Originally Posted by oceantracks
The fact that some other contests may have similar demands should not be an excuse, but instead should offer the opportunity to rise above the crowd and be the ones to promote something that doesn't favor the promoter. Obviously, the potential rewards of a hit song, should one emerge, leaves the holders of the contest with quite a pretty penny, while the composer gets a system worth zilch in comparison and a veritable pat on the back.
This takes advantage of the hopes and dreams of gullible writers at the expense of what is obviously in their best interests, a situation most certainly predatory by definition.
Why not say " Turn over all the rights to your work and maybe win an HD Native System!" on the main page of the ad?
To reaffirm, I can understand your objections as well as the similar objections shared by others in this thread.
I personally would not be inclined to participate in contests like the one at issue here (for several different reasons).
The consession of the intellectual property rights in this, or any context for that matter, is a very important point for a songwriter to give considerable thought to.
The reading of the legalize does indeed leave one with the impression that there may well be something untoward afoot.
I think most of us can agree that almost any legalize can, and often does impart such an impression.
In some cases, the worst reading of the terms of a contract or agreement is true - While other times, what may seem to be "predatory", is actually nessacary for the function of the endevour itself.
When I cited that terms such as those found at issue here are common for these sorts of contests - My reason for doing so was to bolster the point that, for a multitude of reasons, such terms are required for the company sponsering the competition to meet their part of the agreement.
Were such terms not in place, those whom wish to participate in the contest would, in fact, be hindered by their absence.
For the sake of argument, let's presume that the company in question here is conducting this competion in good faith -
How could they, or the participants, expect that the company could conduct the contest in the way they propose to?
Viewing mainly first portion of the terms - There is no reasonable way they could.
Speaking to the latter terms of the agreement, where the terms layout a perpetual transfer of ownership and the rights of using any work(s) submitted by the participants - I agree that if read on it's own - seemingly appears to be benifical solely toward the company.
However, it seems evident that among other things, this is where the compromise, or a sort of "trade-off" takes place.
Persumably, some people will find, upon careful consideration of what consessions are required for entry - That the risks imposed by the concessions made, and the trade-off that becomes manifest as a result - Are less important to them then the potential reward(s) they may aquire should they win - Or any rewards from the exposure of taking part in the contest itself.
Going back to the matter of similar agreements (in some cases dependent upon the situation TOS agreements) I mentioned earlier -
There has been fairly considerable debate regarding not only these sort of music specfic contests - But terms that apply in places one would not typically consider that their would be any issue of transfer of one's intellecual property.
However, it occurs millions of times per day on many different platforms and services on the internet.
Most people make such transfers completely unknowingly as the legal terms they agreed to were burried in a 200 page TOS agreement for a service they likely either, did not read at all, or if they did could not reasonably have been expected to understand, given the very dense legal language.
I find it likely that there is a greater potential for 'predatory' activity in that area where those transfering IP rights where there was no resonable reason to believe there was an issue -
Opposed to a contest like the one the OP mentioned in this thread as I think it would be logical to make an informed choice to transfer their rights considering the very nature of the contest.
(Pardon the long ramble it is fairly late and I got lost in the tangent)