Drake ‘lost the battle of rap “, UMG argues in the case rejection movement

The legal battle between Drake Universal Music Group (UMG) has taken another turn, as the mark seeks to reject the lawsuit of rapper.

Displacement disputes focuses on the role of Diss Kendrick Lamar “Not Like”, which DRIC claims with severe consequences.

However, UMG is declining, on the pretext that Drake’s claims are unfounded. The proposal, which was presented earlier on Monday, challenged the legitimacy of the Drake case, saying it was just an attempt to recover from general defeat rather than real legal grievance.

There presentationThe Global Music Group has not declined to criticize Drake’s legal step.

The scholar confirmed that Drake “lost the battle of rap music that he raised in which he participated in a good mind”, on the pretext that instead of accepting the result, he resorted to legal measures “to tell his wounds.”

Moreover, UMG Drake was accused of contradicting his position on artistic freedom, noting that he had previously signed a petition that condemned the use of rap words in legal procedures.

“Drake was right at that time and he is now wrong,” the proposal stated, which enhances their claim that the lawsuit lacks merit.

In a lawsuit, Drake claimed that UMG’s involvement in promotion “and not like us” is defamation and harassment.

However, UMG argued that there is no legal basis for these allegations, noting that the song expresses “uninterrupted opinion and speech, not the truth.”

The company also shed light on a perceived double standard, noting that although Drake expects support for his Diss paths, it objects to a similar upgrade to Lamar’s response.

The mark insisted that their actions were within the legal and moral limits and that Drake’s claims failed to meet the necessary criteria to move forward in court.

Although UMG tries to reject the case, the legal Drake team remains firm in their position.

Rapper’s lawyer, Michael J. Gottlieb, that the lawsuit is more than just a battle of rap music.

Gottlieb said diverse“UMG wants to pretend that this is related to the battle of rap music in order to pay the attention of shareholders, artists and the public from a simple fact: a greed company that finally bears responsibility for the serious information that has already led to many violence.”

He also suggested that UMG has a history of exploited artists and that the issue will reveal deeper methodological problems in the music industry.

“This movement is a desperate trick by UMG to avoid accountability, but we have every confidence that this issue will continue and continue to reveal the long UMG history of exposure and attack on its artists and benefit from it.”

The lawsuit, which was presented to a federal court in New York, came after withdrawing a legal challenge accused of UMG and Spotify of amplifying the popularity of the song artificially. UMG rejected claims as “illogical.”

The lawsuit claimed that UMG gave priority “the greed of companies on the safety and welfare of its artists” through the distribution “not like us”, which Drake described as “an accredited homosexual”.

He claimed that UMG intentionally promoted the path to spread “false realistic allegations” and incite harm against Drake.

The lawsuit also highlighted the artwork of the song, which appeared a picture of the Drake house, which bears a mark similar to the homes of the registered sexual perpetrators.

The Drake Legal team argued that UMG was intentionally published and benefited from false claims, and the poster responsible for the song’s effect.

“This lawsuit is not related to the artist who created” not like us, “the file has stated.” Instead, it is fully related to UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, and exploit allegations, and is concerned that it was not only wrong, but dangerous. “

However, UMG strongly denied these accusations, and insisted that it contributed greatly to Drake’s success.

“These allegations are not only incorrect, but the idea that we will seek to harm any artist – not to mention Drake – illogical.” Guardian.

They also accused “One Dance”, which is “arming the legal process to silence the creative expression of the artist” despite benefiting from the same industry practices throughout his career.