Drake's trying to have his cake and eat it too ... according to his music label UMG, which says his whole lawsuit over "Not Like Us" is really just sour grapes because Kendrick Lamar buried him in their rap beef.
via: Vibe
Universal Music Group (UMG) has issued its first official court response to Drake suing the label for defamation as it relates to distributing and promoting Kendrick Lamar‘s hit diss record, “Not Like Us.”
Attorneys for UMG filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit Monday (March 17) morning, calling Drake’s allegations “meritless” and stressing that public embarrassment is the real reason he chose to sue the conglomerate.
“Plaintiff, one of the most successful recording artists of all time, lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” UMG’s lawyers wrote in legal docs obtained by Billboard. “Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
UMG went on to argue that Drake issued his own “incendiary” statements towards Kendrick during the battle, including accusations that he is physically abusive to partner Whitney Alford, and that his business partner, Dave Free, may be the father of one of K. Dot’s children. However, Drake’s “hyperbolic insults” and “vitriolic allegations” simply didn’t engage the public like Kendrick’s did.
The label goes on to say that both Drake and Kendrick’s disses are shielded from defamation lawsuits thanks to Free Speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that over-the-top allegations — like calling Drake a pedophile — are common when it comes to Hip-Hop diss records.
“Diss tracks are a popular and celebrated artform centered around outrageous insults, and they would be severely chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed,” the company wrote. “Hyperbolic and metaphorical language is par for the course in diss tracks — indeed, Drake’s own diss tracks employed imagery at least as violent.” The company also noted Drake as one of many artists who supported a 2022 petition criticizing prosecutors for using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases.
“As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, ‘the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination’,” UMG’s lawyers wrote. “Drake was right then and is wrong now. The complaint’s unjustified claims against UMG are no more than Drake’s attempt to save face for his unsuccessful rap battle with Lamar. The court should grant UMG’s motion and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.”
Drake’s lead attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb, has issued the following response:
“UMG wants to pretend that this is about a rap battle in order to distract its shareholders, artists and the public from a simple truth: a greedy company is finally being held responsible for profiting from dangerous misinformation that has already resulted in multiple acts of violence. This motion is a desperate ploy by UMG to avoid accountability, but we have every confidence that this case will proceed and continue to uncover UMG’s long history of endangering and abusing its artists.”
Drake filed the defamation case on Jan. 15 in a New York federal court, claiming that UMG knew that the pedophile claims made on the aforementioned hit were false and defamatory, yet still chose to distribute and the record, knowing it would be a “gold mine” for the company.
Comments