Well lets see where everyone weighs in on this issue. But i pointed this out a few months ago that Labels should penalize someone that has an issues with the law while they are on that label. The reason i say this is that in any other job (pretty much) you would be penalized for this, even Higher paying jobs like atheletes are at least suspended, released, % of salaries taken away, it may seem like much but shouldnt a label penalize their artist for that too? I mean have a little bit of humility and when an issue occurs, say Rape scandals,gun issues, drunk driving, shootings,etc, that you actually stand up and say something besides "we support our artists in their troubles". The reason this comes up is that there is a rumour that BMG is going to drop George Michael because of his recent issues with the law, now i know what you are saying alot of people have alcohol problems, true, but the fact that he is constantly behind the wheel is a criminal issue, and what if he runs over a kid, whos to blame, i think everyone including the label which is bankrolling him. Now i love George, but this new tour and album are nothing more than "I dont feel like recording, but i need $$ right now to support my habits and make money for my label so i still have a job".

What would be so wrong if, lets say since today Jadakiss got arrested on Gun possession, his label fines him and any other issues like that he is dropped. What would be wrong with that? sure he could go to another label, but if one label would start this then others might follow.
[Edited 10/8/06 13:33pm]

^I tend to agree. It might make some thugs think twice about acting out and maybe even help some substance abusers seek help sooner.

lastdecember said:

It sounds reasonable in theory, but it is extremely problematic in practice. First of all, there's the legal employment issue of when labels sign artists to their label; i.e., is the artist an employee of the label or an independent contractor? The record companies usually sign artists as independent contractors because it makes it much easier for them to get rights to publishing and recording royalties without actually having to treat the artist as an employee (pay benefits like Social Security, health insurance, etc.). There was a huge issue about the record companies being able to sign artists on a "work for hire" basis whihc allowed them to dump artists at will and not pay benefits. I remember Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and a bunch of other artists all took the record companies to court over this several years ago, but the courts claimed that the record companies could do this under current employment law.

Second, you have an issue on whether the labels are actually responsible for the conduct of their artists. Let's say for instance that Arista/BMG wanted to drop Whitney Houston from their label for drug use. Whitney Houston could claim that they were committing breach of contract because they were violating the terms of her contract because she was still selling tons of records for the label. It could drag on for years and cost both sides thousands to millions of dollars in court costs. (In the case of Mariah Carey and Virgin Records, Virgin could have dropped her for having a nervous breakdown, but they chose to claim that her album sales at the time did not justify paying her $100 million because they were losing money. Therefore it was a business issue and not a conduct issue.) Then you have the other issue of the record companies actually enabling bad conduct (if not outright encouraging it) by traditionally having drug-and-alcohol-filled parties in the Hollywood Hills or encouraging hip-hop artists to carry guns around to show their street cred. It's one thing for a record label to crack down on artists doing bad behavior, but it's another thing entirely when one label (e.g., Death Row) disses the artists on another label (Bad Boy) and creates a huge bi-coastal feud just to sell records. Or if whatever record label that signed Paris Hilton had a record release party and allowed her to publicly diss Lindsay Lohan and Shanna Moakler.

Th reason that sports teams can suspend players for bad conduct is because the teams and their owners have collectively bargained with the players and their unions to allow a framework for what activities the players can or cannot do while playing for their teams. Even so, the process can still drag on for weeks or months, as the player who committed a crimninal offense gets suspended by the team or sports league gets his chance to appeal his punishment, which could take even more time and still allow him to play and collect his salary until his appeal is heard. How this would appeal to entertainers in general and musicians in particular, I don't know, because musicians aren't unionized with each other. Actors are unionized (SAG, AFTRA), directors are unionized (DGA), and screenwriters are too (WGA), but these have more to do with royalties than everyday conduct, and the fact that most movies and TV shows are actually independent production companies who have to sell their shows to distributors (i.e., the major movie studios and TV networks) means that the distributors have little control in covering the conduct of their actors or directors. Remember the big stink that resulted when the president of Castle Rock Entertainment publicly chastised Lindsay Lohan for skipping a movie shoot for medical reasons, yet she was well enough to go clubbing that same night? He was absolutely right to do what he did, but he would have had to go through a long drawn-out process to actually fire her from the movie.

728huey said:

No i hear ya totally, i think it would be something to look at though for labels. I mean if Jadakiss worked at a retail job and was arrested for gun possession he would lose his job, though that may not sound fair it is the truth. Labels pretty much are bankrolling misconduct, i think thats more the issue, although they never look into someones background when they sign them, imagine they did? Though it may seem unfair to do this, i think labels, which are in trouble already financially would serve themselves best to cleaning up or at least penalizing. Now the issue of addiction is different, though whitney has her issues, i wouldnt blame the label, though i would step force her to clean up or clear out. In George Michaels case he is in a position where he is causing danger to others, now if he wants to get stoned thats his choice but when he gets behind the wheel and kills someone its murder, and of course everyone will feel bad for him, but why not cut out or limit the source, George needs to hit rock bottom before he can get help. And just imagine if the Law stepped in and started actually going after labels that employ an artist with criminal troubles, holy crap would the world shake.
[Edited 10/8/06 16:06pm]

Someone should penalize the labels first.