Normally I'd root for the little guy, but Leto is such a giant douche. I have a hard time believing there are "hardcore" fans of 30STM.

30stm actully does have a pretty rabid base who want jared to quit movies and focus on the tunes.

And their parents want them to move out of the basement, too.

I'd still like to know where the hell that $30 million figure came from.

we might be getting a very clear indicator of the Hands on approach to EMICAP Virgin artists

frankly I'm not sure you will sell another million units.

You are very fortunate dear boy, especially considering you are merely a Jonas Brother for the Emo/Goth set.

Isn't he handled by Irving? I think Lee, I mean Jared, should shut up.

We had been signed to our record contract for 9 years. Basically, under California law, where we live and signed our deal, one cannot be bound to a contract for more than 7 years. This is widely known by all the record companies and has been for years. In fact, so aware of it are they that they desperately try to make deals outside of California whenever possible. It is a law that protects people from lengthy, unfair, career-spanning contracts. This law also gave us the legal right to explore other possible opportunities.

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sued by the corporation quite simply because roughly 45 days ago we exercised our legal right to terminate our old, out of date contract, which, according to the law is null and void.

But after years of lobbying the RIAA got an exemption (in 1987): the De-Havilland-Law doesn't apply for music industry contracts.

I thought it was used, or attempted to be used, by BECK and LeAnn Rimes?

The law was also used by Incubus in 2003. While there was an exemption granted in 1987, I highly suspect no record labels really want to actually be challenged in court (i.e. go to verdict) over the law, which is why bands still use it to try to re-negotiate contracts despite knowing of the exemption. These things usually end up with a band challenging the label, the label counter suing for damages and breach of contract and both sides settle out of court before a verdict.

If it were to actually go to the courts for verdict and that exemption overturned, whether it be from a California court or work its way into the Federal Supreme on appeals and they lose, the proverbial flood gates would open across the board for all bands under California contracts. From there, a precedent could be set and bands from other states would want to challenge their contracts, etc.

"Is it actually Californian law, or just something that all labels refuse to have challenged in court?"

The De-Havilland-Law (California Labor Code Section 2855) was the result of a lawsuit filed in the 1940s by Olivia De Havilland (and the SAG) against Warner Bros. Pictures (the studios could suspend their actors and add the suspension period to the contract period).

But after years of lobbying the RIAA got an exemption (in 1987): the De-Havilland-Law doesn't apply for music industry contracts.

Most contracts I've seen call for options for albums and delivery periods. Considering it's been 3 years since the last album, sounds like they've been dragging their feet in delivering said last option. And the suit was a response to that and a response to their "repudiation" claim.

And Soup, yes, you're way off with your numbers. But also remember EMI's profits or break even point is in no way related to 30STM's break even or recoupment benchmark.