[furgooswft13]

He sold a significant stake in it at least, reposting my comment from another thread:

I'm confused. I read Neil Young recently sold significant stake in his music catalog to an investment company [1]. Doing something like this pretty much nullifies that investment. Perhaps the particulars of the deal he signed still allows him to do this, in which case the investment company made a bad deal.

If Spotify is just doing this as a courtesy, without full permission from all relevant stake holders, or specific contractual cover, then the investment company should be looking to sue both Neil Young and Spotify.

Surely I'm missing something.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/neil-young-sells-50percent-o...

[mywittyname]

> Perhaps the particulars of the deal he signed still allows him to do this, in which case the investment company made a bad deal.

Or they factored that into the price. The dude is known for political activism as much as he is for his music.

Any investor who did their due diligence knows that Neil Young is very opinionated about how his music is used. So if he negotiated for continued control over his music, the investors should have known he was going to cost them money.

[rlayton2]

This controversy will be over in a few months at worse. Spotify nullifies the damage by removing the music now, and the investment in the music would be a long term investment.

[kcplate]

I predict within a year or so the content will be back. Quietly and with zero press…and it would not surprise me a bit of all parties involved have already agreed to a date.

This is the music business after all.