Kesha found guilty of defamation, ordered to pay $370k to Dr. Luke

[LadyxGaGa 859]

2 hours ago, Deagan said:

Do you seriously think like this? Two bad albums? She hardly makes bank? What the hell do you even know and wow how can you have such a patronizing opinion of a woman who has been extremely successful? Kesha has never gotten anything of the "bank" she was making before and that is the actual problem. Her tours, make-up and merch have been fine, and debuting with 35000 pure album sales with a gay as hell pop album is totally fine.

Anyway that's not the point. 

This entire legal battle is much more than "guilty or not". She has successfully defamed him and that was worth it! Why does Sony stick around? Cuz Kesha is a moneymaker!

Now if Gaga actually dropped the name of her supposed raper, she would be in the exact same position as Kesha is now. Yet we've never seen Gaga have the balls to drop a name and yet she has consistently played a victim card and even claims it caused her fibro. I'm still waiting for her to stand up and actually call someone out in the same way Kesha did. What's stopping Gaga? Scared to lose a penny on lost defamation suit?

it just seems like these last two albums suck and her first two albums were actual bangers, I am sorry I think the way I do, I didn't think it would offend kesha, let alone a rando. and my opinion wasn't an opinion more of an observant thought, like why are we continuing to drag this out, she is guilty, lets let them be and move on. sorry kesha didn't win but she didn't really lose either 

[Deagan 608]

5 hours ago, LadyxGaGa said:

it just seems like these last two albums suck and her first two albums were actual bangers, I am sorry I think the way I do, I didn't think it would offend kesha, let alone a rando. and my opinion wasn't an opinion more of an observant thought, like why are we continuing to drag this out, she is guilty, lets let them be and move on. sorry kesha didn't win but she didn't really lose either 

Well this rando thinks it's a good thing as many people get to see what a prick Dr. Luke is.

[Nosferatu 1,076]

Aren't these the messages Dr. Luke himself asked to be made public? And I'm pretty sure Katy Perry was against it. 

Yeah, not fishy at all.

[Snow 1,582]

Liars got what was coming to them...

[Deagan 608]

7 hours ago, Aladdin said:

Aren't these the messages Dr. Luke himself asked to be made public? And I'm pretty sure Katy Perry was against it. 

Yeah, not fishy at all.

I wonder how he's aware of what Kesha texts Gaga anyway.. has Gaga been snitching?

[Suuus 5,632]

5 hours ago, Snow said:

Liars got what was coming to them...

Who says that kesha is a liar

[Economy 43,989]

On 2/10/2020 at 11:38 AM, Deagan said:

What the hell? Ehm yes 1 by 1 would be great especially for a first set of albums. Most popstar eras last for 2-3 years per album anyway.

At least they know? What? You're so naive. Have you never seen how many artists are trying to get out of a record deal? This is slavery, honey. Slavery.

7 albums means 7 * 3 years = 21 years of making the music that Dr. Luke wants to include on a record because he decides what's put out and what's not. And that is if you poop out an album every 3 years like that... How you don't see a problem with a 7 album contract astonishes me. 

I think 7 albums is a bit much but album to album is too little

 

Especially new artists they spend a lot of resources to promote that they try to make a star out of

 

Artists shouldn't be able to use the label to make them big and use all those resources then just suddenly dip. If a label is gonna spend a lot of money making new artists they should be guaranteed their investment back

 

I do think 7 eras is way too long and abusive tho but I also think album to album is to little (at least in the cases or contracts where labels agree to devote a lot of resources to an artist)

 

[Deagan 608]

40 minutes ago, Economy said:

I think 7 albums is a bit much but album to album is too little

 

Especially new artists they spend a lot of resources to promote that they try to make a star out of

 

Artists shouldn't be able to use the label to make them big and use all those resources then just suddenly dip. If a label is gonna spend a lot of money making new artists they should be guaranteed their investment back

 

I do think 7 eras is way too long and abusive tho but I also think album to album is to little (at least in the cases or contracts where labels agree to devote a lot of resources to an artist)

 

But that is not the case here.. bte.. do we have any clue how much return on investment a label makes already on the first album? Well then two albums seems fine. But anyway, how much money do you need to pump into a new artist that doesn't already pay itself back after one successful album?

[Economy 43,989]

11 minutes ago, Deagan said:

But that is not the case here.. bte.. do we have any clue how much return on investment a label makes already on the first album? Well then two albums seems fine. But anyway, how much money do you need to pump into a new artist that doesn't already pay itself back after one successful album?

I don't know the answer to that

 

But we do know earnings these days from singles and albums alone are limited... Tours are the big money makers (or endorsements too if artists chosen to go into that)

 

It does take some time for new artists to create a dedicated fan base for big tours for example so I don't know that a label truly makes THAT much money from 1 first successful era

 

Anyway the circumstances would also vary from artist to artist and contract to contract. I don't think we can come up with definitive number of what's appropriate

 

I do agree again to that 7 albums is very excessive tho for anyone

[wahkeenasitka 1,965]

WHAT?! This is so freaking disturbing.