Sgt Leaf

2y

Blows the roof off the s*** he benefited off and only had a problem with till he got parked?

WT777

2y

MOTHER I MOTHER I MOTHER IIIIIII VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED

Vert1600

2y

Drake stans were glazing UMG and Lucien balls during the beef back in spring

Real

2y

The worst takes in here are those categorizing this as a moral crusade as opposed to an artist looking to leverage a labelmate’s diss track as means to (hopefully) settle out of court an early release from a record label.

Don’t take it from me - read the last nature of the dispute.

“Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song "breaks through,"
it means another artist does not. UMG's choice to saturate the music market with "Not Like Us"
comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner's sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake's entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG's scheme.”

Notice something in that writing: How many artists you know are in a similar position of being a sole owner of their own catalog? Right.

This wouldn’t set precedent for other artists at all like the Taylor Swift case - although I’m sure Drake’s team would like to think so. 😭

Vert1600

2y

Hypocrisy itt

YA ICEMAN ACE

2y

There are very specific bad practice tactics referenced in the filing that we don’t know if UMG has used for Drake

whippet volverse

2y

this would be interesting to believe if we had someone on Drake's team confirming this string of events, not just a random fanpage.

Real

2y

The worst takes in here are those categorizing this as a moral crusade as opposed to an artist looking to leverage a labelmate’s diss track as means to (hopefully) settle out of court an early release from a record label.

Don’t take it from me - read the last nature of the dispute.

“Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song "breaks through,"
it means another artist does not. UMG's choice to saturate the music market with "Not Like Us"
comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner's sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake's entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG's scheme.”

Notice something in that writing: How many artists you know are in a similar position of being a sole owner of their own catalog? Right.

This wouldn’t set precedent for other artists at all like the Taylor Swift case - although I’m sure Drake’s team would like to think so. 😭

WRU

2y

yes? i mean its on you if you think its some kind of moral crusade lol

Sgt Leaf

2y

Nigga Drake’s face was the thumbnail for country and indie playlists on Spotify and they in here talking about the machine lmao

SpiderMan

2y

After reading it, I don't think there's anything too crazy in there. Its all slimy s*** already expected from a label and knowing how Drake loves using those Salamander bots, he's probably used them before too.
He just seems mad it was used against him by the label for the first time rather than for him. He should know a label is only loyal to money.

He's abused the streaming game for years, hard for me to feel empathy even if he's been wronged for once.

Also him adding that fake Akademiks 'source' also makes me feel he doesn't have very solid proof for his other claims.

SpiderMan

2y

After reading it, I don't think there's anything too crazy in there. Its all slimy s*** already expected from a label and knowing how Drake loves using those Salamander bots, he's probably used them before too.
He just seems mad it was used against him by the label for the first time rather than for him. He should know a label is only loyal to money.

He's abused the streaming game for years, hard for me to feel empathy even if he's been wronged for once.

Also him adding that fake Akademiks 'source' also makes me feel he doesn't have very solid proof for his other claims.

ImportedOliveOil_

2y

His case should have been exposing himself and the practices they use to buy him streaming numbers. Not using Kendrick as an example. Opens up a s***ty can worms and a bunch of slippery slopes regarding lyrics in music and their use in court. Not only does he look like the worlds biggest cry baby but he also looks f***ing ED because he too has benefited from the very thing he claims to going on.

thegreatdivine

2y

@op it's worth noting that Drake hasn't actually sued UMG (yet). He just made a legal filing to allow discovery of sabotage and improper business practices. He isn't suing anyone yet.

Real

2y

The worst takes in here are those categorizing this as a moral crusade as opposed to an artist looking to leverage a labelmate’s diss track as means to (hopefully) settle out of court an early release from a record label.

Don’t take it from me - read the last nature of the dispute.

“Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song "breaks through,"
it means another artist does not. UMG's choice to saturate the music market with "Not Like Us"
comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner's sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake's entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG's scheme.”

Notice something in that writing: How many artists you know are in a similar position of being a sole owner of their own catalog? Right.

This wouldn’t set precedent for other artists at all like the Taylor Swift case - although I’m sure Drake’s team would like to think so. 😭