Drake Initiates Legal Action Against UMG

mobbinfms

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
37,344
Reputation
15,430
Daps
93,732
Reppin
TPC
If theres any evidence that kendrick got EXTRA-non-explicitly-contractual (i.e. non-specified) assistance, that would be a contract violation
Why?
Wouldn’t it make sense to go above and beyond to promote a hit to maximize profits?


Mix this in with how incestuous UMG is with Spotify, then you have a big fukking problem.
What’s the problem?


Now you can argue that rap battles are inherently bad for business above and beyond risks of violence and escalation, but in terms of sheer music, UMG has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and tanking an internal asset like Drake is literally not only a contract violation but in the business sense, unethical.
A fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders, i.e. maximize shareholder value. Seems to me they met that duty by not only promoting one of the biggest hit songs in the past decade, but also simultaneously negotiating a better deal with Drake. Unless you assume UMG was doing this all to lose money?
 

hex

Super Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
38,347
Reputation
18,825
Daps
194,932
I think it's hilarious when "Push Ups" dropped Drake stans were clowning Kendrick for supposedly being taken advantage of by the people above him.

Now those same people are asking us to sympathize with Drake....who is apparently being taken advantage of by the people above him.

FOH. :mjlol:

Fred.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,153
Reppin
The Deep State
Why?
Wouldn’t it make sense to go above and beyond to promote a hit to maximize profits?
Heres the thing, if you violate a contract in a way that you overlook because it doesn’t hurt you, then no one will say anything

But…a contract violation is still a violation

What’s the problem?
Whats the issue if General Motors owns gas stations?
A fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders, i.e. maximize shareholder value. Seems to me they met that duty by not only promoting one of the biggest hit songs in the past decade, but also simultaneously negotiating a better deal with Drake. Unless you assume UMG was doing this all to lose money?
Yeah, in the middle of renegotiation efforts with another major act: Tortious interference
 
Top