I have heard literally one of her songs and only because I was being paid to write a parody of it, but based on her overall behavior, she seems like she’s better than pretty much every other billionaire out there. Admittedly a low bar, but still something.
There was a pandemic era interview of her that was really poignant and insightful. She knows and things about quite a lot. Her Midnights album had a lot of self criticism and reflection, and she’s commented a lot more about unfair gender norms.
She also kept a music store in Nashville afloat during the pandemic, and she’s really generous about health insurance and bonuses. Her truckers for her tour got $100k in just bonuses.
I’m a fan. I think as far as billionaires go, she’s achieved it in the only ethical manner possible. Being a global music sensation is pretty much the only way to do so – if she has even just 100,000,000 fans globally, each just needs to spend $10 for her to make a billion. And honestly, I don’t think that fan number is that off.
Sure, she makes and made mistakes. She’s human. But all in all, I quite like her. I’m biased certainly, I grew up listening to her music. I listened to it a lot through a lot of loneliness, and at some of my lowest points, I was listening to “this is me trying” daily (and “beautiful” by Eminem, an odd pair to be sure).
I’m a 29 year old man and I’m happy to call myself a Swiftie haha
Rowling earned her billion ethically – she just turned out to be a unethical person, and it wasn’t known until much later.
Alongside Taylor Swift it highlights the only way to ethically be a billionaire – mass global popularity. When you have 100,000,000 fans, and each of them spend just $10 on a book or album, you make a billion.
Just want to throw out there that those were fantastic video games too! Goblet of Fire and sadly Deathly Hallows were fairly sucky adaptations, but all of the others were amazing, high quality games.
I recommend everyone pay them, but given that Rowling is a TERF, you’ll want to pirate them.
I don’t think copyright is inherently immoral. I think it’s good to have at least a temporary monopoly on a piece of creative work that you’ve made. The important word here is temporary. The way it’s set up right now, copyright protection lasts too damn long.
Unless it’s a multigenerational collaboration then yeah it should protect the creators relationship to their work in their lifetime, but that “happy birthday to you” nonsense is stifling.
Sure, if that’s your metric. I was thinking of things like paying people fairly and agreeing to every single strike demand so that the WGA and SAG-AFTRA agreed to approve her releasing her concert film in the middle of the strike and getting thousands of her fans registered to vote…
I would say your metrics are probably better. I was just trying to see where the floor was between good and bad billionaires. That seemed like the first step
I have heard literally one of her songs and only because I was being paid to write a parody of it, but based on her overall behavior, she seems like she’s better than pretty much every other billionaire out there. Admittedly a low bar, but still something.
There was a pandemic era interview of her that was really poignant and insightful. She knows and things about quite a lot. Her Midnights album had a lot of self criticism and reflection, and she’s commented a lot more about unfair gender norms.
She also kept a music store in Nashville afloat during the pandemic, and she’s really generous about health insurance and bonuses. Her truckers for her tour got $100k in just bonuses.
I’m a fan. I think as far as billionaires go, she’s achieved it in the only ethical manner possible. Being a global music sensation is pretty much the only way to do so – if she has even just 100,000,000 fans globally, each just needs to spend $10 for her to make a billion. And honestly, I don’t think that fan number is that off.
Sure, she makes and made mistakes. She’s human. But all in all, I quite like her. I’m biased certainly, I grew up listening to her music. I listened to it a lot through a lot of loneliness, and at some of my lowest points, I was listening to “this is me trying” daily (and “beautiful” by Eminem, an odd pair to be sure).
I’m a 29 year old man and I’m happy to call myself a Swiftie haha
I give her props for writing her own songs in an age where everyone on the radio uses the same five ghostwriters.
Just wanted to tell you that I really enjoyed reading your take on Swift. Thanks for sharing. ☺️
Do you like Pixar’s Cars?
Rowling used to be my example of a good billionaire, then she went all TERF-y.
Rowling earned her billion ethically – she just turned out to be a unethical person, and it wasn’t known until much later.
Alongside Taylor Swift it highlights the only way to ethically be a billionaire – mass global popularity. When you have 100,000,000 fans, and each of them spend just $10 on a book or album, you make a billion.
>Rowling earned her billion ethically
citation needed
She famously wrote books that sold well and then she sold rights to movies and video games based on those books which got her even more money.
If you’re saying that is unethical then the onus is on you to tell us how.
Just want to throw out there that those were fantastic video games too! Goblet of Fire and sadly Deathly Hallows were fairly sucky adaptations, but all of the others were amazing, high quality games.
I recommend everyone pay them, but given that Rowling is a TERF, you’ll want to pirate them.
copyright is immoral
citation needed
I don’t think copyright is inherently immoral. I think it’s good to have at least a temporary monopoly on a piece of creative work that you’ve made. The important word here is temporary. The way it’s set up right now, copyright protection lasts too damn long.
Unless it’s a multigenerational collaboration then yeah it should protect the creators relationship to their work in their lifetime, but that “happy birthday to you” nonsense is stifling.
people share stories. it’s natural and good. copyright is a government enforced monopoly that prohibits sharing. it’s immoral.
You dont need to sell stories to share them.
The gubmint isn’t forcing you to only sell your stories. If you want, you can upload your stories on a website for free.
But you don’t get to tell people how they should distribute their creation. That’s some authoritarian bullshit.
Oh you’re one of those people, living in delulu fantasy land.
This means you’ve been reported already. Be prepared.
Ooooh me so scared
this is just an insult. it is not a rebuttal. personal attacks are expressly prohibited in this community.
cOpYrIgHt iS iMmOrAl is also not a rebuttal. It’s a platitude based on your delusional worldview.
ciTAtiOn nEedEd
Not inherently, but the way it’s currently set up sure is.
Is it immoral for an artist to charge money for their art?
no. it’s immoral to tell people they can’t share it. sharing is good.
We have entire facilities with the sole purpose of sharing books. You can buy a book and lend it to whoever you want.
Money is power and power corrupts 🤷♂️
So basically not starting a rocket company?
Sure, if that’s your metric. I was thinking of things like paying people fairly and agreeing to every single strike demand so that the WGA and SAG-AFTRA agreed to approve her releasing her concert film in the middle of the strike and getting thousands of her fans registered to vote…
I would say your metrics are probably better. I was just trying to see where the floor was between good and bad billionaires. That seemed like the first step