Brandon Strader

OCR monetizing mixes on YouTube

350 posts in this topic

21 minutes ago, YoshiBlade said:

Has OCR's YouTube channel ever had a video taken down from a copyright notice? I'm still gathering as much information as I can, so I can make an informed decision about all of this.

@Liontamer can confirm but I think the "worst" that's happened is that some of our videos hit up against content match because they were licensed commercially elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Getting increasingly skeptical and disinterested  as questions are danced around instead of answered,  while money is still being made off of the videos...  No company would get this much leeway  and get to sit on their thumb for this many days.  If you're monetizing everything and nothing's changing then just say that so I can pull everything down and move my projects off site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

 Getting increasingly skeptical and disinterested  as questions are danced around instead of answered,  while money is still being made off of the videos...  No company would get this much leeway  and get to sit on their thumb for this many days.  If you're monetizing everything and nothing's changing then just say that so I can pull everything down and move my projects off site

What are you even on about?

djpretzel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been established, website ads that are in individual mixes pages are fundamentally identical to YT ads.  They aren't any less or more illegal or ethical.  It would be ridiculous, to me, to expect to have someone get their song published, hosted and publicized, for free, but opt out of supporting the site back.  Ultimately this is up to djp but I would be strongly against such practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandon Strader said:

 Getting increasingly skeptical and disinterested  as questions are danced around instead of answered,  while money is still being made off of the videos...  No company would get this much leeway  and get to sit on their thumb for this many days.  If you're monetizing everything and nothing's changing then just say that so I can pull everything down and move my projects off site

Brandon, you're the one not reading, or not processing, the responses being provided. It is disingenuous of you to characterize the extensive conversation taking place as our "dancing around" your questions. Please provide a numbered list of the questions you have that you feel remain unanswered; we've responded to some of them, but you're not acknowledging the response. In other cases, we've asked you for clarifications because the questions themselves are unclear... instead of engaging, you are choosing to stonewall our responses and pretend like they either do not exist, or do not address your questions.

This latest post, above, is what I was afraid of - this is starting to feel more like an ego trip on your part and less like a genuine conversation about the topic at hand. You're using your position as an album director - which you've always done an excellent job of - as a threat/ultimatum for your voice to have more weight than the many other voices who have chimed in. Do you think that's right? Also, do you think of them as "my projects" - or are they community projects? Would you ask your participating artists to vote first, before making such a unilateral decision - the VERY type of decision you are accusing US of making? Would you at least talk it over with them - what they wanted - as we are attempting to do now? What does "pull everything down" even mean?

Do you feel, at this juncture, that there is a single other artist who agrees with your views in full, as you have been presenting them in this thread? Can you summon the artists you've talked to and who would agree with what you're writing, the threats you're making, your decision to ignore our responses, etc., and have them explain why they agree with these actions, and confirm that they indeed do?

This conversation is ongoing; if you're going to make it about you by threatening this type of thing, and you think that's appropriate, I'm very disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually referring more to a secret project that is 95% done and that I was going to send in as a surprise, but a lot of the artists are not down with the new policy. In regards to any collab mix posts of course the collaborator gets a say, I wouldn't go behind their back and make a decision that affects their work without asking them. I don't do that kind of thing.

About moving projects off site--like I've said I don't feel it is my responsibility to contact everyone currently on for example FF8 and FF3, give them the facts and see if they still support the project. Every single artist needs to be emailed and asked, and if a considerable amount of them aren't interested, further decisions on the future of the album have to be made which might just lead to cancellation depending on how many people pull out. It would be a shame for ff3 to get knocked back a year in production. By "pull" it'd probably be more accurate to say put on hold, either way before anything can be released their consent has to be given and the news information about monetizing their work. It won't be done to them against their consent and in secret.

I am running the album projects, not the community, and not some executive producer in title only -- and with the EXPLICIT CONSENT of all artists involved, many of whom were recruited with the assurance that they were NON-PROFIT FAN TRIBUTES. Someone needs to send the email detailing that is no longer the case, and it's not gonna be me. If I have to contact every artist for something that basically changes the intent of the release, it's not going to tell them their songs are being monetized but not licensed, it'll be to ask them if they're alright/cool with releasing somewhere else for free / non-profit with no ads. 

Feel however you want to feel about me or my trolling conspiracies, but right now I'm preparing for how things are going to work off of OCR. If caring about people and not betraying them like has been done here is egotistical, then you go Brandon, savior of VGM and remixing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

*snip*

So because you are not willing/able to contact everyone, of course their opinions probably fall in line with yours!

I'm glad I don't have any songs on your albums, I'd have to become paranoid and constantly make sure my remix was still on the site.

(Regarding the topic on-hand, this is the only strong opinion I've had since the thread started.)

Platonist, Kenogu Labz and k-wix like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

a lot of the artists are not down with the new policy

PLEASE have them chime in here and ask their questions & express their concerns directly... that's what this thread is for, and it is more productive to hear from them in their own words...

34 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

many of whom were recruited with the assurance that they were NON-PROFIT FAN TRIBUTES

We are JUST as non-profit now as we were previously, with ad banners on the website presented alongside the mixes & album pages. We keep repeating this, and you keep ignoring it... I know you & some others perceive YouTube ads as profoundly different from banner ads, but it should be clear from this thread and FB that many OTHER artists don't perceive this difference. Neither do we, but we're talking about it... I keep saying these things, you keep ignoring them.... 99.5% of the videos on the channel still do not have ads, and we are committed to hashing this out & discussing it further before applying this retroactively.

34 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

If caring about people and not betraying them like has been done here is egotistical, then you go Brandon, savior of VGM and remixing. 

This feels like a victim/persecution complex or something, but let's make one thing clear: we have ZERO interest in pissing you off for no reason. OCR is a better place with your music, and your efforts as an album director. Why would we intentionally pursue a course of action that would jeopardize that, if we didn't think it would help the community? You've been antagonizing us prior to this conversation, prior to your being banned from the forums... you had strong objections to OCR's association with Super Audio Cart, and you flung all sorts of bad faith accusations our way that very few people seemed to agree with, and now you're doing this. We'd LOVE to make you happy - we want everyone to be happy - and in my previous post I requested that you provide a numbered list of the questions you want answered, which I'd still like to see. I feel like perhaps you're feeling frustrated at this point that MORE people aren't publicly supporting your crusade against us... expressing concern about this policy is absolutely appropriate, and we're talking it through, but you've been repeating accusations of corruption, of for-profit motives, of "betrayal", etc. non-stop...

Kenogu Labz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2016 at 2:24 PM, Brandon Strader said:

 Getting increasingly skeptical and disinterested  as questions are danced around instead of answered,  while money is still being made off of the videos...  No company would get this much leeway  and get to sit on their thumb for this many days.  If you're monetizing everything and nothing's changing then just say that so I can pull everything down and move my projects off site

No anger implied by it (but it's the internet, so there's no emotion to pick up from what I'm saying), but if your specific question isn't answered, just re-ask the question; there are a ton of posts being responded to. Also, if you have follow-ups, just keep on asking, that's all. Your bad faith aside, Dave has been working to answer all of the questions.

IIRC, you were asking how albums fall under the Content Policy, and it's the same exact policy, but I think the ethics conclusions you're drawing are over the top. I'm not a cheerleader for OCR in the sense that it can do no wrong and I'd unilaterally go along with anything at all, especially something that I felt was unethical. If something like that happened, and Dave was improving his house off OCR funds or anything non-related to OCR, I'd just quit the site and say it was a good run and be the first to publicize that Dave wasn't running things ethically.

That said, the Content Policy has bound OCR to not do shady things with ad revenue, donations, or any money given to the site, even before any talk of 501c3 non-profit status. Even then in 2007, it was simply meant to codify the way he already ran this place to begin with. Everything has been functioning as a non-profit entity would do it, i.e. there's no profit motive, and excess funds are reinvested in improving the website and organization. Staff have also remained unpaid volunteers. I don't know what people are envisioning would be done with Google Ad revenue from YouTube, or how much would be there, but anything beyond operating costs is going to be spent on unsexy things for site purposes, e.g. video software for José to help him make trailers more easily, hiring someone to create a new YouTube video template, buying a new server, getting new forum software. Even the cases where staff have gone to conventions to promote OC ReMix, half the expense would go to OCR, half would be paid personally out of pocket.

From what I understand, believing that what OCR does is a valid instance of Fair Use, we believe the ReMixes do not diminish the original work's value, and that the music is being presented for nonprofit educational purposes to advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new and transformative. That would be a scenario where, because of the Fair Use case, OCR 1) would not be required to seek licenses for the music, and 2) would not pay the artists because the derivative works would be created for profit rather than for nonprofit educational purposes. Everything about how djp has looked at this has been to continue the ReMixes as nonprofit fan works.

That said, there hasn't been any decision on YouTube advertising beyond enabling it on a handful of videos to see how it works and if it's disruptive to the listeners; AFAIK, djp hasn't mentioned it yet, but the embedded versions of the YouTubes on OCR are a small enough size where ads are automatically disabled; a lot of his thought has been how to make it unintrusive and non-disruptive, including ruling out unskippable ads, so there's not been any effort to maximize Google ad revenue at all costs. This hasn't been a case of trying to sneak anything past anyone. As far as trying to hide enabling ads on videos, that's silly because how would you enable ads on all the videos, say nothing, and believe no one would notice or have questions? Obviously, djp sees it as a shift of where the Google ad revenue comes from, and it would be treated the same as the Google ad revenue from the website.

Not to make anything personal about Brandon, but I don't believe there is any information or transparency that would alleviate his assumptions of bad faith. I don't think 501c3 status, an audit, an accountant on retainer, eliminating all advertising, or him joining the staff in some capacity would do that. There's a level of paranoia and bad faith that ends up negatively coloring everything, which is a shame because the way he insults people due to his political beliefs and his insistence on insulting the staff he doesn't like (DarkeSword and zircon) are the things that have caused him issues here, not any actual problem from the staff.

A few weeks ago, Brandon tweeted at me that I was in favor of babies being killed because he concluded that I like Hillary Clinton (I don't, for the record); again, it's hard to convey emotion, but I truly didn't take any offense because it's politics and that talk can get heated. But at the same time, was it REALLY necessary to get that level of incendiary and accusatory with people you disagree with? It wasn't that long ago when the conspiracy was that the judges would never, ever approve Brandon's music. 89 mixposts later, here we are with the same bad faith.

Anyway, it's not meant as any attack or an attempt to discredit or disarm Brandon & his concerns, because he's not the only one who's expressed them. But he is the only one that's expressed them with the belief that OCR's descended into a money grab, that staff are being paid -- maybe handsomely at that, that huge checks are being cashed from YouTube, that there would have been an effort to hide the mass enabling of ads on the YouTube channel (has anyone explained HOW would that be possible?), and that everything from djp has been about being slippery or dishonest. I don't understand why nearly everything has to be framed by Brandon that way.

For all the appeals to transparency, this thread and the Facebook artists discussion could have been shut down or erased to discourage this conversation, and all dissenting voices could be silenced easily; this community handles drama with a pretty warts-and-all approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about:  non-profit organizations and "profit".  Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc.   They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc.  OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations.  Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission:  the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form.  

Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandon Strader said:

About moving projects off site--like I've said I don't feel it is my responsibility to contact everyone currently on for example FF8 and FF3, give them the facts and see if they still support the project. Every single artist needs to be emailed and asked, and if a considerable amount of them aren't interested, further decisions on the future of the album have to be made which might just lead to cancellation depending on how many people pull out. It would be a shame for ff3 to get knocked back a year in production. By "pull" it'd probably be more accurate to say put on hold, either way before anything can be released their consent has to be given and the news information about monetizing their work. It won't be done to them against their consent and in secret.

I am running the album projects, not the community, and not some executive producer in title only -- and with the EXPLICIT CONSENT of all artists involved, many of whom were recruited with the assurance that they were NON-PROFIT FAN TRIBUTES. Someone needs to send the email detailing that is no longer the case, and it's not gonna be me. If I have to contact every artist for something that basically changes the intent of the release, it's not going to tell them their songs are being monetized but not licensed, it'll be to ask them if they're alright/cool with releasing somewhere else for free / non-profit with no ads. 

I'd be really bummed if the FF3 and FF8 albums became non OCR projects :( and I think a lot of people contributing to them might have been contributing to them specifically because they wanted to be involved with OCR. (When it comes to my remixes personally, I'm still usually down to be on whatever albums I have time for so I wouldn't drop my tracks but I'd still sub them to the panel probably). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably most of the stuff I say has been said in one form or other, but since opinion sharing is encouraged and invited, I'll go right ahead.

I personally don't mind the change because, as (hopefully informed) people explained, from the pragmatic viewpoint it's the same - ads, no matter the form, help cover the cost of OCR-related expenses. However, I do understand why there are people who do not share this view, because I have come to learn that Youtube ads specifically is a very sensitive topic, both for video/content makers and those who watch it.

I agree with sir_nuts' statement "Perception != Reality", but I don't think the perception part should be looked down at as unimportant. This whole issue mostly has to do with the way community perceives this change, which has a huge impact on OCR (since the remixes are mostly produced by the community). In light of that, I can understand the staff trying to objectively test the waters and appreciate them encouraging discussions about the issue. This will provide them with knowledge of how to strike the sweet spot of both having high community morale/support and also reliably covering the costs (both of which I believe are extremely important).

I also think the official non-profit status would be a step in the right direction and restore faith of people who might've lost it during this event.

What I am a bit concerned about is the nature of Youtube ads. I believe they do make the music listening experience worse. @zircon asked whether ads on a page would be better than ads embedded in the video itself - I think yes, and significantly. I believe all the musicians here can understand how jarring an audible -6dB RMS ad can be while one is carefully and attentively listening to and appreciating music.

That's my opinion.

Brandon Strader likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation with artists has to be had, I still feel that an email should be sent out. The mailing list also used to include people who didn't have forum accounts, I don't know if it still does, and many artists do not have forum accounts, so I don't think just posting here flies for everyone whose opinion matters. That's part of why I posted the discussion on fb and mentioned it on theshizz, but beyond that, there's a fair amount of artists I met through YouTube or VK or whatever who have no account here either. To be fair they also wouldn't see the email. Maybe some kind of simple webpage/wiki page that could be sent out with all the info would be the best, I don't know. Maybe a hashtag included that they could tweet to. 

@ Larry - An audit would probably make me pretty comfortable. Hiring a lawyer to state whether the monetization is legal would also help and maybe the cost to get an evaluation would be worthwhile, for everyone not just for me. There's a lot of people with the same concerns and while I may seem like the most vocal think of all the artists who can't say anything or don't want to be demonized so they refuse to post. I know people who wont post for that reason and I know from extensive experience that their concerns are legitimate. I also know that these people don't consent just because they're silent on the issue.

Theres people saying site ads are different from ads on the third party YouTube upload, other people see it differently. At this point I think uploading mixes at all should be opt-in, if artists don't want to put their song on ocr's YouTube page at all. For the record I see it differently, I think monetizing the free YouTube upload, which isn't even really mentioned as a 'benefit' of submitting in clear terms, is not the same as site ads, and the YouTube upload could be optional altogether while the artist would still be adhering to the content policy as written. I do think the distinction is there, because the site ads go to keep the site running and are on the site, while the YouTube ads are off-site on a service everyone knows is free.

Not licensing the monetized YouTube uploads is an issue, and it changes the game in regards to how a publisher will see OCR. I think how that relationship changes is yet to be seen.

All of the artists do need to be informed of this change before any decision can be made. It's not so much about keeping me happy, as it is about making sure everybody knows exactly what is going on, how the situation has changed and ads introduced on YouTube. Any way you cut it, everyone needs to know and needs to approve of that. I don't know who slimy is but he's reducing what I said - I wouldn't pull everyone's work (existing released or unreleased) off of OCR without their consent, if it becomes something I have to do, either due to artists not wanting to consent to the ads or people deciding they don't want to be involved with OCR at all, then it might be something we have to consider, we being me and the project members, honesty I am still thinking of the one that is still secret when I'm talking about this. I know full well that OCR would put someone else in charge of finishing the projects that started here like ff8 if I were to just up and abandon it. Pretty sure people's allegiance is with FF8 and OCR than it is with me when it comes to the ff8 album, a director is expendable for specifically OCR community generated projects, we saw that with ff9. 

I also don't agree with the distinction of the 2 month monetization of NEW mixes is different from monetizing everything and is less nefarious. Fresh new material is being seen, getting views, it's active content that while it's a lot less than 3K uploads, it's a lot more active, of course this is my guess or assumption, nobody is being notified to listen to the old mixes. Would 100 views per 3k vids add up to the amount of views for of the new vids over the last 2 months? I would wager the new vids together had more collective active views than the old content. So I don't really agree with not monetizing everything as being less nefarious. If anything, monetizing everything might have made it more obvious to a lot more people of what was happening.

i probably have more I want to discuss and have people's chime in on but I'm at the breaking point of typing on this phone, it disappoints me greatly and just ate up 30% of my battery 

yes politics are stupid, let's not bring those up. Larrys a coolguy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

i probably have more I want to discuss and have people's chime in on but I'm at the breaking point of typing on this phone, it disappoints me greatly 

Okay, still no list of unanswered questions - for a while there you were repeatedly ragging on us for not answering ("dancing around") your questions, I've asked two times in a row for a numbered list that I can respond to in detail, and you've elected not to do that... why?

But since you keep mentioning an "audit" I'm just curious as to what you mean. By a third-party? We're paying Price Waterhouse-Coopers or Accenture to come in? Any idea how expensive that would be? How extensive is said audit? Who performs it? How much would it have to cost for it to be a prohibitively bad idea?

  1. Here's what we're going to do in terms of an "audit" - we're going to apply for 501c3 status. Talk to @Chimpazilla if you want. Part of that process DOES involve a review of budget and expenses that could be likened to an audit. Since you haven't been at all specific, and you keep using the word "audit" as if everyone understands what that would be, who would do it, how much it would cost, etc., I'd like you to indicate whether you think the 501c3 application process is an acceptable form of this. If you're not willing to do the research on what an "audit" would look like OR what's involved with 501c3 status, you're basically just beating an empty drum and casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on OCR without a genuine interest in its betterment. The ball is in your court on this issue; failure to respond directly to this question to me is, at this point, an admission of disinterest in legitimate progress.
  2. We *believe* you're wrong about YT revenue and that the back catalog will end up generating more than newer mixes; even though you are correct in that newer mixes get more views, we're talking about 3000+ videos... we've already disclosed the net sum generated since June 13th, and it has been negligible compared to Patreon. If you were genuinely concerned about corruption & how money is being spent, you would be far MORE concerned about Patreon, because at present - prior to enabling ads on the back catalog, at least - Patreon is far more critical to the site in terms of support. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, rhetorically - you're the one "dancing" between the MEANS of revenue generation being the main problem, and how the revenue is being USED being the main problem. No one has yet chimed in who you claim is as gravely concerned as you are, from the projects you are directing. If you can get them to participate, it would be greatly appreciated.

Perhaps this will be helpful:

Things we ARE committed to thus far, moving forward, based on this conversation:

  1. Filing for 501c3 status in this calendar year.
  2. Updating the content policy with clarifying language surrounding "advertisements in the context of submitted material" meaning more than just banner ads, with YouTube as a specific example.
  3. Reaching out to artists via forum email addresses, social media, etc. for additional feedback on this topic prior to enabling ads on the back catalog of 3000+ videos.

As @Liontamer said, I don't think there's a single thing or list of things we could do to make you happy. I feel like you've festered deep resentment towards the OCR staff, and I think at least some of that surrounds personal issues that aren't related to policy whatsoever. I feel like you've been intentionally misrepresenting our statements, ignoring our responses, casting doubt on our character, and attempting to stir up as much drama as humanly possible, and I think you're frustrated that many contributing to this thread and on Facebook are seeing that for what it is. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, in spite of your ignoring our at-length responses, I still want to this thread to result in a positive outcome. It probably won't be an outcome that satisfies you - I'm not convinced that's possible - but I'm very interested in what others have to say, including those who you've mentioned you've spoken to.

 

timaeus222 and Kenogu Labz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my sight has gone blurry from typing / reading on the phone for too long. Please don't think I'm dodging re asking the questions but for now I kinda need to until my eyes recover 

I will just ask the important important one , will or can projects specifically be made void of the monetization plan, unless the entire project opts in to it to begin with. There's way more than enough content monetized even without doing the projects specifically. The peplum is what was done in the past and what people expected vs. the new proposal of ads. Some peoples who signed the consent form for projects probably didn't read the content policy at all. Maybe for some English is a 2nd or 3rd language. I know artists like this so if you could explain a little about projects I'd appreciate that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

will or can projects specifically be made void of the monetization plan, unless the entire project opts in to it to begin with. There's way more than enough content monetized even without doing the projects specifically.

There is no "monetization plan" - there is just the enabling of ads on YouTube. That's it. That's the "plan".

As for projects, at present, we don't post every project mix to YouTube. We used to, but we don't anymore. That could change, but right now from albums what we DO post is submitted & approved ReMixes. Anything that gets submitted is subject to the same content policy that albums are. The project consent agreement references the exact same policy. Your concern about "monetization" would be just as valid back in 2013, with regard to banner ads on the website, as it is in 2016 relative to YouTube ads. If it's the same exact policy that's being agreed to, I think you know the answer - the policy would be applied the same, across the board. Albums would not have a special exception to the content policy, compared to individually submitted mixes.

Why are you suggesting that contributing to an album should grant you special/different privileges than contributing a mix to the site? Why would artists in one context be treated preferentially? We've never done that in the past, and I'm confused as to why anyone would think that would be a good, or clear/intuitive, approach...

Does anyone other than @Brandon Strader want to chime in and support the idea that album contributions should have a different content policy / agreement than individual submissions?

Kenogu Labz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, djpretzel said:

There is no "monetization plan" - there is just the enabling of ads on YouTube. That's it. As for projects, at present, we don't post every project mix to YouTube. We used to, but we don't anymore. That could change, but right now from albums what we DO post is submitted & approved ReMixes. Anything that gets submitted is subject to the same content policy that albums are. The project consent agreement references the exact same policy. Your concern about "monetization" would be just as valid back in 2013, with regard to banner ads on the website, as it is in 2016 relative to YouTube ads. If it's the same exact policy that's being agreed to, I think you know the answer - the policy would be applied the same, across the board. Albums would not have a special exception to the content policy, compared to mixes. Why are you suggesting that contributing to an album should grant you special/different privileges than contributing a mix to the site? Why would artists in one context be treated preferentially? We've never done that in the past, and I'm confused as to why anyone would think that would be a good, or clear/intuitive, approach...

Does anyone other than @Brandon Strader want to chime in and support the idea that album contributions should have a different content policy / agreement than individual submissions?

I think they should have the same policy, if only to reduce confusion.

Though given the relatively small amount of revenue generated from ads, it may be worth cutting them to give users a better viewing/listening experience. I don't know what OCR's forward looking budget looks like though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, djpretzel said:

Does anyone other than @Brandon Strader want to chime in and support the idea that album contributions should have a different content policy / agreement than individual submissions?

I don't see why they should be different.  All posted ReMixes should be handled the same.

No one likes youtube ads, it's clear.  Some people though have expressed that they don't mind too much, or at all.  I think we will know more when we have the non-profit filing process underway, and we have done some budgeting to see if youtube ads are even a viable income stream for the site when balanced against the repercussions, real or perceived.  I think we should brainstorm some other ideas for revenue too, hopefully we will come up with some ideas that are more lucrative than youtube ads with a whole lot lower pissing-people-off factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried reading the thread, made it a few pages and then gave up. Screw it. I'll just add my two cents:

If it can be clearly shown how much money is being made, whence, and where it goes, and thus that there's no profit (as opposed to revenue) made from it, I'm cool with YT ads. Both on my remixes, and on any I listen to. I'd want to be notified of it first, though.

Regarding albums, I'd say director's prerogative. Makes things easier to manage. I'm cool with the sd3 project having ads on its remix vids. But not on the trailer, because it's essentially an ad itself. And I feel the same way about other albums' vids.

Brandon Strader likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, djpretzel said:

I feel like you've been intentionally misrepresenting our statements, ignoring our responses, casting doubt on our character, and attempting to stir up as much drama as humanly possible, and I think you're frustrated that many contributing to this thread and on Facebook are seeing that for what it is.

Is scapegoating in any way necessary

 I've done my best to try to present the facts as stated and link to this thread so people can see everything for themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

Is scapegoating in any way necessary

 I've done my best to try to present the facts as stated and link to this thread so people can see everything for themselves

I don't think you have. I don't think you've done your best to present "the facts as stated"...

Here's why:

  • "I think the major problem here is that the trust of the site is so far beyond gone that nobody has a legitimate reason to believe any staff or owner of OCR is not profiting from this." - this is not a fact, this is a thought that starts off personal, but then you assert that NOBODY has reason to believe anything we're saying w/ regard to profit... which is not only NOT a fact, but is in the proximity of libel...
  • "Disregarding the unethical and potentially illegal aspect of them profiting off of the music itself" - right, as stated, we aren't profiting. The funds are earmarked solely for site purposes. Continuing to call this profit is synonymous with claiming that ANY money OCR *ever* takes in would be profit as well, in which case... no more OCR. So not a presentation of fact...
  • "I'm going to assume from now on that each staff member is making a fair amount of income from the site." - this is you doing your best to present facts?
  • "Your content policy doesn't stretch to youtube usage." - not a statement of fact; your opinion. Hinges on the word "context" which I happen to think most people would have a pretty good idea of...
  • "Your own policy prohibits you from doing what you did" - not a statement of fact, ditto as above.
  • "Were sales of Super Cart not too good? That's unfortunate." - not a statement of fact, just kinda douchey. It's sold pretty well, FYI... this is you doing your best to present facts?
  • "We need an audit, we need someone to go over the financials, and the horrors within need to be disclosed." - which horrors? The ones you have absolutely no evidence of? So that's doing your best to present "facts"?
  • "I have more reason to believe the site will be dead in a year because the financials weren't properly held and OCR falls into legal hell, than anything else. There's more evidence of that." - now you're talking about "evidence" that we'll fall into "legal hell" because financials weren't "properly held." This is actually libel, FYI. I have no intent to act on it, but I believe it would qualify. You're literally claiming that evidence exists of fiscal wrongdoing. This is not only not presenting "facts as stated", it's a statement for which you could be legally held accountable.
  • "since it was hidden from us for 2 months, there is no way I will ever support this regardless of an audit." - this isn't a statement of fact, it's just you doing a full reversal of your above call for an audit. You literally said "we need an audit!" and then "I won't support this regardless of an audit!" - this isn't presentation of fact, it's schizophrenic.
  • "And probably the reason I didn't find it sooner is because I was banned for over a month due to questioning OTHER shady stuff that occurred and staff behavior from the past." - this is misleading. You were informed why you were banned. If you want us making all of that public on this thread, we can. It wasn't related to "shady stuff"...
  • "You say nobody but OCR should worry about legal issues, but the content policy clearly pushes liability onto the remixer." - this is not a statement of fact, and is again misleading. We CANNOT indemnify the submitting artist because our license is non-exclusive - they could post it elsewhere, they could sell it for $10,000, who knows. We can't indemnify that, and we're making that clear.
  • "This really isn't about me in any way though" - sure...

So... just to be clear... all of that was you... doing your best... to present the facts as stated?

Anyone wanna defend that claim, or is it as egregiously false as it seems to me, based on the above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your bullet points are nice and I did speculate on some things, in this thread, but I don't represent OCR so people have little incentive to believe what I'm saying as being the policy of OCR. They can read the thread for themselves, including your responses. 

If you want to attack what I've said or scapegoat me, then fine. But you aren't getting out of defending your actions, including going behind everyone's back. And if you claim there's no grounds for bad faith based on what you have done, you're wrong. If you think I've ignored anyone's answers because I continued to talk, you're wrong. There's a difference between ignoring someone and disagreeing with them. I simply didn't find their personal opinion to be a satisfying explanation for why something is done the way it is.

If your site needs an oversight committee to make sure things are above bar, there's a problem. And I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread in regards to people being paid--if you can prove it's false, i'll retract the statement. Either way whether people are being paid or not is not a huge issue, the issue is whether it's done legally. The huge issue with this site is whether you do anything legally or ethically. 

If you want to cry about libel, how about first crying about the laws you've broken or may be breaking? Your own staff at least between Larry and zircon can't even decide whether remixes itself is illegal or covered by fair use and perfectly fine. 

Larry says " From what I understand, believing that was OCR does is a valid instance of Fair Use, we believe the ReMixes do not diminish the original work's value, and that the music is being presented for nonprofit educational purposes to advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new and transformative. That would be a scenario where, because of the Fair Use case, OCR 1) would not be required to seek licenses for the music, and 2) would not pay the artists because the derivative works would be created for profit rather than for nonprofit educational purposes."

Zircon says "it's always been illegal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scapegoating, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, we can throw around any number of terms of what our opposition does, but that is not in any way productive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.