Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,546 Inferno


About zxcvb

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender Identity
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Couldn't you argue her first three eras were as forced as anything about In The Zone? After all, she released three albums in three straight years. (and went on three tours in three years.) Isn't that the very definition of forced? I will say in retrospect, the biggest issues with the era could be the Madonna kiss and Outrageous. While the kiss did rematerialize more global attention, it arguably took attention from the album. (Although MATM was a global hit) And obviously the Outrageous video damaged her as a performer. Again, like my previous post, Baby Oops and Britney eras literally happening back to back to back (and all occurring in the already launched teen pop era) is the only reason those eras were bigger than ITZ. ITZ is Britney at her most artistic, so I can't pick any other era over it. You're right. The difference is that Baby Oops and Britney eras were all back to back to back with clean image, the already existing teen pop era and Timberlake relationship. She was becoming an adult with In The Zone, no "Celebrity/Media/PR romance, the industry leaving teen pop behind etc... It should be no surprise at all that her popularity waned by ITZ. Still, ITZ is her best from album by far from her first 4 eras.
  2. Does Britney own her trademark for Fantasy, for instance; you know the perfume that his the biggest royalty earner for her when she shouldn't have to work? According to this trademark site, Britney Brands, Inc. is currently the owner but according to the owner history, Baby One More Mark LLC (with Jamie Spears and Andrew Wallet listed as owners) has also been an owner but it's unclear when that changed. And according to this trademark database site, Britney Brands, Inc is currently the owner but the last listed owner was Baby One More Mark LLC. It's worth highlighting because of the recent Blast report that said "In the documents, Britney's lawyer says she currently has $57,396,852.35 in cash, investments, and property. Shockingly, this amount does not include her intellectual property (i.e the music) because it's values is too difficult to appraise at this point. "Due to the difficulties in valuing the Conservatee's Intellectual Property, including, without limitation, trademarks, royalties, copyrights, name and likeness, these assets are not valued at this time," the document states. In other words, she is worth TONS more than the $60 million on paper. https://theblast.com/c/britney-spears-conservatorship-voluntary-files-court-estate-financial-company-father-jamie-spears-out
  3. Lou Taylor and Jaime Spears are disgusting/criminal for keeping the conservatorship in place after 2008/Circus era, but are they really mostly responsible for this mess? I thought these tweets are very telling: As I've said, there is a problem with her record contract, obviously because of her naive parents. After her greatest hits/In The Zone release, she either should have been advised to start her own label or re-sign with substantial control over her music and image. This never happened. I still strongly contend that her record contract is largely what is responsible for her "downfall" more than anything. The problem with Larry's quote here from talking about the oops album: "Britney was always the one directing the creatives." https://www.theringer.com/music/2020/5/14/21258289/britney-spears-oops-i-did-it-again-20-year-anniversary-retrospective How can his quote work with her music video for Everytime, which is antithetical to pretty much everything her represents in her career?
  4. But artists that don't write hits still earn royalties (They obviously have to be not only big hits, but enduring hits which corresponds with Britney's situation)... "Take, for example, the song “I Will Always Love You” from the 1992 soundtrack for “The Bodyguard.” That version of the song was performed by Whitney Houston, the recording of which is owned Sony Music Entertainment division Arista Records. However the song was written by Dolly Parton, who owns the composition, including the lyrics and melody. Spotify would have to pay Sony to license the recording, who would then give Houston’s estate a percentage of the stream. It would also have to pay the music publisher and songwriter. In this case, Parton is both." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/how-spotify-licenses-and-pays-for-music-rights.htm And the intellectual property that they mentioned-"trademarks, royalties, copyrights, name and likeness" probably has to include perfume, which she continues to earn money from.
  5. The other thing about her estate, I'm pretty sure the court docs do not include royalties from music/perfume. And she definitely is getting royalties from those things: Besides Vevo streams on her channel, "Take, for example, the song “I Will Always Love You” from the 1992 soundtrack for “The Bodyguard.” That version of the song was performed by Whitney Houston, the recording of which is owned Sony Music Entertainment division Arista Records. However the song was written by Dolly Parton, who owns the composition, including the lyrics and melody. Spotify would have to pay Sony to license the recording, who would then give Houston’s estate a percentage of the stream. It would also have to pay the music publisher and songwriter. In this case, Parton is both." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/how-spotify-licenses-and-pays-for-music-rights.html#:~:text=Spotify said it paid %249.76,as the songwriter and publisher. Based on this, she's earning royalties for songs she didn't even write like Toxic, which is going to pretty much always going to be streamed at a high rate. So either way/with or without conservatorship, she's definitely wealthier than what is reported in the docs
  6. In response to the thread about Britney not being seen in recent candids, even in the recent conservatorship filling it was stated that the conservatorship needed to be amended to fit her current lifestyle: Maybe that also means she doesn't want to be much of a public figure anymore, including less candids and perhaps less postings on social media about her life. Yes, the conflict of interest with Lou Taylor's companies and Britney's estate is an issue, but I also think Britney doesn't want to be in the public eye and much prefers to live life behind closed doors mostly as a homebody, which she has actually stated in recent years. I strongly think that after the first residency, this is hiatus should have occurred then rather than announcing a new show and having that 2018 tour, but her father was still her conservator (and he never really should have been at all)
  7. But Britney really had no choice but to tour for Circus, contractually speaking. That dance head at Millennium said that she would have been sued into oblivion by Jive because she didn't tour for Blackout. She had no choice but to do Circus and tour. Jive didn't care about any of her mental health struggles. Femme Fatale is the real problem, and the era that should have never happened. If she was also contractually tied up there. then Britney was literally doomed from the very beginning of her career. (Other than the possibility of leaving Jive and starting her own label or re-signing with Jive with far more power all around 2004-2005.)
  8. Noted twitter user Meaner03 pointed out this eyeopening figure concerning an investment company linked to Lou Taylor... https://twitter.com/MeanerThree/status/1297920959362535426 https://twitter.com/MeanerThree/status/1297920961665290241 Thoughts?
  9. The ******* has been a financial failure is entire life... 12:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwaNtSbva0U If Britney's fans have to power to help cause this, they should make her father, Lou Taylor and Larry Rudolph as MISERABLE AS POSSIBLE.
  10. It certainly matches up with Meaner03's timeline of Lou Taylor's involvement in 2008: https://twitter.com/MeanerThree/status/1290819267101896707/photo/1
  11. What about the argument that maybe the money is being put into trusts and LLCs and stuff so it cannot be considered hers if she were to be sued. A lot of wealthy people have money set up like this, to protect their assets from liability? Thoughts on this???
  12. Obviously part of the problem with defending the conservatorship are Britney's own words. At the same time, A LOT can change in 10-12 years. We just don't really know her true feelings about it today. Hopefully she's at a place where she can live her best life with her kids.
  13. As much as they say she "loves to perform", this has arguably transformed into a circumstance where she didn't learn-or wasn't allowed to learn-to do other things. Did she keep performing from 2011 onward to pay bills (child support, supporting other family members)? Contractual obligations?? (Again, it is her prerogative to put herself out there for public scrutiny.) At the end of the day, you aren't really supposed decline as a performer the way she has without much explanation. I agree with with Jamie Spears that Britney is entitled to her PRIVACY, but he knows she can't be left alone because he and his wife nonchalantly made Britney arguably the most well-known name of the last two decades. So there's going to continue to be speculation. In my mind, if Britney wanted a new life/career way back in 2004, she really should have left Jive or re-sign with substantial control over her music/image. Marrying Kevin Federline was never a rebellion whatsoever because of all of her contractual obligations. As stated, she said she's on hiatus: She should be living her life with her kids as best possible.
  14. First, I'll say that the best Britney documentary BY FAR is Stages, at it truly offers an impartial look into her career/life. Second, the truth is that, over time, people change. We don't know for sure how she has felt about the conservatorship in more recent years. After all, according to that in-depth NY Times article, she does have the power to make a change. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/arts/music/is-britney-spears-ready-to-stand-on-her-own.html Maybe it is a "protective bubble" for her to "work" and spend time with her kids because she never really learned to do much else, which is arguably a problem in it of itself and again her parents/Larry Rudolph's fault. But her "team" and father didn't help quelling conspiratorial claims with actions such as releasing the terrible Make Me video. She also looked uncomfortable in her 2018 tour. Her parents helped made her so famous, so they shouldn't be surprised why people can't leave her alone, unless she retires. I FIRMLY concur with her father's inference that Britney is absolutely ENTITLED to her PRIVACY. If Britney wants to release music and return to performing, then she should when she wants to. She herself said she's on a hiatus. She's not obligated to do anything. Therefore everyone should let her live her life and she should post whatever she wants to post on social media. My final deduction is that Britney HERSELF has a VERY adversarial relationship with the media, and understandably so.
  15. It makes me wonder what really happened in early 2008, when that Michael Sands guy (who unfortunately died in 2012) said: "Sands claimed the theft is on a grand scale, involving racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering, and that the theft occurred prior to the conservatorship taking place and continues still..."Lives have been threatened," Sands said. "People are being intimidated. It's terrorism. I don't want to make any accusations, but we're talking the financial **** of Britney Spears." https://www.mtv.com/news/1582277/britney-spears-has-been-robbed-her-self-proclaimed-lawyer-insists/ I mean, who was really behind all this??? It's hard to really know; her team couldn't have been so stupid to release the nonsense they released and not expect big backlash, especially when she has a big fan-base. A Proper video, and better timing, and Make Me would have easily charted in the top 10. There really is; I don't like Sam Lufti, but the such divergent accusations from her parents and him/Eardly is hard to reconcile. "In papers filed Friday, Eardley claims he'll offer the court evidence that Spears has been robbed (proof of which he said he'd file under seal on Monday), and that he needed more time to meet the court's deadline but was concerned for the "emotional and physical safety of Britney," because in addition to allegedly being robbed, she's also allegedly being abused. At least for the latter, he's more specific: "Counsel has learned that there has been significant verbal attacks by her live-in father conservator. ... I have been informed of the existence of voice mails, etc., that include verbal abuse." (In a counter-claim, Britney's mother, Lynne Spears, said it was Lutfi who was verbally abusing Britney; Eardley called this perjury and referred to Lutfi as Britney's "best friend.") https://www.mtv.com/news/1582277/britney-spears-has-been-robbed-her-self-proclaimed-lawyer-insists/ Just because it's tough to blame Jive (their job is to make money and her parents had her sign contracts she probably never read) it's tough to blame the public (her label agreed to have her do terrible interviews like Diane Sawyer and promote Timberlake and Britney's expense, but again parents more blame than label because of the contracts) My hope of this situation is that Britney spends lots of time with her kids and enjoys her life.
  • Create New...