Mar 17, 2025·1 reply
NixDrake losing can't be their entire argument. Right? Where's the full document?
They really opened up their filing for dismissal by quoting lyrics from Successful, a 16 year-old song
Mar 17, 2025·2 replies
CRACKASTEPPAVEGANIs UMG serious ?
they gotta respond that way, it’s not up to them to prove they are innocent
it is up to Drake to prove they are guilty
Mar 17, 2025·1 replythegreatdivineThis is where they set themselves up. The very idea that Not Like Us isn't defamatory, is false. A better case would have been them suggesting that Drake also made defamatory remarks aimed at Kendrick lmao.
That’s not their legal arguments lmao.
- Mar 17, 2025CRACKASTEPPAVEGAN
If he covered the Family Matters-sized hole, then it should be interesting
My bet is Drake's lawyers have an angle to attack that from. We'll see.
- Mar 17, 2025thegreatdivine
They really opened up their filing for dismissal by quoting lyrics from Successful, a 16 year-old song
Drake’s lawyers did the same thing in the original motion…
- Mar 17, 2025·1 reply
Notably, less than three years ago, Drake himself signed a public petition criticizing “the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them” by treating rap lyrics as literal fact. See UMG’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A. As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, “the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination.” Id. 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.
- Mar 17, 2025·2 repliesAZNoah
That’s not their legal arguments lmao.
They made a point to note it. It was stupid of them to suggest that it wasn't defamatory. That's my point.
- Mar 17, 2025thegreatdivine
This is where they set themselves up. The very idea that Not Like Us isn't defamatory, is false. A better case would have been them suggesting that Drake also made defamatory remarks aimed at Kendrick lmao.
They setting up the culture angle, hence the whole "conventions of the diss track genre." I also thought they were gonna say that Drake also said real defamatory s*** on wax, but lets see where this goes
Mar 17, 2025and if it gets dismissed what now
- Mar 17, 2025·1 replyLickMyBalls
Notably, less than three years ago, Drake himself signed a public petition criticizing “the trend of prosecutors using artists’ creative expression against them” by treating rap lyrics as literal fact. See UMG’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A. As Drake recognized, when it comes to rap, “the final work is a product of the artist’s vision and imagination.” Id. 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.
Again, weak argument lmao. Very predictable lol.
Mar 17, 2025·3 repliesUMG cooked him but you won’t hear it itt
- Mar 17, 2025PAINMAN
UMG cooked him but you won’t hear it itt
They didn't cook s*** lmao. They did exactly what anyone could have imagined they'd do because that's all they could do.
- Mar 17, 2025·2 replies
So they claimed NLU wasn't defamatory?
- Mar 17, 2025·1 reply
If they think Drake doesn't really have a case, why not let the case go to trial and win there?
- Mar 17, 2025·1 replyValentine
they gotta respond that way, it’s not up to them to prove they are innocent
it is up to Drake to prove they are guilty
Who knows if the judge will see it that way
- Mar 17, 2025·1 replyNix
So they claimed NLU wasn't defamatory?
Yep. They claim that in the context it was released in (a rap battle), it wasn't defamatory lmao.
- Mar 17, 2025·1 replythegreatdivine
Again, weak argument lmao. Very predictable lol.
- Mar 17, 2025·1 reply
Anyways, enough of giving my opinions. We'll see what the judge rules on.
- Mar 17, 2025
From what I understand now, they saying it wasn't defamatory because both rappers decided to take the gloves off, not that it wouldn't be defamatory when stripped of all context.
- Mar 17, 2025·1 replyCRACKASTEPPAVEGAN
Who knows if the judge will see it that way
the judge only sees what the law says crodie
that’s how the court works in civil suits lmfao. this case lies on Drake’s ability to present evidence. that Thug Hail Mary was lucky, judges don’t care about emotions (unless your lawyer and the judge got a good relationship) they want facts
- Mar 17, 2025·4 repliesthegreatdivine
They made a point to note it. It was stupid of them to suggest that it wasn't defamatory. That's my point.
Again, you’re focusing on language that isn’t essential to the legal argument UMG presents to the court.
It’s ok to say you don’t understand the law of defamation. Your focus on red herrings is showing that.
Mar 17, 2025LickMyBalls“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary
attacks at Lamar, including, most significantly, that Lamar engaged in domestic abuse and that one
of Lamar’s business partners and managers is the true father of Lamar’s son. But now, after losing
the rap battle, Drake claims that “Not Like Us” is defamatory. It is not. While the Complaint
focuses almost entirely on “Not Like Us,” it disregards the other Drake and Lamar diss tracks that
surrounded “Not Like Us” as well as the conventions of the diss track genre, and, thus, critically
ignores the context of the dispute”
OKAY. They're browsing KTT and speaking facts lmao.
Their arguement is "Drake is trying to make diss songs illegal. Don't let Drake ruin hip-hop"
Mar 17, 2025·1 replyUMG lawyers write like Twitter posters
Mar 17, 2025·1 replyLickMyBalls“Drake has been pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary
attacks at Lamar, including, most significantly, that Lamar engaged in domestic abuse and that one
of Lamar’s business partners and managers is the true father of Lamar’s son. But now, after losing
the rap battle, Drake claims that “Not Like Us” is defamatory. It is not. While the Complaint
focuses almost entirely on “Not Like Us,” it disregards the other Drake and Lamar diss tracks that
surrounded “Not Like Us” as well as the conventions of the diss track genre, and, thus, critically
ignores the context of the dispute”
“Heard that one of them lil kids MIGHT BE Dave frees”
Not the same at all, UMG has public defenders
