• Kesha sobs as judge refuses to cancel contract with producer Dr. Luke who allegedly raped her in 200
    98 replies, posted
[quote] Kesha broke down in tears in Manhattan Supreme Court Friday when a judge denied her request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily nullified her contract with Sony Records - and freed her from working with the man she says raped her. The "Tik Tok" singer says she's too afraid to continue collaborating with super producer Dr. Luke, whose real name is Luke Gottwald. KESHA'S ALLEGED RAPE HAPPENED WHEN SHE WAS 18-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN She claims he holds her exclusive contract, and even though Sony has offered to let her work with another producer, Kesha said she feared the company wouldn't promote her music if she’s paired with a different partner. The 28-year-old, whose real name is Kesha Rose Sebert, claims that Dr. Luke drugged her with a "sober pill" and raped her shortly after her 18th birthday in California. He was never criminally charged.[/quote] [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/kesha-sobs-judge-denies-sony-records-injunction-request-article-1.2537490[/url]
A he-said-she-said from 10 years ago, and she doesn't even need to work with the dude (which he himself pointed out) to fulfill her contract. If he isn't the sole point of contact to fulfill the contract and there are alternatives, then what reason is there to annul it?
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49774640]A he-said-she-said from 10 years ago, and she doesn't even need to work with the dude (which he himself pointed out) to fulfill her contract.[/QUOTE] Yes but lets imagine it did happen, can you imagine still technically having as your boss someone who raped you? I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, I'm just saying lets not be so hasty to dismiss her feelings on this.
[quote]She claims he holds her exclusive contract, and even though[B] Sony has offered to let her work with another producer[/B], Kesha said[B] she feared the company wouldn't promote her music if she’s paired with a different partner[/B].[/quote] What reasoning would Sony even have to not promote her music just because she pairs with someone else? Like, what the heck [editline]19th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=shozamar;49774642]Yes but lets imagine it did happen, can you imagine still technically having as your boss someone who raped you? I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, I'm just saying lets not be so hasty to dismiss her feelings on this.[/QUOTE] Like I said, if she can work with someone else (which sony has offered (and she has turned down because of some weird paranoid claim?)) then why should the contract be canceled?
[QUOTE=shozamar;49774642]Yes but lets imagine it did happen, can you imagine still technically having as your boss someone who raped you? I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, I'm just saying lets not be so hasty to dismiss her feelings on this.[/QUOTE] Right, but it's not been demonstrated either criminally or civilly that he did, legally, rape her. Do not get me wrong. Rape is a heinous crime. It is terrible in any of it's forms. However, with no substantive proof to act on, we as a society cannot merely tip over the apple cart on the mere substance of one's apparent or claimed feelings.
Suppose Sony is just a greedy corporation. [quote]...Kesha said she feared the company wouldn't promote her music if she’s paired with a different partner.[/quote] So, Sony holds the contract with Kesha. Kesha is a popular artist. Supposing that Sony is just another faceless, soulless, organization that only cares about money and not justice or feelings, why would Sony not promote the music of a popular artist? In other words, what would Sony have to gain from not promoting her music and not getting the money from the sales? What cogent reason is there for Sony to not want to make money? Is Sony out to lose money just to make Kesha unhappy? What fact is her allegation towards Sony based in? I don't understand. [quote]Kesha's lawyer, Mark Geragos, argued that Sony's promise was "illusory" because even if the recordings were made, the record company wouldn't promote them. He contended that Sony had more invested in Dr. Luke than in Kesha and it would do everything to protect him because he makes them more money.[/quote] Let me get this straight: The idea is that Sony would make the most money off of Dr. Luke, especially if he worked with Kesha. So they're arguing that because Sony won't get the best case scenario (i.e. the most money with Dr. Luke + Kesha), Sony would rather make no money at all and just waste time and resources to make an album with just Kesha and then just not promote it? This line of reasoning is nonsense. Yeah, Sony is conspiring against her to not make any money. Sure, whatever.
[QUOTE]Even though Sony has offered to let her work with another producer, Kesha said she feared the company wouldn't promote her music if she’s paired with a different partner.[/QUOTE] And a lawsuit is sure to make them happy to promote her.
So Kesha believes she was raped when she was 18, never pressed charges, but attempted to sue her producer in 2014 for punitive damages relating to the alleged rape. Now her lawyers failed to produce enough evidence to grant an injunction against her producer 10 years after the alleged rape. I can see how the judge would deny this request.
i feel bad for kesha :(
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49775021]i feel bad for kesha :([/QUOTE] You shouldn't feel anything for either side. For all you know she could be lying or telling the truth.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49774770]And a lawsuit is sure to make them happy to promote her.[/QUOTE] It's a shitty situation either way though. No concrete proof was put forward by Keshas legal team to prove that she was actually raped so I don't disagree with the judges decision in this case but if she was Sony would basically be making her choose to continue working with her rapist and furthering her career, or working with another producer who wouldn't necessarily advance her career or image as well. Like I said, shitty choice.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49774796]So Kesha believes she was raped when she was 18, never pressed charges, but attempted to sue her producer in 2014 for punitive damages relating to the alleged rape. Now her lawyers failed to produce enough evidence to grant an injunction against her producer 10 years after the alleged rape. I can see how the judge would deny this request.[/QUOTE] It's really not easy as a rising star to file charges against your producer. I'm not saying we should presume the guy guilty but we can at least show her some sympathy because if what she's saying is true that's a fucked up thing to go through
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49775021]i feel bad for kesha :([/QUOTE] I don't. There are two scenarios 1) She wasn't raped and wants to get out of the contract for some other reason. Putting aside the enormous implications of accusing someone of sexual assault, this is greedy and selfish. You signed a contract. Deliver on it then get out. Shit sucks but there you go. 2) She was raped and went ahead with the injunction knowing full well that she didn't have proof to back it up. In this case I would feel sorry for her being raped (if we had anything to base that on. of course) but not really for losing a case that by every measure of justice should have been lost.
the music industry is sick and exploitative. its totally within the realm of poissibility kesha was raped. i dont understand why everyone casts doubt on her. and to suggest she doesnt deserve sympathy for beign raped because she had the audacity to wait to bring it foreward is ridiculous and gross
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49774640]A he-said-she-said from 10 years ago, and she doesn't even need to work with the dude (which he himself pointed out) to fulfill her contract. If he isn't the sole point of contact to fulfill the contract and there are alternatives, then what reason is there to annul it?[/QUOTE] That's sort of the issue on these crimes, I'm not saying he should get away with it, but 10 years is 10 years too late if no evidence exists now it's virtually impossible to get a conviction, which is about what it would take to break her contract We can't presume guilt based on soley on the victims testimony, that is the sort of Justice that has put innocent men to death. These are cases where nobody truely wins
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49775329]the music industry is sick and exploitative. its totally within the realm of poissibility kesha was raped. i dont understand why everyone casts doubt on her. and to suggest she doesnt deserve sympathy for beign raped because she had the audacity to wait to bring it foreward is ridiculous and gross[/QUOTE] Do you really think that unequivocal physical evidence showing her being raped would be met by people saying she doesn't deserve sympathy?
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49775329]the music industry is sick and exploitative. its totally within the realm of poissibility kesha was raped. i dont understand why everyone casts doubt on her. and to suggest she doesnt deserve sympathy for beign raped because she had the audacity to wait to bring it foreward is ridiculous and gross[/QUOTE] At least consider how touchy of a subject it is. The whole idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' shouldn't just be thrown out because the alleged crime is so tragic. I say alleged in this case because there isn't really any definitive proof either way, and that sucks. I don't think anyone has really said she doesn't deserve sympathy for being raped either.
[QUOTE=NikoChekhov;49775463]At least consider how touchy of a subject it is. The whole idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' shouldn't just be thrown out because the alleged crime is so tragic. I say alleged in this case because there isn't really any definitive proof either way, and that sucks. I don't think anyone has really said she doesn't deserve sympathy for being raped either.[/QUOTE] you are right. it is a touchy subject and it is totally easy to lose sight of how things ought to be handled.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49774687]What reasoning would Sony even have to not promote her music just because she pairs with someone else? Like, what the heck [editline]19th February 2016[/editline] Like I said, if she can work with someone else (which sony has offered (and she has turned down because of some weird paranoid claim?)) then why should the contract be canceled?[/QUOTE] um why would they support her when shes publicly damaging sony brand. plus her rapist would be getting money from her album sales anyway.. i believe in her and sony should just let it go..
You can't treat somebody as a rapist if you don't have evidence.
[QUOTE=testinglol;49775857]um why would they support her when shes publicly damaging sony brand. plus her rapist would be getting money from her album sales anyway.. i believe in her and sony should just let it go..[/QUOTE] When did she publicly damage Sony brand before the lawsuit? She made the lawsuit on the assumption that Sony wouldn't support her [I]before[/I] any public accusations. Are you saying that her play was to say that Sony wouldn't support her, and then go public with a lawsuit which would make her statement true (i.e. "if I say Sony won't support me, and then I publicly damage their brand, then my statement retroactively becomes true")? Are you accusing Kesha of conspiracy against Sony? What evidence do you have to support your accusation?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49775912]When did she publicly damage Sony brand before the lawsuit? She made the lawsuit on the assumption that Sony wouldn't support her [I]before[/I] any public accusations. Are you saying that her play was to say that Sony wouldn't support her, and then go public with a lawsuit which would make her statement true? Are you accusing Kesha of conspiracy against Sony? What evidence do you have to support your accusation?[/QUOTE] im saying she is damaging it [B]right now[/B]. its too late for her to work there.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49775867]You can't treat somebody as a rapist if you don't have evidence.[/QUOTE] Can't speak for everyone ofc but I'm not saying we should treat the guy like a rapist, just that we shouldn't treat her like she's lying because she can't prove what happened.
[QUOTE=testinglol;49775930]im saying she is damaging it [B]right now[/B]. its too late for her to work there.[/QUOTE] So Sony should press charges against Kesha for Libel? Sounds like that Kesha orchestrated events to make her economically unfeasible for Sony to hold on to, and accomplished this by spreading misinformation grounded in no fact (that Sony wouldn't support her because ___). This is all, of course, if what you're saying is true. This is only the logical conclusion of what would happen if Sony actually believed what you said; that Kesha was damaging their brand, intentionally or not.
[QUOTE=testinglol;49775857]um why would they support her when shes publicly damaging sony brand.[/quote] Because not doing so would mean losing out on money. [QUOTE=testinglol;49775857] plus her rapist would be getting money from her album sales anyway[/quote] Neither of us have the contract to actually know this, but unless the alleged rapist is Sony itself then I am seriously doubtful. [QUOTE=testinglol;49775857] i believe in her and sony should just let it go..[/QUOTE] Annulling the contract would serve no purpose except to lose potential profits, Sony has already attempted to accommodate (ie: offer to partner her with someone else) as much as they conceivably could without the dude actually being convicted.
Some of you have this very unusual idea that rape is completely black and white. It's not easy for a rape victim to come out and seek legal action against their attacker. I'm not saying Kesha was raped, but I am not saying that she was not raped either.
[QUOTE=Sleepy Head;49775972]Some of you have this very unusual idea that rape is completely black and white. It's not easy for a rape victim to come out and seek legal action against their attacker. I'm not saying Kesha was raped, but I am not saying that she was not raped either.[/QUOTE] Agreed. I'm very specifically avoiding talking about the accused rape because it's too much of a grey area and I don't know enough about it to talk about it.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49775957]Because not doing so would mean losing out on money. Neither of us have the contract to actually know this, but unless the alleged rapist is Sony itself then I am seriously doubtful. Annulling the contract would serve no purpose except to lose potential profits, Sony has already attempted to accommodate (ie: offer to partner her with someone else) as much as they conceivably could without the dude actually being convicted.[/QUOTE] its currently doing sony more harm than money. which probably makes them lose money. also she is registered to alleged rapists label so hes gonna get money from her music either way. even if shes working with someone else, shes also working with that guy.
[QUOTE=testinglol;49775988][B]its currently doing sony more harm than money. which probably makes them lose money. [/B] also she is registered to alleged rapists label so hes gonna get money from her music either way. even if shes working with someone else, shes also working with that guy.[/QUOTE] And so they would rather continue spiting her (and therefor losing even more money)? I don't think you're quite thinking this through.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49776000]And so they would rather continue spiting her (and therefor losing even more money)? I don't think you're quite thinking this through.[/QUOTE] i dont think they thought about backlash they would be getting either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.