Dream Street - Can someone explain in easy terms?
Ollie
Hi,
Ok, here's the deal. I know there is a legal battle regarding Dream
Street. I kind of stumbled on it by accident, as they are not overly
well known in the UK.
Now I have very little clue what it is all about, and all the legal
statements make it more confusing than ever.
Can anyone explain from start to finish, what the hell has been going
on, in laymans terms.
Reading Dream Streets official website, the statement implies that DSE
has won the case, whereas Greg Raposo's site, seems to imply that the
guys won.
I have no clue about legal proceedings, or what kicked all this off in
the first place, and the more I search about it, the more confused I
get.
Anyone care to shed the light on this for a poor British idiot!!
Best wishes
Ollie
RTJoby
might be able to find still available in this newsgroup.
In a nutshell, the court decided the boys had no case against the managers for
lack of physical proof to their claims.
The boys sued DSE to be released from contract due to (-so the boys say-)
morale reasons.
DSE's claim was that all charges against them were being made up so the boys or
their people could take control over the group's boyband career.
There was a stipulation in the boy's contracts that if any of the boys quit,
they could never perform together again should they ever quit.
Chris Trousdale had quit sometime during the lawsuit and rejoined the DSE
managers. This made the managers look good because if one of the boys went
back----then evidently they must not be the monsters the others are claiming
after all.
DSE also brought forth the fact that Jesse McCartney had already quit the band
before the lawsuit complete with his legally signed resignation---then suddenly
was part of the lawsuit.
So the courts said Jesse should not have even been a part of the lawsuit to be
released from contract if he had already quit. So basically, Jesse would have
to honor his resignation and never perform with the other boys in public again.
So that left only 3 boys in the lawsuit in which the judge ruled the 3 boys had
no evidence against the managers to bring forth into court. So their
application to be released from the group without breaking contract
stipulations was denied. The courts legally severed contact ties with the boys
from DSE but they have to honor stipulations the main one being they can't
perform together in public again.
So the boyband Dream Street (as we knew if before) is now defunct.
Searching for answers in life
battles on the internet today... those of you on webtv can read about it
in the newsgroup menofwebtv
Perhaps someone else might point it out to you.
Walk-Man
It basically means that the production company screwed them out of
money and so Jesse, Greg, Matt, and Frankie just quit the group.
My question is why didnt they just sue for their money???
Mediajock
news:268350d9.0208...@posting.google.com...
> It basically means that the production company screwed them out of
> money and so Jesse, Greg, Matt, and Frankie just quit the group.
>
> My question is why didnt they just sue for their money???
If you mean why DS didn't sue for the management's money, it's mainly
because under the contract as it existed they had no legal claim to it. The
only way to get a better deal was to either get the leverage to change or
renew the contract, which didn't happen.
--
:)
Mediajock (FAQ Keeper)
FAQ for alt.fan.teen.idols:
http://webpages.charter.net/mediajock/faqweb.txt
FAQ for alt.binaries.pictures.teen-idols:
http://webpages.charter.net/mediajock/abptifaqweb.txt
FAQ for alt.binaries.multimedia.teen-idols:
http://webpages.charter.net/mediajock/abmtifaqweb.txt
Young Actors Viewing Guide Guest Appearances:
http://webpages.charter.net/mediajock/guest.htm
Mark L 02
<Shana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Voice-o...@webtv.net (Searching for answers in life) wrote in message
> news:<1455-3D5...@storefull-2371.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > WRONG! The Boys of Dream Street lost big time but i'm engaged with other
> > battles on the internet today... those of you on webtv can read about it
> > in the newsgroup menofwebtv
> >
> > Perhaps someone else might point it out to you.
>
>
> It basically means that the production company screwed them out of
> money and so Jesse, Greg, Matt, and Frankie just quit the group.
This is not how I see the story. I think it's a fairly typical
management-artist relationship gone bad. The managers came up with an
idea, found the boys to work with in an audition, taught them how to
perform professionally as a boyband act, bankrolled the whole operation
for a couple of years, and promoted their way to success. They feel
they are entitled to the rather large return on their investment, as
stipulated in the contract everyone signed.
The performers worked very hard and devoted several years of their
young lives to the project. As they finally succeeded, they saw huge
crowds of people coming to see them and buy their records, not the
managers who were taking a big cut of the money. As they got more
frustrated with the money situation, they got more annoyed with the
personalities of the managers.
The performers' parents tried to force an end to the binding legal
contract that they had willingly signed and gone along with for quite a
few years. They did this by raising moral issues loudly in the lawsuit
and took their case to the tabloid press and the Internet. The court
was not persuaded by this.
It looks to me like the court said, after all this time working under
your contract, you can't just stop and refuse to honor your agreement.
Because you have done just this, the other part of your contract comes
into play and you cannot perform together or use the name Dream Street.
RTJoby
>because under the contract as it existed they had no legal claim to it. The
>only way to get a better deal was to either get the leverage to change or
>renew the contract, which didn't happen. >
Here's one of the comments one of Jesse's people told me a few months back:
"The boys have a gold record and have never been paid a dime!
Kraft paid the producers 50,000 dollars for their concert winner and on the
Aaron Carter tour the producers were paid 12,000 dollars a show. Again not a
penny to the performers."
(~end of quote~)
Looks like one particular fan made more money than all 5 of the Dream Street
boys ever saw.
Bottom line is that I think the Dream Street boys had some bum lawyers.
Or someone was paid off.
Also, something to surface since I last posted a report:
I last mentioned that the boys did not complete the Aaron Carter tour not
showing up for the last 9 cities.
What they were actually doing was a strike thinking that not showing up would
get them paid some form of money that DSE owed them from the above quote.
However, the strike did not work. DSE did not give in.
And that is when everything came tumbling down afterward leading to the court
battle.
However, had DSE gave in and paid the boys & the boys completed the AC tour,
leaves the question of "would the boys still have remained in the group or
still asked to be released from contract?"
DSE probably suspected the answer beforehand.
RTJoby
>showing up for the last 9 cities.
>
>What they were actually doing was a strike thinking that not showing up would
>get them paid some form of money that DSE owed them from the above quote. >
Almost makes one think this:
They saw all the things Aaron Carter had (scooters, dirt bikes, etc) wondering
howcome Aaron gets all this crap when we're working our butts off just the same
getting nothing.
Everything did seem fine up until that point.
In a way, I can't blame them.
Everyone thinks "they lost it all".
What did they lose? Money to pay manager's bills with?
Were they suppose to be working to see what fame they could acheive until an
age where they could break out on their own?
Reading the boy's letters makes one see how sad it is to be used in such a
way---and that was exactly what they were.
Somehow the compensation of having girls screaming before you just does not
seem enough of a reward when it is all over with.
The boys took a possitive step forward to end their being "used" and I think
that is being more responsible than the courts were.
Burnt Parks
parents signed a contract that gave them no compensation rights
whatsoever? I can't believe that. (Even Burger King has to pay
mininum wage.)
It seems to me that if the boys had been owed money and sued to
collect it, then the producers would have been in breach of contract
and the entire contract could have been declared null and void.
First it was "no morals"; now it's "no money". I don't belive any of
it.
My guess was they were paid what they were owed, but not what they
felt they were worth, so they stopped working., When that didn't get
them what they wanted the parents tried to paint the producers as
dangerous perverts trying to corrupt their children. That put an end
to any chance of compromise. The court didn't buy it either.
RTJoby
>parents signed a contract that gave them no compensation rights
>whatsoever? I can't believe that. (Even Burger King has to pay
>mininum wage.) >
Dream Street was known as a "concept group" as were the Monkees, Menudo, etc.
(See below for what that means.) Concept groups are paid according to what is
stipulated in the contract.
Apprantly with Dream Street their only payment was only through fame. No money
compensation at all.
The young members of New Edition went through the exact same thing as did
NSync.
Only NSync won because JC testified in court that the managers did not come up
with the name NSync. The boys did.
Therefore the managers did not dream up the entire concept. So the boys of
NSync lucked out and were able to break out of contract on their own.
Also, the court papers show where DSE said that being the boys quit by not
completing their contract obligations (-evidently when quitting the AC tour
with 9 remaining cities left), they were attempting to bankrupt the group.
Not only does all this mean the boys did not get paid a dime---it also actually
means that if DSE wants to sue the boys for attempting to bankrupt their
"concept group", they can damn sure do so.
One of the DSE producers (Matt) has already claimed that he is going to do
exactly that as well as write a book all about what occurred.
Maybe Mrs Raposo can do the same and donate all profits from the book to the
boys for their loss of compensation.
----------------------------------------
CONCEPT GROUPS:
http://www.lad.org/TPJ/17/song_same.htm
----------------------------------------
Concept groups are formed mainly by independent record companies who assemble a
group of musicians as employees to produce a particular type of music. Id. at
581 n.18, 231 U.S.P.Q. at 286 n.18. In effect, concept groups act to fill a
niche in the entertainment market. Id. Record companies own the name and
control the product. Id. Examples of concept groups include the Monkees and
Menudo, a band whose members are retired when they reach the age of fourteen.
------------------------------
RTJoby
Recently, there was a report on 48 Hours with Teen Idols in which we notified
everyone to watch for Aaron Carter. A story on Davy Jones was featured and he
told that after The Monkees was over, he was basically left penniless with
nothing.
All the things that were given to them during their Monkees stint was taken
back from them (cars, luxeries, etc).
He was left jobless without a place to stay and eventually dropped down to 90
pounds from starving so much.
Guess adults in "concept groups" have it harder than kids do.
Mediajock
news:lgk8mu83er1odc04m...@4ax.com...
> Your argument doesn't make sense to me. You mean to tell me the boys
> parents signed a contract that gave them no compensation rights
> whatsoever? I can't believe that. (Even Burger King has to pay
> mininum wage.)
Such things happen quite frequently in the entertainment industry. In many
cases, those who enter into a contract may not be as show business savvy and
might settle for a lot less if ot sounds like a lot. Plus, in instances
like these where "manufactured" or "cast" bands walk in with little other
than themselves, they have a lot less leverage in the way of being mobile to
other outlets. The management does the investing and direction which
becomes the essence or defining characteristic of the act, which can further
cement them to their current management as is.
> It seems to me that if the boys had been owed money and sued to
> collect it, then the producers would have been in breach of contract
> and the entire contract could have been declared null and void.
And that is the question - was there a breech? The fact that the parents
wanted to get out of said contract indicates to me that there was no
breech - that the contract permitted whatever undesirable financial
circumstancces there were. And management outfits like DSE (and/or their
lawyers) aren't sumb - if they're legally bound to pay X dollars, they will
pay it. WHatever legalese mumbojumbo it takes to calculate X, though, is a
seperate stpry.
> First it was "no morals"; now it's "no money". I don't belive any of
> it.
If you follow similar debacles involving the other established (ahem, ahem)
"boy"bands, there is one distinct pattern. The grouching about money and
rights and the eminent lawsuits always come after the fact in terms of when
they start peaking in fame. A lot of them seem to ride the wave for a while
till they decide all of a sudden they've been cheated.
> My guess was they were paid what they were owed, but not what they
> felt they were worth, so they stopped working., When that didn't get
> them what they wanted the parents tried to paint the producers as
> dangerous perverts trying to corrupt their children. That put an end
> to any chance of compromise. The court didn't buy it either.
And that is essentially what happened in a nutshell.
Mark L 02
<rtj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Apprantly with Dream Street their only payment was only through fame. No
> money compensation at all.
If that were truly the situation, Dream Street would have had no
problems winning the lawsuit. The minimum wage laws mandate they make
at least $6 an hour, or something like that.
Mark
BillyGilmanFan
> Apprantly with Dream Street their only payment was only through fame. No money
> compensation at all.
I have a really hard time believing that. I very seriously doubt that
any manager, lawyer or parent would agree to any contract that didn't
pay their artist/child for the work under that contract. But what I
doubt even more is that any judge in their right mind in any American
or Canadian court would even consider approving such a contract, and
the boys original contracts where approved by the NY courts. If they
really had a contract that had them doing all this work for no money
then there's no question that they could sue DSE, every manager, every
lawyer, and the state of NY for millions, and win. There are child
labor laws, and if the original judge breached those laws by allowing
a zero compensation contract.... egad... the boys could get away with
owning NY state.
BillyGilmanFan
The UNofficial Billy Gilman Fan Web Site - www.BillyGilmanFanSite.com
RTJoby
>> Apprantly with Dream Street their only payment was only through fame. No
>money
>> compensation at all.
>
>I have a really hard time believing that. I very seriously doubt that
>any manager, lawyer or parent would agree to any contract that didn't
>pay their artist/child for the work under that contract. But what I
>doubt even more is that any judge in their right mind in any American
>or Canadian court would even consider approving such a contract, and
>the boys original contracts where approved by the NY courts. If they
>really had a contract that had them doing all this work for no money
>then there's no question that they could sue DSE, every manager, every
>lawyer, and the state of NY for millions, and win. There are child
>labor laws, and if the original judge breached those laws by allowing
>a zero compensation contract.... egad... the boys could get away with
>owning NY state. >
The comment of Dream Street not getting paid a dime originally came from
Jesse's publicist. The court papers mentioned absolutely nothing at all about
any financial wages being sought or denied by the court which seems to say that
there was no dispute of what they were or weren't paid.
I would think they either got paid very little or as he said---nothing.
Whichever the case, this is the main reason artists in "concept groups" work to
acheive fame---then seek to break out.
Ricky Martin has been asked several times if he made a lot of money in Menudo
and he said that the group was nothing more than "extreme amount of discipline"
for him preparing him for where he is now. That seems to mean he also got paid
very little---or hardly anything at all.
If the boys in Dream Street were paid minimum wage, and they work 20 hours in
one week, that would be approx $100---and ONLY the weeks they worked.
Does that sound like anything compared to what DSE management made?
It will buy a few video games and perhaps an expensive pair of sneakers.
Then they go touring with Aaron Carter and they see scooters, dirt bikes,
basketball set-ups, fancy tour bus, lots of luxeries, etc....
All of a sudden the mom's have one talk with Aaron's mom, who has already been
through this with Nick and won't let it happen with Aaron and suddenly the moms
and the boys realize----Hey we're being screwed !
DSE is making $12,000 for every apearance in the Aaron Carter tour. If we
strike for more money during the middle of the tour, they'll have to give in or
risk losing it all.
DSE instead says, "You don't show up and we will sue you for breach of
contract."
Whatever the story, it seems to have occurred during the Aaron Carter tour with
the decision backed by the moms.
Abandoning the tour did not occur with one or two of the members not showing up
but instead with all 5 of the boys all at one time with the mom's seeming to
make the decision. Their strike was either in an effort for more money---or as
Jesse's pub said---they were paid "no money"---and perhaps wanted their share.
I surely do not think the desire to be released from contract came during the
middle of the Aaron Carter tour. It would appear that strike was all about
money.
When they saw they weren't going to get it, then they sought legal advice.
Enter lawsuit to be released from contract so they could continue on their own.
Duncan Taylor
Do the minimum wage laws apply to minors? May be it's different in the US, but
the UK minimum wage laws only apply to those over 16 - and they get a lower rate
than those over 18...
Given how much albums cost to produce, it would not be surprising if the Dream
Street album hasn't made a profit (yet?). It is possible that the was a clause
in their contracts so that they wouldn't received much/any money until the
project turned a profit - but given that they've all worked in the entertainment
industry previously I would have thought they would have been more savvy than
that.
--
Duncan Taylor
E-mail: duncan.t...@ntlworld.com
Home Improvement Archive: http://www.hiarchive.co.uk/
Episode guide, scripts, articles, and much more.
Mark L 02
<rtj...@aol.com> wrote:
> Does that sound like anything compared to what DSE management made?
> It will buy a few video games and perhaps an expensive pair of sneakers.
>
> Then they go touring with Aaron Carter and they see scooters, dirt bikes,
> basketball set-ups, fancy tour bus, lots of luxeries, etc....
How much money do you think Dream Street made? They had a year or two
of expensive choreography lessons and studio recording. They filmed a
very expensive video. They toured dozens of shopping malls where they
played for free all over the country. (Think airfare or rented bus for
the performers, parents, managers, a sound guy, some equipment, also
hotel rooms and meals for everyone...lots of money.)
Then, they had a single that was not a hit. Their album sold fairly
well but not into platinum territory. They may have had a few paying
gigs for concerts but not many...they probably had to pay Aaron
Carter's people to get onto his tour. They probably had to pay to do
"Go For It." Maybe they even paid to get that Pokemon song on the
album.
So where is this money that DSE management is rolling in, coming from?
Mark
Christopher Carpenter
> Mark L 02 writes:
>
>>
>> In article <20020822013145...@mb-ba.aol.com>, RTJoby
>> <rtj...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apprantly with Dream Street their only payment was only through fame. No
>>> money compensation at all.
>>
>> If that were truly the situation, Dream Street would have had no
>> problems winning the lawsuit. The minimum wage laws mandate they make
>> at least $6 an hour, or something like that.
>
> Do the minimum wage laws apply to minors? May be it's different in the US, but
> the UK minimum wage laws only apply to those over 16 - and they get a lower
> rate
> than those over 18...
Yes, they do. However, the idea that the boys were being paid an hourly
wage for their work in Dreamstreet is ludicrous. It is much more likely
that they were contracted to receive a percentage of profits, should there
be any. That's just the way the music industry works.
> Given how much albums cost to produce, it would not be surprising if the Dream
> Street album hasn't made a profit (yet?).
I would be surprising if the album DID make a profit. A first album that
sold in the 500,000 range and had no hit singles? The record company may
have come out a little ahead, but DSE and the group? No way. As for
touring: they made promotional tours, in which the only pay they received
was exposure, and they opened for Aaron Carter on his tour. I don't know
how much they received for the Aaron Carter tour, but if it was $12000 per
show as someone else has stated, they were not even covering tour expenses,
let alone turning a profit. In all likleyhood, DSE never turned a profit
from the venture.
>It is possible that the was a clause
> in their contracts so that they wouldn't received much/any money until the
> project turned a profit - but given that they've all worked in the
> entertainment
> industry previously I would have thought they would have been more savvy than
> that
Sounds like business as usual. However, you make a good point. All five
of the Dreamstreet boys were show business professionals with
representation, not the neophytes that we often see starting out in the
music business. If the contract was so bad, why did they sign on in the
first place? Doesn't make sense to me.
Burnt Parks
your view about Aaron Carter's mom's infuence on the Dream Street
parents. That was probalby a real turning point. I can imagine them
all intently listening to her with their mouths wide open.
But,
>The comment of Dream Street not getting paid a dime originally came from
>Jesse's publicist. The court papers mentioned absolutely nothing at all about
>any financial wages being sought or denied by the court which seems to say that
>there was no dispute of what they were or weren't paid.
publicist "Bob" is the last person I'd believe of the whole cast of
characters. I remember the tantrum he threw when the song writer's
pro DSE message got posted on Jesse's website board. He as much as
said he didn't care what the truth was, he wasn't going to let
anything remain on the message board that was negative toward his
client.
That of course is his job: to show his client in the best light. He
sure as heck wouldn't let something like the truth get in the way of
that prime directive.
RTJoby
>Yes, they do. However, the idea that the boys were being paid an hourly
>wage for their work in Dreamstreet is ludicrous. It is much more likely
>that they were contracted to receive a percentage of profits, should there
>be any. That's just the way the music industry works. <
If they were contracted to receive profits percentage---then the boys really
were screwed since DSE claims they originally invested $2 million into the
boyband. If that is the case, then DSE would claim there were no profits to
pay out---or perhaps that is what DSE probably kept telling the boys in an
effort to keep them striving to "make it".
But my idea of their possibly being paid Minimum Wage is according to the exact
words as written in child labor laws. (See below)
According to law----all the boys HAD to be paid minimum wage because they were
working as "musicians". The law says that only child "actors" are paid
differently, which is usually by scale.
So, no it is not "ludicrous" at all.
-----------------------------------------
Wages
As set forth in the IWC Orders (Section 1(B) of Orders 11 and 12), professional
actors are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the
California Industrial Welfare Commission. Minors employed in the entertainment
industry who are not professional actors must be paid at least the minimum wage
and overtime after eight hours in a workday and 40 hours in a workweek. .
-----------------------------------------
Mark wrote:
< How much money do you think Dream Street made? They had a year or two
of expensive choreography lessons and studio recording. They filmed a
very expensive video. They toured dozens of shopping malls where they
played for free all over the country. (Think airfare or rented bus for
the performers, parents, managers, a sound guy, some equipment, also
hotel rooms and meals for everyone...lots of money.) <
Excatly.
That is why that the mom's probably did not realize all of this when contracts
were originally signed.
~Or~
The original contracts stipulated Minimum Wage as the law says.
Despite Jesse's publicist saying the were paid nothing.
Mark continues:
> Then, they had a single that was not a hit. Their album sold fairly
well but not into platinum territory. >
It went Gold which is what ?
$500,000 for the record company ?
> They may have had a few paying
gigs for concerts but not many...they probably had to pay Aaron
Carter's people to get onto his tour.>
Uhh, it doesn't work that way.
< They probably had to pay to do
"Go For It." <
Again, see above.
"Go For It" tours are sponsored by themselves not the artists in their show.
In the Summer of 2001, Dream Street was part of the Go For It tour.
As Matt said, DSE had everything lined out ready for more for the Summer of
2002.
The "Go For It" tour was suppose to be part of that along with more televised
appearances.
Only 3rd Phaze remained---despite the fact they only have 1 album, which has
hardly sold except for the little bit of sales promoted by the "Go For It"
shows.
I guess they're still being termed "rising" & come "cheap".
< Maybe they even paid to get that Pokemon song on the album. >
Now I know that you are not that clueless.
;)
< So where is this money that DSE management is rolling in, coming from? >
Let's give you one example.
Do you know how much Kraft paid DSE for that Lunchables contest?
And no, it was not the other way around.
The winning fan got $50,000. Guess how much DSE got?
Here's a clue: more.
DSE had their sh*t together when it came time to pitching build-up.
The boyband accomplished a lot in 2 years they were together.
The first year was slow, of course.
But the 2nd year things started to take off when the CD was finally released
and sold moderately well.
The 3rd year, there were lots more planned and I think had they released a 2nd
CD, they would have rose higher.
I think things would have gotten better had they continued.
The question is---when would DSE have finally paid them for what they worth
(despite whatever the real story is on how little---if anything---they were
paid.)
The law says they were paid one thing----but was that really the case?
BillyGilmanFan
> The comment of Dream Street not getting paid a dime originally came from
> Jesse's publicist.
I'm not saying they would have got a lot, but they would have got
something.
> Then they go touring with Aaron Carter and they see scooters, dirt bikes,
> basketball set-ups, fancy tour bus, lots of luxeries, etc....
Maybe, but the argument to that is that Aaron has more albums, the
latest being double platinum (or more), more singles, is better known,
and has been doing this for approx 5 years now.
> DSE is making $12,000 for every apearance in the Aaron Carter tour.
$12,000 per concert actually doesn't seem that bad, given that they
aren't (weren't) that well known, and only have one album that only
went gold, and they were just an opening act.
To give you a comparative example, the figure released near the end of
Billy Gilman's and Jessica Andrews's tour last year was 1.5 million
for roughly 30 concerts, doing the math I come up with $25,000 per
concert for each of them.
> I surely do not think the desire to be released from contract came during the
> middle of the Aaron Carter tour. It would appear that strike was all about
> money.
It's also always possible that the real issues, whatever they really
where, could have existed long before the AC tour, but didn't become
serious until then.
But in the end really can't debate what we don't know, and we don't
know what really went on, and probably never will know the complete
story.
RTJoby
>characters. I remember the tantrum he threw when the song writer's
>pro DSE message got posted on Jesse's website board. He as much as
>said he didn't care what the truth was, he wasn't going to let
>anything remain on the message board that was negative toward his
>client.
>That of course is his job: to show his client in the best light. He
>sure as heck wouldn't let something like the truth get in the way of
>that prime directive. <<
I've experienced one of Bob's tantrums myself---as have some other's I know of.
He surely does not seem into promoting one of his main clients these days.
Jesse's page hasn't been updated with any info in months. No news on the Dream
Street outcome. No news on fans catching Jesse's TV commercial. Not even any
news on Jesse's June appearance with the 4some.
That seems to show a lack of interest.
Christopher Carpenter
> Chris Carpenter wrote:
>> Yes, they do. However, the idea that the boys were being paid an hourly
>> wage for their work in Dreamstreet is ludicrous. It is much more likely
>> that they were contracted to receive a percentage of profits, should there
>> be any. That's just the way the music industry works. <
>
> If they were contracted to receive profits percentage---then the boys really
> were screwed since DSE claims they originally invested $2 million into the
> boyband.
>If that is the case, then DSE would claim there were no profits to
> pay out---or perhaps that is what DSE probably kept telling the boys in an
> effort to keep them striving to "make it".
Exactly my point. It is not unreasonable that DSE invested $2 Million in
the group- very probable, actually- and it is very improbable that DSE made
a return on that investment.
>
> But my idea of their possibly being paid Minimum Wage is according to the
> exact
> words as written in child labor laws. (See below)
>
> According to law----all the boys HAD to be paid minimum wage because they were
> working as "musicians". The law says that only child "actors" are paid
> differently, which is usually by scale.
You are quoting California law. Child labor laws vary from state to state.
Dreamstreet was based in New York.
> So, no it is not "ludicrous" at all.
So you maintain that a professional showbiz kid and with an agent, a
publicist and a SAG card is stupid enough to sign a contract that guarantees
him less money than he would make working at McDonalds? Yes, that is
pretty ludicrous indeed.
-Christopher
RTJoby
publicist and a SAG card is stupid enough to sign a contract that guarantees
him less money than he would make working at McDonalds? >
Isn't that the same thing you said when you mentioned they probably got a
percentage of the profits????
Percentage of profits was zilch.
Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
But was it really "stupid" as you put it?
The boys do not seem to regret any of the 2 to 3 years they spent in Dream
Street and their fame to many who did not even know them before.
You can't possibly acheive that working at McDonalds.
Duncan Taylor
> Duncan Taylor wrote:
> > Given how much albums cost to produce, it would not be surprising if the Dream
> > Street album hasn't made a profit (yet?).
>
> I would be surprising if the album DID make a profit.
That's what I said (although in a slightly different way :)
It probably isn't very clear with all those negatives...
Christopher Carpenter
>>> So you maintain that a professional showbiz kid and with an agent, a
> publicist and a SAG card is stupid enough to sign a contract that guarantees
> him less money than he would make working at McDonalds? >
>
> Isn't that the same thing you said when you mentioned they probably got a
> percentage of the profits????
No, it isn't the same because they were depending on future profits- doing
all this hard work now in order to build a career that may be profitable
later.
>
> Percentage of profits was zilch.
Right. But had there been a second album 1) The group would have been
better known and therefore easier to promote, 2) Ideally they would have
built on their already existing fan base and sold more albums the second
time around, and 3) the percentage of profit that goes to the artist(s) on a
second album is higher than on a first album. In other words, if
Dreamstreet had continued to grow in popularity (and we will never know if
that would have happened or not) the amount of money that came to the boys
would have increased. That is the way the music industry works. Artists work
for years for little or no compensation, perfecting their craft and
gaining a reputation in the hope that someday they will be among the lucky
few who make it big.
> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
Are you suggesting that DSE never profited from Dreamstreet and therefore
turned to porn instead? That would seem to contradict your earlier
suggestion that DSE had somehow "screwed" the boys out of money. Anyway, DSE
claims that they never did this and the courts seem to believe them. Do you
have information that proves otherwise ?
> But was it really "stupid" as you put it?
No, what I said was that it would be stupid to sign on at the minimum wage-
which I do not believe for a minute that they did.
> The boys do not seem to regret any of the 2 to 3 years they spent in Dream
> Street and their fame to many who did not even know them before.
So they say, but I wonder.
> You can't possibly acheive that working at McDonalds.
What exactly did they achieve? Limited fame and an album in which they had
no artistic input? That and a buck fifty will get you a subway token. I
hope they at least had fun.
-Christopher
RTJoby
>Dreamstreet had continued to grow in popularity (and we will never know if
>that would have happened or not) the amount of money that came to the boys
>would have increased.>
Would it have?
First of all in order for that to happen, DSE would have had to invest more
money into the group for more elaborate stage productions. That is one reason
why Aaron Carter is the starring act. There is a lot more invested into what
Aaron Carter & Company is stage-wise involving more elaborate productions.
All DSE had to do was invest another million and say, "we just invested another
million into the group and need to pay back the loan first. Then you boys can
get more money."
> That is the way the music industry works. Artists work
>for years for little or no compensation, perfecting their craft and
>gaining a reputation in the hope that someday they will be among the lucky
>few who make it big. >
Exactly.
So if that is the case then how does minimum wage sound "ludicrous" when it is
the WRITTEN law and sounds far more rewarding than "zilch".
The law says all DSE had to pay was minimum wage. That is the written law---in
New York as well as California.
Do you think a court would have approved a contract going against the written
law?
However, if Bob's comment of "The boys have a gold record and have never been
paid a dime!" rings truth, then perhaps they boys were paid both.
That would explain why money was never mentioned in the court ruling.
Because the boys were paid their Minimum Wages---as the written law stipulates
and there were no profits to pay out because of the initial $2 million
investment.
>> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
>Are you suggesting that DSE never profited from Dreamstreet and therefore
>turned to porn instead? That would seem to contradict your earlier
>suggestion that DSE had somehow "screwed" the boys out of money.>
What?
First, if they want to market a porn business ----ON THE SIDE---- of managing a
boyband, they can get loans for it. That has nothing to do with profits they
claim they never gained.
And the boys WERE screwed----there is no mistake or "contradiction" about that.
Even if they were paid minimum to what the law stipulates.
> Anyway, DSE claims that they never did this (--porn racket---) and the courts
seem to believe them. Do you
>have information that proves otherwise ? >
Yes.
Well, Bob does anyway:
------------------------------------
"These men run one of the biggest pornography businesses in New York. They
publish five different magazines and a video business. It is
run out of the same offices as DS. The same place little teeny boppers send in
their fan mail and checks for DS merchandise. The same
photographer and videographer is used. The same couch and piano that were in
photos with the boys and that the boys sit on are in the publications
and videos."
-------------------------------------------
How the courts could have ignored this is mind boggling.
As I said, DSE must have had some damn good lawyers compared to the boys.
>> But was it really "stupid" as you put it?
>No, what I said was that it would be stupid to sign on at the minimum wage-
>which I do not believe for a minute that they did.>
Okay, DSE went against the written law then----simply because you "do not
believe for a minute that they did" sign on at Minimum.
And the courts approved a contract that went against the law simply because you
"do not believe for a minute that they did" sign on at Minimum.
Your theory that courts would go against the written law is what actually
sounds "ludicrous".
You seem to be ignoring what the written child labor law says for what you want
to believe.
>> The boys do not seem to regret any of the 2 to 3 years they spent in Dream
>> Street and their fame to many who did not even know them before.
>
>So they say, but I wonder.
>
>> You can't possibly acheive that working at McDonalds.
>
>What exactly did they achieve? >
A hellava lot more than the young dude I just saw working at McDonalds making
me a cheeseburger earlier tonight.
> Limited fame and an album in which they had
>no artistic input? >
They recorded the album their first year soon practically as they were chosen.
You expected "artist input" back then ?
Perhaps they would have had they remained.
Now that he is older, Greg said that he was writing songs.
Who is to say that DSE would have eventually given in and used them.
< That and a buck fifty will get you a subway token. I
>hope they at least had fun. >
Hmm, just a few sentences ago, you said the boys may have regretted their stint
in DS as if there was no fun.
Christopher Carpenter
>> In other words, if
>> Dreamstreet had continued to grow in popularity (and we will never know if
>> that would have happened or not) the amount of money that came to the boys
>> would have increased.>
>
> Would it have?
> First of all in order for that to happen, DSE would have had to invest more
> money into the group for more elaborate stage productions. That is one reason
> why Aaron Carter is the starring act. There is a lot more invested into what
> Aaron Carter & Company is stage-wise involving more elaborate productions.
Oh please. Aaron Carter's fans would like him just as much without the
elaborate stage trappings
>
> All DSE had to do was invest another million and say, "we just invested
> another
> million into the group and need to pay back the loan first. Then you boys can
> get more money."
Yeah, right. DSE is going to deliberately go further in debt for no other
reason than to avoid paying the boys. How completely illogical.
>
>
>> That is the way the music industry works. Artists work
>> for years for little or no compensation, perfecting their craft and
>> gaining a reputation in the hope that someday they will be among the lucky
>> few who make it big. >
>
> Exactly.
> So if that is the case then how does minimum wage sound "ludicrous" when it is
> the WRITTEN law and sounds far more rewarding than "zilch".
>
> The law says all DSE had to pay was minimum wage. That is the written
> law---in
> New York as well as California.
> Do you think a court would have approved a contract going against the written
> law?
It's ludicrous because THERE IS NO WAY THE BOY'S WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SIGN
THEM TO A MINIMUM WAGE CONTRACT. For one thing, at least three of the
Dreamstreet boys are members of Actor's Equity and SAG and would not have
been allowed to perform on any stage or appear on TV or Video unless their
compensation at least met union scale.
>
> However, if Bob's comment of "The boys have a gold record and have never been
> paid a dime!" rings truth, then perhaps they boys were paid both.
Well for one thing, I don't believe they were never paid a dime, but if it
is the truth, how could they be "paid both?'
>
> That would explain why money was never mentioned in the court ruling.
> Because the boys were paid their Minimum Wages---as the written law stipulates
> and there were no profits to pay out because of the initial $2 million
> investment.
You haven't proven to me at all that the California law you quoted applies
to New York, however even if it does, it is easy to get around. All DSE
has to say is that the boys are not musicians (they don't write the songs,
produce the records, play the instruments) but are instead actors who they
cast in a musical production called Dreamstreet. And don't try to tell me
it can't be done, because I know that it can.
>
>
>>> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
>
>> Are you suggesting that DSE never profited from Dreamstreet and therefore
>> turned to porn instead? That would seem to contradict your earlier
>> suggestion that DSE had somehow "screwed" the boys out of money.>
>
> What?
> First, if they want to market a porn business ----ON THE SIDE---- of managing
> a
> boyband, they can get loans for it. That has nothing to do with profits they
> claim they never gained.
HUH?? YOU, not me, are the one who said, and this is a direct quote :
>> Percentage of profits was zilch.
>>Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
That seems to be saying that they turned to porn because profits were zilch.
YOU are the one who said it. And if there were no profits, how could the
boys have been screwed out of them? THAT'S THE CONTRADICTION.
>
> And the boys WERE screwed----there is no mistake or "contradiction" about
> that.
> Even if they were paid minimum to what the law stipulates.
>
You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of this. None what-so-ever.
>
>> Anyway, DSE claims that they never did this (--porn racket---) and the courts
> seem to believe them. Do you
>> have information that proves otherwise ? >
>
> Yes.
> Well, Bob does anyway:
> ------------------------------------
> "These men run one of the biggest pornography businesses in New York. They
> publish five different magazines and a video business. It is
> run out of the same offices as DS. The same place little teeny boppers send
> in
> their fan mail and checks for DS merchandise. The same
> photographer and videographer is used. The same couch and piano that were in
> photos with the boys and that the boys sit on are in the publications
> and videos."
> -------------------------------------------
No- you have Bob's word. How is this credible? No proof, just hearsay.
> How the courts could have ignored this is mind boggling.
Maybe they ignored it because it wasn't true.
>
> As I said, DSE must have had some damn good lawyers compared to the boys.
>
OR maybe their case had no merit.
>>> But was it really "stupid" as you put it?
>
>> No, what I said was that it would be stupid to sign on at the minimum wage-
>> which I do not believe for a minute that they did.>
>
> Okay, DSE went against the written law then----simply because you "do not
> believe for a minute that they did" sign on at Minimum.
>
> And the courts approved a contract that went against the law simply because
> you
> "do not believe for a minute that they did" sign on at Minimum.
>
> Your theory that courts would go against the written law is what actually
> sounds "ludicrous".
>
> You seem to be ignoring what the written child labor law says for what you
> want
> to believe.
You complete ignore my point (or distort it) time and time again. Do you do
that on purpose?
>
>>> The boys do not seem to regret any of the 2 to 3 years they spent in Dream
>>> Street and their fame to many who did not even know them before.
>>
>> So they say, but I wonder.
>>
>>> You can't possibly acheive that working at McDonalds.
>>
>> What exactly did they achieve? >
>
>
> A hellava lot more than the young dude I just saw working at McDonalds making
> me a cheeseburger earlier tonight.
>
>
>> Limited fame and an album in which they had
>> no artistic input? >
>
> They recorded the album their first year soon practically as they were chosen.
> You expected "artist input" back then ?
>
> Perhaps they would have had they remained.
BUT THEY DIDN"T!!!
> Now that he is older, Greg said that he was writing songs.
> Who is to say that DSE would have eventually given in and used them.
BUT THEY DIDN"T!!!
> < That and a buck fifty will get you a subway token. I
>> hope they at least had fun. >
>
> Hmm, just a few sentences ago, you said the boys may have regretted their
> stint
> in DS as if there was no fun.
Right. I said I hope that they had fun, not that I think they did.
Death
news:B98C92F8.1E539%chri...@soli.inav.net:
> RTJoby wrote:
>
>>> In other words, if
>>> Dreamstreet had continued to grow in popularity (and we will never
>>> know if that would have happened or not) the amount of money that
>>> came to the boys would have increased.>
>>
>> Would it have?
>> First of all in order for that to happen, DSE would have had to
>> invest more money into the group for more elaborate stage
>> productions. That is one reason why Aaron Carter is the starring
>> act. There is a lot more invested into what Aaron Carter & Company
>> is stage-wise involving more elaborate productions.
>
> Oh please. Aaron Carter's fans would like him just as much without
> the elaborate stage trappings
>>
>> All DSE had to do was invest another million and say, "we just
>> invested another
>> million into the group and need to pay back the loan first. Then you
>> boys can get more money."
>
> Yeah, right. DSE is going to deliberately go further in debt for no
> other reason than to avoid paying the boys. How completely illogical.
>>
>>
According to that '48 hour' program, it costs the Carter's about $30,000
per concert. Which if I remember correctly comes out of their pocket. If
I'm wrong someone please correct me.
RTJoby
> another
> million into the group and need to pay back the loan first. Then you boys
can
> get more money." <<
>Yeah, right. DSE is going to deliberately go further in debt for no other
>reason than to avoid paying the boys. How completely illogical. <
What so you mean by "going to deliberately go further in debt" ???
With the key word being "further" ?
If they invest $2 million then later when they get their investment back and
the boys think "Wow, now we can finally get some of our percentage of the
profits---only DSE tells them "Sorry, we just invested another million into the
group to build you guys up even more and now we need to pay back the new loan
first. Then you boys can get more money."... how is that termed "going further
in debt" with you implicating that they are not going to get that return back
either?
You seem to be all confused and confusing things even more as you go along.
DSE never gave any implication they were going in debt with the boyband until
the boys quit the Aaron Carter tour & the managers said the boys were trying to
bankrupt them.
> It's ludicrous because THERE IS NO WAY THE BOY'S WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SIGN
THEM TO A MINIMUM WAGE CONTRACT. <<
How do you know what they thought way back when they signed?
How do you know what they would have or would not have done?
A young kid could care less about money especially when it comes for an
opportunity to be in a boyband and experience the exciting fun ahead of them.
You already said yourself, "Artists work
for years for little or no compensation, perfecting their craft and
gaining a reputation in the hope that someday they will be among the lucky
few who make it big."
Now you contradict yourself again.
> For one thing, at least three of the
Dreamstreet boys are members of Actor's Equity and SAG and would not have
been allowed to perform on any stage or appear on TV or Video unless their
compensation at least met union scale. >>
OMG, that is NOT the way it works !
First of all, we are talking about 2 different entertainment fields here.
Acting and performing in a musical "concept group".
The Actor's Equity and the Screen Actors Guild does not have a thing to do with
a musical "concept group".
Not in the least.
They only have to do with "acting on TV, movies, stage, etc".
That is all.
Why do you think a lot of musical artists turn to acting?
The pay is a hellava lot better.
Certainly not the same.
I surely hope that you do not think that DSE paid the same high amount that All
My Children paid Jesse McCartney.
However, despite how it works or not---you are contradicting your previous
comment that the boys made very little.
Now your new comment makes it sound like they were contracted to make more.
< Bob: "The boys have a gold record and have never been paid a dime!" rings
truth, then perhaps they boys were paid both.>
> Well for one thing, I don't believe they were never paid a dime, but if it
is the truth, how could they be "paid both?' <
Did it ever occur to you that the comment says the boys were never paid a dime
for the gold CD he is referring to in the same comment.
He doesn't say anything about they were never paid a dime period like you are
insinuating.
Perhaps they were paid hourly wages as the law says they were (-I will find the
NY Child Labor law page for you-)---BUT were never paid for the CD (Bob is
referring to) because that is part of the percentage of profits they hadn;t yet
reached yet when the boys pulled out of the group.
So the boys earned some money from wages but very little.
Therefore it would not be mentioned in the lawsuit as we saw.
It all makes perfect sense----you just don't allow yourself to see it because
you refer back to the boys fame before they were chosen thinking they would not
have signed because they were too famous to do so.
Except for the possibilty of Jesse, they were no more famous than Justin
Timberlake when he signed on for NSync.
Boys like them see that and they think we can be like him.
So what red-blooded American 12 to 14 year old boy would not sign on for an
exciting sounding opportunity like that?
Who cares about the wages when we are going to become so famous we'll be able
to make lots later.
The boys certainly seemed to have that attitude in the beginning.
< You haven't proven to me at all that the California law you quoted applies
to New York, however even if it does, it is easy to get around. All DSE has
to say is that the boys are not musicians (they don't write the songs, produce
the records, play the instruments) but are instead actors who they
cast in a musical production called Dreamstreet. And don't try to tell me it
can't be done, because I know that it can. <<
Okay, now you are not making any sense again.
First why would DSE say the boys are actors therefore we must pay them
according to the actor's union---which is probably more than some sort of
hourly wage ??
Why not just say they are hired musicians in a "concept group"---which is
EXACTLY what they were.
I would think DSE would want to pay them as less as they could get away with.
So why would they say anything you even mention in that paragraph?
That makes no sense.
>>> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
>> Are you suggesting that DSE never profited from Dreamstreet and therefore
>> turned to porn instead? That would seem to contradict your earlier
>> suggestion that DSE had somehow "screwed" the boys out of money.>
> What?
> First, if they want to market a porn business ----ON THE SIDE---- of managing
> a
> boyband, they can get loans for it. That has nothing to do with profits they
> claim they never gained.
< HUH?? YOU, not me, are the one who said, and this is a direct quote : >
>> Percentage of profits was zilch.
>>Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
< That seems to be saying that they turned to porn because profits were zilch.
Is there something the matter with the theory of doing a side venture because
your boyband is taking off slow and porn is a fast selling racket they think
they can make big off of?
And if they are in the need of more money to invest in their boyband, this
would be a better opportunity than a high interest bank loan that they might
not be able to get & find it hard to pay back.
There is nothing difficult to understand about it.
< YOU are the one who said it. And if there were no profits, how could the
< boys have been screwed out of them? THAT'S THE CONTRADICTION. >
Because they were originally led to believe that there would be profits.
All artists are led down that path.
It seems that eventually they became frustrated believing it wasnt going happen
unless they take a firm stand and the Aaron Carter tour seemed the perfect time
to do so.
Perhaps with the attitude, "Obviously we are not going to make anything from
the profits we're constantly being given the runaround with, so let's strike
for a raise in pay."
If you understand that, then there is absolutely no contradiction at all.
>> Anyway, DSE claims that they never did this (--porn racket---) and the
courts
> seem to believe them. Do you
>> have information that proves otherwise ? >
>
> Yes.
> Well, Bob does anyway:
> ------------------------------------
> "These men run one of the biggest pornography businesses in New York. They
> publish five different magazines and a video business. It is
> run out of the same offices as DS. The same place little teeny boppers send
> in
> their fan mail and checks for DS merchandise. The same
> photographer and videographer is used. The same couch and piano that were in
> photos with the boys and that the boys sit on are in the publications
> and videos."
> -------------------------------------------
> No- you have Bob's word. How is this credible? No proof, just hearsay.
Possible, but his information seems a little more than your "hereswhatIsay".
< You complete ignore my point (or distort it) time and time again. Do you do
that on purpose? >>
For the most part shown above, you have been distorting it yourself without my
help.
< Right. I said I hope that they had fun, not that I think they did. >
Jesse McCartney quit a nationally televised soap opera which he was finally
having star storylines to in order to be in the boyband.
He made that decision himself.
It sure sounds like he was having fun in the band then.
In interviews, the boys constantly spoke of the fun they were having and how
exciting it was.
They were having a blast when the Aaron Carter tour first began.
Even their recent departing letters even shows dismay for not being in the band
anymore.
For you to make that comment doesn't sound like you knew much about them.
Christopher Carpenter
>> All DSE had to do was invest another million and say, "we just invested
>> another
>> million into the group and need to pay back the loan first. Then you boys
> can
>> get more money." <<
>
>
>> Yeah, right. DSE is going to deliberately go further in debt for no other
>> reason than to avoid paying the boys. How completely illogical. <
>
>
> What so you mean by "going to deliberately go further in debt" ???
>
> With the key word being "further" ?
>
> If they invest $2 million then later when they get their investment back and
> the boys think "Wow, now we can finally get some of our percentage of the
> profits---only DSE tells them "Sorry, we just invested another million into
> the
> group to build you guys up even more and now we need to pay back the new loan
> first. Then you boys can get more money."... how is that termed "going
> further
> in debt" with you implicating that they are not going to get that return back
> either?
>
> You seem to be all confused and confusing things even more as you go along.
I'm not confused at all. You are the one who came up with the fantasy
concept of "we just invested another million into the group and need to pay
back the loan first". What is a loan? DEBT! However, the point is moot
because I don't think it ever happened- you just dreamed it up.
>
> DSE never gave any implication they were going in debt with the boyband until
> the boys quit the Aaron Carter tour & the managers said the boys were trying
> to bankrupt them.
Of course they were in debt. DSE were the ones assuming all the financial
risk in this venture,
>
>> It's ludicrous because THERE IS NO WAY THE BOY'S WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SIGN
> THEM TO A MINIMUM WAGE CONTRACT. <<
>
> How do you know what they thought way back when they signed?
> How do you know what they would have or would not have done?
> A young kid could care less about money especially when it comes for an
> opportunity to be in a boyband and experience the exciting fun ahead of them.
But the kid's parent and agent WOULD care!
>
> You already said yourself, "Artists work
> for years for little or no compensation, perfecting their craft and
> gaining a reputation in the hope that someday they will be among the lucky
> few who make it big."
>
> Now you contradict yourself again.
No I don't. Artists do work for little or no money, however I do not
believe that Dreamstreet made "no money" or "minimum wage" as you keep
insisting. I'm sure that they probably didn't make as much money as they may
have imagined they were going to make, but can DSE be blamed if the boys or
(more likely) their parents have unrealistic expectations?
>
>
>> For one thing, at least three of the
> Dreamstreet boys are members of Actor's Equity and SAG and would not have
> been allowed to perform on any stage or appear on TV or Video unless their
> compensation at least met union scale. >>
>
>
> OMG, that is NOT the way it works !
> First of all, we are talking about 2 different entertainment fields here.
> Acting and performing in a musical "concept group".
>
> The Actor's Equity and the Screen Actors Guild does not have a thing to do
> with
> a musical "concept group".
> Not in the least.
> They only have to do with "acting on TV, movies, stage, etc".
> That is all.
WRONG!!! If you are a member of one of these unions it does not matter WHAT
you are doing on TV, movies or the stage- If you are performing in any way
union rules apply.
> Why do you think a lot of musical artists turn to acting?
> The pay is a hellava lot better.
> Certainly not the same.
HA HA HA! Do you know how much the average actor makes in a year from
acting? Something like $3000 a year.
>
> I surely hope that you do not think that DSE paid the same high amount that
> All
> My Children paid Jesse McCartney.
The amount of money Jesse got for AMC is probably not anywhere near as high
as you seem to think it is.
>
> However, despite how it works or not---you are contradicting your previous
> comment that the boys made very little.
> Now your new comment makes it sound like they were contracted to make more.
Once again: I have ALWAYS thought that the boys made more than you and
"Bob" say they made.
> < Bob: "The boys have a gold record and have never been paid a dime!" rings
> truth, then perhaps they boys were paid both.>
>
>> Well for one thing, I don't believe they were never paid a dime, but if it
> is the truth, how could they be "paid both?' <
>
>
> Did it ever occur to you that the comment says the boys were never paid a dime
> for the gold CD he is referring to in the same comment.
> He doesn't say anything about they were never paid a dime period like you are
> insinuating.
No- YOU are the one who said it!
>
> Perhaps they were paid hourly wages as the law says they were (-I will find
> the
> NY Child Labor law page for you-)---BUT were never paid for the CD (Bob is
> referring to) because that is part of the percentage of profits they hadn;t
> yet
> reached yet when the boys pulled out of the group.
Blah, blah, blah- NO- the boys probably didn't make money from the album
(which is what I said in the first place). They were probably paid a salary
that was well above minimum wage.
>
> So the boys earned some money from wages but very little.
> Therefore it would not be mentioned in the lawsuit as we saw.
>
> It all makes perfect sense----you just don't allow yourself to see it because
> you refer back to the boys fame before they were chosen thinking they would
> not
> have signed because they were too famous to do so.
> Except for the possibilty of Jesse, they were no more famous than Justin
> Timberlake when he signed on for NSync.
I never said ANYTHING about them being famous before they were in
Dreamstreet. I don't think ANY of them, not even Jesse, were, or are what
I would call famous. However, they were PROFESSIONALS, and I would expect
them to act like professionals. In your scenario they would have to have
been dumber than rocks to agree to the contract.
>
> Boys like them see that and they think we can be like him.
> So what red-blooded American 12 to 14 year old boy would not sign on for an
> exciting sounding opportunity like that?
> Who cares about the wages when we are going to become so famous we'll be able
> to make lots later.
> The boys certainly seemed to have that attitude in the beginning.
12 to 14 year old boys want to do a lot of things- that doesn't mean their
parents let them! The boys weren't alone in this decision.
> < You haven't proven to me at all that the California law you quoted applies
> to New York, however even if it does, it is easy to get around. All DSE has
> to say is that the boys are not musicians (they don't write the songs,
> produce
> the records, play the instruments) but are instead actors who they
> cast in a musical production called Dreamstreet. And don't try to tell me it
> can't be done, because I know that it can. <<
>
> Okay, now you are not making any sense again.
> First why would DSE say the boys are actors therefore we must pay them
> according to the actor's union---which is probably more than some sort of
> hourly wage ??
> Why not just say they are hired musicians in a "concept group"---which is
> EXACTLY what they were.
I'm saying that IF the law says they HAVE to be paid an hourly wage as
musicians, but not as actors, it would be far easier to deal with them as
actors and pay them a salary. Union scale for an actor is not as much as
you seem to think it is.
> I would think DSE would want to pay them as less as they could get away with.
> So why would they say anything you even mention in that paragraph?
> That makes no sense.
Time and again you assume that DSE was only out to cheat the boys... but you
have no proof of this except the almighty word of BOB.
>
>
>
>>>> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
>
>>> Are you suggesting that DSE never profited from Dreamstreet and therefore
>>> turned to porn instead? That would seem to contradict your earlier
>>> suggestion that DSE had somehow "screwed" the boys out of money.>
>
>> What?
>> First, if they want to market a porn business ----ON THE SIDE---- of managing
>> a
>> boyband, they can get loans for it. That has nothing to do with profits they
>> claim they never gained.
>
> < HUH?? YOU, not me, are the one who said, and this is a direct quote : >
>>> Percentage of profits was zilch.
>>> Why do you think DSE turned to marketing porn on the side?
>
> < That seems to be saying that they turned to porn because profits were zilch.
>
>
> Is there something the matter with the theory of doing a side venture because
> your boyband is taking off slow and porn is a fast selling racket they think
> they can make big off of?
> And if they are in the need of more money to invest in their boyband, this
> would be a better opportunity than a high interest bank loan that they might
> not be able to get & find it hard to pay back.
>
> There is nothing difficult to understand about it.
Just because it COULD have happened doesn't mean it DID happen!!!
And the contradiction is this: First you said DSE "screwed" the boys out of
profits and then you said "percentage of profits was zilch" . Can't have it
both ways. If percentage of profits is zilch there is nothing to be screwed
out of.
>
> < YOU are the one who said it. And if there were no profits, how could the
> < boys have been screwed out of them? THAT'S THE CONTRADICTION. >
>
> Because they were originally led to believe that there would be profits.
> All artists are led down that path.
Which leads me back to my original point: maybe there would have been
future profits if they stuck with it - maybe not. But to expect a share of
profits that don't exist is unreasonable.
> It seems that eventually they became frustrated believing it wasnt going
> happen
> unless they take a firm stand and the Aaron Carter tour seemed the perfect
> time
> to do so.
> Perhaps with the attitude, "Obviously we are not going to make anything from
> the profits we're constantly being given the runaround with, so let's strike
> for a raise in pay."
>
> If you understand that, then there is absolutely no contradiction at all.
Except you are basing your entire premise is based on a theory that you made
up. Maybe (and this is equally made up, but no less probable) the Moms saw
things heating up decided that profit was eminent and the Aaron Carter tour
was the perfect time to get rid of the middle man and claim all of the
future profits for themselves without taking the financial risk that DSE
took.
>>> Anyway, DSE claims that they never did this (--porn racket---) and the
> courts
>> seem to believe them. Do you
>>> have information that proves otherwise ? >
>>
>> Yes.
>> Well, Bob does anyway:
>> ------------------------------------
>> "These men run one of the biggest pornography businesses in New York. They
>> publish five different magazines and a video business. It is
>> run out of the same offices as DS. The same place little teeny boppers send
>> in
>> their fan mail and checks for DS merchandise. The same
>> photographer and videographer is used. The same couch and piano that were in
>> photos with the boys and that the boys sit on are in the publications
>> and videos."
>> -------------------------------------------
>
>> No- you have Bob's word. How is this credible? No proof, just hearsay.
>
> Possible, but his information seems a little more than your "hereswhatIsay".
American Heritage Dictionary defines "hearsay" as: Noun; Idle, often
sensational and groundless talk about others.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
>
>
> < You complete ignore my point (or distort it) time and time again. Do you do
> that on purpose? >>
>
> For the most part shown above, you have been distorting it yourself without my
> help
(rolling eyes)
>
> < Right. I said I hope that they had fun, not that I think they did. >
>
> Jesse McCartney quit a nationally televised soap opera which he was finally
> having star storylines to in order to be in the boyband.
> He made that decision himself.
How do you know he made the decision himself?
>
> It sure sounds like he was having fun in the band then.
> In interviews, the boys constantly spoke of the fun they were having and how
> exciting it was.
>
> They were having a blast when the Aaron Carter tour first began.
>
> Even their recent departing letters even shows dismay for not being in the
> band anymore. For you to make that comment doesn't sound like you knew much
>about them.
Oh, uh huh, that's right. Everything in show business is exactly how it
appears on the surface. Everybody is just as happy and chipper as they say
they are.
Get a clue.
Searching for answers in life
and going nowhere.
What you all say and what you think may be what's going on or may not be
and unless you are privy to some information you really have no idea.
You can speculate all day but it won't reveal the truth. Maybe one day
this might be a great tv movie of the week with some interesting teen
actors playing the parts of the boys.
Geeze, the last response was probably longer than the contract the boys
signed when they became members of Dream Street.
Let's bring something new to the table and for God's sake please start
another thread. Unless the porno spam comes back, then this will be a
good thread to push it back down.
Can we please move on?? Thank you!
RTJoby
believe that Dreamstreet made "no money" or "minimum wage" as you keep
insisting.<
What is the difference?
Is there a HUGE difference between Minimum Wage and Union scale---or whatever
it is you are saying ? (First you said percentage of profits----(which was
nothing according to DSE) then in an effort to be right, you changed it to
Union scale?
Make up your mind !
Bottom line is---what is the differnce?
How do you judge "union scale" in the life of a musician?
Let's see----the boys rehearsed today learning a new dance so they get paid
whatever Union Scale is for dance rehearsing.
What is it? $100 ?
So everytime the boys needed to learn a new dance---DSE dished out $500 a day
????
I don't think so.
DSE wasn't that stupid. The boys would have been paid wages by the hour
pointblank because that is all the law says DSE had to pay them.
My theory is based on what the law says they had to be paid. Yours is based on
what you want to believe.
They were paid whatever they agreed to be paid when they signed the contract
which was approved by the courts.
The part that makes young artist's eyes glow is the part in the contract of
"percentage of profits".
They think "Wow, we're going to be really big with this and get lots of money.
And if we don't at least there's the part in the contract saying we have to at
least be paid Minimum Wage."
So the profits stipulation is what gets them eager to sign---only later they
realize they are not getting any profits because the management is constantly
reinvesting.
That is when they decide they are doing all of this work for very little making
managers rich and want to break out of the group.
>> For one thing, at least three of the
> Dreamstreet boys are members of Actor's Equity and SAG and would not have
> been allowed to perform on any stage or appear on TV or Video unless their
> compensation at least met union scale. >>
If that was the case then why do Child Labor Laws say actors get one thing and
musicians & singers get hourly wages.
Your way, all a musician wanting more money has to do is go get an SAG card &
walk up to their boyband manager & say "Hey I have my SAG card so give me more
money."
If that was the case, then all musicians would go get one.
BTW----all 5 boys were actors---not 3.
Matt & Greg
< WRONG!!! If you are a member of one of these unions it does not matter WHAT
you are doing on TV, movies or the stage- If you are performing in any way
union rules apply. >
For that career !
When Jesse McCartney would leave the All My Children studio in the middle of
the day---he went to an entirely different career across town at the Dream
Street studio.
Union or not, his contract with them did not have a thing to do with his
contract at AMC.
You seem to want to say that he had to be paid exactly the same because the
union said so.
An artist can work for FREE if he wants---& many have.
> Why do you think a lot of musical artists turn to acting?
> The pay is a hellava lot better.
> Certainly not the same.
< HA HA HA! Do you know how much the average actor makes in a year from
acting? Something like $3000 a year. <
So now you are saying it's less than Minimum Wage ????
Jesse McCartney was in a star soap opera storyline from Spring to Summer 2001.
You would be surprised to hear what an AMC extra makes yet alone a famous
child/teen actor in a star storyline.
Certainly not the same pay DSE would agree to in their "concept group"
perception.
> The amount of money Jesse got for AMC is probably not anywhere near as high
as you seem to think it is. <
ABC studios do not operate the same as managers running a musical "concept
group".
Their actors are paid well.
To the point of not even being in competition with DSE.
Jesse probably saw more money in one year of minor storylines than his whole 2
to 3 year stint in Dream Street.
> Once again: I have ALWAYS thought that the boys made more than you and "Bob"
say they made. <
Bob has NEVER said what any of the boys made.
Where are you getting this from?
Nobody has even made any reference to Bob saying what the boys have made.
All he said was they didn't get paid any money from an album they recorded.
> < Bob: "The boys have a gold record and have never been paid a dime!"
>
> Blah, blah, blah- NO- the boys probably didn't make money from the album
(which is what I said in the first place). They were probably paid a salary
that was well above minimum wage. >
Yes, despite what the law says, huh?
First it was "percentage of profits" now it's a salary.
Maybe you want to explain how they would devise a plan for a salary for all 5
boys when the contract was originally drawn up in 2000 not knowing how many
hours or days were futurely involved---or how much or how little money the
boyband venture would make.
Be interesting to hear your theory on that.
> I never said ANYTHING about them being famous before they were in
Dreamstreet. I don't think ANY of them, not even Jesse, were, or are what
I would call famous. However, they were PROFESSIONALS, and I would expect
them to act like professionals. In your scenario they would have to have
been dumber than rocks to agree to the contract. >
My scenario has Hourly Wage + Percentage of the Profits, which is something all
artists just starting out thinks they will get lots of.
So no, that would not make them "dumber than rocks"---just young hopefuls.
> I'm saying that IF the law says they HAVE to be paid an hourly wage as
musicians, but not as actors, it would be far easier to deal with them as
actors and pay them a salary. Union scale for an actor is not as much as you
seem to think it is. >
How is it easier to deal with them as actors as compared to dishing them out an
hourly wage?
And if Union Scale is not as much as I or anyone seems to think it is---then
how is it a lot better than Hourly Wages ????
The way you are now talking, you make them sound almost the same.
If they are not too far apart on the scale as you hint, then what is so
"ludicrous" about an hourly wage?
> I would think DSE would want to pay them as less as they could get away with.
> So why would they say anything you even mention in that paragraph?
> That makes no sense.
> Time and again you assume that DSE was only out to cheat the boys... but you
have no proof of this except the almighty word of BOB. >
How is paying someone a low salary both parties agree upon termed "cheating the
boys" ??
Again, you are changing words around for your benefit.
> And the contradiction is this: First you said DSE "screwed" the boys out of
profits and then you said "percentage of profits was zilch" . Can't have it
both ways. If percentage of profits is zilch there is nothing to be screwed
out of. >
The story is a lot deeper than that.
The boys were originally made to believe that there would be
profits---otherwise they would have never signed up---or even leave a soap
opera.
In that aspect, they were screwed because DSE claims profits were always zilch
because of the $2 million investment.
Haven't you ever been led to believe one thing in the beginning then ended up
feeling screwed afterward?
> Which leads me back to my original point: maybe there would have been
future profits if they stuck with it - maybe not. But to expect a share of
profits that don't exist is unreasonable.>
Wait. When managers are being paid $12 thousand for every concert appearance
during a major national tour---and the boys who are doing all the work to charm
the fans aren't getting any of it---don't you think the boys are going to stop
and think "Hey, there's something not right with this picture." ???
> Except you are basing your entire premise is based on a theory that you made
up. >
Uhh yea, both you I have speculative theories.
That's called a discussion.
Have you ever heard men discuss politics?
> Maybe (and this is equally made up, but no less probable) the Moms saw
things heating up decided that profit was eminent and the Aaron Carter tour
was the perfect time to get rid of the middle man and claim all of the
future profits for themselves without taking the financial risk that DSE took.
<
There are several flaws to that "ludicrous" theory.
First, you can not legally take control of management in the middle of a
concert tour. It takes months to do so.
Second, they abandoned Aaron Carter's concert tour in February but did not even
seek legal advice until at least March---which apparently Jesse McCartney knew
nothing about since he turned in his resignation not even seeming to know the
others were forming a lawsuit.
I think if your theory was true---one of the main members would have known
something about it and refrained from handing in his resignation.
< American Heritage Dictionary defines "hearsay" as: Noun; Idle, often
sensational and groundless talk about others. >
< I couldn't have put it better myself. >
Yea, your last theory seems to fit right into that definition to say the least
about the others.
> It sure sounds like he was having fun in the band then.
> In interviews, the boys constantly spoke of the fun they were having and how
> exciting it was.
>
> They were having a blast when the Aaron Carter tour first began.
>
> Even their recent departing letters even shows dismay for not being in the
> band anymore. For you to make that comment doesn't sound like you knew much
>about them.
> Oh, uh huh, that's right. Everything in show business is exactly how it
appears on the surface. Everybody is just as happy and chipper as they say
they are. >
> Get a clue. >
Well they were certainly a lot more happier than they are now.
--------------------------------
My theory:
They pulled a strike in the middle of the Aaron Carter tour for more money
thinking DSE would give in.
Being disatisfied with their money situation had nothing to do with whether
they were happy with the job or not.
They seem to love the job. But what is the point of working a job you love if
you feel you aren't properly paid and that your managers are taking something
you should be getting a part of?
So the managers refused to give in to the strike demands letting the 9
remaining cities go unperformed losing their $12 grand per appearance.
Knowing boss Matt, he threw in a threat to sue along the way. "You quit the
tour causing us to lose $12 grand per appearance for 9 remaining cities
totaling $108,000. You bet we will sue."
So the mom's seek legal advice to try to get their son's out from under the
management from these "users" so they can continue to be together in a group
they LOVE !!!! and are HAPPY in !!!
Only the mom's are told that the only way to get out of this contract is if
they can prove the men were bad influences enough to be of harm to the boys
well being---or whatever.
So suddenly the mom's are seemingly bothered by rumors they've heard that the
men market porn on the side and start logging a series of incidents that
occurred during the past several years---that the mom's never seemed to care
much about before.
Meanwhile, Jesse does not know a lawsuit is going on so he seeks legal aid to
turn in his resignation thinking he's about to get a Nickelodeon TV series and
win the daytime Emmy coming up so he is going to have a successful acting
career and don't need all this crap going on with the boyband managers.
So he turns in his resignation.
Then he calls one of the other boys in the band up bragging, "Guess what I did
today?" (boldly-) "I turned in my resignation and told them they can get
f*cked." {-according to fans, Jesse uses the word all the time.
;) }
"You dumb*ss !! Greg's mom is getting a lawsuit together to break us out of
the contract so we can see about managing ourselves."
Jesse mouth drops, "No sh*t?"
"Yea, we're gonna be really big like NSync ! You quit now and you can't ever
perform with the group again."
"Oh f*cking sh*t ! How do I join up?!!!"
Jesse suddenly joins up in the lawsuit regretting having handed in his
resignation but not thinking it's going to matter much.
The rest is as we know it.
Searching for answers in life
Then he calls one of the other boys in the band up bragging, "Guess what
I did today?" (boldly-) "I turned in my resignation and told them they
can get f*cked." {-according to fans, Jesse uses the word all the time.
;) }
GIVE ME A f*cking break... You are quoting Jesse now according to some
fans you don't even know as your source.
The whole scenario here is pure speculation and is getting old. I don't
think anyone will ever know the half of it except the players here which
include the band, their mothers and the management team.
You are now making Jesse look like a naughty boy and that's not fair to
Jesse or his fans because of rumorville from some fans who can't even be
named directly but just as SOME FANS.
Even the tabloids use better sources for their dirt.
Christopher Carpenter
> GIVE ME A f*cking break... You are quoting Jesse now according to some
> fans you don't even know as your source.
>
> The whole scenario here is pure speculation and is getting old. I don't
> think anyone will ever know the half of it except the players here which
> include the band, their mothers and the management team.
>
> You are now making Jesse look like a naughty boy and that's not fair to
> Jesse or his fans because of rumorville from some fans who can't even be
> named directly but just as SOME FANS.
>
> Even the tabloids use better sources for their dirt.
Well, now I have to take RTJoby's side- I may disagree with his theory, but
he clearly stated that this is a theory and not something he knows for a
fact. I reread his last message five times and I can't find one reference
to him getting this information from "some fans".
There's nothing wrong with speculation as long as you make it clear that
it's only speculation.
RTJoby
>Well, now I have to take RTJoby's side- I may disagree with his theory, but
>he clearly stated that this is a theory and not something he knows for a
>fact. I reread his last message five times and I can't find one reference
>to him getting this information from "some fans".
>
>There's nothing wrong with speculation as long as you make it clear that
>it's only speculation. >
I have about 10 camcorded videos of various Dream Street concerts, fan
signings, etc and occasionally you will hear a curse word from one of the boys
not knowing the camera is on them. Plus the very first 1999 concert released
by the fan club has a few.
However, the convo I posted was suppose to be of a little humorous nature. Not
to be taken seriously. I guess it's harder to reach some people's sense of
humor side---if one even exists inside them.
I'm confused though. Who are you responding to? In your post, I see a copy
and paste of something someone said but I don't see a message in the thread
except for ours. I don't see anyone posting here but us.
I would imagine the post number has climbed so high that people don't want to
sift through all the messages to get to the end---unless it's someone with
nothing better to do----or someone in my killfile---which consists of only 2
people---one of who I don't think is even around anymore.
Christopher Carpenter
> Chris wrote:
>> Well, now I have to take RTJoby's side- I may disagree with his theory, but
>> he clearly stated that this is a theory and not something he knows for a
>> fact. I reread his last message five times and I can't find one reference
>> to him getting this information from "some fans".
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with speculation as long as you make it clear that
>> it's only speculation. >
>
>
> I have about 10 camcorded videos of various Dream Street concerts, fan
> signings, etc and occasionally you will hear a curse word from one of the boys
> not knowing the camera is on them. Plus the very first 1999 concert released
> by the fan club has a few.
I guess boys will be boys.
> However, the convo I posted was suppose to be of a little humorous nature.
> Not
> to be taken seriously. I guess it's harder to reach some people's sense of
> humor side---if one even exists inside them.
I understood that it was a third party who was a little...confused.
>
> I'm confused though. Who are you responding to? In your post, I see a copy
> and paste of something someone said but I don't see a message in the thread
> except for ours. I don't see anyone posting here but us.
There have been a couple other responses to this thread beside you and me.
Maybe they aren't all showing up on your news server.
>
> I would imagine the post number has climbed so high that people don't want to
> sift through all the messages to get to the end---unless it's someone with
> nothing better to do----or someone in my killfile---which consists of only 2
> people---one of who I don't think is even around anymore.
>
Well, I don't usually use a kill file, but I just added a name to mine
last night.
-Christopher