Matt Connarton Unleashed: Did Kendrick Lamar and UMG conspire against Drake?

0:00 Speaker 2: I did see something.

0:01 Speaker 1: So, you know, we talk a lot on the show about music industry discussions, music industry topics, I should say that become discussions on the program, and.

0:12 Speaker 2: Very often these controversies that are going on.

0:15 Speaker 1: For example, last week, Jenny and I talked about the controversy of Bruno Mars, not Bruno Mars himself, but one of the one of the companies that owns a steak and the song When I Was Your Man by Bruno Mars suing Miley Cyrus and I think everyone Miley Cyrus has ever associated with over the song Flowers claiming copyright infringement and all of that. We did put the segment up on YouTube if you missed it. Kind of a very much, I would say, I shouldn't say kind of very much a frivolous lawsuit.

0:44 Speaker 2: In my opinion. But so we talk about these various controversies, legal issues going on in the music industry.

0:50 Speaker 1: We talk about AI a lot, all this kind of stuff, and of course, you know, Jenny and I both we love a good hip hop beef. So after the well before Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl performance, we talked about on the show, we talked about the beef between Kendrick and Drake, which has gone back over a decade now at this point, or about a decade.

1:12 Speaker 2: But so we did a.

1:14 Speaker 1: Long segment about that, which again is on YouTube if you want to check it out, and talking about we felt from our perspective that Kendrick had kind of put the final nail in that coffin winning that, you know, because what has a distrack ever been performed at the Super Bowl? Now, maybe there is an example of that that I'm just not aware of, but that seemed like a pretty big, you know, pretty big deal. That seemed like, you know, how does Drake top that?

1:43 Speaker 2: I don't. I don't think that he does.

1:45 Speaker 1: But there's also a legal aspect or I guess I should say a civil aspect, right because it's not a it's not a criminal, but it is civil, this lawsuit that Jake has fouled, and that aspect of it we touched on during our conversation post super Bowl. Jenny and I did talk about that a little bit, but we didn't get into it too deep, that aspect of it. But if you don't know, Drake has filed a lawsuit against Kendrick Lamar, actually not against well, we should be precise when speaking about this, not Kendrick Lamar directly, but against Universal Music Group, who is no strangers to being sued.

2:22 Speaker 1: And we've talked about that on the show too months ago, we talked about the olymp biscuit lawsuit against UMG. Drake is suing UMG because not only is Drake on UMG, but Kendrick Lamar is on UMG, and according to Drake,

2:41 Speaker 1: UMG kind of put their their thumb on the scale in favor of Kendrick Lamar to try to devalue Drake because there is a contract negotiation coming up. Drake's contract with UMG is almost up, and Drake seems to feel that UMG, or at least his law seem to think that they can successfully sue for this. Who knows what anyone really thinks or believes, right, but you know, when there's money to be gone after.

3:12 Speaker 2: This is what happens.

3:13 Speaker 1: So you know, who knows what Drake really thinks, right, but or what any of them really believe. But they think that they have a They think they have a good case to say that UMG conspired effectively with Kendrick Lamar to push this song. Not like us as a way of devaluing Drake somewhat. Now, why would if you're thinking about it logically, why would UMG? What incentive? They're both on UMG? So what possible incentive would a record label like UMG have for devaluing their most successful artist Drake is I didn't even realize this until recently.

3:54 Speaker 1: Drake is the most streamed artist on Spotify, not the most streamed artist in hip hop, by the way, the most artists period. I believe that still holds on Spotify? I think or is he number two? Is Taylor Swift? Actually, first, we're so used to talking about I see now I'm second guessing myself because we're so used to talking about Taylor Swift being number one and everything. But I believe Drake is number one, and why would so? Why would a record label with such a successful artists want to devalue them?

4:30 Speaker 1: And the explanation which UMG denies and I'm, by the way, I find this claim dubious as well, So I'm skeptical about this. But the explanation from Drake's lawyers and why they are accusing you MG of this is that they feel that because Drake's contract is almost up, if you devalue him a little bit, you weaken Drake's negotiating position because they're gonna have to negotiate a new contract, or Drake goes elsewhere, he goes to another label, or Drake just doesn't have a label because he's already super famous.

5:02 Speaker 1: Why do you need a label? And we live in an era where, you know, because of the Internet, you don't need a label. It helps if you're already famous, You've got a giant head start, right, but you don't necessarily even need a label. But if that label's going to advance you millions and millions of dollars on everything that you do, you know it can be helpful too. So that's another discussion. But so legal representation for Drake is claiming that UMG intentionally has devalued him conspiring with Kendrick Lamar on that song.

5:34 Speaker 1: Not like us to devalue Drake ahead of their their contract negotiations to weaken Drake's negotiating position. Again, I'm skeptical. That seems like an awfully big gamble. Plus, you know, these conspiracies don't, get me wrong. Conspiracies happen, of course they do, But I don't know.

5:54 Speaker 2: I don't know.

5:55 Speaker 1: Awkham's razor would suggest that, Yeah, obviously UMG wanted Kendrick to have a big hit with not like us because it's on UMG. Kendrick is also on UMG, so they want, you know, you always want to have a hit single, right and not like us as wildly successful. Heck so successful it got performed at the super Bowl. Anyway, Here's here's what's There are updates with this.

6:19 Speaker 2: There are updates.

6:23 Speaker 1: This is from This is from Music Business Worldwide dot com, a very very handy website for this kind of thing. Court says discovery process can move forward and Drake's defamation lawsuit against UMG over not like us. It says here at a pre trial conference this morning in New York. And when we say this morning, we actually meet April second, so a few days ago, earlier this week. But in that conference, Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the discovery process in Drake's defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar is not like us, and begin UMG asked the US federal Court judge for a stay of discovery in the lawsuit.

7:06 Speaker 1: On March eighteen, a day after the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. As reported last week, Drake's legal team pushed back against the request to pause the evidence gathering process. Following the decision made at this moment at this morning's pre trial conference. Again this was earlier in the week. The discovery process for both parties can now move forward. UMG's motion to dismiss is still pending, with a hearing date set for June thirtieth. In a letter to Judge Jeannette A. Vargas filed last Wednesday, March twentieth and obtained by Music Business Worldwide, Drake's attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argued that UMG's request to freeze discovery.

7:47 Speaker 2: Should be denied. By the way.

7:49 Speaker 1: So, I'm not a legal expert, I have no legal background nothing, So I just I'm speaking as a layman. But if you don't know, discovery is when you get to discover literally the evidence that is involved in the case. So if you are Drake's attorneys, you're looking for in terms of discovery, you want access to any of the documents, anything that your opponents in this case, of course, the legal representation for Kendrick Lamar or actually, I'm sorry again, we should be precise with UMG, the legal representation of UMG, because they're not suing Kendrick Lamar directly unless I've misunderstood something, which is always possible, but anything, because here's what they're looking for it.

8:41 Speaker 1: They want something, whether it's emails, whether it's something written down somewhere, or whatever.

8:46 Speaker 2: It may be.

8:47 Speaker 1: They want something. Drake's attorneys want something that shows evidence that there was a conspiracy to actually devalue Drake and thus weaken his negotiating position for the next contract. They want something that suggests that. Again I'm very skeptical about this whole theory. I find it to be a dubious claim at best, but it's possible. So that's what they're looking for. So through discovery they can get access to things that are not going to be given, not going to be offered voluntarily, right, But they can get access to all of that evidence because again and again I might get some of the terminology wrong.

9:33 Speaker 1: I'm not a legal expert. I have no legal background, but from what I know, unfortunately, I've never been sued and I've never had to sue anybody, and I've gotten this far in life with avoiding all of that. But from what I understand, both parties have a right in a legal dispute, whether be it civil or criminal, both parties have a right, in this case civil to see all of the evidence that the other party has that they're going to use in court in the case. So that's what discovery is. You're discovering what your opposition has because you have a right to be able to see that and have access to it as well.

10:13 Speaker 1: Very often the legal wrangling ends up being over what documents do you have a right to see? In terms of discovery, what do you have a right to access to So if you're suing UMG, for example, and I know because another news story I saw and it might be mentioned in this article, I don't know.

10:30 Speaker 2: We'll see, but I know that one of the issues that had.

10:35 Speaker 1: Arisen was do Drake's legal team do they have a right to access Kendrick Lamar's they're suing you MG, they're not suing Kendrick directly, but do they have a right to access Kendrick Lamar's documents to see if he has any correspondence talking about a conspiracy to devalue Drake anything like that right. So, and that was a question at one point that the judge had to rule on. You know, it's one thing for them, they're suing UMG. It's one thing for them to have access to any UMG documents that they want.

11:10 Speaker 1: Do they also should they have a right to have access to Kendrick Lamar's documents or anyone else associated, anyone else who might be mixed up in this effectively, if I understand that correctly, let me back up a little bit.

11:22 Speaker 2: So.

11:22 Speaker 1: In a letter to Judge Vargas filed on Wednesday, March twentieth, Drake's attorney argued that UMG's request to freeze discovery should be denied. Quote UMG has failed to meet its burden unquote, Gottlieb claims in the four page letter, arguing that UMG's motion to stay discovery fails on all three factors courts consider when investigating such requests. Gottlieb's letter reference to the court's own statement that quote, it is not the practice of the court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome of emotion to dismiss unquote, highlighting that such pauses are the exception rather than the rule.

12:02 Speaker 1: The fileing arrived just one day after UMG asked the court for a stay of discovery with UMG attorney rollin a Ransom, which is such a great name. By the way, he must represent a lot of people in the music industry because that names come up on the show before rollin a Ransom, arguing that I mean that sounds like the name of a character in a film, it or a book. It doesn't sound like a real person, arguing that quote. Courts in this district have emphasized that defamation defendants must be protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections unquote.

12:39 Speaker 1: Drake's lawsuit against UMG, filed in January, alleges that the company promoted a false and malicious narrative about Drake via the context of the lyrics, single, artwork and music video for Not Like Us. Today's decision over discovery is the latest development in the legal fallout from one of twenty twenty four's biggest hits and a high profile rap few. Not Like Us, was released in May twenty twenty four as part of a series of distracts exchanged between Drakes and Lamar. The development follows Drake's withdrawal of his previous legal petition against UMG and Spotify in January, which had discussed the companies which had accused the companies of artificially inflating streams for Lamar's track.

13:23 Speaker 1: By the way, what's interesting about that and that we don't have time to get into that aspect of all of this in detail, but that would be a really interesting conversation. Probably Jenny and I will tackle that in the future at some point, because I know there are a lot of strong feelings about it.

13:42 Speaker 2: In terms of what is and is not.

13:45 Speaker 1: Appropriate or legal or ethical. Legally, I don't think there's any issue, but ethically when companies artificially inflate the numbers, and that's something that happens across the Internet, by the way, not just in streaming. You know, if say Spotify, I'll just give you a hypothetical, say and and artists or or label is paying Spotify money to artificially inflate the numbers of a particular single from a particular artist so that when you look at that on Spotify, it looks like it's got a lot more listens than it actually does.

14:27 Speaker 1: Is that ethical? Is that okay? Or is that a form of payola? And again, we can have a whole that's a whole, separate conversation because I know a lot of people have feelings about that. But when when I say that happens across the Internet, that happens to other places too. It happens with podcasts, it happens with everything. For example, on on X formerly Twitter, sometimes people will put videos or live streams on X and then they'll be talking about, you know, look at how successful this was, and look at all the people who watched my video, when in reality, anybody who even scrolls past that video, even if they don't watch more than a second of it, you know, that counts as a quote unquote view of the video.

15:13 Speaker 1: So the numbers are artificially inflated that way,

15:18 Speaker 1: or Rumble does that. Rumble is notorious for doing that. They inflate their numbers to make their context content creators happy and make them look more successful and so forth. But there is more to this article, but we are we are running short in this hour. But Music Businessworldwide dot com is a great website. So if you are interested in matters of the music industry, whether they be controversies and legal problems that seem to come up quite a bit, or if you're just curious about keeping up on what's going on in the industry.

15:55 Speaker 2: That's a great website to go to.