"Cruel Summer" writers have been given a credit on Olivia Rodrigo's Deja Vu

[Jill 30,261]

13 hours ago, RichAssPiss said:

So. She wrote the song. She released the song. The songs's been out for months. She didn't think she didn't think it was a Taylor co-write when she put it out. But she just suddenly decided that now? What you are proposing is very unlikely. Most likely a songwriter on Cruel Summer, either Taylor or Jack or both, reached out and asked to privately arrange a share of publishing to avoid any litigation. That is the most plausible explanation. 

No, what YOU are supposing is very unlikely. You're assuming a LOT of things in order to reach your conclusion, and that's not how you create an argument. Since the release of Sour, Olivia has grown pretty close to Taylor, so I wouldn't be surprised if she (Olivia) decided to honor her (Taylor) and include her in one more song. Any other possibility is really far-fetched and, like I said, assumes a lot of things we have no way of proving.

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

1 hour ago, Jill said:

No, what YOU are supposing is very unlikely. You're assuming a LOT of things in order to reach your conclusion, and that's not how you create an argument. Since the release of Sour, Olivia has grown pretty close to Taylor, so I wouldn't be surprised if she (Olivia) decided to honor her (Taylor) and include her in one more song. Any other possibility is really far-fetched and, like I said, assumes a lot of things we have no way of proving.

I'm sorry, but what in your account of events is also not an assumption?

[Jill 30,261]

Just now, RichAssPiss said:

I'm sorry, but what in your account of events is also not an assumption?

Compared to your account of the events, almost nothing. Your assumptions are that

1. Taylor has this overwhelming power behind the scenes

2. She contacted Olivia's team and somehow make them change the credits of the song

My assumptions:

1. Olivia just admires Taylor very much

Which is not even an assumption  Occam's razor sis

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

4 minutes ago, Jill said:

Compared to your account of the events, almost nothing. Your assumptions are that

1. Taylor has this overwhelming power behind the scenes

2. She contacted Olivia's team and somehow make them change the credits of the song

My assumptions:

1. Olivia just admires Taylor very much

Which is not even an assumption  Occam's razor sis

You're truly dumb. 

Olivia has made no statement as to why the change was made. Any narrative you create is an assumption. 

[Jill 30,261]

2 minutes ago, RichAssPiss said:

You're truly dumb. 

Olivia has made no statement as to why the change was made. Any narrative you create is an assumption. 

Why are you insulting me lmao. We know Olivia is friends with Taylor and that Olivia was really inspired by Taylor's style to create Sour. Those two facts alone give more credibility to my side of things than yours.

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

Just now, Jill said:

Why are you insulting me lmao. We know Olivia is friends with Taylor and that Olivia was really inspired by Taylor's style to create Sour. Those two facts alone give more credibility to my side of things than yours.

Because you don't even understand what an assumption is and you are blindly insisting on something that you don't know to be true by telling someone else that they don't know what they are saying to be true. It's incredibly poor logical reasoning. It's not an insult. It's an observation. 

[Jill 30,261]

Just now, RichAssPiss said:

Because you don't even understand what an assumption is and you are blindly insisting on something that you don't know to be true by telling someone else that they don't know what they are saying to be true. It's incredibly poor logical reasoning. It's not an insult. It's an observation. 

Yeah...that's why people who debate things call each other "dumb" all the time. Because it's an observation  You're also insisting in something you have no proof about, so would that also make you dumb? Please explain to me what doesn't make sense about my position. I already explained why yours doesn't make any sense, starting with the fact it assumes Taylor's team is out and about stalking up and coming artists and threating them with credits or something.

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

Just now, Jill said:

Yeah...that's why people who debate things call each other "dumb" all the time. Because it's an observation  You're also insisting in something you have no proof about, so would that also make you dumb? Please explain to me what doesn't make sense about my position. I already explained why yours doesn't make any sense, starting with the fact it assumes Taylor's team is out and about stalking up and coming artists and threating them with credits or something.

You're basing your evaluation of my claim on a false premise you made up that I never stated. This fictitious idea that I am proposing Taylor is some maniacal mad villain. You made that up. I never said it. What I did say, and what other sources on the story have echoed (such as Variety), is that there is an extensive historical precedent for writing credits being given to artists retroactively by request to avoid litigation (or as the result of litigation). Recent ones include Katy Perry "Dark Horse," Ed Sheeran "Shape of You," Sam Smith "Stay with Me," and many others. 

There is virtually no precedent for an artist giving publishing rights away retroactively after the release of the song without a request by the artist in question. Can you name any precedent for that? I honestly cannot think of one. There is some precedent of that being done preemptively. Like Taylor giving Right Said Fred publishing for "Look What You Made Me Do" as she felt they were similar. But major labels vet these liabilities pretty heavily before an album is released. So, it's unlikely Olivia and her label had not already evaluated and decided against giving any additional publishing on "deja vu." What you are proposing is that she, without any outside influence or artist request, decided months after the release of the song to just give publishing away, and I am saying it is objectively less likely for that to happen as again I cannot think of any precedent for this, can you? It is historically the most likely that a petition was made behind the scenes. This is not a maniacal villain action. It's par for the course, as in the examples above, which are just a recent few.

Both parties have refused to comment, as stated by every article I've read. I personally find this a little suspicious, but that's my impression. Unless there is a comment, anything else is assumption or speculation, including what you have proposed. It is just objectively so. Speculation without verification is an assumption. So, all interpretations of this are assumptions, which is why I am not attacking you for making an assumption. Just pointing out it's hypocritical to condemn someone's reasoning for being an assumption when you are also making one. 

Are you happy now? Have a nice rest of the week. 

[Jill 30,261]

2 minutes ago, RichAssPiss said:

You're basing your evaluation of my claim on a false premise you made up that I never stated. This fictitious idea that I am proposing Taylor is some maniacal mad villain. You made that up. I never said it. What I did say, and what other sources on the story have echoed (such as Variety), is that there is an extensive historical precedent for writing credits being given to artists retroactively by request to avoid litigation (or as the result of litigation). Recent ones include Katy Perry "Dark Horse," Ed Sheeran "Shape of You," Sam Smith "Stay with Me," and many others. 

There is virtually no precedent for an artist giving publishing rights away retroactively after the release of the song without a request by the artist in question. Can you name any precedent for that? I honestly cannot think of one. There is some precedent of that being done preemptively. Like Taylor giving Right Said Fred publishing for "Look What You Made Me Do" as she felt they were similar. But major labels vet these liabilities pretty heavily before an album is released. So, it's unlikely Olivia and her label had not already evaluated and decided against giving any additional publishing on "deja vu." What you are proposing is that she, without any outside influence or artist request, decided months after the release of the song to just give publishing away, and I am saying it is objectively less likely for that to happen as again I cannot think of any precedent for this, can you? It is historically the most likely that a petition was made behind the scenes. This is not a maniacal villain action. It's par for the course, as in the examples above, which are just a recent few.

Both parties have refused to comment, as stated by every article I've read. I personally find this a little suspicious, but that's my impression. Unless there is a comment, anything else is assumption or speculation, including what you have proposed. It is just objectively so. Speculation without verification is an assumption. So, all interpretations of this are assumptions, which is why I am not attacking you for making an assumption. Just pointing out it's hypocritical to condemn someone's reasoning for being an assumption when you are also making one. 

Are you happy now? Have a nice rest of the week. 

Oh, so there's no precedent, thus this can't be anything else than a plot made so Taylor can win more money. Come on now, do you really think Taylor, of all people, would be planning on starting a litigation with Olivia, of all people, after collaborating with her in the promotion of her latest album, gifting her numerous things, and becoming friends with her? This whole testament you wrote just goes to show you actually have no idea of their (public) relationship. And why should they comment on this? It's a non-issue.

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

10 minutes ago, Jill said:

Oh, so there's no precedent, thus this can't be anything else than a plot made so Taylor can win more money. Come on now, do you really think Taylor, of all people, would be planning on starting a litigation with Olivia, of all people, after collaborating with her in the promotion of her latest album, gifting her numerous things, and becoming friends with her? This whole testament you wrote just goes to show you actually have no idea of their (public) relationship. And why should they comment on this? It's a non-issue.

Again. You're truly dumb. Take care.

[Chromatography 10,186]

34 minutes ago, RichAssPiss said:

You're basing your evaluation of my claim on a false premise you made up that I never stated. This fictitious idea that I am proposing Taylor is some maniacal mad villain. You made that up. I never said it. What I did say, and what other sources on the story have echoed (such as Variety), is that there is an extensive historical precedent for writing credits being given to artists retroactively by request to avoid litigation (or as the result of litigation). Recent ones include Katy Perry "Dark Horse," Ed Sheeran "Shape of You," Sam Smith "Stay with Me," and many others. 

There is virtually no precedent for an artist giving publishing rights away retroactively after the release of the song without a request by the artist in question. Can you name any precedent for that? I honestly cannot think of one. There is some precedent of that being done preemptively. Like Taylor giving Right Said Fred publishing for "Look What You Made Me Do" as she felt they were similar. But major labels vet these liabilities pretty heavily before an album is released. So, it's unlikely Olivia and her label had not already evaluated and decided against giving any additional publishing on "deja vu." What you are proposing is that she, without any outside influence or artist request, decided months after the release of the song to just give publishing away, and I am saying it is objectively less likely for that to happen as again I cannot think of any precedent for this, can you? It is historically the most likely that a petition was made behind the scenes. This is not a maniacal villain action. It's par for the course, as in the examples above, which are just a recent few.

Both parties have refused to comment, as stated by every article I've read. I personally find this a little suspicious, but that's my impression. Unless there is a comment, anything else is assumption or speculation, including what you have proposed. It is just objectively so. Speculation without verification is an assumption. So, all interpretations of this are assumptions, which is why I am not attacking you for making an assumption. Just pointing out it's hypocritical to condemn someone's reasoning for being an assumption when you are also making one. 

Are you happy now? Have a nice rest of the week. 

you don’t know what happens behind closed doors. no one knows what exactly happened. the audacity you have then to call someone dumb for something you know just as much about is tbh, really fvcking funny. 

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

11 minutes ago, Chromatography said:

you don’t know what happens behind closed doors. no one knows what exactly happened. the audacity you have then to call someone dumb for something you know just as much about is tbh, really fvcking funny. 

I really regret the decline in reading comprehension skills in our society. That's not even what I said. 

[Chromatography 10,186]

1 minute ago, RichAssPiss said:

I really regret the decline in reading comprehension skills in our society. That's not even what I said. 

i’ll take my phd elsewhere i suppose 

calling other people dumb doesn’t make you smarter or your opinion more valid, btw. not very kindness punk of you 

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

1 minute ago, Chromatography said:

i’ll take my phd elsewhere i suppose 

calling other people dumb doesn’t make you smarter or your opinion more valid, btw. not very kindness punk of you 

My perspective, which I tried to articulate clearly, is actually much more likely, based on history and precedent, which is all that I said. The person I was speaking to could not comprehend this, or refused to. And based their argument on a series of false premises unrelated to what I was saying. At some point, I just have to give up and recognize someone cannot process the information. 

[RichAssPiss 4,932]

8 minutes ago, Chromatography said:

i’ll take my phd elsewhere i suppose 

calling other people dumb doesn’t make you smarter or your opinion more valid, btw. not very kindness punk of you 

You can laugh, but where is the inaccuracy in that statement? I would honestly like to know.