Swift says AMAs performance in jeopardy over music dispute

And this is right where the madness of the concept of being able to own ideas leads. Some chuckleheads who had nothing to do with it gets to own them while the creator is barred from using them. Pure insanity.

If they bought the rights to her music legally, I don’t see an issue here. She does’t have the right to perform those songs. She should just buy the rights back.

"You can't copyright no beats!" - Flava Flav '88

While obviously unfortunate, sounds like she made bad management decisions early on & is paying for it, no need to bring gender into the mess!

Get in there & NEGOTIATE things, stop whining its annoying

sounds like she made bad management decisions early on

A minnow eaten by sharks and you blame the minnow for being in the ocean. The woman is an artist not a manager nor a lawyer. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who expect us all to know everything right out of the gate even they themselves have been screwed over by unfair, greedy and unscrupulous people themselves at some point.

Live by the copyright, die by the copyright.

because the men who own her old recordings won’t allow her to play her songs.

They legally own the rights for the songs, Swift is worth around $400 million why doesn't she just buy them back.

Typical of the modern irresponsible woman she attacks men for her silly past decisions, she could have easily sought legal advice before signing any contracts.

It's not unusual.   Rich people's problems.

So, where’s Simon Cowel? Surely he can jump up and down on her behalf.

I'll bet she's going to write a song about this and blaming men ( again ).

She should take her own advice and just "shake it off" and move on.

Ownership of a product is ownership. Does not matters if is a fancy toy on a store shelf or a song owned by some one else - if one does not own it, one can not have it. Most children are so instructed.

Swift wants to buy her songs back, but they won't sell to her

She originally signed with one record studio, but that record studio sold itself to another person - but that person has a history of being at-odds with Swift

She's going to re-record her songs next year with her as the legal ownership, but in the meantime, the current studio won't allow her to sing those songs at this year's AMA unless she drops her plans

She may just have to wait till next year to celebrate singing her songs, although she was named as Artist of the Decade this year

The ones losing out will be the music audience who were anticipating the celebration

Winy twit.

A minnow eaten by sharks and you blame the minnow for being in the ocean. The woman is an artist not a manager nor a lawyer. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who expect us all to know everything right out of the gate even they themselves have been screwed over by unfair, greedy and unscrupulous people themselves at some point.

Marshall S,

LISTEN, artists have made bad decisions or gotten ripped off for ages BEFORE TS showed  up!!

She should have KNOWN better...…………….HER MISTAKE, she should OWN it, but she is being a whinny baby & trying to get the woke crowd to do HER pleasing!

The ones I feel sorry for are all the old BLUES artists way back in time who were shafted left right & centre , TS has NO EXCUSE!!

Look I agree sounds like the current OWNER is not the nicest chap around, but again TS made her deals she should honor them or BUY her back catalogue back or wait a year,

I do not feel sorry for her & playing the defenseless woman bit in the age of equality just shows she wants her cake & EAT it too...…..BOO HOO!!

Get in there & NEGOTIATE things, stop whining its annoying

So is BLOCK text. But seriously, are some people still accusing women of "whining"?

And this is right where the madness of the concept of being able to own ideas leads. Some chuckleheads who had nothing to do with it gets to own them while the creator is barred from using them. Pure insanity.

Nothing to do with it? Who do you think takes ALL the risk and finances "it" when the creator is starting out? Yea... it is the "chuckleheads"...

It's not she started off in the 70's and 80's when it was unknown how shady these types of deals were. You can sort of feel bad for those starting back then finding out the hard way. No... since then it is widely KNOWN that these deals are created to benefit chuckleheads at the expense of the creators. She knew enough to get a deal that gave her ownership after a set period of time so she knew she would be locked out of that type of flexibility until then.