Justice for DWYW feat Xtina

[FfFfFfFF 54,014]

28 minutes ago, reversewarhol said:

The solo version makes the most sense though. I don’t understand why R Kelly has writing credits even on the solo version when the solo was recorded wayyy before he was featured on the song

He probably changed thw chorus' melody or lyrics, not just his own part. The demo version was recorded way back but not the final solo version.

[ShayCristoforo 10,223]

I think we should just let it sleep, and go to bed knowing that it's one of her best songs.
Even though the song is fully cursed lol.

And as awkward as this feels, to me, the Kelly version has a much higher level of complexity and sonic appeal than the Xtina version. 

[Gaga911chroma 92]

23 minutes ago, Akiki said:

Taylor fought for her songs and Gaga should do the same. Make a deal. He is the wrong part in this. And Taylor had a much weaker point than Gaga. Kelly is a criminal, Scooter is an opportunist at most and there are many more people to blame than him. 

These situations are not the same at all, there is no comparison here. They can’t just make a deal, he’s credited as a writer on the original released version of the song because of that she would be in a very legally dubious position if she did not credit him as a writer on any other version of it she releases. 

[bionic 37,909]

21 minutes ago, Gaga911chroma said:

These situations are not the same at all, there is no comparison here. They can’t just make a deal, he’s credited as a writer on the original released version of the song because of that she would be in a very legally dubious position if she did not credit him as a writer on any other version of it she releases. 

THIS. As much as I'd love for Xtina to get some respect through the means of ARTPOP inclusion, its incomparible to the situation Taylor is in. Taylor's dispute is with the people who 'own' the master recordings of her songs, so she essentially released a cover album of her own music so that she can create 'new' recordings that she owns personally. If Gaga were to re-record DWUW, R Kelly would still profit because he has a songwriting credit. He can't just "give it up" (and IIRC it would be against BMI rules for him to)

[Akiki 3,900]

39 minutes ago, milam said:

delete it fat

Dont call people fat

[Akiki 3,900]

31 minutes ago, Gaga911chroma said:

These situations are not the same at all, there is no comparison here. They can’t just make a deal, he’s credited as a writer on the original released version of the song because of that she would be in a very legally dubious position if she did not credit him as a writer on any other version of it she releases. 

Why cant she make a deal. Michael bought the rights to the beatles songs. Why cant she do the same? She pays him so he let it go. Everything can be solved if the cash exists. Ot they can settle to make the music free. Like public domain and he can be credited under an alias so he wouldn't profit or be promoted by the song. 

[Akiki 3,900]

46 minutes ago, Warning said:

What is strange that no other artist removed collabs with him, you can still find for example his and Mariah collab and many others as well, only Gagz removed that song with him. 

And Mariah said her sister tried to sell her for sex or something and still... 

[bionic 37,909]

3 minutes ago, Akiki said:

Why cant she make a deal. Michael bought the rights to the beatles songs. Why cant she do the same? She pays him so he let it go. Everything can be solved if the cash exists  

He had the legal ownership of the recordings of the songs, he couldn't change the writing credits. There's no deal that can be made without it being against registry rules.

[Akiki 3,900]

1 minute ago, bionic said:

He has the legal ownership of the recordings of the songs, he can't change the writing credits. There's no deal that can be made without it being against registry rules.

Then just donate the profits from the song to his victims

[bionic 37,909]

5 minutes ago, Akiki said:

Then just donate the profits from the song to his victims

I don't think Gaga can control what R Kelly does with his share of the profits. I imagine his legal fees are huge so he'd probably use it for that  

[Gaga911chroma 92]

2 minutes ago, Akiki said:

Then just donate the profits from the song to his victims

At the end of the day there is no legal way for her to release any version of this song without

1). R. Kelly profiting from it and

2). Gaga needlessly dragging herself back into a huge controversy that almost certainly would damage her career more than help it. 
 

I love the song, I think it’s an important addition to ARTPOP and I would love for it and Gaga and Christina to get credit for it but we’ve got to accept that it just can’t happen. 

[bionic 37,909]

1 minute ago, Gaga911chroma said:

At the end of the day there is no legal way for her to release any version of this song without

1). R. Kelly profiting from it and

2). Gaga needlessly dragging herself back into a huge controversy that almost certainly would damage her career more than help it. 
 

I love the song, I think it’s an important addition to ARTPOP and I would love for it and Gaga and Christina to get credit for it but we’ve got to accept that it just can’t happen. 

Yeah I love the song and would love for it to come back in the album but there's no real way for it to happen (or so it seems). ADD on the fact that the song is nearly a decade old, any expense on changing this now/negotiating is a sunken cost. Gaga probably wouldn't make that money back.

If the song were new or unreleased it might be a different story  

[A MESS 3,938]

16 minutes ago, Akiki said:

Dont call people fat

sorry, it's a meme...I was not calling you fat c.c

[Akiki 3,900]

20 minutes ago, bionic said:

Yeah I love the song and would love for it to come back in the album but there's no real way for it to happen (or so it seems). ADD on the fact that the song is nearly a decade old, any expense on changing this now/negotiating is a sunken cost. Gaga probably wouldn't make that money back.

If the song were new or unreleased it might be a different story  

But what I dont understand is why? The song is still on spotify. But not in the album. The version with xtina can be streamed and turn profit to r kelly then.

[Akiki 3,900]

23 minutes ago, Gaga911chroma said:

At the end of the day there is no legal way for her to release any version of this song without

1). R. Kelly profiting from it and

2). Gaga needlessly dragging herself back into a huge controversy that almost certainly would damage her career more than help it. 
 

I love the song, I think it’s an important addition to ARTPOP and I would love for it and Gaga and Christina to get credit for it but we’ve got to accept that it just can’t happen. 

The xtina version is still on spotify why it's different to put it alone or on the album? Honest question. If he has rights over it wouldn't he profit from that version? I even streamed it today.