We're back for another installment of Law and Culture. This time, we're getting into the weeds about Drake and Kendrick Lamar. For what may be the first time (we still need to confirm this), an artist is taking legal action against another artist due to the consequences of a song that was recorded during a battle.
This week, Drake filed two legal petitions against Universal Music Group (UMG). The first petition claims that UMG artificially inflated the numbers of "Not Like Us" by Kendrick Lamar. The second petition is a defamation lawsuit against UMG about the content of the song "Not Like Us."
The first legal petition against UMG was in New York. The nature of it claims that UMG paid to places to play "Not Like Us," licensed the song to Spotify at lower rates, and engaged in other activities that would inflate the numbers of the song in order to artificially pump the numbers. This includes bots and paying podcasters to play and talk about the song. The paperwork also claims that UMG fired employees who were fans of Drake. The essence of the petition is to ask the court to order UMG to release documents that will confirm or deny the accusations, and then Drake and his team can properly file a lawsuit.
As a point of information, it has been no secret that since the beginning of the music industry, they have been paying people to play music on the radio. Payola, as it's called, is accepting money to play a song on the radio without disclosing to the public that you did so.
The second filing is Drake a petition for defamation. The song calls Drake a pedophile. To win a case for defamation Drake would need to prove four things. He would need to show that a false statement was made and it was said in a way to make it seem like a fact. He would need to show that the statement was communicated to another person. He would have to prove that Kendrick was at least negligent (He owed a certain duty to be honest and failed to do so). Drake would have to prove that harm was caused by the statement he's alleging to be defamation.
Generally, in rap battles, things are said. Lies are told. Rappers say things that may or may not be true in order to get a reaction from the listeners and whoever puts together the best set of songs wins. The audience, not knowing the personal lives of the rappers, doesn't know the absolute truth all the time, so really are just reacting to the music based on how it sounds and not the merit of the lyrics. Drake attempting to sue on grounds of defamation would also mean that Kendrick can also sue him based on the same grounds since he also said things that may have been false about Kendrick.
What these legal petitions have the potential to do is a few things. The initial petition will be made public if or if not labels are inflating numbers and in what manner. The consensus is that labels inflate numbers but there hasn't been much done about this because labels are both too powerful and from all accounts seem too big to fail. However if proven, then there may be more parity in the music industry and we'll discover if stars are created (more than likely) or if they're not.
The defamation one, if it goes all the way through and Drake wins, will put rappers in a tough spot. In the course of battles, all the information would need to be factual since the new norm has the potential to cause some rappers to sue for misinformation. Both of these petitions would be a slippery slope for the labels and artists. It's unclear from a PR perspective what Drake's plan is. To be a rapper who sues after losing a rap battle would be the antithesis of a lot of the core sentiments of the nature of battle. Only time will tell but this will definitely be something to keep an eye on.