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

0:03 Speaker 1: about music industry discussions, music industry topics, I should say

0:08 Speaker 1: 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

0:18 Speaker 1: controversy of Bruno Mars, not Bruno Mars himself, but one

0:21 Speaker 1: of the one of the companies that owns a steak

0:25 Speaker 1: and the song When I Was Your Man by Bruno

0:27 Speaker 1: Mars suing Miley Cyrus and I think everyone Miley Cyrus

0:31 Speaker 1: has ever associated with over the song Flowers claiming copyright

0:34 Speaker 1: infringement and all of that. We did put the segment

0:36 Speaker 1: up on YouTube if you missed it. Kind of a

0:40 Speaker 1: very much, I would say, I shouldn't say kind of

0:42 Speaker 1: very much a frivolous lawsuit.

0:44 Speaker 2: In my opinion. But so we talk about these various controversies,

0:48 Speaker 2: legal issues going on in the music industry.

0:50 Speaker 1: We talk about AI a lot, all this kind of stuff,

0:52 Speaker 1: and of course, you know, Jenny and I both we

0:55 Speaker 1: love a good hip hop beef. So after the well

1:00 Speaker 1: before Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl performance, we talked about on

1:04 Speaker 1: the show, we talked about the beef between Kendrick and Drake,

1:07 Speaker 1: which has gone back over a decade now at this point,

1:11 Speaker 1: 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

1:17 Speaker 1: you want to check it out, and talking about we

1:23 Speaker 1: felt from our perspective that Kendrick had kind of put

1:26 Speaker 1: the final nail in that coffin winning that, you know,

1:29 Speaker 1: because what has a distrack ever been performed at the

1:33 Speaker 1: Super Bowl? Now, maybe there is an example of that

1:35 Speaker 1: that I'm just not aware of, but that seemed like

1:37 Speaker 1: a pretty big, you know, pretty big deal. That seemed like,

1:39 Speaker 1: 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

1:48 Speaker 1: should say a civil aspect, right because it's not a

1:50 Speaker 1: it's not a criminal, but it is civil, this lawsuit

1:54 Speaker 1: that Jake has fouled, and that aspect of it we

1:57 Speaker 1: touched on during our conversation post super Bowl. Jenny and

2:01 Speaker 1: I did talk about that a little bit, but we

2:03 Speaker 1: didn't get into it too deep, that aspect of it.

2:06 Speaker 1: But if you don't know, Drake has filed a lawsuit

2:09 Speaker 1: against Kendrick Lamar, actually not against well, we should be

2:13 Speaker 1: precise when speaking about this, not Kendrick Lamar directly, but

2:18 Speaker 1: 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,

2:25 Speaker 1: we talked about the olymp biscuit lawsuit against UMG. Drake

2:29 Speaker 1: is suing UMG because not only is Drake on UMG,

2:34 Speaker 1: but Kendrick Lamar is on UMG, and according to Drake,

2:41 Speaker 1: UMG kind of put their their thumb on the scale

2:44 Speaker 1: in favor of Kendrick Lamar to try to devalue Drake

2:48 Speaker 1: because there is a contract negotiation coming up. Drake's contract

2:52 Speaker 1: with UMG is almost up, and Drake seems to feel

2:57 Speaker 1: that UMG, or at least his law seem to think

3:02 Speaker 1: that they can successfully sue for this. Who knows what

3:04 Speaker 1: anyone really thinks or believes, right, but you know, when

3:08 Speaker 1: 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,

3:15 Speaker 1: but or what any of them really believe. But they

3:18 Speaker 1: think that they have a They think they have a

3:20 Speaker 1: good case to say that UMG conspired effectively with Kendrick

3:26 Speaker 1: Lamar to push this song. Not like us as a

3:30 Speaker 1: way of devaluing Drake somewhat. Now, why would if you're

3:36 Speaker 1: thinking about it logically, why would UMG? What incentive? They're

3:40 Speaker 1: both on UMG? So what possible incentive would a record

3:44 Speaker 1: label like UMG have for devaluing their most successful artist

3:51 Speaker 1: Drake is I didn't even realize this until recently. Drake

3:54 Speaker 1: is the most streamed artist on Spotify, not the most

3:58 Speaker 1: streamed artist in hip hop, by the way, the most

4:00 Speaker 1: artists period. I believe that still holds on Spotify? I

4:04 Speaker 1: think or is he number two? Is Taylor Swift? Actually, first,

4:09 Speaker 1: we're so used to talking about I see now I'm

4:11 Speaker 1: second guessing myself because we're so used to talking about

4:14 Speaker 1: Taylor Swift being number one and everything. But I believe

4:21 Speaker 1: Drake is number one, and why would so? Why would

4:26 Speaker 1: a record label with such a successful artists want to

4:29 Speaker 1: devalue them? And the explanation which UMG denies and I'm,

4:33 Speaker 1: by the way, I find this claim dubious as well,

4:35 Speaker 1: So I'm skeptical about this. But the explanation from Drake's

4:39 Speaker 1: lawyers and why they are accusing you MG of this

4:43 Speaker 1: is that they feel that because Drake's contract is almost up,

4:48 Speaker 1: if you devalue him a little bit, you weaken Drake's

4:53 Speaker 1: negotiating position because they're gonna have to negotiate a new contract,

4:56 Speaker 1: or Drake goes elsewhere, he goes to another label, or

4:58 Speaker 1: 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

5:04 Speaker 1: an era where, you know, because of the Internet, you

5:07 Speaker 1: don't need a label. It helps if you're already famous,

5:11 Speaker 1: You've got a giant head start, right, but you don't

5:14 Speaker 1: necessarily even need a label. But if that label's going

5:18 Speaker 1: to advance you millions and millions of dollars on everything

5:20 Speaker 1: that you do, you know it can be helpful too.

5:22 Speaker 1: So that's another discussion. But so legal representation for Drake

5:28 Speaker 1: is claiming that UMG intentionally has devalued him conspiring with

5:31 Speaker 1: Kendrick Lamar on that song. Not like us to devalue

5:35 Speaker 1: Drake ahead of their their contract negotiations to weaken Drake's

5:40 Speaker 1: negotiating position. Again, I'm skeptical. That seems like an awfully

5:45 Speaker 1: big gamble. Plus, you know, these conspiracies don't, get me wrong.

5:49 Speaker 1: 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

6:01 Speaker 1: to have a big hit with not like us because

6:03 Speaker 1: it's on UMG. Kendrick is also on UMG, so they want,

6:07 Speaker 1: you know, you always want to have a hit single,

6:09 Speaker 1: right and not like us as wildly successful. Heck so

6:13 Speaker 1: successful it got performed at the super Bowl. Anyway, Here's

6:16 Speaker 1: 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,

6:27 Speaker 1: a very very handy website for this kind of thing.

6:30 Speaker 1: Court says discovery process can move forward and Drake's defamation

6:34 Speaker 1: lawsuit against UMG over not like us. It says here

6:38 Speaker 1: at a pre trial conference this morning in New York.

6:42 Speaker 1: And when we say this morning, we actually meet April second,

6:46 Speaker 1: so a few days ago, earlier this week. But in

6:52 Speaker 1: that conference, Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled that the discovery process

6:57 Speaker 1: in Drake's defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar is not like us,

7:00 Speaker 1: and begin UMG asked the US federal Court judge for

7:05 Speaker 1: a stay of discovery in the lawsuit. On March eighteen,

7:07 Speaker 1: a day after the company filed a motion to dismiss

7:10 Speaker 1: the case. As reported last week, Drake's legal team pushed

7:14 Speaker 1: back against the request to pause the evidence gathering process.

7:18 Speaker 1: Following the decision made at this moment at this morning's

7:21 Speaker 1: pre trial conference. Again this was earlier in the week.

7:24 Speaker 1: The discovery process for both parties can now move forward.

7:27 Speaker 1: UMG's motion to dismiss is still pending, with a hearing

7:32 Speaker 1: date set for June thirtieth. In a letter to Judge

7:36 Speaker 1: Jeannette A. Vargas filed last Wednesday, March twentieth and obtained

7:41 Speaker 1: by Music Business Worldwide, Drake's attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argued

7:45 Speaker 1: 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

7:53 Speaker 1: background nothing, So I just I'm speaking as a layman.

7:55 Speaker 1: But if you don't know, discovery is when you get

8:02 Speaker 1: to discover literally the evidence that is involved in the case.

8:08 Speaker 1: So if you are Drake's attorneys, you're looking for in

8:13 Speaker 1: terms of discovery, you want access to any of the documents,

8:19 Speaker 1: anything that your opponents in this case, of course, the

8:22 Speaker 1: legal representation for Kendrick Lamar or actually, I'm sorry again,

8:26 Speaker 1: we should be precise with UMG, the legal representation of UMG,

8:30 Speaker 1: because they're not suing Kendrick Lamar directly unless I've misunderstood something,

8:35 Speaker 1: which is always possible, but anything, because here's what they're

8:40 Speaker 1: looking for it. They want something, whether it's emails, whether

8:44 Speaker 1: 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

8:53 Speaker 1: that there was a conspiracy to actually devalue Drake and

8:58 Speaker 1: thus weaken his negotiating position for the next contract. They

9:02 Speaker 1: want something that suggests that. Again I'm very skeptical about

9:08 Speaker 1: this whole theory. I find it to be a dubious

9:13 Speaker 1: claim at best, but it's possible. So that's what they're

9:18 Speaker 1: looking for. So through discovery they can get access to

9:22 Speaker 1: things that are not going to be given, not going

9:25 Speaker 1: to be offered voluntarily, right, But they can get access

9:28 Speaker 1: to all of that evidence because again and again I

9:31 Speaker 1: might get some of the terminology wrong. I'm not a

9:34 Speaker 1: legal expert. I have no legal background, but from what

9:37 Speaker 1: I know, unfortunately, I've never been sued and I've never

9:40 Speaker 1: had to sue anybody, and I've gotten this far in

9:43 Speaker 1: life with avoiding all of that. But from what I understand,

9:49 Speaker 1: both parties have a right in a legal dispute, whether

9:53 Speaker 1: be it civil or criminal, both parties have a right,

9:56 Speaker 1: in this case civil to see all of the evidence

9:59 Speaker 1: that the other party has that they're going to use

10:03 Speaker 1: in court in the case. So that's what discovery is.

10:06 Speaker 1: You're discovering what your opposition has because you have a

10:10 Speaker 1: right to be able to see that and have access

10:12 Speaker 1: to it as well. Very often the legal wrangling ends

10:16 Speaker 1: up being over what documents do you have a right

10:20 Speaker 1: to see? In terms of discovery, what do you have

10:23 Speaker 1: a right to access to So if you're suing UMG,

10:26 Speaker 1: for example, and I know because another news story I

10:28 Speaker 1: saw and it might be mentioned in this article, I

10:30 Speaker 1: don't know.

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

10:35 Speaker 2: that had.

10:35 Speaker 1: Arisen was do Drake's legal team do they have a

10:41 Speaker 1: right to access Kendrick Lamar's they're suing you MG, they're

10:46 Speaker 1: not suing Kendrick directly, but do they have a right

10:48 Speaker 1: to access Kendrick Lamar's documents to see if he has

10:54 Speaker 1: any correspondence talking about a conspiracy to devalue Drake anything

10:57 Speaker 1: like that right. So, and that was a question at

11:01 Speaker 1: one point that the judge had to rule on. You know,

11:04 Speaker 1: it's one thing for them, they're suing UMG. It's one

11:06 Speaker 1: thing for them to have access to any UMG documents

11:09 Speaker 1: that they want. Do they also should they have a

11:11 Speaker 1: right to have access to Kendrick Lamar's documents or anyone

11:15 Speaker 1: else associated, anyone else who might be mixed up in

11:17 Speaker 1: this effectively, if I understand that correctly, let me back

11:22 Speaker 1: up a little bit.

11:22 Speaker 2: So.

11:22 Speaker 1: In a letter to Judge Vargas filed on Wednesday, March twentieth,

11:27 Speaker 1: Drake's attorney argued that UMG's request to freeze discovery should

11:31 Speaker 1: be denied. Quote UMG has failed to meet its burden unquote,

11:36 Speaker 1: Gottlieb claims in the four page letter, arguing that UMG's

11:40 Speaker 1: motion to stay discovery fails on all three factors courts

11:45 Speaker 1: consider when investigating such requests. Gottlieb's letter reference to the

11:49 Speaker 1: court's own statement that quote, it is not the practice

11:52 Speaker 1: of the court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome

11:56 Speaker 1: of emotion to dismiss unquote, highlighting that such pauses are

12:00 Speaker 1: the exception rather than the rule. The fileing arrived just

12:04 Speaker 1: one day after UMG asked the court for a stay

12:06 Speaker 1: of discovery with UMG attorney rollin a Ransom, which is

12:11 Speaker 1: such a great name. By the way, he must represent

12:14 Speaker 1: a lot of people in the music industry because that

12:16 Speaker 1: names come up on the show before rollin a Ransom,

12:20 Speaker 1: arguing that I mean that sounds like the name of

12:24 Speaker 1: a character in a film, it or a book. It

12:25 Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a real person, arguing that quote. Courts

12:28 Speaker 1: in this district have emphasized that defamation defendants must be

12:33 Speaker 1: 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

12:42 Speaker 1: company promoted a false and malicious narrative about Drake via

12:47 Speaker 1: the context of the lyrics, single, artwork and music video

12:51 Speaker 1: for Not Like Us. Today's decision over discovery is the

12:54 Speaker 1: latest development in the legal fallout from one of twenty

12:56 Speaker 1: twenty four's biggest hits and a high profile rap few.

13:00 Speaker 1: Not Like Us, was released in May twenty twenty four

13:02 Speaker 1: as part of a series of distracts exchanged between Drakes

13:05 Speaker 1: and Lamar. The development follows Drake's withdrawal of his previous

13:09 Speaker 1: legal petition against UMG and Spotify in January, which had

13:14 Speaker 1: discussed the companies which had accused the companies of artificially

13:18 Speaker 1: inflating streams for Lamar's track. By the way, what's interesting

13:27 Speaker 1: about that and that we don't have time to get

13:29 Speaker 1: into that aspect of all of this in detail, but

13:32 Speaker 1: that would be a really interesting conversation. Probably Jenny and

13:35 Speaker 1: I will tackle that in the future at some point,

13:38 Speaker 1: because I know there are a lot of strong feelings

13:40 Speaker 1: 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

13:49 Speaker 1: any issue, but ethically when companies artificially inflate the numbers,

13:56 Speaker 1: and that's something that happens across the Internet, by the way,

13:58 Speaker 1: not just in streaming. You know, if say Spotify, I'll

14:02 Speaker 1: just give you a hypothetical, say and and artists or

14:06 Speaker 1: or label is paying Spotify money to artificially inflate the

14:13 Speaker 1: numbers of a particular single from a particular artist so

14:17 Speaker 1: that when you look at that on Spotify, it looks

14:21 Speaker 1: 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

14:30 Speaker 1: form of payola? And again, we can have a whole

14:33 Speaker 1: that's a whole, separate conversation because I know a lot

14:39 Speaker 1: of people have feelings about that. But when when I

14:41 Speaker 1: say that happens across the Internet, that happens to other

14:44 Speaker 1: places too. It happens with podcasts, it happens with everything.

14:46 Speaker 1: For example, on on X formerly Twitter, sometimes people will

14:55 Speaker 1: put videos or live streams on X and then they'll

14:57 Speaker 1: be talking about, you know, look at how successful this was,

15:00 Speaker 1: and look at all the people who watched my video,

15:02 Speaker 1: when in reality, anybody who even scrolls past that video,

15:06 Speaker 1: even if they don't watch more than a second of it,

15:10 Speaker 1: you know, that counts as a quote unquote view of

15:12 Speaker 1: the video. So the numbers are artificially inflated that way,

15:18 Speaker 1: or Rumble does that. Rumble is notorious for doing that.

15:20 Speaker 1: They inflate their numbers to make their context content creators

15:24 Speaker 1: happy and make them look more successful and so forth.

15:28 Speaker 1: But there is more to this article, but we are

15:31 Speaker 1: we are running short in this hour. But Music Businessworldwide

15:35 Speaker 1: dot com is a great website. So if you are

15:41 Speaker 1: interested in matters of the music industry, whether they be

15:46 Speaker 1: controversies and legal problems that seem to come up quite

15:51 Speaker 1: a bit, or if you're just curious about keeping up

15:54 Speaker 1: on what's going on in the industry.

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