The Pop Corporation

Rap beefs are often ugly affairs, but by and large, no-one acts like a total baby. Sure, people may wave the white flag with their tail between their legs, but they don’t snitch about it. However, not all rappers are Drake who, while still dizzyingly popular (don’t doubt that), is really taking this particular Kendrick shaped loss, very poorly indeed.

He’s had his ass handed to him, it must surely sting, so what should Drake do now? Regroup, make a killer album and take it on tour to his adoring fans? No, clearly Drake must file a legal dispute against Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify for “artificially inflating” the streaming numbers for Kenny’s ‘Not Like Us’.

Effectively, he’s gone to the cops. Jesus Christ, almighty.

This filing which, if you’re into that kind of thing, you can look at here, Drake’s company have accused UMG and Spotify of ‘illegally’ boosting ‘Not Like Us’ streams. Presumably, they somehow magically boosted all the reaction videos on YouTube, the crowds chanting it in clubs, people yelling it at Kenny’s shows, and everything else besides. It’s obviously all a grand conspiracy against poor ol’ Drake.

Add to this, that Drake has been on UMG for his whole career, it all seems a bit like sour grapes. However, his attorneys are accusing the company of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – you read that right, THE RICO ACT – as well as other stuff, stating: “UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices – it instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”

The document reckons that UMG offered Spotify money to recommend the song to Spotify subscribers: “On information and belief, UMG charged Spotify licensing rates 30 per cent lower than its usual licensing rates for ‘Not Like Us’ in exchange for Spotify affirmatively recommending the song to users who are searching for other unrelated songs and artists.”

UMG have disputed this, of course.

The document also alleges that Spotify and UMG didn’t disclose this compensation, if indeed such a thing exists, and it claims that these agreements were done through “wires or mails”. Apparently there’s a whistleblower too, who says that UMG and Interscope Records “also conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the song was more popular that it was in reality.”

Drake says he tried to speak with UMG about this whole thing, and quite sassily, UMG told the Canadian that he “should initiate legal action” against Kendrick Lamar, if he thought this was a thing. Undeterred, Drake’s Frozen Movements LLC continued to allege that “UMG’s schemes to artificially inflate the popularity of ‘Not Like Us’ were motivated, at least in part, by the desire of executives at Interscope to maximise their own profits.”

Some lawyers are making a lot of money out of Drake, it seems like. Interestingly, Drake isn’t seeking damages or a payment, but instead, he’d like UMG to disclose all “documents and communications sufficient to show the identities of all third parties that UMG, its agents, or anyone working on behalf of UMG/Interscope paid (without public disclosure) to promote, publish, or recommend the song, its accompanying cover image, or video, including but not limited to, radio stations, influencers, music platforms, and music publications, as well as the dates, methods, and amounts of those payments.”

Now, if there’s any weight to these claims and Drake is doing it for transparency in the music industry, preempting some kind of modern day Payola scandal, you wonder how many of the dark arts of modern hip hop would come out in the wash, including some of Drake’s own dealings if there are any.

This whole thing hasn’t graduated to a full lawsuit, but rather, counts as ‘pre-action’.

A representative for UMG denies all of this: “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue. We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”

Of course, Kendrick hasn’t responded. Why would he? He has, however, dropped an album which is brilliant, which is always the way to answer any criticism.

UPDATE

Drake has now filed a second motion, seemingly happy with the whole of the internet getting a second round of exasperated laughs in. According to this new filing – if you’re interested you can read it here – Drake is now saying through his lawyers that ‘Not Like Us’ has damaged his reputation by “falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders, and committing other criminal sexual acts.”

Is this the first time someone has snitched after a beef? We can’t think of anyone else, honestly.

Drake has also claimed that UMG “knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked the character of another one of UMG’s most prominent artists, Drake, by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender…”.

It adds: “UMG has exclusive control over the licensing of ‘Not Like Us’ and could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed. But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed, and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”

Let’s see how the rest of hip hop reacts to all this.