Drake Initiates Legal Action Against UMG

mobbinfms

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
37,344
Reputation
15,430
Daps
93,732
Reppin
TPC
Do you realize that going beyond your contract in a way that harms your existing contract, is a contract violation?

This is why marketing is so toxic and why entertainment can be such a dangerous business
Are you arguing that UMG harmed Kendrick by promoting Not Like Us in the fashion Drake claims they did? What are the damages?


Its collusion. Its the reason investment and retail banks can’t do business under the same roof
Glass-Steagall wasn’t about collusion.
Please explain how UMG and Spotify are colluding and explain how it harmed Drake vis-a-vi UMG’s promotion of Not Like Us.


You can absolutely sue a party you have a contract with
That’s not what we are talking about. This is sleight of hand on your part to attempt to switch the conversation to another topic that we weren’t discussing. We aren’t going to do that.

Please explain the elements of a tortious interference claim and how they apply to Drake suing UMG.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,153
Reppin
The Deep State
Are you arguing that UMG harmed Kendrick by promoting Not Like Us in the fashion Drake claims they did? What are the damages?
It’s not helping kendrick. It’s undermining a direct asset.

UMG shouldn’t have their hand on the scales.

Again, this is why beefs are bad for business.
Glass-Steagall wasn’t about collusion.
Please explain how UMG and Spotify are colluding and explain how it harmed Drake vis-a-vi UMG’s promotion of Not Like Us.
UMG is stake holder of Spotify

Universal Music Group’s stock in Spotify is worth $3bn. Time to sell?




Slowly but surely, the major labels’ dominance of Spotify is declining - Music Business Worldwide



That’s not what we are talking about. This is sleight of hand on your part to attempt to switch the conversation to another topic that we weren’t discussing. We aren’t going to do that.

Please explain the elements of a tortious interference claim and how they apply to Drake suing UMG.

Do you not know how unethical it is to devalue an asset you own during that asset’s renegotiation with you? Do you think UMG wants this to go to trial and have to explain how drake has had a positive, continued valuable relationship then attempted to lowball him through systematic attempts at downplaying his value when they lay out their continued internal facts and evidence?

Think about this for a second.
 

mobbinfms

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
37,344
Reputation
15,430
Daps
93,732
Reppin
TPC
It’s not helping kendrick
So you’re arguing they harmed Kendrick? How?

UMG shouldn’t have their hand on the scales.
They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. Where did they fail to do that?


You posted articles with no explanation as to what they have to do with your point.
Again. Explain how they are colluding and how it harmed Drake vis-a-vi the allegations in the lawsuit.


Do you not know how unethical it is to devalue an asset you own during that asset’s renegotiation with you? Do you think UMG wants this to go to trial and have to explain how drake has had a positive, continued valuable relationship then attempted to lowball him through systematic attempts at downplaying his value when they lay out their continued internal facts and evidence?

Think about this for a second.
What does this have to do with the elements of tortious interference? Do you admit now that Drake does not have a claim for tortious interference against UMG?
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
20,242
Reputation
656
Daps
82,008
It’s not helping kendrick. It’s undermining a direct asset.

UMG shouldn’t have their hand on the scales.

Again, this is why beefs are bad for business.

UMG is stake holder of Spotify

Universal Music Group’s stock in Spotify is worth $3bn. Time to sell?




Slowly but surely, the major labels’ dominance of Spotify is declining - Music Business Worldwide





Do you not know how unethical it is to devalue an asset you own during that asset’s renegotiation with you? Do you think UMG wants this to go to trial and have to explain how drake has had a positive, continued valuable relationship then attempted to lowball him through systematic attempts at downplaying his value when they lay out their continued internal facts and evidence?

Think about this for a second.
UMG obligation to the shareholders is to generate profit, dumbass nikka.
 
Top