Field Dispatch
Matt Connarton Unleashed: Did Kendrick Lamar and UMG conspire against Drake?
Speaker 2: I did see something.
Speaker 1: So, you know, we talk a lot on the show
Speaker 1: about music industry discussions, music industry topics, I should say
Speaker 1: that become discussions on the program, and.
Speaker 2: Very often these controversies that are going on.
Speaker 1: For example, last week, Jenny and I talked about the
Speaker 1: controversy of Bruno Mars, not Bruno Mars himself, but one
Speaker 1: of the one of the companies that owns a steak
Speaker 1: and the song When I Was Your Man by Bruno
Speaker 1: Mars suing Miley Cyrus and I think everyone Miley Cyrus
Speaker 1: has ever associated with over the song Flowers claiming copyright
Speaker 1: infringement and all of that. We did put the segment
Speaker 1: up on YouTube if you missed it. Kind of a
Speaker 1: very much, I would say, I shouldn't say kind of
Speaker 1: very much a frivolous lawsuit.
Speaker 2: In my opinion. But so we talk about these various controversies,
Speaker 2: legal issues going on in the music industry.
Speaker 1: We talk about AI a lot, all this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: and of course, you know, Jenny and I both we
Speaker 1: love a good hip hop beef. So after the well
Speaker 1: before Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl performance, we talked about on
Speaker 1: the show, we talked about the beef between Kendrick and Drake,
Speaker 1: which has gone back over a decade now at this point,
Speaker 1: or about a decade.
Speaker 2: But so we did a.
Speaker 1: Long segment about that, which again is on YouTube if
Speaker 1: you want to check it out, and talking about we
Speaker 1: felt from our perspective that Kendrick had kind of put
Speaker 1: the final nail in that coffin winning that, you know,
Speaker 1: because what has a distrack ever been performed at the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl? Now, maybe there is an example of that
Speaker 1: that I'm just not aware of, but that seemed like
Speaker 1: a pretty big, you know, pretty big deal. That seemed like,
Speaker 1: you know, how does Drake top that?
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't think that he does.
Speaker 1: But there's also a legal aspect or I guess I
Speaker 1: should say a civil aspect, right because it's not a
Speaker 1: it's not a criminal, but it is civil, this lawsuit
Speaker 1: that Jake has fouled, and that aspect of it we
Speaker 1: touched on during our conversation post super Bowl. Jenny and
Speaker 1: I did talk about that a little bit, but we
Speaker 1: didn't get into it too deep, that aspect of it.
Speaker 1: But if you don't know, Drake has filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Kendrick Lamar, actually not against well, we should be
Speaker 1: precise when speaking about this, not Kendrick Lamar directly, but
Speaker 1: against Universal Music Group, who is no strangers to being sued.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about that on the show too months ago,
Speaker 1: we talked about the olymp biscuit lawsuit against UMG. Drake
Speaker 1: is suing UMG because not only is Drake on UMG,
Speaker 1: but Kendrick Lamar is on UMG, and according to Drake,
Speaker 1: UMG kind of put their their thumb on the scale
Speaker 1: in favor of Kendrick Lamar to try to devalue Drake
Speaker 1: because there is a contract negotiation coming up. Drake's contract
Speaker 1: with UMG is almost up, and Drake seems to feel
Speaker 1: that UMG, or at least his law seem to think
Speaker 1: that they can successfully sue for this. Who knows what
Speaker 1: anyone really thinks or believes, right, but you know, when
Speaker 1: there's money to be gone after.
Speaker 2: This is what happens.
Speaker 1: So you know, who knows what Drake really thinks, right,
Speaker 1: but or what any of them really believe. But they
Speaker 1: think that they have a They think they have a
Speaker 1: good case to say that UMG conspired effectively with Kendrick
Speaker 1: Lamar to push this song. Not like us as a
Speaker 1: way of devaluing Drake somewhat. Now, why would if you're
Speaker 1: thinking about it logically, why would UMG? What incentive? They're
Speaker 1: both on UMG? So what possible incentive would a record
Speaker 1: label like UMG have for devaluing their most successful artist
Speaker 1: Drake is I didn't even realize this until recently. Drake
Speaker 1: is the most streamed artist on Spotify, not the most
Speaker 1: streamed artist in hip hop, by the way, the most
Speaker 1: artists period. I believe that still holds on Spotify? I
Speaker 1: think or is he number two? Is Taylor Swift? Actually, first,
Speaker 1: we're so used to talking about I see now I'm
Speaker 1: second guessing myself because we're so used to talking about
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift being number one and everything. But I believe
Speaker 1: Drake is number one, and why would so? Why would
Speaker 1: a record label with such a successful artists want to
Speaker 1: devalue them? And the explanation which UMG denies and I'm,
Speaker 1: by the way, I find this claim dubious as well,
Speaker 1: So I'm skeptical about this. But the explanation from Drake's
Speaker 1: lawyers and why they are accusing you MG of this
Speaker 1: is that they feel that because Drake's contract is almost up,
Speaker 1: if you devalue him a little bit, you weaken Drake's
Speaker 1: negotiating position because they're gonna have to negotiate a new contract,
Speaker 1: or Drake goes elsewhere, he goes to another label, or
Speaker 1: Drake just doesn't have a label because he's already super famous.
Speaker 1: Why do you need a label? And we live in
Speaker 1: an era where, you know, because of the Internet, you
Speaker 1: don't need a label. It helps if you're already famous,
Speaker 1: You've got a giant head start, right, but you don't
Speaker 1: necessarily even need a label. But if that label's going
Speaker 1: to advance you millions and millions of dollars on everything
Speaker 1: that you do, you know it can be helpful too.
Speaker 1: So that's another discussion. But so legal representation for Drake
Speaker 1: is claiming that UMG intentionally has devalued him conspiring with
Speaker 1: Kendrick Lamar on that song. Not like us to devalue
Speaker 1: Drake ahead of their their contract negotiations to weaken Drake's
Speaker 1: negotiating position. Again, I'm skeptical. That seems like an awfully
Speaker 1: big gamble. Plus, you know, these conspiracies don't, get me wrong.
Speaker 1: Conspiracies happen, of course they do, But I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Awkham's razor would suggest that, Yeah, obviously UMG wanted Kendrick
Speaker 1: to have a big hit with not like us because
Speaker 1: it's on UMG. Kendrick is also on UMG, so they want,
Speaker 1: you know, you always want to have a hit single,
Speaker 1: right and not like us as wildly successful. Heck so
Speaker 1: successful it got performed at the super Bowl. Anyway, Here's
Speaker 1: here's what's There are updates with this.
Speaker 2: There are updates.
Speaker 1: This is from This is from Music Business Worldwide dot com,
Speaker 1: a very very handy website for this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Court says discovery process can move forward and Drake's defamation
Speaker 1: lawsuit against UMG over not like us. It says here
Speaker 1: at a pre trial conference this morning in New York.
Speaker 1: And when we say this morning, we actually meet April second,
Speaker 1: so a few days ago, earlier this week. But in
Speaker 1: that conference, Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the discovery process
Speaker 1: in Drake's defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar is not like us,
Speaker 1: and begin UMG asked the US federal Court judge for
Speaker 1: a stay of discovery in the lawsuit. On March eighteen,
Speaker 1: a day after the company filed a motion to dismiss
Speaker 1: the case. As reported last week, Drake's legal team pushed
Speaker 1: back against the request to pause the evidence gathering process.
Speaker 1: Following the decision made at this moment at this morning's
Speaker 1: pre trial conference. Again this was earlier in the week.
Speaker 1: The discovery process for both parties can now move forward.
Speaker 1: UMG's motion to dismiss is still pending, with a hearing
Speaker 1: date set for June thirtieth. In a letter to Judge
Speaker 1: Jeannette A. Vargas filed last Wednesday, March twentieth and obtained
Speaker 1: by Music Business Worldwide, Drake's attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argued
Speaker 1: that UMG's request to freeze discovery.
Speaker 2: Should be denied. By the way.
Speaker 1: So, I'm not a legal expert, I have no legal
Speaker 1: background nothing, So I just I'm speaking as a layman.
Speaker 1: But if you don't know, discovery is when you get
Speaker 1: to discover literally the evidence that is involved in the case.
Speaker 1: So if you are Drake's attorneys, you're looking for in
Speaker 1: terms of discovery, you want access to any of the documents,
Speaker 1: anything that your opponents in this case, of course, the
Speaker 1: legal representation for Kendrick Lamar or actually, I'm sorry again,
Speaker 1: we should be precise with UMG, the legal representation of UMG,
Speaker 1: because they're not suing Kendrick Lamar directly unless I've misunderstood something,
Speaker 1: which is always possible, but anything, because here's what they're
Speaker 1: looking for it. They want something, whether it's emails, whether
Speaker 1: it's something written down somewhere, or whatever.
Speaker 2: It may be.
Speaker 1: They want something. Drake's attorneys want something that shows evidence
Speaker 1: that there was a conspiracy to actually devalue Drake and
Speaker 1: thus weaken his negotiating position for the next contract. They
Speaker 1: want something that suggests that. Again I'm very skeptical about
Speaker 1: this whole theory. I find it to be a dubious
Speaker 1: claim at best, but it's possible. So that's what they're
Speaker 1: looking for. So through discovery they can get access to
Speaker 1: things that are not going to be given, not going
Speaker 1: to be offered voluntarily, right, But they can get access
Speaker 1: to all of that evidence because again and again I
Speaker 1: might get some of the terminology wrong. I'm not a
Speaker 1: legal expert. I have no legal background, but from what
Speaker 1: I know, unfortunately, I've never been sued and I've never
Speaker 1: had to sue anybody, and I've gotten this far in
Speaker 1: life with avoiding all of that. But from what I understand,
Speaker 1: both parties have a right in a legal dispute, whether
Speaker 1: be it civil or criminal, both parties have a right,
Speaker 1: in this case civil to see all of the evidence
Speaker 1: that the other party has that they're going to use
Speaker 1: in court in the case. So that's what discovery is.
Speaker 1: You're discovering what your opposition has because you have a
Speaker 1: right to be able to see that and have access
Speaker 1: to it as well. Very often the legal wrangling ends
Speaker 1: up being over what documents do you have a right
Speaker 1: to see? In terms of discovery, what do you have
Speaker 1: a right to access to So if you're suing UMG,
Speaker 1: for example, and I know because another news story I
Speaker 1: saw and it might be mentioned in this article, I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: We'll see, but I know that one of the issues
Speaker 2: that had.
Speaker 1: Arisen was do Drake's legal team do they have a
Speaker 1: right to access Kendrick Lamar's they're suing you MG, they're
Speaker 1: not suing Kendrick directly, but do they have a right
Speaker 1: to access Kendrick Lamar's documents to see if he has
Speaker 1: any correspondence talking about a conspiracy to devalue Drake anything
Speaker 1: like that right. So, and that was a question at
Speaker 1: one point that the judge had to rule on. You know,
Speaker 1: it's one thing for them, they're suing UMG. It's one
Speaker 1: thing for them to have access to any UMG documents
Speaker 1: that they want. Do they also should they have a
Speaker 1: right to have access to Kendrick Lamar's documents or anyone
Speaker 1: else associated, anyone else who might be mixed up in
Speaker 1: this effectively, if I understand that correctly, let me back
Speaker 1: up a little bit.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: In a letter to Judge Vargas filed on Wednesday, March twentieth,
Speaker 1: Drake's attorney argued that UMG's request to freeze discovery should
Speaker 1: be denied. Quote UMG has failed to meet its burden unquote,
Speaker 1: Gottlieb claims in the four page letter, arguing that UMG's
Speaker 1: motion to stay discovery fails on all three factors courts
Speaker 1: consider when investigating such requests. Gottlieb's letter reference to the
Speaker 1: court's own statement that quote, it is not the practice
Speaker 1: of the court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome
Speaker 1: of emotion to dismiss unquote, highlighting that such pauses are
Speaker 1: the exception rather than the rule. The fileing arrived just
Speaker 1: one day after UMG asked the court for a stay
Speaker 1: of discovery with UMG attorney rollin a Ransom, which is
Speaker 1: such a great name. By the way, he must represent
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the music industry because that
Speaker 1: names come up on the show before rollin a Ransom,
Speaker 1: arguing that I mean that sounds like the name of
Speaker 1: a character in a film, it or a book. It
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a real person, arguing that quote. Courts
Speaker 1: in this district have emphasized that defamation defendants must be
Speaker 1: protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections unquote.
Speaker 1: Drake's lawsuit against UMG, filed in January, alleges that the
Speaker 1: company promoted a false and malicious narrative about Drake via
Speaker 1: the context of the lyrics, single, artwork and music video
Speaker 1: for Not Like Us. Today's decision over discovery is the
Speaker 1: latest development in the legal fallout from one of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four's biggest hits and a high profile rap few.
Speaker 1: Not Like Us, was released in May twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: as part of a series of distracts exchanged between Drakes
Speaker 1: and Lamar. The development follows Drake's withdrawal of his previous
Speaker 1: legal petition against UMG and Spotify in January, which had
Speaker 1: discussed the companies which had accused the companies of artificially
Speaker 1: inflating streams for Lamar's track. By the way, what's interesting
Speaker 1: about that and that we don't have time to get
Speaker 1: into that aspect of all of this in detail, but
Speaker 1: that would be a really interesting conversation. Probably Jenny and
Speaker 1: I will tackle that in the future at some point,
Speaker 1: because I know there are a lot of strong feelings
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 2: In terms of what is and is not.
Speaker 1: Appropriate or legal or ethical. Legally, I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any issue, but ethically when companies artificially inflate the numbers,
Speaker 1: and that's something that happens across the Internet, by the way,
Speaker 1: not just in streaming. You know, if say Spotify, I'll
Speaker 1: just give you a hypothetical, say and and artists or
Speaker 1: or label is paying Spotify money to artificially inflate the
Speaker 1: numbers of a particular single from a particular artist so
Speaker 1: that when you look at that on Spotify, it looks
Speaker 1: like it's got a lot more listens than it actually does.
Speaker 1: Is that ethical? Is that okay? Or is that a
Speaker 1: form of payola? And again, we can have a whole
Speaker 1: that's a whole, separate conversation because I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people have feelings about that. But when when I
Speaker 1: say that happens across the Internet, that happens to other
Speaker 1: places too. It happens with podcasts, it happens with everything.
Speaker 1: For example, on on X formerly Twitter, sometimes people will
Speaker 1: put videos or live streams on X and then they'll
Speaker 1: be talking about, you know, look at how successful this was,
Speaker 1: and look at all the people who watched my video,
Speaker 1: when in reality, anybody who even scrolls past that video,
Speaker 1: even if they don't watch more than a second of it,
Speaker 1: you know, that counts as a quote unquote view of
Speaker 1: the video. So the numbers are artificially inflated that way,
Speaker 1: or Rumble does that. Rumble is notorious for doing that.
Speaker 1: They inflate their numbers to make their context content creators
Speaker 1: happy and make them look more successful and so forth.
Speaker 1: But there is more to this article, but we are
Speaker 1: we are running short in this hour. But Music Businessworldwide
Speaker 1: dot com is a great website. So if you are
Speaker 1: interested in matters of the music industry, whether they be
Speaker 1: controversies and legal problems that seem to come up quite
Speaker 1: a bit, or if you're just curious about keeping up
Speaker 1: on what's going on in the industry.
Speaker 2: That's a great website to go to.
Podbean