Spotify has officially hit back at the allegations made by Drake in a legal filing last month, saying Kendrick Lamar’s unlike us Be “artificially inflated”.
Last month, Drake was charged through his company Frozen Moments LLC universal music group and Spotify Artificially inflated streaming numbers for Kendrick Lamar’s hit song Unlike us—— A diss song about Drake.
Drake’s accusations come in a legal petition filed in New York, in which lawyers for the artist’s company claim Universal Music Group used “bots” and other methods to artificially boost Lamar’s numbers Not like us.
Drake’s petition (which you can read in full here) claims that Universal Music Group “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate streaming services and radio with a single song, unlike usin order to make the song go viral, including the use of ‘bots’ and pay-to-play deals.
The petition also claims that “UMG charges Spotify a license fee that is 30% lower than its usual license fee. unlike us In exchange, Spotify will definitely recommend the song to users who are searching for other, unrelated songs and artists.
It goes on to claim: “Both UMG and Spotify have disclosed that Spotify received no compensation of any kind in exchange for featuring the song.”
In response to Drake’s accusation of a 30% rate reduction in exchange for recommendations, a Spotify spokesperson told MBW on Friday (December 20): “Spotify has no financial incentives for users to stream. unlike us Beyond anything Drake has ever done.
A spokesman for SPOT added: “Spotify for Artists’ tool Marquee was purchased solely on behalf of this song for a price of 500 euros to promote the song in France. Marquee is a visual advertisement exposed to users as a sponsored recommendation.
A spokesperson for Universal Music Group told MBW last month: “The suggestion that Universal Music Group would do anything to harm any of its artists is offensive and untrue. We use the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotions.
“No amount of contrived and ridiculous legal arguments in this pre-litigation filing can obscure the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
Spotify has also formally filed objection documents in response to Drake’s petition, including a summary of objections and an acknowledgment supporting the brief, both of which have been obtained by MBW. In a previous filing, SPOT’s attorneys argued that Drake’s petition “Should be rejected”.
In a confirmation of support for the opposition briefing, David KeiferSpotify USA vice president and head of music and audiobook operations said that “contrary to the allegations made by Drake in Frozen Moments LLC’s petition, UMG and Spotify have never entered into any arrangement whereby UMG would charge Spotify a licensing fee” higher than usual. License rates are 30% lower unlike us In exchange for a positive recommendation from Spotify [Not Like Us]”, including “People who are searching for other songs and artists.
Keifer’s confirmation also noted that Drake’s petition claimed that “an unidentified person reported on his podcast using a bot to enable it.” 30,000,000 Streaming on Spotify the first day after release Not like us” But it suggested that Spotify “has found no evidence to substantiate this claim.”
elsewhere Sure, you can read the full article here, “Spotify invests heavily in automated and manual review to prevent, detect and mitigate the impact of human streaming on our platform,” Kaefer noted.
The statement continued: “When we detect attempts to manipulate streams, we take action, including removing streamer numbers, withholding royalties and charging fines. Confirmed and suspected human streams are also removed from our chart calculations. This helps us protect royalty payments to honest, hard-working artists.
Meanwhile, in a statement of objection obtained by MBW (you can read the full text here), Spotify’s lawyers noted that Drake’s petition “speculates that UMG artificially inflated the song’s popularity through a variety of means, including using ‘Bots’ and ‘pay-to-play’ deals, paid social media influencers to promote the song, and took steps to conceal its plans, allegedly firing employees associated with Drake.”
However, “under the guise of this far-fetched argument giving rise to a civil RICO claim, the petitioners in this case seek to invoke the extraordinary remedy of pre-action discovery,” the brief states.
The brief adds: “As for Spotify — the stranger in the dispute — the petition raises an allegation based on information and belief that Spotify agreed to an agreement with UMG for a discounted royalty rate. unlike us in exchange for a “recommendation” [it] Users who are searching for other, unrelated songs and artists.
“On this basis, the Applicant seeks pre-litigation discovery of documentation sufficient to demonstrate any such agreement and the financial benefits allegedly received. As set forth in the accompanying acknowledgment, the Applicant’s entire discovery request to Spotify The predicates are false: no such agreement exists. However, the petition is legally defective and should be dismissed.
Drake and Lamar release their records through UMG and its Republic Records and Interscope respectively.
unlike us (endoscope), Recorded by Lamar as part of his heated rap feud with Drake, it was released on May 4 as part of a three-diss track series, all released within a few days (the other tracks are Euphoria and Meet the Graham family).
Drake’s lawyers also filed a second legal petition against Universal Music Group last month, this time in Texas.
In a second document obtained by MBW (which you can read in full here ), attorneys representing Drake claim “UMG designed, funded and executed a plan” to turn things around. Not like us”The goal was to exploit the damage done to Drake and his business to generate consumer hysteria and, of course, huge revenue.”
“The plan succeeded, perhaps beyond UMG’s wildest expectations,” the document added.global music business
