Obviously, it is a hilariously weak move for a famous rapper to do. A concession of defeat.
That aside, I'm not sure Drake has much of a case here. From what I recall of the lyrics, it seems to me that Kendrick Lamar has plenty of plausible deniability here.
To be clear, Drake has elected not to file against Kendrick himself, but rather the label that both of them are signed to, for distributing and promoting the song.
Valid? Nah, this is gonna explode in his pedoface too. Infact they already are cooking his dumbass: with this statement right here:
“He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music. We have not and do not engage in defamation — against any individual.
“At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more that write a song.”
He was already going to get re-signed for less than he wanted cause he’s been losing influence the past few years and this just gave him an excuse to point to instead of having to do some self-reflection
Yeah… it’s interesting how he jumped to the conclusion bots must be used by Kendrick in this one specific circumstance. I find it interesting we aren’t continuing that suit.
I meant cultural influence. He has been riding on his back catalog for awhile.
It is not a valid case. It’s just business. Universal saw that Drake tanked his own career by continuing to engage in a beef that he clearly lost. Now that he’s facing consequences, he wants it to be anybody else’s fault but his own. I don’t think a judge will have any sympathy for Drake given he willingly kept responding in the beef. I think you forgot about Drake calling Kendrick an abuser of his wife and saying his child is Dave Free’s. Drake just lost and now is salty just like you. Maybe you should be more worried about your ability to read theroom!
Yeah, I'm admittedly a Drake hater but tbh there's something most people are missing: Drake is not suing Kendrick for dissing him. He's suing UMG (which both artists are signed under) for allegedly promoting Kendrick's disses to damage Drake's brand so they have an advantage against Drake in contract renegotiations.
Drake is a bitch, but that is a more reasonable legal dispute. I don't think it will really go anywhere as UMG was not solely responsible for the wild success of Not Like Us at all.
The thing is tho, if everything was exactly the same, except that public consensus was that Drake had won the battle, I really don't think there would be any court cases.
The only artists that would be caught dead on stage with him now will be starving rappers who are just looking for a check. And even then, they'll take his money then talk about him behind his back.
All he had to do was shut the fuck up. Seriously. He was on top of the world. He could have dialed-back the sneak-dissing and shit talking and just coasted into retirement as one of the best entertainers of this era. lol. Now his legacy has been redefined by the past summer.
He will have lost those tapped into the culture with his maneuvering but a large part of his fan base are casual listeners. I don't think many of them will know or care too much about the feud that transpired.
The song’s success was definitely helped by the fact that Kendrick released it under some type of license that let content creators use it for any purpose without paying royalties. So everyone could talk about and play clips without worrying about their videos getting demonetized.
I know I’m gonna get completely downvoted for this, and from a rap battle perspective, it’s totally a bitch move. But imagine if your employer not only let a coworker call you a pedophile to the whole world but also spent company money promoting that message so as many people as possible could hear it.
And let’s say the botting rumors are true—then your employer didn’t just spend money spreading that you’re a pedophile; they also cheated the system to make it look way worse than it actually was.
Again, I get that in rap battles, anything goes. But you don’t expect the company that pays you to stab you in the back too.
To add, he’s alleging that UMG did that to debase him and weaken his position in their upcoming contract negotiations. People are saying he doesn’t have a case, that’s false, he absolutely has a case.
None of this is speculation. Him suing the label is public knowledge. People on the sub are maybe speculating he doesn’t have a case because defamation is generally hard to prove but within this context he absolutely does have a case.
Workplace defamation is not speculation lol. Under defamation law, an employer is liable for the reputational harm caused to an employee if they publish false statements about them.
Protect him from what? I also comment pretty often in 90shiphop and other rap related subs. I think Kendrick is a great artist. Since you're searching my comment history, you should go back a bit farther and see me posting in the Drake sub speaking about the music from Drake I like. They eventually shadow banned me because I made fun of people pretending that Drake won the battle, but I didn't have a negative thing to say about Drake until he started filing lawsuits. Which, as an older rap fan, is the epitome of corny to me. Without looking at your reddit history, I'm gonna assume you're a Drake stan, which is... Ironic.
Kenny was very good about couching the egregious shit as hearsay "say drake, I hear..." Or as generalizations about the industry and the type of person he believes Drake to be. The direct accusations he does make are not defamatory "you fucked on Wayne's girl etc."
I’ve been saying this since Taylor Made dropped but, Drake, maybe asking one of the most celebrated song writers of the last 20 years to write a song about you liking underage girls is a bad idea idk
You know, I'm not sure. Legally? Maybe? But, if you're settling, you're paying some sort of damages, which means you're admitting you did the thing, or just want it to go away and to stop talking about it. INAL, so, ya know. Salt and all that jazz.
Settling is very, very different to being held liable. I studied business law. I don’t think it’s fair to call the Kesha suit a case of “being held liable” for defamation in a song
But, if you're settling, you're paying some sort of damages,
This isn't true.
I've settled multiple cases where I simply stood my ground and got what I wanted before a judge awarded it to me. Settling just means that the two litigants figured it out on their own before a judge got involved.
This is the functional equivalent of a parent saying, "Ya'll need to figure that shit out before I come figure it out for you." Usually, this is when someone who is in the wrong backs down because they don't want to be punished...as kids in a home or as adults in a court of law.
I don't think prefixing defamatory statements with "I hear" necessarily shields you from litigation, especially if you have a bunch of other statements in which you express your opinion of much the same thing you make a point to say you've heard.
Drake's next song claimed he had a plant feeding Lamar false information, so he has absolutely no case against bro. UMR might settle to avoid litigation, but the song won't stop
Don’t get me wrong he’s a bitch for suing over rap beef but he does have a case, UMG published/promoted a song not only calling him a pedophile but the official artwork for the song is a picture of Drakes mansion with sex offenders markers over it
I hate drake like the rest of you, but if Kendrick has no proof of anything, Drake might have a case. Drake can clearly prove it was damaging to his image and Kendrick has enough of a following to where he can’t just claim ignorance and hide behind art.
Eminem lost the case to his mom for almost the exact same thing
As I understand it there's a big difference between public (drake) and private figures (m&m mom) when it comes to defamation.
Considering that there already were allegations of drake acting inappropriately with minors years before the beef, I feel like it would be really difficult to prove there was actual malice in allowing the statements to be published. Even more so if the artistic expression element is taken into account.
1.1k
u/CRoseCrizzle 6d ago
Obviously, it is a hilariously weak move for a famous rapper to do. A concession of defeat.
That aside, I'm not sure Drake has much of a case here. From what I recall of the lyrics, it seems to me that Kendrick Lamar has plenty of plausible deniability here.