• Kesha sobs as judge refuses to cancel contract with producer Dr. Luke who allegedly raped her in 200
    98 replies, posted
Kesha is about as sexually classy as Paris Hilton, I bet half the studio's been there while she recorded those awful "im so wild and free wauuuuuuuw~" singles
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;49779737]I am only speaking for myself, but people should understand that not automatically siding with Kesha is not the same as automatically siding with Dr. Luke and Sony. Some people are just acknowledging that, as the facts are presented right now, Kesha's case is weak and without the aid of many, many assumptions, we cannot prove whether or not her allegations about past and future effects are true. This is not the same as saying Dr. Luke is an innocent saint who would never hurt a fly, or that Sony is blameless in any sort of wrongdoing. This is just pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to believe claims without proof, no matter the context. All we can do is suspect.[/QUOTE] I understand, and every other one of his posts exemplifies what you're saying - except for the one line I quoted. I wouldn't have a problem with a single line if it stopped at implying, but it says, word by word, that it's wrong not to dismiss Kesha's claim. I think neither you or him understand that this is all I was trying to get at, and that I have no problem with it now that I pointed it out, and he clarified his point.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49777944]are you saying its not possible the first testimony in 2011 was not the lie because she was, like many rape victims, afraid to speak out against her rapist???[/QUOTE] Afraid to speak out against her alleged rapist, but not afraid to sue him for punitive damages from said rape?
you guys are fucked. here's a good onion article with a better moral centre [url]http://www.starwipe.com/article/judge-forces-kesha-work-abuser-citing-precedent-mu-2074[/url]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49777944]are you saying its not possible the first testimony in 2011 was not the lie because she was, like many rape victims, afraid to speak out against her rapist???[/QUOTE] In which case she committed perjury in 2011. Eitherway, ne bis in idem still applies and unless some new evidence came up, her sworn testimony from 2011 is kinda on top. [QUOTE=D3N1ZFTW;49777552]Considering Sony's forcing Kesha to either: 1) work one way or another with Dr. Luke, her alleged rapist + emotional and physical abuser (Kesha has spent two months in rehab for bulimia, possibly because of the stress caused by Luke who compared her with a "fat refrigerator"), or 2) not release music at all, I'd say the backlash they receive is deserved. [/quote] Apart from the whole sony offering her to change producers right? I mean evil sony, not forcing her to work with a producer she's got huge issues with and totally not forcing her to not release new music.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49781960]you guys are fucked. here's a good onion article with a better moral centre [url]http://www.starwipe.com/article/judge-forces-kesha-work-abuser-citing-precedent-mu-2074[/url][/QUOTE] There is nothing moral about accusing someone of being a rapist with no evidence.
“My instinct is to do the commercially reasonable thing,” Judge Kornreich told Kesha Still cannot believe that line.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49782243]There is nothing moral about accusing someone of being a rapist with no evidence.[/QUOTE] I cannot wrap my head around people like this at all. She was -really- young when this happened and a barely known artist. -If- she's being legit, I can garuntee that she was told she'd never work again if she ratted. For a young girl on the path to international stardom, that's MASSIVE. coupled with the emotional trauma, im not shocked she kept quiet. Nowadays rape is usually much more focused on in news and in court. No surprise she figured now was her only chance. Yes it sucks she's got no proof, yes she -should- have mentioned it earlier. Demonizing her for her actions is beyond retarded though and reeks of the 'whatever just another woman abusing the system!' mentality that permeates the internet nowadays [editline]20th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;49782048]In which case she committed perjury in 2011. Eitherway, ne bis in idem still applies and unless some new evidence came up, her sworn testimony from 2011 is kinda on top. Apart from the whole sony offering her to change producers right? I mean evil sony, not forcing her to work with a producer she's got huge issues with and totally not forcing her to not release new music.[/QUOTE] You do understand that regardless of her producer, she's working under Luke right? [editline]20th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Tools;49780273]Kesha is about as sexually classy as Paris Hilton, I bet half the studio's been there while she recorded those awful "im so wild and free wauuuuuuuw~" singles[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean did you -see- what she was wearing?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49782048] Apart from the whole sony offering her to change producers right? I mean evil sony, not forcing her to work with a producer she's got huge issues with and totally not forcing her to not release new music.[/QUOTE] She's still signed under his label so if she wants to release music, she'll have to deal with him no matter what. Ultimately, he's the one deciding if she can have a song out there or not.
Assuming that she was in fact raped (which isn't something anybody should do, that shit should be handled by the courts) then why the fuck did she even contemplate continuing to work with the guy when offered the new producer? Oh, the record company wouldn't publish it. Who gives a shit? Isn't that better than working under your alleged rapist? [del]Isn't this entirely on her? Like, 100%? She was given the choice to work with somebody else (which is her personal, non-legal issue resolved) and refused it. Then takes it to court. Even if they did temporarily nullify the contract, wouldn't she be in the same position when it came back in to play? Working under Sony who for some bizarre mental gymnastics reason would screw her over and not make a profit on their investment.[/del] [QUOTE=D3N1ZFTW;49783141]She's still signed under his label so if she wants to release music, she'll have to deal with him no matter what. Ultimately, he's the one deciding if she can have a song out there or not.[/QUOTE] If it indeed worked like that and the alleged rapist does get final say, wouldn't Sony start flinging shit at him? They have a lot more muscle power than a producer. Further, if he did turn down her stuff for publishing, wouldn't she have other options (and wouldn't Sony be the one pushing her to explore them?)
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;49783367]Assuming that she was in fact raped (which isn't something anybody should do, that shit should be handled by the courts) then why the fuck did she even contemplate continuing to work with the guy when offered the new producer? [B]Oh, the record company wouldn't publish it. Who gives a shit?[/B] Isn't that better than working under your alleged rapist?[/QUOTE] Um, you [I]do[/I] know that musicians NEED to have their music published so they can get money? Singing and songwriting isn't Kesha's hobby, it's her professional job. And if her own label isn't there to support her music, then who will? [QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;49783367]If it indeed worked like that and the alleged rapist does get final say, wouldn't Sony start flinging shit at him? They have a lot more muscle power than a producer. Further, if he did turn down her stuff for publishing, wouldn't she have other options (and wouldn't Sony be the one pushing her to explore them?)[/QUOTE] Sony has a history of controlling their artists or even downright sabotaging their musical endeavours before (see: Kelly Clarkson's My December album). For them Kesha's just another voice, another image they can promote, but Luke's a producer who has crafted quite a few hits in his history. The voice is expendable, in a way, as there are plenty of singers available, but the production of a song is much more important. Sony's clearly much more interested in protecting an established hit-maker than "catering to Kesha's wishes". If they really cared about Kesha's well-being (because it's obvious that she's not comfortable with Luke at all) they could have moved her to another one of their subsidiary labels. Instead, they kept her with Luke's label.
[QUOTE=Tools;49780273]Kesha is about as sexually classy as Paris Hilton, I bet half the studio's been there while she recorded those awful "im so wild and free wauuuuuuuw~" singles[/QUOTE] Are you fucking serious dude
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49778528]-was meant to merge- Do you not understand that the concept of innocent before proven guilty goes both ways You cannot say the producer is guilty of raping her if there's no evidence You cannot say she's guilty of lying about rape if there's no evidence[/QUOTE] Uh, what? You can say she is lying about rape allegations if there is no evidence of rape taking place.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49784141]Uh, what? You can say she is lying about rape allegations if there is no evidence of rape taking place.[/QUOTE]and you can say dr luke is lying because there's no evidence of the rape not taking place no?? innocent til proven guilt is not the same as the accuser is lying until proven not to be
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49784145]and you can say dr luke is lying because there's no evidence of the rape not taking place no??[/QUOTE] This is the most dumbest thing I have heard in a while, and I hope you are never going to be related to the judical system (apart from receiving end) ever
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49784155]This is the most dumbest thing I have heard in a while, and I hope you are never going to be related to the judical system (apart from receiving end) ever[/QUOTE]i know its dumb, as dumb as accusing someone of lying because theres no evidence in a context where its hard to provide evidence. accusing someone of lying also requires evidence, we are not in a court. people are passing judgement on her without evidence, the same applies to the accused there's a difference between "kesha has accused a person of raping her, accused is innocent until proven guilty" and "kesha has accused a person of raping her, accused is innocent until proven guilty therefore kesha is lying about being raped"
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49784141]Uh, what? You can say she is lying about rape allegations if there is no evidence of rape taking place.[/QUOTE] No evidence that rape took place =/= evidence that it didn't
wwow this thread is fucking terrible it's literally just a circle of people going "we shouldn't presume dr. luke guilty" "we shouldn't presume kesha a liar" over and over again
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49784141]Uh, what? You can say she is lying about rape allegations if there is no evidence of rape taking place.[/QUOTE] That's awfully insensitive and inconsiderate. Rape victims experience the aftermath of the abuse differently, but there's plenty of cases where the victims are too afraid to report it right away or have an examination. Some even refuse to believe that they've been raped in the first place. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Kesha was barely 18 when the alleged rape occurred – you can't expect a young girl like her to act rationally in such a terrible moment.
[QUOTE=elowin;49784226]wwow this thread is fucking terrible it's literally just a circle of people going "we shouldn't presume dr. luke guilty" "we shouldn't presume kesha a liar" over and over again[/QUOTE]presuming dr. luke is not guilty is the base premise, saying that kesha is lying is taking that premise and expanding it to "do not presume dr. luke is guilty and also kesha is lying about being raped" there is no argument to be made against assuming someone is innocent til proven guilty, of course people are innocent until proven guilty. there is an argument to be made against accusing someone of lying about being raped, the presumed innocence does not lead to 'kesha is lying about being raped'.
If Kesha said under oath that she wasn't raped then she should be held to that or be charged with perjury.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49784145]and you can say dr luke is lying because there's no evidence of the rape not taking place no?? innocent til proven guilt is not the same as the accuser is lying until proven not to be[/QUOTE] In doubt, for the accused (in dubio pro reo). That's like the most basic cornerstone of criminal law in the western law. Sure insufficient evidence to convict is something different to evidence disproving the allegation, but in general the difference isn't that great. [quote] nstead, they kept her with Luke's label. [/quote] Again, they offered her something not unlike this. She refused. [quote]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. [/quote] Look at it from Sony's perspective. What should their course of action be. Release her from the contract after they invested a truckload of money and probably have various deals in place? Or offer her a modification of the contract. On top of that, since none of us have seen the exact contract, we don't know who actually holds it. If it's sony or the producer. Nevertheless the judge has seen just this. If the contract is between her and Sony and Sony has offered her a number of ways to avoid said producer, there's no reason to pass the injunction versus Sony. If Sony on the other hand does renege on their obligation to promote her (most likely in the contract) she can go and sue them for breach of contract in a court of civil law. But that's got nothing to do with this criminal case. [quote] According to what you said here we [I]should be dismissing Kesha as a liar[/I] because any other option would be the same as holding the producer guilty. Think about that for a second. It's mind-boggling that you're touting around this 'innocent before proven guilty' narrative while [I]completely oblivious[/I] to the fact you just said we should hold Kesha guilty before proven innocent[ [/quote] Actually depending on under what situation she swore under oath that he did not sexually assault her, we should do just that. Had she accused him in the past, came to the stand and swore this, ne bis in idem would come into effect. So we shouldn't really even investigate it unless new evidence was present. Though it depends if he was accused of raping her in front of a court in the past. I'll admit I'm just working off of this article. EDIT Oh this is even better actually. From what I can see, the current case is not a criminal one but merely a civil to abolish the contract. So she's trying to abolish a contract in a civil court, by claiming that her producer raped her (despite formerly claiming the opposite under oath) and that sony would renegade on their contract. Sorry I really have to support the judge on this one.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49784474]Again, they offered her something not unlike this. She refused. Look at it from Sony's perspective. What should their course of action be. Release her from the contract after they invested a truckload of money and probably have various deals in place? Or offer her a modification of the contract. On top of that, since none of us have seen the exact contract, we don't know who actually holds it. If it's sony or the producer. Nevertheless the judge has seen just this. If the contract is between her and Sony and Sony has offered her a number of ways to avoid said producer, there's no reason to pass the injunction versus Sony. If Sony on the other hand does renege on their obligation to promote her (most likely in the contract) she can go and sue them for breach of contract in a court of civil law. But that's got nothing to do with this criminal case.[/QUOTE] I think you don't understand the situation. Luke is a producer but he's also the founder+owner of Kemosabe Records –– a Sony-owned label, which Kesha's signed to. Whatever songs Kesha offers, no matter who produced them, need to be approved by Kemosabe – AKA Luke. Kesha [I]clearly[/I] does not want to work with him in any way. Sony only offered her to work with other producers, but they didn't free her from the contract with Luke. Again, they [I]could[/I] have moved Kesha to another one of their labels so she doesn't have to deal with Luke and STILL get profit from her. But they didn't.
[QUOTE=D3N1ZFTW;49784506]I think you don't understand the situation. Luke is a producer but he's also the founder+owner of Kemosabe Records –– a Sony-owned label, which Kesha's signed to. Whatever songs Kesha offers, no matter who produced them, need to be approved by Kemosabe – AKA Luke. Kesha [I]clearly[/I] does not want to work with him in any way. Sony only offered her to work with other producers, but they didn't free her from the contract with Luke. Again, they [I]could[/I] have moved Kesha to another one of their labels so she doesn't have to deal with Luke and STILL get profit from her. But they didn't.[/QUOTE] They might not actually be able to do just that. Or not in the short term. It depends on how her contract is written. Plus nowhere in the article does it mention the specifics of the deal Sony offered her. Even her lawyer doesn't ever claim that she'd have to keep working with the current producer in any way. Just that Sony would refuse to promote her. So it's entirely possible she would have no trouble avoiding the current producer. [quote] Kesha’s lawyer, Mark Geragos, argued that Sony’s promise to connect her to another producer was “illusory” because even if the recordings were made, the record company wouldn’t promote them. [/quote] On top of that, Kesha actually renegaded on the contract herself in the past. By trying to sign up with a different producer, despite the exclusivity clause. Apparently the lawsuits from her started only after that.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49784526]They might not actually be able to do just that. Or not in the short term. It depends on how her contract is written. Plus nowhere in the article does it mention the specifics of the deal Sony offered her. [B]Even her lawyer doesn't ever claim that she'd have to keep working with the current producer in any way. [/B]Just that Sony would refuse to promote her. So it's entirely possible she would have no trouble avoiding the current producer. [/QUOTE] What her lawyer claimed is that Luke doesn't have to [U]produce[/U] her songs. Production only affects the music's composition. But since he's the owner of the label she's signed to, Kesha has to work with him. Or to word it differently: the distribution/promotion of her music can be affected by Luke. I feel like i should bring up that: 1) Luke has shelved a fully complete album by Kesha before. 2) Kesha still needs to release six or eight (not sure which was the number) more albums under Luke's contract.
[QUOTE=D3N1ZFTW;49784544]What her lawyer claimed is that Luke doesn't have to [U]produce[/U] her songs. Production only affects the music's composition. But since he's the owner of the label she's signed to, Kesha has to work with him. Or to word it differently: the distribution/promotion of her music can be affected by Luke. I feel like i should bring up that: 1) Luke has shelved a fully complete album by Kesha before. 2) Kesha still needs to release six or eight (not sure which was the number) more albums under Luke's contract.[/QUOTE] I keep hearing that but I would like to see a source, where is it saying she still had to work under Luke? The statement she gave to the media is that they wouldn't promote the work she would do with a new producer, which is a lot different than what you're saying.
[QUOTE=bunguer;49784753]I keep hearing that but I would like to see a source, where is it saying she still had to work under Luke? The statement she gave to the media is that they wouldn't promote the work she would do with a new producer, which is a lot different than what you're saying.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemosabe_Records"]She's signed to Kemosabe Records[/URL]. Labels do 99% of the promotional and distributional work. And Luke's the owner of the label she's signed to. Sony's offer only allows Kesha to have other people produce her songs, but they didn't say that Luke won't be able to decide what Kesha can release or not.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49778528]-was meant to merge- Do you not understand that the concept of innocent before proven guilty goes both ways You cannot say the producer is guilty of raping her if there's no evidence You cannot say she's guilty of lying about rape if there's no evidence[/QUOTE] She's the accuser. The producer is the defendant. No it does not. Did you even think about this? You're either right or wrong, either the defendant is guilty or whoever is charging them is lying. If "innocent until proven guilty" went both ways then it'd be a fucking useless concept. Kesha is not being accused in a court of law for lying. The producer is being accused of rape.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49785095]She's the accuser. The producer is the defendant. No it does not.[/QUOTE] And when you accuse her of lying guess what she becomes [editline]21st February 2016[/editline] Of course she's not being charged lmao. That's exactly the point. Unless she is, and then it's proven that she's guilty, she's innocent.
Ok people. Assuming Luke is guilty is wrong. Assuming Kesha is a complete liar and that her claims should be dismissed is equally wrong. Can we stop fucking assuming shit and wait for a verdict please? Kesha's case doesn't look good, but that's up to a judge and jury to decide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.