Ke$ha: Classic or Dud?

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

As was said many times upthread, this is going to get extremely ugly.

dude may v well just be trying to drum up publicity for his own case but even so now i'm thinking about ke$ha's case again & am really sad

this is pretty gross:

After the news of that alleged assault broke, Geragos invited his Twitter followers to "guess who the rapist was" and "#namethepervert." When someone guessed Dr. Luke, Geragos replied "#bingo."

Yeah, I should've read the whole article before blindly linking it. This guy is a weasel.

yeah it seems really professionally irresponsible too, esp for like a good (?) 57 yr old lawyer

makes me think he has some evidence or something abt it but not sure what it'd be other than gaga confirming

he is disgusting

all involved are disgusting except ke$ha and gaga, basically

he is dr puke

this did inspire me to listen to warrior for the first time in a while tho and i totally stand by this being one of 2012's top 20 albums

*by it

its almost def in my top twenty of 2010-14, lot of jams

won tickets to see her surprise show @ black cat tmo, freaking out

well "surprise" for a pop star i guess

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-wont-let-kesha-escape-867571

ugh. really horrible.

god, awful

Ugggh. I thought this was over and done with as of a week or 2 ago. :(

this is still in effect, right? if so, uh, here's your answer to why sony did what it did http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/doug-morris-dr-luke-sony-258729

(also, this sucks)

does the preliminary injunction thing mean that she can still win the case in the long run? someone smart help me out here.

Kind of. The preliminary injunction would have allowed her to record elsewhere (i.e., not for Sony) while the case is still pending. The underlying case, for rape/abuse etc., she can conceivably still win. Though there are also counterclaims against her, for defamation/extortion, etc., that she could theoretically lose.

Her argument in favor of the injunction, though, was that the window for success in pop music is so narrow that to delay recording opportunities is effectively to deny them.

"commercially reasonable" ughhh

katherine in that 2011 link you posted it says that sony's deal with dr luke is a five-year one, which means that it must be up for renewal...this year? could that affect anything?

My understanding is that, while the five-year deal awarded Sony exclusive rights to Dr. Luke's work as a producer, that division of Sony (Kemosabe) is basically his to run indefinitely. Allowing him to start producing for nonSony artists again (if that happens) is not likely to affect Kesha's contract.

Not that I support the decision, but I think the judge was in a difficult place here. If there isn't any evidence that Dr. Luke committed a crime, granting Kesha the preliminary injunction sets a terrible precedent and is essentially saying that all an artist has to do to get out of a contract they don't like is to allege an assault.

I hate the outcome because the bar to proving assault for women is already impossibly high. But I think Geragos didn't help matters by dragging Lady Gaga into this – that's a disclosure for Lady Gaga to make, not a celebrity lawyer.

Whole thing is ugly. Hopefully more evidence comes out or other women to support Kesha's case.

do judges in cases like this really set precedents, though? i'm not a lawyer and i have no idea how shit works but it just reminds me so much of things lawyerly inclined leftie friends have said about the legal system and rape, which aligns with everything i've ever heard from non-lawyerly people about the legal system and rape, like basically everything is set up to not believe the victim. i mean she is basically being compelled to either work with, or substantially enrich, her rapist and abuser. so horrible.

It's correct that trial-level judicial opinions do not set legally binding precedent that another trial-level court would be obliged to follow. However, a trial-level opinion in Kesha's favor would be considered "instructive" and could conceivably inspire similar suits.

Right, okay.

Ugh.

It's also just... I mean I get that the law works in its own way and you can't always mete out the most just decision because of the way the thing works and so on. It just lines up so much with the thinking of, y'know, oh all women really want to go out and make up a fake assault to get attention/whatever. Not saying that was the judge's mentality (and certainly not saying it's yours!), just in a different culture that would be so obviously a drop in the bucket versus actual victims being contractually bound to their abusers. The whole thing's just depressing as hell, I know years ago in this thread I was pretty dismissive of her but I just can't even imagine being in her position.

This is obviously anecdotal, but during my yearlong judicial clerkship working on mostly criminal cases after law school, I never saw a jury return a guilty verdict in a rape case. Not once.

Granted, this was in Baltimore, where an understandably deep distrust of the justice system makes it difficult to get jurors to return a guilty verdict on anything. But still.

Why are there binding contracts? Artists should be able to work with whomever they want in my (naive) opinion. This is just a nightmare.

Because Sony's (and perhaps Kesha's) values don't mirror Ian MacKaye's.

(Hard to judge the values of someone who signed an arguably lopsided contract at such a young age.)

"But I think Geragos didn't help matters by dragging Lady Gaga into this – that's a disclosure for Lady Gaga to make, not a celebrity lawyer."

I didn't know about this until just now; she denied this, right? what an idiot move by Geragos

Why are there binding contracts? Artists should be able to work with whomever they want in my (naive) opinion. This is just a nightmare.

― Treeship, Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:21 PM

Because Sony's (and perhaps Kesha's) values don't mirror Ian MacKaye's.

(Hard to judge the values of someone who signed an arguably lopsided contract at such a young age.)

― dc, Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:33 PM

I think there’s a position in-between, contracts should address tangible assets (e.g. recorded albums) rather than future earnings.

Most importantly, a "good" contract should be equitable and mutually beneficial.

But that's enough nerdiness from me for today; time to go out on the town.

music industry is notorious for exploitative contracts

A standard music industry contract (I used to work for a label) is seven albums, with the artist getting a higher advance for each subsequent album, but after each album the label has the option to renew or not. So if Sony lets Kesha make another album, and it tanks, they can drop her and she can go work with whoever will work with her.

but Dr Luke would have to produce the record, if I understand correctly?

No, he wouldn't be involved directly.

The objection is that Sony could deliberately stall her career by not releasing or promoting any records she makes.

i think the injunction hearing yesterday was about deciding whether or not the court could take the possibility of kesha working with dr. luke again off the table legally

sony and luke's label kemosabe have apparently agreed to allow kesha to work with other non-luke writers and producers but team kesha argues that sony will decline to properly promote/fund collaborations with other producers unless the court insists that luke is legally removed from the table as an option

exploitative contracts and NDA agreements cover up a lot of abuses in the industry, something that might help here is if there was some kind of artist/performer's bill of rights which specifies that recording contracts and non-disclosure agreements can be voided in cases where abuses like this happen

thanks for the clarification!

i feel bad for speculating about how to solve the problem itt it's a very complicated issue and even though it could be solved instantly by people not being dicks my understanding of it all is feeble and i have absolutely no idea what to do about it

Seems like Sony/Kemosabe should release her from contract on their own volition at this point.
Is whatever they gain in not doing so really worth all of the (rightfully) negative chatter?
Do they really imagine future Kesha delivering hit after hit for them, glad-handing on tv, operating like this never happened?

What can they possibly gain from this?
Seems only sensible to dissolve the contract and move on.

i would guess they're concerned about the precedent? It's immensely shitty no matter how you look at it.

here is a good/useful legal rundown http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/kesha-dr-luke-lawsuit

sony's gonna drop dr luke

i'm skeptical of these reports. it would be good news though.

not sure how "is paid off to 'mutually' exit the contract" is a far-fetched scenario here

i don't think it's an implausible story, it's just an "unnamed sources saying what people want to hear" story at the moment so you never know

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-kesha-honor-sony-contract-dr-luke-article-1.2591100

(Judge) Kornreich, who denied Kesha’s bid to get out of her Sony contract binding her to Dr. Luke earlier this year, wasn’t sympathetic.

“Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime,” she wrote.

“Although Gottwald’s alleged actions were directed to Kesha, who is female, (her claims) do not allege that Gottwald harbored animus toward women or was motivated by gender animus when he allegedly behaved violently toward Kesha.”

The judge dismissed Kesha’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the statute of limitations with respect to the alleged assaults in 2005 and 2008.

And Kornreich, in bluntly cold language, implied the insults allegedly hurled at Kesha over the years weren’t severe enough for the court to act on them.

“Her claims of insults about her value as an artist, her looks and her weight are insufficient to constitute extreme, outrageous conduct intolerable in civilized society,” she wrote.

UGH.