed the to focus on their jobs more clearly, and thus be more productive.

Iceland is not the first country to adopt the shorter work week, and it surely won’t be the last. If there’s one positive thing the pandemic has showed us is that technology can be utilized to MAKE PEOPLE HAPPIER AND MORE PRODUCTIVE. It’s a bewilderment that we waited for a global pandemic to show us that having meetings on video are fine, working remotely is a possibility, and that most meetings can be sent in a DANG EMAIL!

Even our predecessors anticipated that increases in technology would lead to a shorter work week. According to the Atlantic, A 1965 Senate subcommittee predicted Americans would work 14-hour weeks by the year 2000!!!! In 1928, John Maynard Keynes wrote that technological advancement would bring the workweek down to 15 hours within 100 years. Iceland only cut there work week by a few hours and saw a rise in productivity, imagine if we could put our 7 billion brains together and utilize technology to cut the work week in half.

The evidence is there, it’s not even a debate. Thanks to the pandemic, companies are understanding the availability of a remote or at least, hybrid work force. It won’t be long until we as a society, refuse to accept the notion of sitting in the office for 40 hours for the sake of nothing.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.