Latest / Bloomberg Law / Biden Pardons Son & Drake Legal Moves Over Kendrick Lamar

Transcript

Biden Pardons Son & Drake Legal Moves Over Kendrick Lamar · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:10
Speaker 2: I'm extremely proud of my son Hunter. He has overcome
0:13
Speaker 2: an addiction. He is He's one of the brightest, most
0:17
Speaker 2: decent men I know, and I am satisfied that I'm
0:21
Speaker 2: not gonna do anything. I said, I advide by the
0:24
Speaker 2: jury decision, and I will do that, and I will.
0:27
Speaker 3: Not pardon him.
0:28
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden said it over and over again he
0:32
Speaker 1: would not pardon his son Hunter for felony, gun and
0:36
Speaker 1: tax convictions, and White House Press Secretary Kareem Jean Pierre
0:41
Speaker 1: confirmed it over and over again. From a presidential perspective,
0:46
Speaker 1: Is there any possibility that the president would end up
0:49
Speaker 1: pardoning his son. No, I just said no.
0:53
Speaker 4: I just answered, you go ahead.
0:55
Speaker 3: Why doesn't President five just pardon him?
0:58
Speaker 4: President, I've been very clear, the President's not going to work.
1:01
Speaker 5: It's still a no. It's still an e gold oois
1:03
Speaker 5: you know, it's still a no.
1:04
Speaker 2: It will be a no.
1:06
Speaker 3: It is a no.
1:07
Speaker 4: And I don't have anything else to add.
1:08
Speaker 5: Will he pardon his son? No?
1:11
Speaker 4: The President. I could speak for the President and he
1:14
Speaker 4: said he would not pardon his son. And I'm just
1:17
Speaker 4: going to leave.
1:17
Speaker 1: It there, But then on Sunday, Biden did a one
1:22
Speaker 1: eighty and gave his son Hunter a sweeping, unconditional pardon,
1:27
Speaker 1: not just for the gun in tax convictions, but also
1:31
Speaker 1: for any federal crime he may have committed in the
1:34
Speaker 1: past decade. A jury in Delaware convicted Hunter Biden of
1:38
Speaker 1: three felonies in June for purchasing a gun in twenty
1:42
Speaker 1: eighteen when he lied on a federal form by claiming
1:46
Speaker 1: he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs. He'd
1:50
Speaker 1: been set to stand trial in September in a California
1:53
Speaker 1: case accusing him of failing to pay at least one
1:56
Speaker 1: point four million dollars in taxes, but he agreed to
2:00
Speaker 1: plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges before trial. He
2:04
Speaker 1: was supposed to be sentenced this month in the two
2:07
Speaker 1: federal cases until his father pardoned him. President Biden justified
2:12
Speaker 1: his breaking his pledge by saying that raw politics infected
2:17
Speaker 1: the process and led to a miscarriage of justice. Joining
2:22
Speaker 1: me is constitutional law scholar Philip Bobbitt, a professor at
2:25
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School. This pardon not only covers the felony
2:30
Speaker 1: tax and gun charges. It also protects Hunter Biden from
2:35
Speaker 1: ever facing federal charges over any crimes he could possibly
2:39
Speaker 1: have committed over the past decade. How broad is that?
2:43
Speaker 3: That's quite broad. The only precedent that comes to mind
2:46
Speaker 3: is the Ford pardon of President Nixon, that is quite
2:50
Speaker 3: his all encompassing as status. That's unusually broad.
2:53
Speaker 1: Obviously, this decade long timeline was not randomly chosen. It
2:58
Speaker 1: covers Hunter Biden's entire tenure on the board of Barisma
3:03
Speaker 1: and his other questionable overseas business ventures. So it seems
3:08
Speaker 1: designed to stop any future prosecutions of Hunter Biden for
3:14
Speaker 1: his overseas dealings.
3:16
Speaker 3: That makes sense. My take on this is that it's
3:19
Speaker 3: really a kind of a spiraling down of our constitutional culture,
3:24
Speaker 3: and that the reason why it's so broad is because
3:27
Speaker 3: the president fears a series of improper prosecutions by the
3:34
Speaker 3: new administration.
3:35
Speaker 1: Explain what you mean by spiraling down?
3:38
Speaker 3: Well, I'm sure the president was advised that the way
3:42
Speaker 3: to do this. I'm a father, I'm a part of
3:45
Speaker 3: the son. Believe me, I deeply empathize with the President's predicament.
3:52
Speaker 3: But I imagine he was advised that the way to do
3:55
Speaker 3: that was to wait until the settencing dates. I think
4:00
Speaker 3: the gun charges or December the twelfth in Delaware. The
4:04
Speaker 3: tax charges are December the sixteenth in California, still well
4:08
Speaker 3: within his presidency, and depending on how severe the sensors were,
4:12
Speaker 3: they might well have been probationary or suspended or milesent.
4:17
Speaker 3: But depending on what they were like, the president could
4:19
Speaker 3: then commute them to a greater or lesser degree. That's
4:23
Speaker 3: still problematic in many respects. I understand people who would
4:27
Speaker 3: have that reaction, but it's not as dramatic or as
4:31
Speaker 3: troubling as the blanket partners you described. And since I'm
4:35
Speaker 3: sure the president got excellent legal advice on this, why
4:39
Speaker 3: did he do this? And I think the only thing
4:41
Speaker 3: that can account for it is his anxiety that the
4:45
Speaker 3: new administration is going to go after his family. As
4:50
Speaker 3: they said many times in the campaign, they would this
4:53
Speaker 3: is spiraling down because it's sort of morning that once said,
4:57
Speaker 3: defining deviancy down. It is deviant for the president to
5:03
Speaker 3: try to use law enforcement in the federal law enforcement
5:06
Speaker 3: agencies to go after his predecessors. I can't think of
5:10
Speaker 3: any president until Trump, and an interesting exchange occurred in
5:15
Speaker 3: Trump versus the United States the President's community case, when
5:19
Speaker 3: Justice Alito said that they wanted to give presumptive immunity
5:24
Speaker 3: because he was concerned about a future president persecuting not
5:29
Speaker 3: for this prosecuting one of his predecessors, and the press
5:32
Speaker 3: automatically assumed this was something in favor of Trump. I
5:35
Speaker 3: didn't hear it that way at all. It sounded to
5:37
Speaker 3: me as though the Justice was talking about Trump being
5:40
Speaker 3: elected and turning on Biden and his family. And I
5:45
Speaker 3: don't think that was really an unrealistic concern. And so
5:49
Speaker 3: one spiral of unprecedented action that gets another in defense,
5:56
Speaker 3: and it just circles downward.
5:58
Speaker 1: So President Biden said things like, no reasonable person who
6:02
Speaker 1: looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any
6:04
Speaker 1: other conclusion than he was singled out only because he's
6:07
Speaker 1: my son, and that's wrong. But that doesn't answer for
6:11
Speaker 1: the broadness of the pardon.
6:16
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's right, But I think that the
6:19
Speaker 3: partner is about future prosecutions, and I think it's because
6:23
Speaker 3: the president is extremely concerned about all the threats that
6:28
Speaker 3: President Trump has made against Hunter Biden, against the Biden family.
6:32
Speaker 3: And I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think that's pronoidd.
6:36
Speaker 1: Even some Democrats are criticizing the Hunter Biden pardon. Senator
6:40
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett of Colorado said the President put personal interest
6:45
Speaker 1: ahead of duty and that this decision further erodes American's fate.
6:49
Speaker 4: That the justice system is fair and equal for all.
6:53
Speaker 1: Colorado Governor Jared Poulis said it was a bad precedent
6:56
Speaker 1: that could be abused by later presidents and will sadly
7:00
Speaker 1: tarnish Biden's reputation.
7:03
Speaker 3: I'm afraid that that's correct, and that's why I say
7:06
Speaker 3: it's spiraling down. It makes the office of the presidency
7:11
Speaker 3: and the constitution of strengths in the presidency degraded. But
7:15
Speaker 3: it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It hasn't come out
7:18
Speaker 3: of nowhere. This isn't a president singling out his son
7:23
Speaker 3: and giving him a blanket pardon because he thinks that
7:25
Speaker 3: the poor boy is going to be prosecuted and persecuted
7:28
Speaker 3: the rest of his life. I think it is in
7:30
Speaker 3: a direct response to the multiple threats and made by
7:35
Speaker 3: President Trump about using the law enforcement agencies in the
7:38
Speaker 3: federal government to go after the Biden family. And I
7:41
Speaker 3: think that one wrong but gets another.
7:43
Speaker 1: I mean, there's the precedent of Richard Nixon. Do you
7:46
Speaker 1: think this is a precedent that will lead other presidents
7:49
Speaker 1: to give blanket pardons?
7:52
Speaker 3: Could very well. A lot of the pardons in the
7:56
Speaker 3: last couple of years, as few years have been a
8:00
Speaker 3: troubling Sometimes it looked as though a pardons were being
8:02
Speaker 3: dangled before witnesses keep them from giving testimony. I believe
8:07
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen testified to that effect. So pardons have come
8:11
Speaker 3: under some negative scrutiny lately anyway, And sure, once is
8:14
Speaker 3: on the books, it sits there like a gun on
8:17
Speaker 3: the dinner table, waiting to be used.
8:19
Speaker 1: Only two other presidents have pardoned family members. President Bill
8:23
Speaker 1: Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, who had pleaded guilty to
8:27
Speaker 1: selling cocaine to an undercover police officer and spent a
8:31
Speaker 1: year in prison. And President Trump pardoned his son in law,
8:35
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner's father, Charles Kushner, who had pleaded guilty to
8:39
Speaker 1: eighteen counts of falsifying tax returns, retaliating against a witness,
8:44
Speaker 1: and making false statements about campaign contributions to the Federal
8:49
Speaker 1: Election Commission. And over the weekend, Trump announced plans to
8:54
Speaker 1: nominate Charles Kushner to be the US envoy to France.
9:00
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if there are so few of these pardons
9:02
Speaker 1: of family members because presidents are hesitant to do that,
9:07
Speaker 1: or because family members just don't get into trouble like this.
9:12
Speaker 3: The culture may be changing, but I think the families
9:16
Speaker 3: of politicians, at least in my lifetime my experience, are
9:20
Speaker 3: really coached quite rigorously. Don't do this, don't do that,
9:25
Speaker 3: don't take that job. It look as though you're being favorite.
9:28
Speaker 3: Don't write that article, it look as though you're in
9:31
Speaker 3: my mouth speaks that families are quite aware of the
9:35
Speaker 3: negative publicity their children can give them them, and they
9:37
Speaker 3: are very strict with them. Now, of course they're outliers
9:40
Speaker 3: and they're kids that get out of control, but I
9:43
Speaker 3: think generally recently the year when I was growing up,
9:45
Speaker 3: the families are very very circumspect.
9:49
Speaker 1: The pardon power, would you say, it's the it's the
9:52
Speaker 1: one unchecked power the president.
9:54
Speaker 3: Has, sort of. It's not a power that is reviewable
9:59
Speaker 3: by hoards, and it's not a power that can be
10:02
Speaker 3: modified by the Congress. However, it's not entirely unchecked. For example,
10:09
Speaker 3: if you were to take a bribe, or if you
10:13
Speaker 3: were to solicit a bribe, do this for me, and
10:16
Speaker 3: I will pardon. With soliciting the bribe, I think that
10:19
Speaker 3: you could still be prosecuted. The pardon might stand, although
10:23
Speaker 3: that's not entirely certain, but I think the pardon probably
10:26
Speaker 3: would stand, but the underlying crime would still be prosecuted.
10:30
Speaker 3: That's because there's a difference between draining a part and
10:32
Speaker 3: taking a bribe.
10:33
Speaker 1: It seems like Biden, in his explanation for the pardon,
10:38
Speaker 1: is sort of adopting the Trump view of the justice
10:41
Speaker 1: system being unfair and targeting his son unfairly.
10:46
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm not sure I agree with you, or perhaps
10:50
Speaker 3: I would put a little more finely grained way. I
10:54
Speaker 3: thought that Trump's view was the justice system was systematically
10:57
Speaker 3: unfair towards a whole class of peace people Magavella J
11:03
Speaker 3: six rioters that Trump's supporters generally, or Donald Trump in particular,
11:11
Speaker 3: and that was to silence them politically. I think what
11:15
Speaker 3: the President Biden was saying was that Hunter Biden would
11:19
Speaker 3: never have been prosecuted at all for these pretty minor offenses.
11:24
Speaker 3: I'm sort of a gun offensive to the chart had
11:27
Speaker 3: he not been the president's son. That's not just because
11:30
Speaker 3: or even mainly because the justice departments have to get
11:34
Speaker 3: the Biden family. It's because the children of probably people
11:38
Speaker 3: of celebrities, of people in high office are often held
11:41
Speaker 3: to the higher standard.
11:43
Speaker 1: What a lot of people also seem to be taking
11:45
Speaker 1: issue with is that Biden said again and again, even
11:50
Speaker 1: after Trump's reelection, that he wasn't going to pardon his son.
11:56
Speaker 4: So why do you know a one to eighty and
11:59
Speaker 4: do it.
12:00
Speaker 3: Well, that's what we're given free will for. We're allowed
12:03
Speaker 3: to change our minds. I think he was a mistake,
12:06
Speaker 3: but I think it was an understandable mistake, not an
12:09
Speaker 3: irrational mistake. And light of the threats made against the
12:12
Speaker 3: Biden family by Donald Trump and his team, and I
12:16
Speaker 3: think that perhaps the president thought, is vice president win
12:19
Speaker 3: the elections, so he would have to worry about those threats.
12:23
Speaker 3: Perhaps he thought that once Trump won the election, Trump
12:25
Speaker 3: would moderate his mitriol and his threats. But I can
12:29
Speaker 3: see how at some point you say, wait a minute,
12:31
Speaker 3: he's been elected. He's going to follow through with these threats.
12:35
Speaker 3: That's the world I didn't really anticipate, and I'm going
12:38
Speaker 3: to have to react to it.
12:40
Speaker 1: Have presidents used the pardon power more in recent years
12:45
Speaker 1: than presidents in the past did.
12:48
Speaker 3: Yes and no. It's been used more frequently for individual pardons.
12:52
Speaker 3: But after the Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington presidency, after
12:56
Speaker 3: the Civil War, even after the movement of or protesters
13:01
Speaker 3: in the Vietnam era to Canada, presidents would pardon the
13:06
Speaker 3: whole classic of people. So the numbers were greater, but
13:09
Speaker 3: the incidents were fewer, if you see what I mean,
13:12
Speaker 3: and I think that if you go back to the
13:14
Speaker 3: Federi's papers, to the history of the drafting of the Constitution,
13:18
Speaker 3: this idea of ameliorating deep social cleavages was one of,
13:25
Speaker 3: not the only, that was one of the most important
13:28
Speaker 3: purposes behind the pardon power, to try to give amnesties,
13:33
Speaker 3: to take groups that had been alienated and admittedly committed
13:37
Speaker 3: crimes against the state, and somehow reconcile them back to
13:40
Speaker 3: the society.
13:42
Speaker 1: A group of Democratic lawmakers has called on President Biden
13:46
Speaker 1: to use the pardon power in his remaining time to
13:50
Speaker 1: correct injustices and to pardon, for example, all the people
13:56
Speaker 1: who are on federal death row. Knowing that the Donald
14:00
Speaker 1: Trump in his first term restarted federal executions which had
14:06
Speaker 1: been dormant, do you think that's a good idea, more
14:08
Speaker 1: in line with what the pardon power is about.
14:11
Speaker 3: I don't think that's inconsistent with a pardon power. I
14:15
Speaker 3: think that obviously it's important, and it's important morally and politically.
14:20
Speaker 3: But you're talking about a very small number of people.
14:22
Speaker 3: Most people on death row are in state prisons.
14:25
Speaker 1: Do you see an area where he might issue pardons
14:28
Speaker 1: to sort of make a mark before he leaves?
14:31
Speaker 3: Oh? No, I'd say he's done that.
14:33
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone can dispute that. Thanks so much
14:36
Speaker 1: for being on the show. That's Professor Phillip Bobbitt of
14:39
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School turning out to Legal news. In the
14:41
Speaker 1: music industry, how.
14:44
Speaker 4: Do life goes on? Babies?
14:50
Speaker 3: Keep a horn on?
14:51
Speaker 5: Met me?
14:54
Speaker 1: That's hip hop superstar Kendrick Lamar's wildly popular, not like
14:59
Speaker 1: us Somars track. This is another hip hop superstar, Drake
15:04
Speaker 1: Play Drake, I, Hey you like them young? You better?
15:07
Speaker 5: I have a go to sale black one.
15:09
Speaker 1: But Drake has taken their bitter feud to a new
15:12
Speaker 1: level by filing two legal actions against Universal Music, the
15:17
Speaker 1: parent company of the labels for both artists. Joining me
15:21
Speaker 1: is entertainment attorney Ron, Beanstock, Obscurency Hollenbeck Ron. These aren't
15:26
Speaker 1: lawsuits yet. Tell us about the first filed in New York,
15:31
Speaker 1: which is a civil rico pre action suit.
15:34
Speaker 5: Yeah, so we've got actually parallel pre complaint filings known
15:39
Speaker 5: as petitions, one in New York, one in Texas. The
15:42
Speaker 5: pre complaint, if you will, in New York, is based
15:45
Speaker 5: upon the relationship between Universal and Spotify. Spotify is that's
15:50
Speaker 5: the number one streaming service in the world. From those
15:53
Speaker 5: who don't know who Universal is, they are a one
15:55
Speaker 5: of the three major giant music business powerhouses, both with
16:00
Speaker 5: recorts publishing interests, and have both artists Kendrick Lamar and
16:04
Speaker 5: Drake through two different divisions signed to Universal Music Group,
16:09
Speaker 5: which makes it even more confusing. But the petitions are
16:13
Speaker 5: looking for depositions and information to establish a full complaint
16:21
Speaker 5: cause of action against these defendants for in New York,
16:26
Speaker 5: specifically payola, which is a nineteen thirty four law. I
16:31
Speaker 5: once said payola to some people under thirty. They thought
16:33
Speaker 5: I was making that word up. Payola is the illegal
16:37
Speaker 5: payment to a radio station or could be any other
16:41
Speaker 5: now in the digital age, another platform to play a
16:46
Speaker 5: specific artist or specific piece of music. So in New
16:49
Speaker 5: York it involves Spotify. In Texas it involves iHeartRadio. There's
16:54
Speaker 5: some fascinating facts about this New York petition. I think
16:58
Speaker 5: most people need to know that You Music Universal Music
17:03
Speaker 5: owns three point two seven percent of Spotify. That would
17:07
Speaker 5: have been something we wouldn't have seen in the past,
17:09
Speaker 5: But the majors all have an interest now in Spotify,
17:12
Speaker 5: and that Spotify pays annually in terms of streaming and
17:16
Speaker 5: other download income, but mostly streaming income, over two point
17:19
Speaker 5: five billion dollars to your music. So this is a
17:21
Speaker 5: huge relationship. When you switch to the Texas action, that
17:26
Speaker 5: really involves iHeartRadio, the number one radio station in the country,
17:30
Speaker 5: and there's been as a complaint, it should say pre
17:33
Speaker 5: complaints as a symbiotic relationship between new music and iHeartRadio.
17:38
Speaker 5: New music controls a vast number of hits over the
17:42
Speaker 5: last decade, and so if you want to have access
17:44
Speaker 5: to those hits, you're going to be close to the
17:47
Speaker 5: company it supplies that content to you.
17:51
Speaker 1: So break it down for us, what does the first
17:54
Speaker 1: petition in New York claim?
17:56
Speaker 5: So the first petition in New York says, effectively, hey,
17:59
Speaker 5: you favored Kendrick Lamar in this now sort of infamous
18:04
Speaker 5: wrap beef, as we would call this relatively new phenomena,
18:09
Speaker 5: if you will, not this east coast west coast thing,
18:11
Speaker 5: but this very specific rapper versus rapper beef, which are
18:14
Speaker 5: both on the same label. They say, you favored the
18:17
Speaker 5: New York petitions as you favored Kendrick Lamar. You boosted
18:21
Speaker 5: his song versus mine in this dispute we're having, this
18:24
Speaker 5: this musical dispute we're having, and you favored him on it,
18:28
Speaker 5: and you paid someone in terms of Spotify to stream
18:32
Speaker 5: more of it, and you took advantage of what you
18:34
Speaker 5: could take advantage of to give this artists favor over me.
18:39
Speaker 4: So what's the.
18:40
Speaker 1: Point of a preaction suit? What are they looking for?
18:43
Speaker 5: They're looking for discovery. They're saying, we think it's kind
18:48
Speaker 5: of like saying information and belief. We're saying, hey, we
18:50
Speaker 5: think we've got some proof, but we don't have the
18:53
Speaker 5: exact verbiage we need. We need some facts. So to
18:57
Speaker 5: prove our facts that we can go and file a
18:59
Speaker 5: formal with a litany of issues here, we want to
19:04
Speaker 5: have pre complaint discovery kind of like an expedited discovery.
19:09
Speaker 5: Both in New York involving Spotify and new music, and
19:13
Speaker 5: then in Texas we want a very similar theory where
19:17
Speaker 5: we're saying there was Payola committed again with the iHeart
19:22
Speaker 5: Radio station, the national chain station. We want to have
19:26
Speaker 5: expedited discovery so we can go find out the facts.
19:29
Speaker 5: We want to talk to people from your music. We
19:31
Speaker 5: want to talk to people from iHeartRadio to get the
19:34
Speaker 5: facts so we can have a more formal complaint stile.
19:37
Speaker 1: So just focusing on New York for a moment, do
19:40
Speaker 1: you think that they'll be able to get that.
19:43
Speaker 5: It's a tough hurdle to get over here saying we
19:47
Speaker 5: don't have enough, but we want you as the core
19:50
Speaker 5: system to provide us the right to go and do this.
19:53
Speaker 5: I don't know if they've established enough initially with this
19:57
Speaker 5: pre complaint petition. It will be really up to the
19:59
Speaker 5: cour to allow some limited scope of discovery. Maybe they'll
20:02
Speaker 5: do that. I don't think this is going to be
20:04
Speaker 5: some wide open fields get to talk to anyone you want.
20:07
Speaker 5: I think they're going to be very narrow to grasp
20:10
Speaker 5: some of those facts to see if they can get
20:11
Speaker 5: to the complaint stage. Remember we're in state court or
20:14
Speaker 5: not in federal court. So a lot of the dismissal
20:17
Speaker 5: issues and the standards for dismissal are slightly different in
20:20
Speaker 5: New York and in Texas.
20:22
Speaker 1: Now is the Texas action about defamation.
20:26
Speaker 5: It's a combination. It is again a Payola plane saying
20:32
Speaker 5: you favored Kendrick Lamar versus me, Drake, you favored this artist,
20:38
Speaker 5: and you took advantage of your relationship and the power
20:41
Speaker 5: you yield as a powerhouse, major record company and content owner,
20:47
Speaker 5: and you took advantage of that and you preferred getting
20:50
Speaker 5: this guy boosted versus me, and you did it through iHeartRadio.
20:54
Speaker 5: Then there's this defamatory language which kind of runs through
20:59
Speaker 5: both of the petitions, but more specifically in Texas says
21:03
Speaker 5: you knew what he was saying could be false or
21:07
Speaker 5: was false, and you allowed him to put that into lyrics.
21:11
Speaker 5: This all took place this year, and you allowed him
21:14
Speaker 5: to put this into lyrics, and you let that into
21:17
Speaker 5: the marketplace. There's a side moment that I haven't seen
21:20
Speaker 5: anybody discuss here, and I wanted to bring this one
21:23
Speaker 5: issue up. I don't have Kendrick Lamar's recording agreement because
21:26
Speaker 5: that's going to be confidential, but generally with record labels,
21:30
Speaker 5: the artist has a warranty and representation that they won't
21:35
Speaker 5: the fame, that they won't infringe on someone else's copyright
21:39
Speaker 5: and things of this nature, and if they do, they
21:41
Speaker 5: will have to indemnify the record company. Now, I haven't
21:44
Speaker 5: seen anybody bring this up yet because maybe we just
21:47
Speaker 5: don't know. And this is purely speculative because Drake has
21:51
Speaker 5: not sued Kendrick Lamar personally in either of these pre
21:56
Speaker 5: complaint petitions. But if he's looking to get some fiscal
22:02
Speaker 5: up come up, and this may be the way because
22:05
Speaker 5: of Kendrick Lamar's accused of defamatory lyrics, then he may
22:09
Speaker 5: have to defend by being indemnifying your music against any
22:15
Speaker 5: of these future lawsuits.
22:16
Speaker 1: Why is he not suing or bringing these petitions against Kendrick.
22:21
Speaker 5: Lamar question of the day is it? Because I mean,
22:26
Speaker 5: we're going to speculate, Well, it'sfamatory, so we're saying, hey,
22:30
Speaker 5: you claim these things are defamatory, but truth is the
22:33
Speaker 5: absolute defense. So if Kendrick Lamar has proof or knows
22:37
Speaker 5: these things to be true and can show that that's
22:39
Speaker 5: not going to carry the day. That's not a good
22:41
Speaker 5: idea for Drake. So I think that there's a lot
22:45
Speaker 5: of personal issues going back and forth, but in the
22:49
Speaker 5: guise of a business petition lawsuit where we are looking
22:53
Speaker 5: to make ourselves get even with somebody in a clear
22:59
Speaker 5: battle of entertainment, you know, stalwarts kingpins, if you will,
23:04
Speaker 5: where one did not get to success the other did.
23:09
Speaker 5: Perhaps they there was this you played unfair as new music.
23:14
Speaker 5: The winner here is universal music, unless they of course
23:17
Speaker 5: are going to eventually have to you know, pay out,
23:20
Speaker 5: and if there's a decision against them, but they win
23:23
Speaker 5: both ways, you know it's going to happen. All of
23:25
Speaker 5: these these songs are going to get boosted by these lawsuits.
23:28
Speaker 5: People go right back and start listening again. And there's
23:31
Speaker 5: all kinds of other issues that took place. I mean,
23:33
Speaker 5: Drake sold a portion of this catalog this year. There's
23:35
Speaker 5: one hundred and fifty miles million dollars buyout, but kill
23:38
Speaker 5: a meter, which is killing netra.
23:39
Speaker 3: I think it is a.
23:41
Speaker 5: French Canadian way you describe it in October. All this
23:45
Speaker 5: is taking place now, and there's also this prior lawsuit
23:48
Speaker 5: that's a copyright infringement involving Drake and the producer Chris Brown.
23:52
Speaker 5: So Drake has some real experience here in the courtroom
23:57
Speaker 5: in this last year. Lots of filings, lots of accusations,
24:01
Speaker 5: a lot of things going on. It's a lot to
24:04
Speaker 5: keep keep track of.
24:06
Speaker 1: Okay, just on the face of it, you accuse someone
24:08
Speaker 1: of being a certifiable pedophile, that seems defamatory to me.
24:14
Speaker 5: And that's the interesting point because if you look at
24:16
Speaker 5: the lyrics, he doesn't say Drake you are. He says
24:23
Speaker 5: you know things about someone else. So that's defamatory in
24:28
Speaker 5: an inference. But I think people know who he's inferring.
24:33
Speaker 5: So I think you drave the straight line to the
24:35
Speaker 5: potential plaintiff by saying, well, you know, everybody knows that's me.
24:39
Speaker 5: Everybody knows you're talking about me. But he does not
24:42
Speaker 5: say him by name. He does not say Drake Drake
24:46
Speaker 5: by name.
24:47
Speaker 1: I've been talking to entertainment lawyer Ron Beanstock Obscurency Hollenbeck.
24:52
Speaker 1: There's been some speculation that Drake is using this to
24:57
Speaker 1: get information from Universal to somehow get out of his deal.
25:02
Speaker 5: Mm hmm, yeah, that that seems one of the most
25:05
Speaker 5: likely outcomes of this. We all know getting out of
25:09
Speaker 5: record deals. Now I don't again, I'm not. I don't
25:12
Speaker 5: have I'm not privy to know that. The structure of
25:14
Speaker 5: his agreement people have called a licensed deal in the press.
25:17
Speaker 5: That's a different relationship. That means he owns his masters
25:20
Speaker 5: and he's licensed them to them. But if you have
25:22
Speaker 5: a long term license deal and you want to pull
25:25
Speaker 5: back the ownership of those masters that you're releasing, this
25:29
Speaker 5: could be one way of doing that. Clearly they don't
25:32
Speaker 5: want to. He doesn't want to do business with these
25:33
Speaker 5: people anymore, and I would say most likely Universal Music
25:37
Speaker 5: doesn't want to do business with him. So maybe that
25:40
Speaker 5: is the outcome releases where he gets all he gets
25:44
Speaker 5: the return or reversion of all of his masters, and
25:49
Speaker 5: that could be part of the game here. I don't
25:51
Speaker 5: want to use the word game because it's it's serious
25:53
Speaker 5: civil litigation, but that could be part of what he's
25:57
Speaker 5: looking for.
25:58
Speaker 4: A lot of artists are problematic.
26:00
Speaker 1: Do you think that Universal really doesn't want to deal
26:02
Speaker 1: with Drake anymore?
26:04
Speaker 4: Considering his success?
26:07
Speaker 5: It's a great question, why would you give into this
26:10
Speaker 5: and drop it? But no judge is going to keep
26:13
Speaker 5: two people together It don't get along anymore. Eventually, there's
26:17
Speaker 5: going to be a decision about the ownership of these
26:19
Speaker 5: masters and the reversion. I think that's not in these
26:21
Speaker 5: two suits, but we know that's coming. So if you're
26:25
Speaker 5: not getting along with your and if they're just a
26:28
Speaker 5: distributor and promo arm and you don't feel they're doing
26:32
Speaker 5: the job, yeah you want out. Does that mean he'll
26:36
Speaker 5: get all of the masters back. We don't know. Does
26:38
Speaker 5: that mean he'll get prior masters up until this day
26:42
Speaker 5: or the day of the decision, stay with Universal for
26:44
Speaker 5: a period of time. That'll remain to be seen. But
26:47
Speaker 5: it could be that this is the methodology for Drake
26:50
Speaker 5: to get himself out of his deals with Universal.
26:54
Speaker 1: I have to say, this is very confusing, So tell
26:58
Speaker 1: me what I missed.
26:59
Speaker 5: There is so much stuff going on because you've got
27:03
Speaker 5: two petitions with one of the same defendants and then
27:08
Speaker 5: two different defendants in a free complaint action to get
27:14
Speaker 5: more information about all these different people so they can
27:17
Speaker 5: then go further in a lawsuit claiming that all of
27:21
Speaker 5: these things have taken place, and they revolve around really
27:25
Speaker 5: serious issues in silvil Rico payola is not just civil,
27:30
Speaker 5: but it's also a crime. Drake has brought up in
27:33
Speaker 5: the complaints in New York that you know, a long
27:35
Speaker 5: time ago. I mean, I think two thousand and six
27:37
Speaker 5: is a long time ago that you settled over a
27:40
Speaker 5: Paola complaint and you paid out. That doesn't mean it
27:44
Speaker 5: took place now. But welcome to the modern digital age
27:49
Speaker 5: involving Paola and bots and other terminology we didn't talk
27:56
Speaker 5: about with CDs and vinyl. You know, it's a different world.
28:00
Speaker 5: And this is the twenty twenty four version of what
28:04
Speaker 5: the nineteen thirty four Paola was, when record companies in
28:09
Speaker 5: the thirties and forties put one hundred dollars bill inside
28:12
Speaker 5: the jacket of a vinyl album cover and gave it
28:16
Speaker 5: to someone at the radio station and wait, not not,
28:19
Speaker 5: please play this, this is your new favorite song. Now
28:22
Speaker 5: it's all done digitally, and now we have OLAI and
28:25
Speaker 5: we have algorithmic ways of doing this, and someone's.
28:30
Speaker 1: Going to have to prove that also if there was,
28:33
Speaker 1: you know, the use of bots and things. And Drake
28:36
Speaker 1: also probably benefited from that at some point.
28:38
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, he did. He just didn't benefit benefit from
28:43
Speaker 5: it the way he felt he should have. I think
28:45
Speaker 5: he felt and I'm reading these complaints he's suggesting that
28:50
Speaker 5: it was unfairly weighted against him. That Kendrick Lamar and
28:54
Speaker 5: the numbers on that Kendrick Lamar track, a particular one
28:57
Speaker 5: track is like a billion streams. That's you know, Tayler
29:01
Speaker 5: Swift territory. I mean, Kendrick Lamar and Drake are two
29:03
Speaker 5: of the biggest names in their specific genre in the world.
29:07
Speaker 5: These are pop icons now, and this is real money
29:12
Speaker 5: in the music business. You know, we're talking about substantial income,
29:18
Speaker 5: substantial accusations that could affect other artists and how their
29:23
Speaker 5: dealt with If it's true that they are committing payola
29:28
Speaker 5: and they're doing it through the digital versions of the
29:31
Speaker 5: one hundred dollars bill in the records leave, maybe people
29:34
Speaker 5: will be less successful in the future, maybe we won't
29:37
Speaker 5: have the same numbers. I think right now we're in
29:39
Speaker 5: this such a world of speculation because of the two filings,
29:42
Speaker 5: and we have no rejoinders from people yet. We don't
29:46
Speaker 5: know where we're going on these We don't know if
29:48
Speaker 5: the courts are going to allow these petitions to ripen
29:50
Speaker 5: into full complaints and allow this discovery. But if they do,
29:55
Speaker 5: it's god be very interesting. Hip hop rap is pop
29:59
Speaker 5: it really, I mean, we're talking about you know, the
30:02
Speaker 5: most popular artists in the world. And it's not a
30:05
Speaker 5: narrow focus, it's across every demographic. So all these demographics
30:11
Speaker 5: listen to this material. And Kendrick Lamarmy, he's been awarded
30:14
Speaker 5: all kinds of laudatory awards for his poetry lyrics. So
30:20
Speaker 5: people take both these people very seriously, and as pop spokesperson,
30:25
Speaker 5: they've decided to focus on each other and are talking
30:30
Speaker 5: about each other. And in doing that, one party is
30:35
Speaker 5: saying that record company, Hey, you guys are favoring that
30:39
Speaker 5: guy over me. No pharisees.
30:42
Speaker 4: I like that, No pharisees.
30:43
Speaker 1: That really sums up the whole thing.
30:46
Speaker 4: Thanks so much.
30:46
Speaker 1: Ron. That's entertainment attorney Ron Beanstock of Scurrency Holland Beck.
30:51
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
30:54
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by
30:57
Speaker 1: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple podcast, Spotify,
31:01
Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law.
31:04
Speaker 4: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg