As a seasoned music enthusiast who has witnessed the evolution of the industry, I find myself intrigued by this ongoing legal saga between Drake and Spotify. Having followed both parties closely over the years, it seems that their latest dance is as captivating as any chart-topping track.
In response to Drake’s legal action from a month ago, Spotify has formally disputed his allegations. Specifically, they deny using automated systems (bots) or payola (illegal payments for playing specific music) to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.
The motion was filed in Manhattan court, “The predicate of Petitioner’s entire request for discovery from Spotify is false.” The streaming company’s lawyers added, “Spotify and UMG have never had any such arrangement.” Spotify also called The Boy’s allegations “far-fetched” and “speculative,” further slamming him for filing a legal petition rather than a full lawsuit against Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG). Calling the move “extraordinary,” Spotify asserted that he attempted to gain information as his allegations do not hold water and would have been easily dismissed in court.
In simpler terms, the petitioner wants to get around the usual requirements for filing a case and instead, ask for information before the case officially starts, which they wouldn’t normally be entitled to unless the case survived a dismissal motion. This attempt to bypass the standard legal procedure should not be allowed.
Even though UMG hasn’t officially responded to Drake’s lawsuit yet, they previously made a statement that essentially says fans pick the music they listen to, not some manipulated and ridiculous legal arguments. Spotify has echoed this sentiment by stating that proving Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) cases are challenging, especially when evidence is scarce – a challenge Drake might face given his supposed lack of substantial evidence. The petition Drake filed contains no concrete facts or proof for the alleged RICO and deceptive practices violations, instead relying on speculation and claims from anonymous individuals online.
As a dedicated fan, I’d like to share that David Kaefer, Spotify’s VP of Music, has assured us in an affidavit that they put significant effort into minimizing the influence of artificial streaming on their platform. In other words, when they detect any attempts at stream manipulation, they take firm action, which could involve removing streaming counts, withholding royalties, and imposing penalty fees. Furthermore, he emphasized that both confirmed and suspected artificial streams are removed from their chart calculations. This measure is designed to safeguard fair royalty payouts for genuine artists who work diligently.
Drizzy’s lawyers countered Spotify’s legal action, stating, “It’s not unexpected that Spotify wants to distance itself from Universal Music Group’s allegedly manipulative strategies to artificially boost streaming figures for one of its other artists. If Spotify and UMG have no secrets to hide, they should have no issue complying with this fundamental disclosure request.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-12-23 10:56