Regulatory Rap Compliance

A legal guide to your consumption of Tupac, Kanye, Drake, Outkast Et al.

Revised Statutes

Title 9-A: Hip Hop Consumer Code

Article

§1–201. TERRITORIAL APPLICATION

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, this act applies to hip-hop artists and their consumers, and any mutual musical transactions made or entered into in this State. For purposes of this act, a mutual musical transaction is made or entered into in this State if:

A. A song is released in album form [1979, c. Sugar Hill Gang, §1A Rappers Delight]

B. A song is released via airwaves through car or personal stereo [1979, c. Fatback Band]

C. With respect to streaming services, the musician, hereinto for “Rapper”, where ever located, enters into a stream based transaction with a consumer who resides in the State [2014, c. Apple, §25(n); 2015 c. Tidal §(h)(o)(v)]

2. (since redacted)

3. Rules, limitations, regulations, and remedies as described apply to all hip hop based actions, other proceedings such as songs, lyrics, flows, and persona

§2–307. RESTRICTIONS ON INTEREST IN INDIVIDUAL AS A POTENTIAL GOAT

  1. With respect to famously married New York Rapper turned coatrack, Jay(Z), said rapper cannot be considered as GOAT if for no other reason than the release (described in §1–201(1)(A) of Young Forever. [2009, c. Blueprint III, §15]
  2. With respect to premature, tragic termination as described in the (redacted) Federal Files of Shakur/Wallace [Tu](pac)] and (b)(i)(g), said rappers cannot be considered as GOAT for lack of sufficient musical evidence, through no fault of the listed parties
  3. With respect to those from area of Mile 8, boundaries at 42.3314(N) 83.0458(W), said rapper Eminem (see; Mathers, Marshall; see; Shady, Slim) cannot be considered as GOAT for release (described in §1–201(1)(A) of Relapse [2009] and Recovery [2010] as well as repeated and increasingly stale attacks towards female consumers
  4. With respect to individual self-declared as GOAT, said rapper Lil Wayne cannot be considered as such for release of song (described in §1–201(1)(B) of How to Love; see Federal charter for ruling on whether release of listed song qualifies Lil Wayne from musical suspension [2011, c. Tha Carter IV, §(n)(o)(p)(e)]

§3–507. AUTHORIZATION TO CONFESS JUDGEMENT PROHIBITED

  1. Acceptable individuals for whom judgement on future transactions described in §1–201 is prohibited on any basis including Twitter Moments, Reddit, and additional Memes, and until proved by court ruling under the Freedom to Cook Act [2016]

A. Griffin, Michael William Jr a/k/a Rakim is exempted from prohibitive judgement based on release of Paid in Full [1987] and relationship with Eric (B)

B. Duo of Andre [3000] and Big [Boi] with respect to work in Outkast as well as work as individuals, both applicable under State Statute, are exempted from prohibitive judgement based on overall body of work of the collective, with specific focus on the transaction with members of Underground Kings entitled within as International Players Anthem [2007], restrictions described under §2–307(3) Eminem regarding discriminatory lending practices towards female consumers not applicable as Top Notch Hoes Get The Most Not The Lesser is not applicable to this statue as it has been protected by Article UGK of the United States Constitution

C. With respect to proprietor of (G)(o)(o)(D) Music, Kanye West, individual is exempt from prohibitive judgement for release of album MBDTF [2010, c. Nicki] as well as partial responsibility for late re-emergence of Pusha (T).

2. Acceptable individuals for whom judgement on future transactions remains reliant on one to two more releases of any item listed in §1–201(A-C) before relocation to subsection 1 of §3–507 include

A. Lamar, Kendrick, for release of TPAB [2015]

B. Rapper, Chance The, for release of Coloring Book [2016, c. Blessings §12]

C. (since redacted)

§4–006. NO LOST GARNISHMENT FOR JUDGEMENT AGAINST

  1. In addition to the rule making authority outlined in §3–507, the consumer may adopt reasonable rules in accordance with this section governing agreements in which the musical provider is allowed to be clowned upon for various reasons. In adopting this rule, the administrator shall take into consideration the provider’s body of work and overall persona.
  2. In order to appropriate permissible and acceptable providers, connection to one or several of the following subsections must be met:

A. Acceptable for inclusion if rapper released “Views” §1–201(1)(A) on an exclusive streaming service §1–201(1)(C), more specifically, said rapper faces inclusion for expecting consumer to be excited about another album about fame, relationships, and interconnection between the fame and relationships [2009, c. So Far Gone; 2010, c. Thank Me Later; 2011, c. Take Care; 2013, c. Nothing Was The Same]

. a. Said rapper also faces inclusion to statue for adopted Jamaican accent, running adopted hometown list to Toronto, Louisiana, Houston, and Jamaica, well outside permissible jurisdiction for single individual

B. Acceptable for inclusion if rapper is frequent target of vitriol from twitter account of Serrano, Shea [Texas, c. NYTBS TRYB]

. a. Said rapper also faces inclusion for consumers insistence on discussing transaction sales in relation to total number of features [2014, c. Forest Hills Drive]

§5–1738. MISC. JUDGEMENTS AGAINST AND PERMISSIBLE PRACTICES

  1. If a rapper feels compelled to ask the consumer whether or not the consumer “Gets It” after what is ostensibly a punch line, the consumer reserves right to consider said rapper to be trash as outlined in §4–006. This provision is clearly noted in subsection §88(A) a/k/a The Murphy Lee Clause as seen in §1–201(1)(A) Shake Ya Tailfeather [2003, c. Bad Boys II]
  2. If a rapper offers to the consumer that “(said consumer) already knows whats going down” in regards to a future transaction, and said rapper is not D[M]X, consumer reserves right for judgement and potential reimbursement at the conclusion of the transaction; as listed rapper D[M]X is only musical provider with consistently predictable product
  3. If consumer enters transaction and upon entering immediately hears the following: “Whooo (Weeee), It’s Just [me] [myself] and [I], consumers reserves right to cancel transaction immediately