Legal
Page: 71
Smokey Robinson has won a protracted legal battle with a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits from the legendary Motown singer. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Following a three-day trial that saw extended testimony from the star himself, an […]
SoundExchange is suing SiriusXM over allegations that the satellite radio giant has been “gaming the system” in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Virginia federal court, the royalties group claimed that SiriusXM has been using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
“Through its contrived and improper apportionment, Sirius XM has engineered a windfall for itself and deprived artists of the important compensation to which they are legally entitled and desperately need,” wrote lawyers for SoundExchange in the complaint.
The allegations concern the royalties paid under so-called statutory licenses – government mandates that automatically give certain streaming services the ability to broadcast songs for a set price. Crucially, that system sets different rates for revenue from satellite broadcasts (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) versus that from so-called webcasting services, which are transmitted through the internet.
In Wednesday’s complaint, SoundExchange says SiriusXM has intentionally bundled the two products together as a single offering in recent years, allowing the company to mix the revenue in order to improperly lower its royalty bill.
“Sirius XM is gaming the system: to grossly underpay the royalties it owes, Sirius XM has unreasonably characterized revenue from its bundled product as ‘webcasting revenue’ that in actuality is “[satellite] revenue’,” SoundExchange wrote. “Sirius XM’s revenue apportionment is beyond the pale, and harms music creators.”
According to SoundExchange, that maneuver has allowed SiriusXM to shortchange artists to the tune of $150 million. The company has also allegedly refused to comply with an indepdent audit that found millions in such shortfalls.
“Sirius XM has not paid its bills,” SoundExchange wrote. “By purporting to comply with the statutory license without paying what it owes under the license, Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe said the group had only resorted to litigation as a last resort. “In recent years we have viewed SiriusXM as a willingly lawful and compliant company that shares our desire for a robust streaming marketplace. But SiriusXM has and continues to wrongfully exploit the rules to significantly underpay the satellite royalties that it owes.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Record labels sue the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old records; Dua Lipa loses a bid to dismiss one of the “Levitating” copyright lawsuits; a federal judge questions the fairness of Live Nation’s arbitration agreements with ticket buyers; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Historical Preservation or Blatant Infringement?
Like almost anything implicating copyright law, the Great 78 Project is something of a Rorschach test.
To the Internet Archive, it’s a project of “preservation, research and discovery,” aimed at creating a “digital reference collection of underrepresented artists and genres.” Digitizing hundreds of thousands of old 78rpm records is a much-needed effort to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.”
But according to a new lawsuit filed last week by Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord, the Great 78 is nothing more than “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote in the massive lawsuit this week, which claims the Internet Archive infringed more than 2,700 songs and potentially owes as much as $412 million in damages.
“Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale,” the labels wrote.
At issue in the case are so-called pre-1972 songs — a category of music that was, when the Great 78 Project launched in 2006, not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old records as part of the Music Modernization Act.
While the new law contained carveouts that allowed “non-commercial” uses of certain old records, the labels say the Internet Archive simply “ignored the new law and plowed forward as if the Music Modernization Act had never been enacted.”
For more, go read our full breakdown of the lawsuit, including access to the actual legal complaint filed against the Internet Archive.
Other top stories…
10 YEARS FOR TORY LANEZ – The rapper was sentenced to 10 years in prison for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence was much harsher than the penalty sought by Lanez’s lawyers (just probation) but less than the 13 years that prosecutors had requested.
DUA LIPA CAN’T BEAT DISCO CASE – A federal judge ruled that Dua Lipa must face a copyright lawsuit accusing her of copying “Levitating” from a 1979 disco song, refusing the star’s early bid to end the case. Though she ruled that Lipa’s accusers had failed to show that the pop star had ever heard the song she was accused of copying, the judge said they had shown “just enough” to proceed on their claim that the song was so “strikingly similar” that it constitutes infringement.
TWITTER FIRES BACK AT PUBLISHERS – Twitter filed its first real response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users. The case claims that Twitter infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, but in a motion to dismiss the case, lawyers for the Elon Musk-owned site (now rebranded to X) said the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users.
The 1975 KISS FALLOUT CONTINUES – The organizers of a Malaysian music festival are seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975 after lead singer Matty Healy’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival.
NO ARBITRATION FOR LIVE NATION – A federal judge ruled against Live Nation in an antitrust lawsuit over allegations of inflated ticket prices, declaring that the case should proceed as a federal class action rather than via private arbitration. Concertgoers opt into that out-of-court process when they buy tickets, but the judge ruled that the arbitration process posed a “serious risk of being fundamentally unfair” to consumers: “Because Defendants are often in effect the only ticketing game in town, would-be concertgoers are forced to accept Defendants’ [arbitration agreement] in full, or else forego the opportunity to attend events altogether.”
Twitter has filed its first formal response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users.
The filing came two months after dozens of music publishers sued the Elon Musk-owned site, claiming its users had infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.
In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed Monday, lawyers for Twitter (now re-branded to X) argued that the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users. Among other things, they cited the Supreme Court’s high-profile 2005 ruling on the filing sharing service Grokster, which said that digital services cannot be sued unless they take active steps to encourage infringement by users.
“In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” wrote the company’s lawyers, hailing from the law firm Quinn Emanuel. “To the contrary, X’s anti-infringement policies and practices … belie any reasonable assumption that X has induced its users to infringe any copyrights.”
The case against Twitter was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that the site is the last major social media service refusing to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts.
“Twitter stands alone as the largest social media platform that has completely refused to license the millions of songs on its service,” said NMPA president/CEO David Israelite when the case was filed in June. “Twitter knows full well that music is leaked, launched and streamed by billions of people every day on its platform.”
But in Monday’s response, Twitter’s lawyers argued that even if such licensing deals were the NMPA’s preferred outcome, they are not legally required to avoid a copyright lawsuit – and that the failure to secure one was irrelevant to the infringement case against it.
“The allegation … is just another way of saying that X could do more to address the unauthorized use of music on the site by purchasing licenses from Plaintiffs on behalf of X’s users,” Twitter’s attorneys wrote. “Whether X sought music licenses for users or elected not to do so has no bearing on this inquiry; it is not evidence of an intent to encourage infringement.”
Notably, this week’s filing from Twitter did not delve into the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users.
The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The publishers’ lawsuit goes to great lengths to argue that Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
Twitter heavily refutes that point and, though they did not do so on Monday, its lawyers will undoubtedly invoke the DMCA’s protections at a later stage of the case if their current motion is denied.
The case against Twitter was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.
A rep for NMPA did not immediately return a request for comment on Twitter’s new filing.
Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord are suing the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old vinyl records from Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby and other iconic artists, calling it “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Friday in Manhattan federal court, the labels took aim at the Internet Archive’s “Great 78 Project,” in which thousands of physical records have been digitized and made available to users for free. They called the project “wholesale theft of generations of music.”
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote. “Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale.”
Though they claim “hundreds of thousands” of songs have been illegally copied, the labels are specifically suing over 2,749 songs – every single one of which, they say, is already available on legal digital services. They include iconic tracks like Crosby’s “White Christmas” and Sinatra’s “I’ve Got the World on a String.”
“Defendants [cannot] justify their activities as necessary to preserve historical recordings,” the music companies wrote. “These recordings face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”
The lawsuit is hardly the Internet Archive’s first dust-up with copyright law. The group fought to invalidate legislation passed by Congress in the 1990s that added years onto the length of a copyright’s term of protection, and is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the major book publishers over a COVID-era library project that scanned physical books and lent them to users for free. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Internet Archive’s project was not a legal fair use of the publishers’ books.
In Friday’s complaint, the music companies cited the Internet Archive’s “long history of opposing copyright laws” and previous efforts to “improperly … wrap its infringing conduct in the ill-fitting mantle of fair use.”
“Having failed repeatedly in Congress and the courts, Internet Archive now chooses to simply willfully disobey the copyright laws of which it is acutely aware,” lawyers for the music companies wrote.
At issue in Friday’s complaint are so-called pre-1972 songs – a category of music that was previously not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old songs as part of the Music Modernization Act. In their complaint, the music companies said they were suing to “vindicate the rights Congress has granted creators in pre-1972 sound recordings.”
“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime,” the companies wrote. “Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music.”
The lawsuit is seeking so-called statutory damages for each copyrighted song allegedly infringed, which could total $412 million if fully granted. But such damages totals are heavily litigated and could be substantially lower if the case ever reaches a final judgment.
In addition to naming the Internet Archive itself as a defendant, the lawsuit also individually names the group’s founder, Brewster Kahle, as well as George Blood, an audio engineer who allegedly worked on the Great 78 project.
The Internet Archive did not immediately return a request for comment.
Read the entire complaint filed against the Internet Archive here:
The organizer of a Malaysian music festival is seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975, after its lead singer’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival, the company’s lawyer said Friday (Aug. 11).
Future Sound Asia sent a letter to the band on Monday demanding compensation over a breach of contract, said FSA lawyer David Dinesh Mathew.
During the July 21 performance, Matty Healy used profanities in his speech criticizing the Malaysian government’s stance against homosexuality, before kissing bassist Ross MacDonald during the opening show at the Good Vibes Festival in Kuala Lumpur. Footage of the performance was posted on social media and sparked backlash in the predominantly Muslim country.
In Malaysia, homosexuality is a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and caning.
The government slammed Healy’s conduct, blacklist the band from the country and cut short the three-day festival. Some in the LGBTQ+ community also took to social media to criticize the band, saying Healy had disrupted the work of activists pushing for change and also endangered the community.
In the letter, Mathew said the band had given a written pledge before the show that it would adhere to all local guidelines and regulations. Instead, Healy’s “use of abusive language, equipment damage, and indecent stage behaviour” caused financial losses to FSA.
“Unfortunately, the assurance was ignored,” Mathew said Friday in a written statement to The Associated Press. “Their actions have had repercussions on local artists and small businesses, who relied on the festival for creative opportunities and their livelihoods.”
As such, he said FSA demanded that The 1975 acknowledge their liability and pay 12.3 million ringgit in compensation for damages incurred. On its website, FSA said it is in the midst of accommodating all refund requests.
The lawyer said FSA will take legal action in the courts of England if the band fails to respond by Monday, a week after the legal letter of claim was sent.
The band canceled its shows in Taiwan and Jakarta, Indonesia, after the fiasco in the Malaysian capital. It wasn’t the first such provocative on-stage display by Healy in the name of LGBTQ+ rights: In 2019, he kissed a male fan during a concert in the United Arab Emirates, which outlaws same-sex sexual activity.
Following his 10-year prison sentence this week for shooting Megan Thee Stallion, Tory Lanez took to Instagram late Thursday (Aug. 10) to maintain his innocence and declare that he won’t “stop fighting till I come out victorious.”
Lanez (real name: Daystar Peterson) — who was convicted on three felony counts in December over the 2020 shooting — addressed the note to his “Umbrellas” fan group.
“I have never let a hard time intimidate me,” he wrote. “I will never never let no jail time eliminate me. Regardless of how they try to spin my words, I have always maintained my innocence and I always will.”
He writes that during his sentencing hearing, he took responsibility for “verbal and intimate moments that I shared with the parties involved,” but not for the shooting itself. “In no way shape or form was I apologizing for the charges I’m being wrongfully convicted of. I remain on the stance that I refuse to apologize for something that I did not do.”
Tuesday’s decadelong prison sentence for Lanez — which comes more than three years after the July 2020 shooting — was more than the probation sought by his lawyers but less than the 13 years prosecutors had suggested. The shooting occurred after Lanez, Megan Thee Stallion (real name: Megan Pete) and their friend Kelsey Harris left a party. According to prosecutors, Meg exited the vehicle and Lanez shot at her feet while shouting, “Dance, bi—!” Lanez was charged with the shooting in October 2022.
Read Lanez’s new statement in full below:
To The Umbrellas,
I have never let a hard time intimidate me. I will never never let no jail time eliminate me. Regardless of how they try to spin my words, I have always maintained my innocence and I always will.
This week in court I took responsibility for all verbal and intimate moments that I shared with the parties involved. … That’s it.
In no way shape or form was I apologizing for the charges I’m being wrongfully convicted of. I remain on the stance that I refuse to apologize for something that I did not do.
I’ve faced adversity my whole life and every time it looked like I would lose, I came out on top. This is nothing but another moment where my back is against the wall and I refuse to stop fighting till I come out victorious.
Tough times don’t last, tough people do.
To my family, friends and umbrellas thank you for your continued support.
See you soon.
Lizzo could be facing further legal action on the heels of a lawsuit filed by three tour dancers who claimed in a complaint filed last week in Los Angeles that the “Juice” singer subjected them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment that included allegations that they were pressured to touch nude dancers during a live sex show.
According to a statement from attorney Ron Zambrano — who is representing dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez — “we have received at least six inquiries from other people with similar stories since we filed the complaint.”
Zambrano added that, “Noelle, Crystal and Arianna have bravely spoken out and shared their experiences, opening the door for others to feel empowered to do the same. Some of the claims we are reviewing involve allegations of a sexually charged environment and failure to pay employees and may be actionable, but it is too soon to say.”
At press time a spokesperson for Lizzo had not returned a request for comment on Zambrano’s statement.
The complaint filed last week on behalf of Davis, Williams and Rodriguez accused Lizzo (born Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including racial and religious discrimination. Among the allegations in the suit were claims that Lizzo pushed the dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District and pressured them to engage with the performers.
The lawsuit also claimed that the captain of Lizzo’s dance team, Shirlene Quigley, forced her religious beliefs on the plaintiffs and took repeated actions that made them uncomfortable, including commenting about their virginity and simulating oral sex on a banana in front of them.
In one of the most notable allegations, the suit claims that Lizzo, who has made body positivity a key aspect of her brand, “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain after a performance at the South by Southwest festival.
Last Thursday, Lizzo issued her only response to date to the suit, calling the allegations “false” and “sensationalized stories” in a statement on Twitter. “I am not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be these last few days,” Lizzo wrote. “I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I cannot accept or allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not.”
She said that the allegations that she and her company created a hostile work environment that included allegations of religious and racial discrimination were “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
Lizzo specifically addressed the allegation that she had “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain, saying, “There is nothing I take more seriously than the respect we deserve as women in the world. I know what it feels like to be body shamed on a daily basis and would absolutely never criticize or terminate an employee because of their weight.”
Though Lizzo did not specifically address the individual accusations in the suit in her statement, she called them “sensationalized stories [that] are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.”
In a response, Zambrano said Lizzo’s statement “only adds to our clients’ emotional distress”; at press time the names of the alleged six other people reportedly contacted Zambrano after the suit was filed had not been released. Billboard has reached out to one of Lizzo’s lawyers, Marty Singer, for comment on Zambrano’s statement but had not heard back at press time; according to NBC News, Singer had recently called the lawsuit “specious.”
Following the suit and Lizzo’s statement, filmmaker Sophia Nahli Allison — who at one point had been attached to direct the singer’s Love, Lizzo documentary — explained on her socials why she left the project. “In 2019, I traveled a bit with Lizzo to be the director of her documentary. I walked away after about 2 weeks. I was treated with such disrespect by her,” Allison wrote.
“I witnessed how arrogant, self-centered, and unkind she is. I was not protected and was thrown into a sh-tty situation with little support,” she added. Allison also said her gut told her to leave the project, and that she is “grateful” that she did, adding that she “felt gaslit and was deeply hurt.” At the time Lizzo’s reps had not returned Billboard‘s requests for comment on Allison’s claims.
Earlier this year, Amazon Studios announced that auditions had begun for the second season of Watch Out for the Big Grrls, a series that chronicled the singer/rapper’s search for her next crew of “BIG GRRRL” dancers to accompany on her 2022 tour; according to NBC, among the six unnamed people Zambrano has talked to, some said they worked on the Amazon series.
In addition, on Tuesday, the Jay-Z-founded Made In America festival, which was to feature headline sets from Lizzo and SZA, announced that it was pulling the plug on this year’s edition due to “severe circumstances outside of production control.” A statement from organizers did not give specific reasons for the cancellation and a spokesperson for promoter Live Nation referred Billboard to the statement without offering additional comment. NBC reported that before the suit against Lizzo was filed, an unnamed source close to the production said that ticket sales for this year’s Made in America fest in Philadelphia were “not good.”
Tory Lanez was sentenced to 10 years in prison Tuesday (Aug. 8) for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident.
The long sentence for Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) comes after he was convicted in December on three felony counts over the incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan (real name Megan Pete) during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
Handed down by Judge David Herriford, the sentence was much harsher than the probation sought by Lanez’s lawyers but less than the 13 years that prosecutors had requested. Neither Tory’s lawyers nor the DA’s office immediately returned a request for comment.
According to The Associated Press, Lanez pleaded for mercy ahead of the sentencing, asking Judge Herriford for probation or a minimal prison sentence: “If I could turn back the series of events that night and change them, I would,” he reportedly said. “The victim was my friend. The victim is someone I still care for to this day.”
“Everything I did wrong that night, I take full responsibility for,” he added.
For his part, Judge Herriford reportedly said it was “difficult to reconcile” the caring person described by Lanez’s supporters in statements delivered in court on Monday (Aug. 7) with the man who shot Megan: “Sometimes good people do bad things. Actions have consequences, and there are no winners in this case.”
Tuesday’s hearing occurred nearly three years after the July 12, 2020, shooting, which happened as a driver was shuttling Lanez, Megan and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted, “Dance, bitch!”, and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Megan initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Megan herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
Ahead of sentencing, prosecutors had sought a 13-year sentence for Lanez, telling the judge Lanez had “waged a campaign to humiliate and re-traumatize the victim.” They said the rapper “not only lacks remorse” but also is “clearly incapable of accepting any responsibility for his own actions.”
In their own filing last week, Lanez’s lawyers asked the judge to sentence him to only probation. They maintained that he was innocent, but said that even if he had committed the crimes, that his punishment should be lessened in light of “childhood trauma” and “alcohol-use disorder.”
Following sentencing, Lanez can still appeal his conviction at a state appellate court. But such a challenge will face an uphill climb: In 2022, California appeals courts overturned a defendant’s guilty verdict in just 19% of cases.
Iggy Azalea is clarifying reports that she has spoken out in support of rapper Tory Lanez (born Daystar Peterson) as the “Say It’ MC is awaiting sentencing in his felony assault and weapons case in connection with his attack on Megan Thee Stallion in July 2020. The Associated Press reported on Monday that Azalea was among the dozens of people who wrote the judge in the case, with her note asking that the sentence be “transformative, not life-destroying.”
In a series of tweets, however, Azalea wrote, “I have not been in touch with tory for months, I have no reason to be, but I do wish him well,” adding, “I don’t ‘support’ anyone. the whole thing is full of oddities. My letter never mentioned anything in regard to what happened that night.”
Lanez’s sentencing will stretch into Tuesday (Aug. 8) and in a written statement, Megan described the ongoing trauma she has suffered since Lanez shot her in the feet after they left a Hollywood party together three years ago. “Since I was viciously shot by the defendant, I have not experienced a single day of peace,” Megan said in a statement read by Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Kathy Ta. “Slowly but surely, I’m healing and coming back, but I will never be the same.”
Megan, who testified during the trial, said she struggled with appearing in person to read the statement, but said she, “simply could not bring myself to be in a room with Tory again.”
In a further clarification, Azalea noted that she was told her statement would be for the judge’s eyes only. “Yet it’s being discussed in public? I never intended to publicly comment,” she wrote. “Iam not in support of throwing away ANY ones life if we can give reasonable punishments that are rehabilitative instead. I support prison reform. Period.”
Further explaining why she wrote a statement, Azalea said she was asked to share her “genuine experience and the type of punishment I think he deserves: I did.” In another tweet Azalea lamented that the statement became a topic of conversation on Monday because, in her words, “it’s not really an explosive revelation. Yes: he should be held accountable. No: the charges don’t warrant 5plus in prison.”
She argued that “most agree” with her position because “it’s a reasonable take.”
Though Megan did not come to court to make her statement in person, she asked Judge David Herriford not to take that as a sign of indifference and urged him to issue a stiff sentence to Lanez. Sentencing hearings typically take only a few hours, but Herriford allowed attorneys for each side to argue factors for Lanez’s potential sentence, allowing seven witnesses to give statement’s about the rapper’s charitable works, his childhood trauma and his status as a father to a six-year-old son.
Prosecutors have asked the judge to hand down a 13-year sentence to Lanez, 31, who was convicted of three felonies: assault with a semiautomatic firearm, having a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. Lanez’s lawyers have argued in a sentencing memo that he should get only probation and be released from jail to enter a residential substance abuse program.
See Azalea’s tweets below.
For the record:1. I have not been in touch with tory for months, I have no reason to be, but I do wish him well. 2. I don’t “support” anyone.the whole thing is full of oddities. My letter never mentioned anything in regard to what happened that night. 3. I was told this…— NOT IGGY AZALEA (@IGGYAZALEA) August 8, 2023
I really hate that this is todays discourse online because it’s not really an explosive revelation. Yes: he should be held accountable. No: the charges don’t warrant 5plus in prison. Most agree with that sentiment because it’s a reasonable take. This is not news worthy. 🤷♀️— NOT IGGY AZALEA (@IGGYAZALEA) August 8, 2023