One of these two will be the "winner" of this contest. Both are well established songwriters (especially in L.A.).

Ron has been touted far and wide as a unique and talented Songwriter with MANY credits under his belt.

Emma has collaborated with heavy hitters and it is rumored she is a signed songwriter with DARLA records (how she managed to qualify for this contest is a big mystery to me).

I’m not sure which one of these two will win. (It might just be that they are the only REAL contestants in this contest and the contest was just a way for the producers to decide which one of these two "hired guns" they would use in the video).

I know, I know, I’m a conspiracy nut....

Laff

Mister Blue Sky, ya got good points. Many of us know but don’t say (((I’m the exception like you))) and for many others ignorance is bliss.

Its just nobody likes being used and lied to. Ya’all hoped with a theme like this that maybe in LaLa land could there be someone not out there to get ahead by stepping on others or givin false dreams. Naaaawwww..

Well, it’s still a decent opportunity for the 3 real contestants in the top 5! I wouldn’t have minded being in that elite group, however, I simply could not afford to make a decent production of my song.

It wasn’t in the cards for me.

For those of you who went all out, spent lots of money, and didn’t get picked because your submission was "too good" (we all know who you are), I’m sorry but you didn’t really think they were going to put some real contenders up against their two ringers did ya?

Sigh.

Ya gotta love Hollywood!

Jeff

Honeslty I did think Emma’s was legit entry. I liked it early on as one of the better ones. Scarth I could also see as making it. The others? Ron maybe. Others were lame.

Seriously though there were a lot of good songs out there that could have won. So the "fix" would be easy. Too many good ones to make the call.

That’s it I’m calling my "family" and getting answers from Pellington. Tomorrow he’s waking up with a horses head next him. Wear as my wife is waking up with a horses behind every night.

-ANDY

Andy,

You are a funny man!

Yeah me too Karen but us Chippendale dancers don’t get the cash we used too!

-ANDY

bottom line to me is this:

thought this contest was for unsigned, unpromoted "no bodies" trying to get a break in the industry....this was supposed to level the playing field and provide a chance to even an old guy from rhode island that was recording w/ a mic in his basement...i don’t see how people "in the business" signing and recording w/ major stars are on the same playing field...they have access to producers/recording studios/critiques that the average guy/gal just doesn’t....

i heard some great songs and when you review their sites...they are talented musicians that are average people looking for a break....that’s what i thought the contest was about....

take a look at the bios on some of these winners.....not that the songs are all terrible, but it is disappoiting b/c some of us thought this contest was going to be different.....

peace and keep writing,
dan

Interesting chatter going on here! You can check out my long-winded thoughts on the "scam" post. Thanks for confirming my intuition about the going’s on in CA. though! Congrtas to those "working so hard in the biz."
But Propeller is right, its just a parlor trick. I say, One door shuts, thousands more still open!

I had a great time writing and recording my Henry Poole song...so I can’t say that I am disappointed in the "experience." The song would never have been born otherwise. A few lyric changes and the song can go on.

But I am really disappointed in the fact that the deck appears to have been stacked right from the get-go. Just think of how many hours folks spent on their songs hoping to get a break. It is really a shame that they never had a chance to begin with.

I posted a blog about all of this on June 25th. Very short synopsis but basically figured a ringer was in the works then. Oh well.....as stated...many people got to learn what they can do when they want to and feel a need. Hope everyone hangs on to that.

started a new thread this morning about the possible "scam".... the post said just what i said above w/ a bit of an intro explaining that i know my song did not belong in the top 5, but i heard a lot of songs that did(and by the way they were done by talented musicians that were just every day people...not "connected" ....anyway...i do find it quite odd that the entire thread was removed....if it wasn’t a scam, why not just respond to my post...any ideas what might have happened????

To Robinette:

You did?

As I recall weren’t you one of the loudest critics of my "subtle" posts which were ALL designed to steer everyone to the right conclusion without coming right out and saying it?

My main issues I addressed were:

1. They say the song will be a "work made for hire" and songs posted to the public prior to copyright registration do not qualify.

2. If the song is to be a work made for hire, they can’t POSSIBLY be encouraging people to post their song before it’s judged and selected.

3. If you post your song it becomes a published work and cannot qualify as a "work made for hire, " they would have to, instead of a "work made for hire" have you sign over your copyrights instead (something they clearly did NOT want to do) heck, if they were going to go through THAT trouble they’d have used some major talent for the song in question.

and finally

4. There’s no way a winning entry could EVER qualify as a "work made for hire" because they did not "hire" you to write the song, they could not put their name on the registration form as "the author" (something specifically required as a work made for hire) and it ESPECIALLY would not qualify if you already posted and published your song. I created a whole thread for this point and even included direct quotes from the Library of Congress concerning "works made for hire" of course, THAT thread was zapped within moments of posting it. I wonder why.

Jeff

Mr. Blue Sky wrote:
To Robinette:



You did?



As I recall weren’t you one of the loudest critics of my "subtle" posts which were ALL designed to steer everyone to the right conclusion without coming right out and saying it?



My main issues I addressed were:



1. They say the song will be a "work made for hire" and songs posted to the public prior to copyright registration do not qualify.



2. If the song is to be a work made for hire, they can’t POSSIBLY be encouraging people to post their song before it’s judged and selected.



3. If you post your song it becomes a published work and cannot qualify as a "work made for hire, " they would have to, instead of a "work made for hire" have you sign over your copyrights instead (something they clearly did NOT want to do) heck, if they were going to go through THAT trouble they’d have used some major talent for the song in question.



and finally



4. There’s no way a winning entry could EVER qualify as a "work made for hire" because they did not "hire" you to write the song, they could not put their name on the registration form as "the author" (something specifically required as a work made for hire) and it ESPECIALLY would not qualify if you already posted and published your song. I created a whole thread for this point and even included direct quotes from the Library of Congress concerning "works made for hire" of course, THAT thread was zapped within moments of posting it. I wonder why.



Jeff

To Mr BS (still love that JT):

Yes I did post a blog about some of the issues and forum posts here, including record labels, production, etc. Also, "work for hire" can be applied to completed compositions or should I assume most of the contracts we have on file are worthless? Seriously, what is your legal opinion?

I would never use the word subtle to describe any of your posts. Boorish or inane maybe, but not subtle.

Robinette

PS...please do not copy and paste anything to me.

To Robinette:

Ok I will just respond without cutting and pasting.

There was NEVER any issue as to whether completed compositions can be "works made for hire" of course they can, IF they have never been claimed by the original author legally. You see, if you look at both the Library of Congress circular AND the copyright registration form itself you’ll see that, in the case of a WMFH, the EMPLOYER gets listed as the "author" of the piece.

You don’t have to be a legal genius to understand that if I lay legal claim to my work as the "author" (by either filing a copyright registration or PUBLISHING the song, which by the way is the same thing as registering it under the law) then no one can legally come along, fill out a form and tell the Library of Congress that I am not the author... they are... and they hired me to write it.

When you fill out a copyright registration there is a little section that REQUIRES you to LIST ALL previous versions of the work being copyrighted. If my song is PUBLISHED ANYWHERE prior to them filling out the form they are REQUIRED under the law to list that version!

Now, scenario:
You work at the Library of Congress, you file THOUSANDS of registrations per week. A registration crosses your desk that says, "work made for hire, " oh by the way, there was a previous version of this song published prior to this by the original author, but now I want you to list ME as the author.

You are going to scratch your head for a second, chuckle a little bit and mumble something about people consulting attorneys before they try to pull the wool over your eyes.

The ONLY other choice they would have is to leave OFF the part about it being previously published and claimed by the original author!

As I recall you said you ran my arguments by your ATTORNEYS and they assured you that I didn’t know what I’m talking about!

Now you come in here saying "oh ya, I knew about this all along!"

The DEAD giveaway that there was a "hired" gun lurking in this contest was the statement in the rules, "this song will become a work made for hire, " and the fact that they NOT ONLY allowed everyone to POST their song but encouraged it and went so far as to delete NUMEROUS threads that clearly showed the inconsistency!

I find it amazing that you "knew all along" there was something fishy but continually CONTRADICTED me when I was posting the only EVIDENCE of this fact, telling me you will "believe your lawyers over me any day."

Get real, man!

All I can say is this. Copyrights are PUBLIC domain. I will be monitoring the copyrights filed by Mark Pellington and his company. IF they fail to list the previously published VERSION of the winning entry on their form I will notify the Copyright office MYSELF that the form is falsified and give them the exact LINK to where the song was published BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR prior to Pellington "hiring" the author.

They will then have NO CHOICE but to either admit their error OR admit that actually they DID hire the author to write the song PRIOR TO it’s being published here on MySpace.

Run THAT by your lawyers and see what they say?

Jeff