Spotify has officially hit back at Drake’s claims in Kendrick Lamar’s legal suit last month. different from us ‘It was artificially inflated.’
Last month, Drake was indicted through his company, Frozen Moments LLC. universal music group and Spotify Artificially inflating streaming numbers for Kendrick Lamar’s mega hits. Different from us – This is a diss track about Drake.
Drake’s claims were made in a legal petition filed in New York, in which lawyers for the artist’s company claimed UMG used “bots” and other methods to artificially boost Lamar’s numbers. Not like us.
Drake’s petition, which you can read in full here, states that UMG has “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate streaming services and airwaves with their songs.” different from us“To spread that song, including using ‘bots’ and pay-to-play deals.”
The petition also claimed that “UMG charged Spotify’s licensing fees 30% lower than usual.” different from us Spotify offers that song in return for a positive recommendation to users searching for other unrelated songs and artists.”
“Neither UMG nor Spotify have disclosed that Spotify received compensation of any kind in exchange for recommending their songs,” it continues.
In response to Drake’s claims that he was offering 30% lower rates in return for referrals, a Spotify spokesperson told MBW on Friday (December 20): “Spotify has no economic incentive for users to stream. different from us On every Drake track.”
A SPOT spokesperson added: “One of Spotify’s best tools for artists marqueeIt was purchased for €500 on behalf of the song to promote the track in France. Marquee is a visual advertisement presented to users as a sponsored recommendation.”
A Universal Music Group spokesperson told MBW last month: “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine its artists is offensive and untrue. We adopt the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns.
“No amount of contrived and absurd legal claims in this preliminary work submission can obscure the fact that fans get to choose the music they want to hear.”
Spotify also filed formal opposition briefs in response to Drake’s petition, including a dissent and an acknowledgment in support of the report, both of which were obtained by MBW. In previous filings, SPOT’s attorneys argued that Drake’s petition: “It must be denied.”
In the affidavit filed in support of the objection, the following was written: david capperThe VP, head of Spotify USA’s music and audiobook business, said that “contrary to the claims” made in the petition filed by Drake through Frozen Moments LLC, “UMG and Spotify have never had an agreement under which UMG would charge Spotify licensing fees.” It claims. 30% cheaper than typical licensing fees. different from us In return for a positive recommendation of Spotify [Not Like Us]” and “For users searching for other songs and artists.”
Kaefer’s confirmation also noted that Drake’s petition “alleged that an unidentified individual reported on the podcast that he achieved this using a bot.” 30,000,000 Spotify streaming on day one of release “It’s different from us.” However, Spotify suggested it had “found no evidence to substantiate this claim”.
Elsewhere You can read the full story here. “Spotify is investing heavily in automation and manual review to prevent, detect and mitigate the impact of artificial streaming on our platform,” says Kaefer.
The statement continues: “If we identify attempts to manipulate streams, we can take action including removing streaming numbers, withholding royalties, and imposing fines. Confirmed or suspected artificial streams are also removed from chart calculations. “This helps protect royalty payments to honest, hard-working artists.”
Meanwhile, in an opposition brief obtained by MBW, which you can read in full here , Spotify’s lawyers said Drake’s petition “allowed UMG to enter into ‘pay-to-play’ agreements with ‘bots’ and social media influencers to promote its songs.” and taking steps to cover up a purported scheme to pay money to and fire employees associated with Drake.”
But the brief asserts that “while concealing the absurd claim that this gives rise to a civil RICO claim, in this proceeding Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary relief of pre-action discovery.”
The report added: “As for Spotify, which is a stranger to these scams, the petition presents a single allegation that on information and belief, Spotify agreed to a discounted royalty rate with UMG. different from us “In return for recommending [it] To users searching for other unrelated songs and artists.”
“On this basis, petitioners wish to proactively seek documentation sufficient to substantiate such arrangements and the financial benefits allegedly received. As set forth in the attached confirmation, Claimant’s entire discovery request against Spotify is false. There is no such agreement. But in any event, this petition is legally defective and must be dismissed.”
Drake and Lamar release albums through UMG, Republic Records, and Interscope, respectively.
different from us (Interscope), Lamar recorded it as part of Fierce rap feud with Drakewas released on May 4 as part of a series of three diss tracks, all released within a few days of each other (the other tracks are euphoria and Meet the Grahams).
Drake’s lawyers filed a second legal petition against UMG in Texas last month.
In a second filing obtained by MBW (which you can read in full here), attorneys on Drake’s behalf claim that “UMG designed, financed and executed the plan.” “It’s different from us.”“They took advantage of the spectacle to the detriment of Drake and his business to create a viral mega-hit with the intention of generating consumer hysteria and massive profits.”
The document added: “The plan probably succeeded beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”worldwide music business
