You might know the band 30 Seconds to Mars, quite successful (especially in the US). Their label Virgin/EMI are sueing the band for not delivering the agreed number of albums. Here's a short version from the band:

"Yes we have been sued by EMI. But NOT for failing to deliver music or for 'quitting'. We have been sued by the corporation quite simply because roughly 45 days ago we exercised our legal right to terminate our old, out of date contract, which, according to the law is null and void.

We terminated for a number of reasons, which we won't go into here (we'd rather not air any dirty laundry) but basically our representatives could not get EMI to agree to make a fair and reasonable deal.

A few things to note...

If you think the fact that we have sold in excess of 2 million records and have never been paid a penny is pretty unbelievable, well, so do we. And the fact that EMI informed us that not only aren't they going to pay us AT ALL but that we are still 1.4 million dollars in debt to them is even crazier. That the next record we make will be used to pay off that old supposed debt just makes you start wondering what is going on. Shouldn't a record company be able to turn a profit from selling that many records? Or, at the very least, break even? We think so."

http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/main.asp

So even a successful band have not paid, literally, a penny.

DIY anyone?

yeah, read about this at lunchtime - what's particularly strange about this is the $30m figure, which is so crazy huge it makes the suit seem more vindictive from EMI than just to recoup any "losses".

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Yes... I wondered if it was some kind of attempt perhaps to scare them into shape? Also, I don't know about this Californian by-law that limits the duration of the contract, but I would certainly assume that EMI's lawyers do! In fact, I'd go so far as to assume that they'd have done something about it to begin with, like not having their head office in CA (thereby making it a pan-state contract that isn't bound by this 7-year limitation, or something).

Curious indeed.

Cheers,

Chris

Wow, it seems like the R.Cs are starting to really s**t themselves!

Oh well, good for me I'm neither on or have ties to EMI!

--------------------
Mac user; Logic and ProTools systems.

It's hard sympathise with any record company these days, but a deal is a deal. It's a fair bet that an EMI contract contains a jurisdiction clause saying UK law applies throughout and (Britain not being noticeably a totalitarian state or war enemy of the US) any US court would recognise that. I'm also not at all persuaded by the hysterical assertion that no contract in California may last more than 7 years. (Don't they have mortgages out there?).

It is quite plausible that EMI have not recouped outlays (including global marketing and distribution costs) out of "only" 2 million album sales.

EMI are of course losing big name artists hand over fist since the Terra Firma private equity takeover...

IF this band has a right to walk enshrined in a break clause in the contract, then I'd defend their right to exercise it (obviously). But then EMI would not be suing them. They are not suing McCartney, The Stones, Radiohead etc are they... all of whom did have a contractual right to walk?

I see the band also object to EMI owning the masters to their recordings forever. Dream on, they haven't got a prayer on that one.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

it's a fair point about the masters, and you're probably onto something with the "UK law throughout" thing (seen it enough times in legalese...)

still, $30m in damages (30 seconds to mars? 30 million? a coincidence?) is just crazy.

mind you, you really have to question what kind of advance they had on this five year deal if two million album sales still leaves a $1.4m debt... i mean, i know their videos were expensive, but still...

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Just a note on that comment about mortgages in California. I reccently heard a report on BBC podcast that said that there's a clause in California that allows people to walk away from their mortgages, and a lot of people have been doing that reccently because of the high intrest rates and theyr in negative equaty.
Im no expert, i just listened to the BBC, but there may be some merit in this 7 year thing.

--------------------
Rise Inside Productions
www.myspace.com/riseinsideproductions

Quote onesecondglance:

---

i mean, i know their videos were expensive, but still...

---

Their videos are unnecessary well done IMO.

Quote SyncratiK:

---

Quote onesecondglance:

---

i mean, i know their videos were expensive, but still...

---

Their videos are unnecessary well done IMO.

---

got them a lot of exposure on MTV etc; a lot of awards; = wider audience and more sales? you'd hope.

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

just a couple of points ....

1) as w/t lyle lovett story a few weeks back, i think it''s disingenuous of artists to claim that they've no money on multi-million selling albums when what is more accurate to say is that they've not recouped their advances. there is a world of difference between the two. granted, record companies have long padded their expense statements (as does hollywood - google the case of art buchwald (american humorist) and the movie 'made in america', where buchwald wrote a treatment for the movie in return for a profit-share deal and sued when he was told that the movie still wasn't profitable years later; he won big bucks and in the discovery process the scandalous nature of studio accounting was laid bare). many smart muzos have long declined advances because it limits a lot of the abuse potential.

2) re: california mortgages. in most u.s. states, mortgages are 'non-recourse', meaning that the bank can seize the mortgaged collateral (house, office bldg, etc) but no other assets if the collateral doesn't satisfy the amount owed. after the mortgage debacle, that may change.

3) lawyers sometimes do have a sense of humor, so it's possible the damages amount ($30 mill) was tweaked to line up with the band's name. the main thing, though, is that it appears their label wants to make an example of them.

4) it used to be said about fighting a big publisher, 'never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the tanker'. fighting labels is possible for the mega-bands but for mid-tier and lower acts, good luck. it's not unlike 'bleak house' except w/o the dickensian character studies ;-)

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"