Brandon Strader

OCR monetizing mixes on YouTube

350 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

Zircon says "it's always been illegal"

He said it's always been infringement, not it's always been illegal. He said if website ads were ruled illegal, than so would YT ads. And he also said if website ads were ruled legal, than so would YT ads.

Fair Use and copyright infringement are not mutually exclusive. Fair Use is a defense for a category of copyright infringement that has been cleared by a court of law; in other words, it's infringement, but the judge says it's okay if he thinks it's Fair Use. OCR has always operated in this manner. Your own arrangements operate in this manner whether or not you make a single cent on them for ANY reason. 

All of your video game arrangements are copyright infringement, and always have been, and will continue to be even if OCR shut down Patreon, turned off the donation service, and took down all ads everywhere. Nothing you say can get you out of it. It doesn't matter if you release the music for free and non-profit outside of OCR, it's still infringement. Even if it's Fair Use, it's still infringement.

There is nothing inconsistent between what Larry and Zircon said.

Share this post


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

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

It is productive insofar as it removes the need for this discussion to be carried on further if you ramble and rant and rave and refuse to discuss the topic with one iota of reason.  Dredging up your inconsistencies and fallacies simply shows you are incapable of holding an argument that actually states anything of value.  Pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think responding to Brandon at this point is not productive.  We're repeating the same things over and over, and he's unwilling to listen or thinks any explanation is not enough.  Fails to provide a list of point by point questions and is just ego ranting and trying to leverage his status as a prolific remixer and album director to get his views on what's right to be implemented regardless of reason or logic.

This:

1 hour ago, djpretzel said:

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.

 

Is something that has been stated as the next steps to be taking going forward.  As reiterated before, people who have a point of view in disagreement are welcomed to join the discussion and drop their two cents, as well as people providing ideas.  I don't like to dismiss people but I think the discussion with Brandon is turning out to be exhausting and pointless for everyone.

Kenogu Labz likes this

Share this post


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

Your bullet points are nice and I did speculate on some things

I'm glad you think they're "nice" - but your statements were not speculations, they were false statements about "evidence". If you continue to make such statements, you will be permanently banned from this community, once and for all. Artists contributing to your projects can choose whether to contribute to them elsewhere, or under new management here. It's not my first choice for how this all should pan out, but you're making this site toxic for me to even interact with, you're disrespecting me and my staff, and that's a problem.

Kenogu Labz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brandon Strader These are not contradictory. Let's take Larry's response as a reference point (meaning that what OCR does would be presented as valid under Fair Use arguments).

This is what @Liontamer said:

3 hours ago, Liontamer said:

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. Everything about how djp has looked at this has been to continue the ReMixes as non-profit fan works.

I think it's clear enough that Larry argues Fair Use. And this is what @zircon said:

On 8/12/2016 at 4:19 PM, zircon said:

Put simply: in my view, informed through my experience in the industry, if you think YouTube video monetization is illegal, or otherwise infringing/wrong, then everything OCR has ever done is illegal.

What @zircon actually said - when we actually consider the rest of this post, I might add - boils down to, "well, if you want to assume that monetization of youtube VGM remix videos is illegal, then I don't see why you wouldn't first assume that monetization via OCR website ads are illegal." It was a hypothetical - a logical thought experiment to show you that you are approaching this with unapparent effort to compile the information given to you (i.e. it was a method to try to convince you by showing you what logically follows from your stated thoughts and his experience). It was also to emphasize that based on what he is comfortable asserting, he believes monetization via YouTube ads won't be significantly different in relation to monetization via website ads (or any other OCR-related advertising or ReMix distribution, hence the "everything OCR has ever done").

Thus, if you, @Brandon Strader, don't believe website ads are a problem but do believe that YouTube ads are a problem, then you don't see @zircon's point, or are ignoring it...

Although his approach was on the side of "well, what if we make the assumptions that you ( @Brandon Strader ) made? Then we'd come to this off-conclusion," Larry's approach was to state his view outright. Either way, @zircon went to great lengths to explain what Fair Use is and repeat what his view is. Several times. He just has a more cautious, "let's sit back and consider OCR's history before we make hasty assumptions" point of view, which - correct me if I'm wrong - is just a humble way of saying "if OCR's putting up a Fair Use defense, then YT ads vs. website ads are hardly any different" without asserting "I am a lawyer and I know 100% what I'm talking about".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing to scapegoat me is embarrassing for everyone. I decided after the ban that the free ride was over for you guys, if you're going to ban me permanently then you've probably already made up your mind on doing that. You've expertly persuaded people that I'm the problem and the only person outraged by what happened, multiple times mentioned conspiracy theories, accused me of not reading or ignoring answers. Now you're threatening to ban me because of my statements, opinions, or speculation. I do feel that character and personal interactions is valid evidence, and while it may not be FAIR to use that as evidence, people have done so against me for quite a long time here, so I see it as an option. It's not at all fair, but grudges based on past experiences rarely are. If my assumptions are wrong and you are offended then I apologize, but assumptions are being made about me too. The conversation is too much about me, and not about all of the people affected by this and the many people who have also shared their opinions. Enough about me, here are some thoughts from people who may or may not be registered for the forum, whose identities (for the most part) won't be shared to prevent them being abused or harassed. Because yes, that's a real concern from OCR. This is just a few, there are many more out there: 

 

"what a mess. i see DJP chasing his words. even chimpazilla chimed in. i suppose we agree to it when we submit the music. but its unfair. they should stay free. from what i understand, they joined a network which auto monetizes ur channel. its to reach more people but they still getting paid. its a format that labels do nowadays to fund the label, but we are getting sales on the music and its officially licensed. ocremix is falling behind imo"

 

"I think y'all go insane whenever the topic of money comes up at OCR. I don't know why everyone keeps releasing their music for free on OCR when they could very likely get a license for it and make at least a little bit of money on it. "Founded in 1999, OverClocked ReMix is an organization dedicated to the appreciation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix."  This sort of debate has been ongoing for many many years and is the reason why I kept away from OCR. I don't need respect from the people of OCR. Non-profit or not, OCR has NO legal grounds to operate on. OCR is only able to exist on the goodwill of the copyright holders of the music that is being remixed and distributed. There is no "failsafe" for if and when a large company like Square, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc decides that enough is enough and they are ready to put an end to it. Even if a remix using someone else's track as source is being released for free, the artist or organization still MUST pay a statutory royalty fee to the copyright holder, which is something like 9.1 cents for one composition used in a track less than 5 minutes long. If OCR really wants to clean up their legality act then they're going to have to start applying for licenses and charging for downloads. I'm pretty sure I tried explaining it a few years ago when we were going through legal issues of our own, but you can imagine how well people responded to that? Doing things legally would require OCR to completely change the way they brand themselves.

OCR takes SO MUCH pride in the fact that "we don't make any money!" I mean seriously, how is that something to be proud of? It's laughable lol

 

And now in order to start operating within legal parameters they'd have to get rid of that "free music" mentality, which is probably the most controversial thing they could do to their loyal fan base after 17 years of spouting "free music" nonsense. And while I don't believe the admins are raking in the benjamins from all of this ad revenue, it certainly wouldn't kill them to put some of that money into making the site not look like 1999."

 

"How likely is it that our album will become popular if we send it to OCR? here is what i think: if OCR will bring us views and popularity, we might wanna let them monetize our tracks, but if not..... eerm, i don't know. ok in this case: I wouldn't be against illegal monetization if this will make our project popular, but of not - screw these criminals .

ahaha i know i misuse a lot of words a expressions, but i think you got the gist. i trust you on this one so i will accept any your decision but i would prefer putting up with them monetizing shit because in this case everyone will learn about us and we'll get fame and chicks."

 

"From that thread it seems like High Lord DJ Pretzel pulled the wool over your eyes. It's a combination of the ruling class and the Big Corporations (YouTube) monetizing your creations. This is the price you pay when you host your remixes on OverClocked Remix. Might as well draw a pentagram on the ground in your own blood and sit in it."

 

"I get the desire to make money off of it, but I'm gonna say no. If you want to get paid you can put up a bandcamp or something and sell an album/ep worth of music people want to buy."

 

"I realize OCR has operating costs, but if the people that created the arrangements aren't getting any money and OCR is, that is very uncool. If it's one of those things where OCR isn't getting money and the copyright holders are, I don't really care. There is a difference to me. OCR is not paying for the cost of hosting and streaming the videos."

 

"As for the whole money issue, DJ Pretzel laid it all out in that thread that Strader linked and they barely make any money off of YouTube and operate as a non-profit organization so they have to be diligent about their money for the IRS. But please don't let your bias get in the way of learning what is actually going on."

 

"OCR has straight up bullied me on twitter as recently as two years ago by butting into conversations where I was talking about events that happened on OCR to someone else (and did not even mention them by name) and then they sicced their goon squad on me and my mentions were flooded with people trash talking me for having a dissenting opinion (which was much more polite than what I've said in this thread). I pretty much lost any remaining respect for OCR after that."

 

Many of these are from facebook conversations, a few from theshizz, and there are more comments on the Facebook secret community as well which people might have to be invited to see it. I KNOW that some people's comments may be hurtful, but I respectfully ask that people don't go searching these people out to yell at them or anything. Every individual community / group seems to be having their own conversation about this, the best that can be done is to make a centralized info hub. 

I don't know why or how this got indented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of these people sound like haters to me - people who are very close-minded. So I don't see the credibility in these people, only that they take issue. It doesn't mean that they're correct. In fact, I saw mostly sardonic and some incorrect comments.

This is one decent comment:

"As for the whole money issue, DJ Pretzel laid it all out in that thread that Strader linked and they barely make any money off of YouTube and operate as a non-profit organization so they have to be diligent about their money for the IRS. But please don't let your bias get in the way of learning what is actually going on."

At least that guy is TRYING to be unbiased... Or maybe he's just hiding his inner mistrust too. Hard to tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think brushing off peoples' opinions and saying they don't matter isn't the right approach.. I'm not saying anyone needs to take all the comments 100% to heart, but these are real comments and real concerns.. I tried not to include ones that were just being mean, and I tried to include ones that were fair, people like @Sagnewshreds who commented on shizz did share and could reshare his thoughts here if he wants and importantly I linked to the THREAD so people could read ALL of the comments, I gave up at some point, there was just too many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they don't matter. I'm saying few of them are rooted in anything more than built-up resentment or some sort of personal hate. I already read all of the ones here, and I honestly think that only a few of them are productive to listen to, and many of them are literal hate comments hid under slight euphemisms.

There is value in noting that people have reacted this way and accounting for that in OCR's actions, but there is hardly any value in taking them as unbiased truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brandon, I think it's great that you started this thread, you brought up some legitimate issues and got a good discussion going.  But this has gone so very, VERY far south.  Now it appears that you are simply the leader of a massive witchhunt.  This discussion is so far past being constructive that it's stupid.  Frankly, what you're doing appears to me VERY childish, regardless of your initial intentions.  You are making unwarranted accusations and slinging mud and whipping people up into a frenzy.  Are you actually happy with that?

If you want to hang onto any remaining shred of goodwill that you have here, you might want to stop posting on this topic, immediately.  Not a threat, I have no authority to make a threat... just my $0.02.

Brandon Strader and timaeus222 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, i apologize, especially for statements I made based on personal feelings that are probably not true. I DID say it wasn't fair to do that, so I shouldn't have tried to use that as any kind of statement, on previous days.

Chimpazilla and timaeus222 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's have the names of these people. Come on, bring em forth. If they have any legitimate issue, they should have no fear of making the argument themselves. Bring them in to participate in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the list he gave was enough to prove his point. Don't worry about specific names - anonymity doesn't need to break, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want to have their voices heard, they need to make them heard; otherwise it's just noise from the void. If these people aren't going to back up anything they say, or inform themselves of what's actually going on outside of what Brandon Strader is framing it to be, their concerns are moot.

Slimy and Platonist like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neblix said:

If people want to have their voices heard, they need to make them heard; otherwise it's just noise from the void. If these people aren't going to back up anything they say, or inform themselves of what's actually going on outside of what Brandon Strader is framing it to be, their concerns are moot.

If people do not want to be doxed due to previous (perceived or real) mob behavior, that's a totally rational thing. I don't see the need to dox anyone in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He linked the threads, that is enough for that point, specifically. If you want specific names, go get um', but while the opinions are nice to know it's otherwise not important.

EDIT: The names specifically, I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not particularly important to have the names, but most of those comments are from the catch-all discussion thread on The Shizz where Brandon raised his concerns and also shared a lot of negative assumptions and distortions that framed the issue in a negative way from the start. In any case, the names don't really matter, although it's really silly to hide them. No one on OCR staff cares who said what; there's no reprisal or adding their names to a shitlist; people can say their piece, even if they don't understand the situation or just dislike OCR for having a judging process and discouraging less interpretive covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gario said:

He linked the threads, that is enough for that point, specifically. If you want specific names, go get um', but while the opinions are nice to know it's otherwise not important.

Specific names I don't really care about for any active reason, but in anonymity the concerns are noise. Are these community reactions or just reactions of random internet people on theshizz or otherwise after Brandon told them excessive and patently untrue distortion of what OCR is actually doing?

Just read the comments, a great majority of them sound like people who are not members of the community, but rather people outside of the community who have issues with it (people who have existed since OCR started).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Brandon's credit, his presentation of this topic elsewhere (wherever I've seen, which is at least Facebook) was neutral.

This is getting off topic, though - keep the focus on OCR's Youtube monetary policy, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gario said:

To Brandon's credit, his presentation of this topic elsewhere (wherever I've seen, which is at least Facebook) was neutral.

This is getting off topic, though - keep the focus on OCR's Youtube monetary policy, please.

This is not off-topic, this is stemming from DJP's invitation for people (who Brandon is talking about) who have a problem with the YT policy to step forth and say their opinion; which so far, still hasn't happened, all that's happened is digging up snippets of out-of-context posts from alternate media in attempt to support the claim that a majority of the community does not like the YT policy.

And some of them don't even have anything to do with the YT policy. They're just generic "OCR is dumb lol who would join OCR"

Edited by Neblix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2016 at 5:53 PM, Brandon Strader said:

[gleaned from numerous comments from page 4 and on]

hurr durr the OCR staff is as crooked as Hillary

Well that explains your signature. Or maybe your signature explains your posts?

 

Anyway, my thought on it is this: I think it's fine, and I support it, but if OCR is to do it there should be further explanation on video descriptions that help explain the reason for monetization in case people have questions, possibly including a link to OCR's (updated) advertising use statement.

 

EDIT: I've arrived on page 8. I feel like I'm dredging through the darker depths of PPR right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread, I would like to formally put my name forward as someone who actively supports -- and would like to encourage, actually -- the notion of monetizing OCR's YouTube uploads to contribute to site upkeep.

Please do, OCR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After my legality concerns were addressed, and OCR staff has now agreed that a revised submissions agreement and 501c3 filing is necessary moving forward, I'd also like to do the same, DusK. I encourage the YT ads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anorax said:

hurr durr the OCR staff is as crooked as Hillary

I don't remember if I actually said that, did I? Cause if I did that way crosses any line, by no means would I compare OCR or its staff to Crooked Hillary

And no I've had this sig for ... a while

Quote

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.

This also very much satisfies me, and if monetization occurred while these steps were planned to be taken then I should be fine with it too. 

If anyone's right now saying "I support this" to spite me, maybe my intentions weren't expressed properly, but hopefully nobody's actually doing that. 

Sagnewshreds and timaeus222 like this

Share this post


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