Poll

the 7 year statute should...

apply to recording contracts too
3 (42.9%)
should stay the way it is, not apply to recording contracts
2 (28.6%)
i really don't care
0 (0%)
i'm really confused
2 (28.6%)

Total Members Voted: 7

Voting closed: December 14, 2004, 10:24:38 pm

Author Topic: 7 year statute in California  (Read 1790 times)

Holly

  • VCUBs
  • Speeding into the horizon
  • *
  • Posts: 4612
  • Twin Stars
    • View Profile
7 year statute in California
« on: December 14, 2004, 10:24:38 pm »
California has a rule that contracts can be terminated after a period of 7 years and this is true for everything except recording contracts. This is being heavily debated in the music industry and it's a fight between artists and labels. What do you think should happen?
"i'm willing to do anything
to calm the storm in my heart
i've never been the praying kind
but lately i've been down upon my knees
not looking for a miracle
just a reason to believe"

Mountaineer

  • Fine as dandelions
  • *****
  • Posts: 1673
    • MSN Messenger - guitragirl6@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - jumpergirl3eb
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - jumpergirl3eb
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/beepr
7 year statute in California
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2004, 09:48:29 am »
I wouldnt want it to go to record contracts. Thank God i dont live anywhere near CA. I live in my on little world called Puerto Rico.

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3990
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
7 year statute in California
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2004, 10:35:37 am »
Quote from: "Bee"
It should stay away from recording contracts. Cus some artist dont make alot of money and the label is just spend on them when they could have  spend more money on a new upcoming artist or someone elses album. Cus 7 years is along time and alot of money can be lost with no income in 7 years.


Maybe you should do some research before you post an opinion?
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

keith

  • I'd Walk A Thousand Miles...
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
    • AOL Instant Messenger - keithrj997
    • View Profile
7 year statute in California
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2004, 11:32:16 am »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "Bee"
It should stay away from recording contracts. Cus some artist dont make alot of money and the label is just spend on them when they could have  spend more money on a new upcoming artist or someone elses album. Cus 7 years is along time and alot of money can be lost with no income in 7 years.


Maybe you should do some research before you post an opinion?
lol

Holly

  • VCUBs
  • Speeding into the horizon
  • *
  • Posts: 4612
  • Twin Stars
    • View Profile
7 year statute in California
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2004, 11:32:35 am »
I'm a lil inbetween on this issue, but I'm leaning more towards that it should stay the same.

A contract can hold an artist for an average of 7 albums (some mandatory albums, and some options but if the artist is doing well it can take those options.) A album cycle normally takes between 18 and 36 months... The extreme case is that an artist can be bound to a record label for 21 years, basically their entire career (if they're lucky). The fact that it has a possibilty of being that long, and artist-label relations can turn sour over time, kind of sucks. But... a 7 year time limit would be horrible! That only gives time for the artist to put out like 2 or 3 albums, and normally artists dont do well in the first couple albums. This would make it hard for record labels to be recouped from the advances they give the artist. On average it takes sales of 250,000 and up for label to be recouped, how many new artists can do that right away? They need to cross-collaterization of several albums in order to recoup all their money. Since most artists can't recoup their money in 7 years, and under this statute an artist could walk out in 7 years, this would leave the music industry in trouble. If record labels loose money, they can't promote the artists...
So yeah 7 year statute is bad when it comes to record contracts, everything else is  fine, just not this.
"i'm willing to do anything
to calm the storm in my heart
i've never been the praying kind
but lately i've been down upon my knees
not looking for a miracle
just a reason to believe"

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3990
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
7 year statute in California
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2004, 01:08:27 pm »
Quote from: "Holly"
I'm a lil inbetween on this issue, but I'm leaning more towards that it should stay the same.

A contract can hold an artist for an average of 7 albums (some mandatory albums, and some options but if the artist is doing well it can take those options.) A album cycle normally takes between 18 and 36 months... The extreme case is that an artist can be bound to a record label for 21 years, basically their entire career (if they're lucky). The fact that it has a possibilty of being that long, and artist-label relations can turn sour over time, kind of sucks. But... a 7 year time limit would be horrible! That only gives time for the artist to put out like 2 or 3 albums, and normally artists dont do well in the first couple albums. This would make it hard for record labels to be recouped from the advances they give the artist. On average it takes sales of 250,000 and up for label to be recouped, how many new artists can do that right away? They need to cross-collaterization of several albums in order to recoup all their money. Since most artists can't recoup their money in 7 years, and under this statute an artist could walk out in 7 years, this would leave the music industry in trouble. If record labels loose money, they can't promote the artists...
So yeah 7 year statute is bad when it comes to record contracts, everything else is  fine, just not this.


You can't make a definitive statement like that.

Realize, the way MANY contracts are written now, a label can drop an artist at any time but an artist cannot leave the contract till it's compeleted.  This is sure onesided.  The only way an artist can protect him/herself is via short contracts.

Plus, a label can recoup MUCH faster than 7 years if they practice proper spending.  That's the problem with labels right now, they throw cash around.  In fact, a good label would recoup and make a profit on EVERY SINGLE ALBUM.

And frankly, if an artist isn't making good albums by their FIRST record then there should be no second record.  They shouldn't be signed until they are capable of making a good record.

THis is like arguing that rookie basketball players should have to sign long contracts because it might take them 5 years to be good.  No.  If the player isn't good by the 2nd year then he/she will be cut anyways.
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew