OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - Final Enacted 6/12/2007

[Dhsu]

I think Protricity would be a perfect example of someone who might go to that extreme.
Ha, perhaps. Then maybe in that particular case, keeping Prot's remixes is punishment enough. ;)

I think a reason should be appropriate though - as the removals aren't to be just by request, there should be a substantial reason for OCR to remove a track by request. If anything, this helps the artist & maintains OCR's protection from malicious motives.
I guess I can see that, but the real problem here might not be the need to provide a reason...plenty of people have already posted situations in which they think a removal would be warranted. The problem is that it's entirely up to djp to decide whether the reasons are "good enough." What if he gets a request saying "If you don't remove my mix I'll kill myself and my whole family" but then decides it's not "good enough"?

I can see where disagreement may come here, so is there any other potential solution that'd be amenable to the remixers & OCR?
Well, personally, I don't see a problem with just doing the request system and trusting the remixers not to abuse it for now...until they do, there's no reason to overreact and put everything on lockdown.

Speaking of which, as much as I've spoken against it, I'm actually not strictly opposed to a permanent lockdown status. I think my main beef was that djp seemed to be justifying it by saying "I haven't seen a good enough reason not to do it." Don't gives us that. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As for a middle ground...I'm really not sure. I mean, I guess you could try to persuade a ReMixer not to remove his mix. Or if it's already in a torrent or other compilation, you can explain why you can't remove it. And there's the previous "gone is gone" suggestion. I dunno though, to me it just seems like it has to be either "okay, no questions asked" or "sorry, no exceptions." Maybe somebody else can come up with something though.

On a side note, assuming djp isn't changing his mind and is set on the second option, putting an explanation in the policy would be nice (but not necessary, of course).

[Compyfox]

As it stands now, the following changes will be made in the third draft, which hopefully will be final:
OCR won't be able to remove mixes for any old reason; copyright owner requests and submission standards violations will be the only two reasons.


Accreditation exceptions for live performances will be clarified.


General legal rewording and clarification.The 2nd draft has been moved to http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy so we can track changes using Wiki functionality. This will be its permanent resting place, but it is still in draft form. I will be working on the wording and should have a third draft out sometime this weekend. Afterwards, we can discuss any remaining issues, but if the removal aspect is still the focus and the compromise regarding limiting OCR's removal options does not satisfy some, we will probably have to move ahead and finalize regardless.

I had a long phonecall with Larry the other day, where we discussed some things, and he said he will forward my/our ideas as soon as he catches you (he's out for the weekend).

Did he do that already? If not, please wait till early next week. I'm fairly sure the stuff we discussed can be adressed a bit better from his point of view, and with a way more fluent english than I would.

Thanks.



There's one concern with the remix projects though. I mean, the only "tag" the projects hold (all of them) is in the album name that's stating where it's coming from (and in this case, the subpage for example chrono.ocremix.org, or chozo.ocremix.org). While this is not necessarily a problem per se, it's more like a question. I tried to clear this with Larry and he was like "I don't see a problem with that", but your recent post actually makes a problem out of it.

As you know, I still hold all rights for releasing the (long awaited) Special Edition of Chrono Symphonic. I can't say when it'll happen, but I plan to release it one way or another. The thing is... the original project was released already via "OCRemix" (the subpage, featured on the front page with a couple of tracks) and Studio Compyfox (my torrent tracker), where the SE will be released later, too. The Special Edition would be a massive sound enhanced version, with a bonus CD of about 10 tracks - as mentioned a couple of times in the original project thread.

The thing is... how will this be handled? It's actually an "add-on", no official "initial release". Not to mention that the projects were all released "independend" from OCR (as there're tracks on them, that're not on the OCR main page, but exclusive to the project - so it'd theoretically not make it an OCRemix project only with the exception that it was "presented" on OCRemix with an own subdomain - and who said that a project that "spawned" on OCR is an official OCR Project in the end? Or are the Remix Competitions "OCR bound", too?).

It's a bit tricky, and I'm sure Larry will adress that, too. But I'd love to get a clearance via PM to this if possible.

[djpretzel]

Actually, I fail to see how the past behavior of a person affects the reason of his argument. If Einstein had killed your parents, it wouldn't have make his theories any less valid. Not to mention there are some troublemakers in the assenting side as well, and I don't see you criticizing their character. :P

I can't see potentially questionable motivations for supporting the policy if you're a troublemaker, whereas the opposite seems not only possible but probable. As for your first point, we're unfortunately not dealing with issues of pure scientific reason here... there's a human element to it... if Einstein had killed my parents, to use one of a couple of analogies in your post that are kind of problematic to begin with, his theories would still be as sound, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him on matters of policy, which revolved to some extent around personal beliefs.


Sorry, but with regard to being "weak", I have to say your rebuttal ranks pretty high unfortunately. Your "don't release your music anywhere" comment is specious at best; that'd be like asking people to never marry if they ever want the possible option of divorce.

Another problematic analogy; why do we need to come up with bogus, far-detached analogies when I've already said I view posting mixes as analogous to physical album releases? Releasing a physical album is a lot closer to posting a ReMix than getting married is, and yes, if you want the ad-hoc ability to disassociate your music with anything, at any time, doing a physical album release would be a bad idea. So it's not "specious at best" - rather, your marriage analogy is, in addition to being unnecessary in light of previous discussion.


Like I mentioned in a previous post, removal isn't a right, but it would be a much-appreciated courtesy. And how much trouble would it *really* cause you to provide such a courtesy, considering how un-often it's requested? Perhaps if you actually gave us an idea of how many removal requests you've had since, say, the last lockdown...it'd give us a better perspective on the matter. That's just a suggestion, by the way...I know I don't have a RIGHT to that information. ;)

It's not a courtesy to facilitate discourtesy to others. Removing a mix affects a number of people, not just little old me. We've covered this... the amount of work put in by a number of people to evaluate and promote mixes is increasing, not decreasing, and listeners as well spend a good amount of time quite often critiquing mixes. It's not courtesy to put one individual's interests against the interests of a group, especially when that individual is saying they shouldn't even need a reason. We've covered this.

Again, I really hate to be blunt here, but: we've covered this.

We're not asking for "every compromise possible" here...just one which for some reason you happen to be particularly unwilling to give.

For reasons previously stated and reiterated and danced around by those saying we're so "unwilling" to compromise, even as we've been changing substantive portions of the document to better reflect mixers' wishes.

I'm not clear on what positive aspects the requested changes would sacrifice/dilute. Mind clarifying?

A policy that is more restrictive on ad-hoc removal lets us pursue outlets like last.fm or physical media distribution without the fear of a workload associated with having to undo/modify aspects of that distribution after the fact. Dead horse: we've covered this.

This is where I disagree. I can understand instituting this policy because of practical reasons (e.g. too much work), but evaluating someone's personal reasons is not a practice I find appropriate. People don't have to answer to you because quite simply you're not the boss of them, to use an age-old argument. When it comes to judging, OCR should keep its jurisdiction to music, not motives.

When someone removes something they gave to the community, which judges evaluated with the assumption it'd become part of the site forever, listeners reviewed assuming their reviews would be part of their contribution to the site forever, and site staff pursued distribution and promotional opportunities assuming said music would again be part of the site for as long as applicable, and they suddenly want to remove that music.... it's both personal and practical. Period. There's no avoiding it. To not question the motives of an action that moots hours of work and affects many would simply be stupid. We're not the "boss" of "them": under the revised policy, we won't be able to remove their music for any old reason, they're allowed to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit, they don't need to visit the site ever again, etc.... but at the same time, they're not the "boss" of "us": we won't remove mixes, along with all the work that went into their evaluation, posting, promotion, distribution, and reviewing, because they don't like the shade of orange we're using on our hyperlinks. Nevermind that it's really less of an "us" and "them" thing to begin with, and that most of the site staff are mixers themselves, and some mixers will at some point likely become site staff...

One more time, with conviction: we've covered this.

[DragonFireKai]

One more question, in the third draft, has that Grandfather clause we discussed been included?

[Dhsu]

I can't see potentially questionable motivations for supporting the policy if you're a troublemaker, whereas the opposite seems not only possible but probable.
I think the notion that the naysayers have malicious intentions is entirely misguided, but okay.

As for your first point, we're unfortunately not dealing with issues of pure scientific reason here... there's a human element to it... if Einstein had killed my parents, to use one of a couple of analogies in your post that are kind of problematic to begin with, his theories would still be as sound, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him on matters of policy, which revolved to some extent around personal beliefs.
While that's understandable, what you said was:
I might add that, if you're trying to make an argument based on reason, your own behavior on our forums with regards to moderators seriously damages your credibility in my book.
and that's what set off the alarms in my head.

Another problematic analogy; why do we need to come up with bogus, far-detached analogies when I've already said I view posting mixes as analogous to physical album releases?
And we've already said that while it might be analogous to album in some respects, this is one area where the comparison doesn't hold. It's physically impossible to pull a song off an album; not so with a website.

It's not a courtesy to facilitate discourtesy to others. Removing a mix affects a number of people, not just little old me. We've covered this... the amount of work put in by a number of people to evaluate and promote mixes is increasing, not decreasing, and listeners as well spend a good amount of time quite often critiquing mixes. It's not courtesy to put one individual's interests against the interests of a group, especially when that individual is saying they shouldn't even need a reason. We've covered this.

Again, I really hate to be blunt here, but: we've covered this.
And yet in the process you managed to completely dodge my and others' question: how often do you actually get removal request nowadays? Perhaps the amount of work you put in has increased, but that doesn't necessarily mean the requests have increased in proportion as well. Although if the ratio of requests is in fact increasing, then suddenly you're not dealing with merely one individual's interest anymore, are you? Yes, the staff is a group, but a relatively small one...this policy has the potential to affect many, many more.

A policy that is more restrictive on ad-hoc removal lets us pursue outlets like last.fm or physical media distribution without the fear of a workload associated with having to undo/modify aspects of that distribution after the fact. Dead horse: we've covered this.
Which is why we've covered alternatives, such as rejecting removals only after they have been distributed in such a way.

we won't remove mixes, along with all the work that went into their evaluation, posting, promotion, distribution, and reviewing, because they don't like the shade of orange we're using on our hyperlinks.
I guess that's where our differences lie...I prefer to give people a degree of trust in these matters and believe that doing so benefits everyone involved. You ask ReMixers to trust the site...is it then so unreasonable to ask the same thing in return?

[herograw]

how often do you actually get removal request nowadays?

been asking the same thing for a while now. perhaps when he says "covered this" he means "been around this"

I can't see potentially questionable motivations for supporting the policy if you're a troublemaker, whereas the opposite seems not only possible but probable.

what I gather from this is that a lot of people don't care either way, so they vote YES. It's not as though they have to explain themselves so it's a pretty easy vote to make. If the rules were in favor of dhsu's ideas they'd probably still vote YES.

I also gather that in terms of those who say NO it looks something like this:

I do not agree with some points in this policy

while you raise some valid points I have to respectfully disagree

I do not agree with some points in this policy

Your argument is fueled by personal distaste of myself and the judges, and has little to do with the policy.

feel free to correct me if this doesn't sound quite right. because when two people are saying the same thing, it looks to me as though they mean the same thing.

[djpretzel]

Why does the frequency of removal requests to date have anything to do with this policy whatsoever?

Explain that to me and we'll discuss that topic.

As for this:

Which is why we've covered alternatives, such as rejecting removals only after they have been distributed in such a way.

We'll be pursuing distribution of as many mixes as possible on physical medium soon after the policy is in effect, so... isn't this almost entirely moot? Please don't criticize me for not entertaining suggestions/compromises that would almost certainly be either moot or improbable...

[herograw]

Why does the frequency of removal requests to date have anything to do with this policy whatsoever?

Explain that to me and we'll discuss that topic.

Frequency of removal requests is relevant because you have said that it is a lot of work to remove a song from the site and while I understand that it is, especially considering all of this is done without monetary compensation, you make it sound as though removal requests would be springing up with such a frequency that fulfilling such requests would be all you'd end up having time to do.

If it's a rare occurance, as i've been lead to believe by larry, then it isn't any more of a hassle than the sort of spring cleaning that this site already goes thru. Do you fear that officially giving remixers the right to request their mixes be removed would cause it to happen with greater frequency?

EDIT: this is more of a curiosity than anything else. I've said all I intend to.

[DragonFireKai]

Why does the frequency of removal requests to date have anything to do with this policy whatsoever?

Explain that to me and we'll discuss that topic.



Frequency determines the amount of work the staff has to do to handle said requests. The only counterpoint that you've brought up that wasn't entirely dismissive on a personal basis was that fufilling such requests would be an inordinate amount of work, and it would be unfair to place that burden on the site staff. Overall, since the inception of the site, there have been 30 Remixes removed due to the Mixer requesting it. There have been 138 mixes removed by the site during lockdowns, or emergency recalls. The site has been functioning for roughly 80 months. This comes out to one removal by request every 10 weeks. That doesn't seem too bad. Now, if you were recieving independent removal requests every week or so, then it lends credence to your inordinate work rebuttall. But so far, to this point, Removal by Request has been a fairly rare occurance, and it seems to me, that the workload these requests cause is miniscule compared to the workload created by managing the site and community on a day to day basis. It seems to us that a removal request is a fairly rare occurence, and the site's stance on it seems to be a little harsh. Correct us if we're wrong.

[Dhsu]

Ah, seems you guys got the first question covered. Much appreciated. :)

We'll be pursuing distribution of as many mixes as possible on physical medium soon after the policy is in effect, so... isn't this almost entirely moot? Please don't criticize me for not entertaining suggestions/compromises that would almost certainly be either moot or improbable...
I guess I was under the assumption that there would be significant time periods between distributions, during which it would be feasible to entertain removal requests for remixes that were released during that time (i.e. ones not already on a torrent, physical compilation, or otherwise immutable medium). If you plan on releasing new and updated compilations with such frequency that such a policy would be impractical, then I stand corrected.

Edit: By the way, I apologize if I come across as demanding. Your assertion that the "boss" argument goes both ways is correct, and you really aren't obligated to answer to anyone else when it comes to site policy. I'm just curious if allowing remix removals is really as big a deal as you make it out to be. Still, even if the whole thing just comes down to "it's my site and I don't wanna," I'd be content to drop the issue at that...it's enough reason in itself and there's no need to beat around the bush about it.

[djpretzel]

See, you guys brought this up... I personally am happy to discuss the policy on matters of principle, as much as possible, as opposed to the track record of removals to date. But, since you seem to think the relatively low number can be "spun" against the current removal policy, let me spin it another way for you:

There have been a very low number of removal requests to date, and all of them have been for personal reasons with little thought given to the implications. This suggests to me not that the amount of work involved with removals is minimal, as you would infer, but rather that the number of people who want to remove their mixes is relatively small, and doesn't need to be "catered" to, seeing as the rationale for removal to date has been 100% in the aforementioned categories, none of which we've indicated are persuasive.

If there were tons of removals, I'd say it was a huge workload. Since there've been a relatively low number, I'll instead say that it represents a niche request that has to date been motivated almost entirely by purely personal agendas. Either way, looking at the track record of removal requests to date is a non-starter for me. The bottom line is that a SINGLE request, if timed right, could pose a major burden, depending on what else we're doing and what we've published/promoted to date.

Looking at the past is the wrong way of addressing this policy... you wanted to, so I humored you a bit and pointed out how the low number of requests can be used as an argument on either side, but frankly, we're enacting a policy because we want to move the site forward, introduce new avenues of distribution, promotion, etc., and basing a forward-looking policy on... the past... seems highly counterintuitive. Granted, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, but in this instance, the precedent isn't in any way compelling, conclusive, or applicable.


I guess I was under the assumption that there would be significant time periods between distributions, during which it would be feasible to entertain removal requests for remixes that were released during that time (i.e. ones not already on a torrent, physical compilation, or otherwise immutable medium). If you plan on releasing new and updated compilations with such frequency that such a policy would be impractical, then I stand corrected.

At this point, I simply know that we want to. I don't know about specific timetables, release frequency, etc. - all of those things are highly contextual. Trying to build a policy that took into account the phase of the moon, the amount of funds we had to work with, the price of tea in China, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop doesn't really sound effective: release intervals for things like that should be something we shouldn't have to worry about, since we're expending site funds to promote the music of those who submit. A policy that created arbitrary connections between that type of promotion and mix removals would tie our hands to do the types of things that, in general, are what motivated trying to introduce said policy at this point in time in the first place.

[Dhsu]

If there were tons of removals, I'd say it was a huge workload. Since there've been a relatively low number, I'll instead say that it represents a niche request that has to date been motivated almost entirely by purely personal agendas.
Perhaps by your standards, but again in these situations it's my preference to just respect people's wishes instead of question and deconstruct them.

Either way, looking at the track record of removal requests to date is a non-starter for me. The bottom line is that a SINGLE request, if timed right, could pose a major burden, depending on what else we're doing and what we've published/promoted to date.
And it's understandable if you don't respect requests that pose such a burden. What I'm petitioning for here is the requests that don't.

Looking at the past is the wrong way of addressing this policy... you wanted to, so I humored you a bit and pointed out how the low number of requests can be used as an argument on either side, but frankly, we're enacting a policy because we want to move the site forward, introduce new avenues of distribution, promotion, etc., and basing a forward-looking policy on... the past... seems highly counterintuitive. Granted, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, but in this instance, the precedent isn't in any way compelling, conclusive, or applicable.
I see the past as the one concrete thing you can base your policy on. Who knows, one day a terrorist may submit a mix and then threaten to carbomb somebody if you don't remove it later on, but that wouldn't warrant instituting background checks for all ReMixers in the current policy (again, sorry if my analogies seem a bit outlandish, but I'm trying to get this post out as quickly as possible.) That said, if terrorists actually do become issue later on, there's nothing stopping you from making the appropriate modifications to the policy as needed.

At this point, I simply know that we want to. I don't know about specific timetables, release frequency, etc. - all of those things are highly contextual. Trying to build a policy that took into account the phase of the moon, the amount of funds we had to work with, the price of tea in China, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop doesn't really sound effective: release intervals for things like that should be something we shouldn't have to worry about, since we're expending site funds to promote the music of those who submit. A policy that created arbitrary connections between that type of promotion and mix removals would tie our hands to do the types of things that, in general, are what motivated trying to introduce said policy at this point in time in the first place.
Well, what I was referencing in particular was the time between torrent packs to date...namely, these periods have been quite substantial, and it seems to me that removing mixes in between those releases wouldn't have had a significant impact or caused any tying of hands as you stated. I assume the same would apply to physical compilations. And far from arbitrary, I see this criteria as being fairly binary and straightforward: if the mix is not in any sort of compilation yet, it can be removed; if it is, then it can't. However, if all these mysterious variables that you've cited really do make a compromise impractical, I can understand and agree to the policy.

In conclusion, I'd like to propose a slight change of wording (incidentally suggested to me by my friend Scrobble). To me, the phrase "right to reject" has the connotation that it is a right OCR takes advantage from time to time, which is not the case. In my opinion, just outright clarifying that "OCR will not [or perhaps cannot] respect removal requests" is much less misleading.

And I've neglected to say this until now, but thanks for your time, djp. It's much appreciated.

- Dhsu

[Rambo]

This suggests to me not that the amount of work involved with removals is minimal...
If there were tons of removals, I'd say it was a huge workload. Since there've been a relatively low number...

From what I understand in these two comments, there isn't alot of work currently associated with removals... but the work involved isn't minimal...
...but rather that the number of people who want to remove their mixes is relatively small, and doesn't need to be "catered" to, seeing as the rationale for removal to date has been 100% in the aforementioned categories, none of which we've indicated are persuasive.

And because there are so few remixes removed, why bother to allow the very few to be removed at all? I WOULD understand eliminating the option if it were abused. But you're saying you want to eliminate it because it isn't abused?

Looking at the past is the wrong way of addressing this policy...

As much as you're right about concentrating on the future of the site, the past is never a bad reference upon which to base future action. I'd say in this case inquiring about the current and past states of removals isn't completely trivial. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass... but you seemed to belittle the person asking as well as the question itself.


I know... Beating a dead horse, when will it stop. I doubt you have very little interest or patience for the discussion anymore, and I'm sorry.

Like others have said. It's your site. And you can do whatever you so see fit. There's nothing unfair about that, I just don't find the arguments you produced in the past few posts to be very concrete regarding the issue.

[djpretzel]

There's nothing unfair about that, I just don't find the arguments you produced in the past few posts to be very concrete regarding the issue.

Allow me to be concrete, then:
Removing a single mix from the torrents, mirrors, forums, last.fm, etc. is a pain in the ass currently.
If we had a large number of removals, it'd be even moreso.
Even if we have a small number, it's enough to stop us from doing things that we'd otherwise like to do, like physical media distribution, because we don't know when and where the removals would occur.
No one's articulated persuasive reasons for removal. People HAVE said that they shouldn't need any reason whatsoever, but let me be concrete: I don't accept that.
Dhsu's suggested we blatantly say that we won't remove mixes, but I don't like ruling out extremely rare situations. Perhaps the wording should simply indicate the extremely unlikely nature that mixes will be removed...Hopefully that's sufficiently concrete and you won't feel the need to take excerpts of it out of context and juxtapose them ala Fox News...

[Compyfox]

Allow me to be concrete, then:[LIST]
Removing a single mix from the torrents, mirrors, forums, last.fm, etc. is a pain in the ass currently.
If we had a large number of removals, it'd be even moreso.
Even if we have a small number, it's enough to stop us from doing things that we'd otherwise like to do, like physical media distribution, because we don't know when and where the removals would occur.

This is why we suggested, later even asked for some sort of "lockdown periods" to prevent that kind of workload - before torrents are created. Or even a system, where each individual is asked "are you cool with your track to be released on a physical media - yes/no" and you stick to that.

Seeing as Larry didn't talk to you about this yet, and your constant defensive blocking behaviour (in MY opinion), I needed to emphasize this once more. What's so difficult about that anyway? You'll have less work involved than later getting back to remove tracks individually when they're "locked" or burned on DVD, IF there is a valid reason.

No one's articulated persuasive reasons for removal. People HAVE said that they shouldn't need any reason whatsoever, but let me be concrete: I don't accept that.

Every reason is a valid reason to be honest. To me all your posts sound like "sorry, whatever your reasons are - forget it". And this is what we don't/won't accept. One valid reason would be a contract - but you said that's probably "unlikely" and a "hypothetical thesis" anyway.



I say it again, please get in contact with Larry(!). We talked very in-depth about the draft the other day and came up with the one or another idea that he can certainly adress better than I could.

To my question with the Remix Projects, I guess I just have to PM you directly.

[djpretzel]

Every reason is a valid reason to be honest. To me all your posts sound like "sorry, whatever your reasons are - forget it". And this is what we don't/won't accept. One valid reason would be a contract - but you said that's probably "unlikely" and a "hypothetical thesis" anyway.

Which "we" are you referring to?
Please speak in first person unless you are being VERY specific about whomever you are supposedly representing the collective viewpoint of.
Also, don't use double quotes unless you're specifically quoting something I've said. I never said anything about a "hypothetical thesis"... and if I had, I would've used the word "hypothesis"...
Every reason is a valid reason to be honestYou may think this, but I don't. This is no longer up for discussion, in case you haven't gathered that - I clearly, definitively, and without ANY room for compromise feel that there need to be good reasons for mix removal, that it can't just be on a whim. Period.

End of discussion on that issue, Roland. Got it?

I hate to be so blunt, but you don't seem to be understanding things too well... we're still very interested in discussing the policy, but your miscommunication and inability to understand what's up for discussion and what isn't is hurting rather than helping at this point.

With the exception of LuiZa, everyone else who has chimed in expressing concerns with the policy has been very helpful in my understanding those concerns and trying to some extent to address them, but you've been retreading the same territory, misquoting me, and misunderstanding things, and continue to do so. Half this thread consists of Dhsu and others trying to explain what the policy means, to you specifically. While this indicates a legitimate problem - that people for whom English is a second language might need translations of this policy to their native tongue - for logistical reasons this specific discussion about forming the policy pretty much has to transpire in English.

I confess that I'm really starting to lose my patience with you on this issue... there's still legitimate, productive discussion to be had regarding the policy, but I think you're prohibiting it rather than facilitating it.

[Rambo]

Perhaps the wording should simply indicate the extremely unlikely nature that mixes will be removed...

I think that would be good.

Thank you for the reply.

[Compyfox]

Okay... DAVID - you seriously pissed me off right now, and excuse my outburst - but I'm so fucking SICK of that BULLSHIT! You need to take a fucking CHILL PILL. Since I'm back in here, every comment I post, every written word from me is, according to you, only

misinterpretation
disruptive behaviour
not helping at all
constant flames towards you, David Lloyd Pretzel, the owner of this site


Would you... FUCKING STOP saying that? I'm an individual like you are, I'm as long at OCR as most of the "old staff" was (and still is). Seriously, I'm not out to get you dammit! If you don't want any comments, suggestions, or serious discusseion, then this whole thread, this whole discussion about your "holy draft" is totally meaningless. Thanks ah-lot!


Which "we" are you referring to?[LIST]
Please speak in first person unless you are being VERY specific about whomever you are supposedly representing the collective viewpoint of.

You want names? How about Radical Dreamer, Dhsu, andyjane, DragonFireKay, LuiZa, myself, ... just to name a view.

[SIZE=2] Also, don't use double quotes unless you're specifically quoting something I've said. I never said anything about a "hypothetical thesis"... and if I had, I would've used the word "hypothesis"...

When the fuck did I double quote? A "double quote" would mean a quote pyramind (which is hard to do in this forum version), nothing else. And that "hypothetical thesis" thing?... Let me quote please:

...Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal...

...end of quote.


You may think this, but I don't. This is no longer up for discussion, in case you haven't gathered that - I clearly, definitively, and without ANY room for compromise feel that there need to be good reasons for mix removal, that it can't just be on a whim. Period.

A contract IS a good reason. Another reason would be to part with your page, because the person is not fond the the "guidelines" anymore, or even the pageleader himself. This IS a rare issue, but it is a valid issue.

And before you start throwing dirt at me, I emphasize it again:
I, Roland Löhlbach, known as User and Remixer Compyfox on OCRemix since late 2000, removed my track, as written in the Lockdown/Removal Wiki, not due to hatred or other stupid reasons, but due to the fact that my remix, which was known as "Final Fantasy Adventure: Mission of Mana", was to 80% a MIDI Rip, had arrangement and serious/inferior sound presentation.

After the removal, in around 2003 if I can remember, I never submitted anything new to OCRemix due to the fact that I didn't find the time to produce anything new, neither was the quality of my production, or the arrangement, up-par with the freshly invented remix site standards from OCRemix.

This doesn't show in the Wiki, but more like "OMG he put his track down cause he had issues." - this is NOT the case. You, David, posted infos about the removal of Virt's track, here is my info once again for all to see.

[B] End of discussion on that issue, Roland. Got it?

The discussion ended, before it even started, David. I see this as highly insulting threat towards me, and if I had rights as moderator or admin in here, and you'd be in my position (aka. a mere user), then I'd advise you now to please keep quiet, else a ban is the result. But unfortunately, I don't have such rights - not to mention that I wouldn't threat with a ban in the first place. Only if it's really disruptive behaviour like posting pics from rotten.com or something like that in a civilized webboard.


I hate to be so blunt, but you don't seem to be understanding things too well... we're still very interested in discussing the policy, but your miscommunication and inability to understand what's up for discussion and what isn't is hurting rather than helping at this point.

Why not say it out loud "fucking learn our language then come back and discuss again"? Seriously, your constant negative point of view isn't helping either. And what's miscommunication if I even offered alternative solutions, that you also blocked right from the start.

With the exception of LuiZa, everyone else who has chimed in expressing concerns with the policy has been very helpful in my understanding those concerns and trying to some extent to address them, but you've been retreading the same territory, misquoting me, and misunderstanding things, and continue to do so. Half this thread consists of Dhsu and others trying to explain what the policy means, to you specifically.

Once again, why not point with your finger "learn english first!"? Maybe I should invite you to MY board and ask you to address your concerns about MY topic in MY NATIVE LANGUAGE - how about that?

Btw... I don't need any help from either of you. It's not only due to my "language barrier", it's also due to walking around while wearing blinders instead of thinking a bit more open minded, consider other suggestions. I say it again, most of the discussion was useless right from the start, because you were on the constant viewpoint of saying "NO" (in size 32 bold uppercase) to certain adressed issues all the time.

Then I ask once more - why did you even start this thread?


While this indicates a legitimate problem - that people for whom English is a second language might need translations of this policy to their native tongue - for logistical reasons this specific discussion about forming the policy pretty much has to transpire in English.

And? Does that mean I didn't come around so far? What are you trying to state here? That you rather prefer comments from "native speaking" people only, because everything else is just "misinterpretation" and "not really helping"?


I confess that I'm really starting to lose my patience with you on this issue... there's still legitimate, productive discussion to be had regarding the policy, but I think you're prohibiting it rather than facilitating it.

Seriously, David, I was patient long enough to constantly take your shit towards me. I'm having enough. Why not do it like you did with the "sidebar" thread back in the day? Everyone who had an issue with it, and was it only slightly, or even with comments how to make it better, you banned them without real reason.

I got two unjustified ban warnings from you already, you told me to STFU a couple of times. Do you think because you're the president of this page, that you can randomly insult others while the insulted part didn't do jack? I personally don't think so. I wrote in a calm and collective way so far, I asked questions (that were partially ignored), I stated what-if scenarios as general issues that I feld needed to be adressed and I posted possible alternatives to consider. If that is not good enough for you for a proper discussion, I don't know what is.


I tell you what, David. I think I just go to the next nearest Tatoo Shop and let my fat ass being tagged with the name and URL "OCReMix", over both asscheeks, so that I can spread the word how awesome your page is. Is that appropriate and marketing enough for you?

If you feel like banning me now - go ahead, I don't fucking care anymore - this is what OCR is best at after all. But I won't be silenced - not from you.

[DragonFireKai]

There have been a very low number of removal requests to date, and all of them have been for personal reasons with little thought given to the implications. This suggests to me not that the amount of work involved with removals is minimal, as you would infer, but rather that the number of people who want to remove their mixes is relatively small, and doesn't need to be "catered" to, seeing as the rationale for removal to date has been 100% in the aforementioned categories, none of which we've indicated are persuasive.

To me, it's the fact that there are not likely to be many requests in the future that makes it seem a little overbearing, IMO. The people who are sensitive enough to wind up wanting to leave the site are the overwhelming minority here. Creating legislature that affects such a small minority requires justification in my mind. It's not a matter of catering to these people, as you seem to think, but not oppressing them. To be honest, I hate it when a mix is removed, for any reason. I didn't realize that the site even did it, until my hard drive crashed and the site had lockdown 2 in the process. I found it extremely irritating at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood why it happened. That was actually the impetus of me diving into this discussion. But back to the topic, I don't think the fact that the law affects only the minority, and ergo they can be dismissed outright, should be the way people come up with rules.

If there were tons of removals, I'd say it was a huge workload. Since there've been a relatively low number, I'll instead say that it represents a niche request that has to date been motivated almost entirely by purely personal agendas. Either way, looking at the track record of removal requests to date is a non-starter for me. The bottom line is that a SINGLE request, if timed right, could pose a major burden, depending on what else we're doing and what we've published/promoted to date.

Which is why we've suggested a sort of spring cleaning period as a compromise that is acceptable to us. Schedule it at your discretion, for the time that would cause the least amount of conflict with you and the site, give a one week period in which such requests could be filed, then knock them all out at once. That would eliminate the problems of them using malicious timing to disrupt your plans, because you would dictate the timing of the request.

Looking at the past is the wrong way of addressing this policy... you wanted to, so I humored you a bit and pointed out how the low number of requests can be used as an argument on either side, but frankly, we're enacting a policy because we want to move the site forward, introduce new avenues of distribution, promotion, etc., and basing a forward-looking policy on... the past... seems highly counterintuitive. Granted, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, but in this instance, the precedent isn't in any way compelling, conclusive, or applicable.

I dissagree, looking to the past, at previous precident, at how the community reacts to certain situations, is key to putting together any sort of rule set that affects the site and the community.



At this point, I simply know that we want to. I don't know about specific timetables, release frequency, etc. - all of those things are highly contextual. Trying to build a policy that took into account the phase of the moon, the amount of funds we had to work with, the price of tea in China, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop doesn't really sound effective: release intervals for things like that should be something we shouldn't have to worry about, since we're expending site funds to promote the music of those who submit. A policy that created arbitrary connections between that type of promotion and mix removals would tie our hands to do the types of things that, in general, are what motivated trying to introduce said policy at this point in time in the first place.

I'm not asking for an ironclad agenda of events, I understand that the nature of the marketing game requires some flexibility. If you accepted the compromise I mentioned above, you needn't implement a hard annual timeline, simply fire off an announcement "Cleaning Phase Begins Today Ends On X Date Seven Days Later" during the time when you don't have a physical print running, or something to that effect.

[djpretzel]

Compyfox has been banned for continued disruptive behavior.
Regarding proposals to intermittently do some sort of Spring cleaning, have periodic lockdowns, etc., during which mixers could opt to have specific songs removed or not, I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me.
It really doesn't offer people looking for complete freedom to remove their mixes whenever they want what they appear to be seeking.
It means we'd have to poll every last mixer that submitted a piece in the interim period between one lockdown and the next.
Essentially, once physically published, the existing removal policy would hold true. Since we intend to publish on last.fm and elsewhere, NOT JUST physical media, on a continuous basis, the number of "removal windows" is unforeseeable and potentially quite large, with concurrent, tangential timelines for different avenues. This is one of those proposals that I imagine sounds reasonable to those proposing it as a compromise, but... think through the logistics. Please.

[Dhsu]

Since we intend to publish on last.fm and elsewhere, NOT JUST physical media, on a continuous basis, the number of "removal windows" is unforeseeable and potentially quite large, with concurrent, tangential timelines for different avenues. This is one of those proposals that I imagine sounds reasonable to those proposing it as a compromise, but... think through the logistics. Please.
I did, but the proposal was based on the information available at the time, which unfortunately was not a whole lot. And the information that actually was provided regarding future distribution venues (aside from physical media) was fairly ambiguous and open-ended. So I just worked with what I had to work with. The fact that you anticipate these releases to be on a "continuous basis" does put things in a new light, and makes your position more understandable.

[DragonFireKai]

Regarding proposals to intermittently do some sort of Spring cleaning, have periodic lockdowns, etc., during which mixers could opt to have specific songs removed or not, I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense to me.[LIST=1]
It really doesn't offer people looking for complete freedom to remove their mixes whenever they want what they appear to be seeking.

Compromise is the essence of diplomacy. As I said, I would like for the right to exit to be unabridged, but you have made a good argument that the logistics are against such unrestriced rights. We are not playing a game of absolutes here, despite what some of the language being thrown around may seem. A compromise can be found that will leave each party equally satisfied, or dissatisfied, depending on your outlook on life.

It means we'd have to poll every last mixer that submitted a piece in the interim period between one lockdown and the next.

No, it doesn't. It'd be nice if you had that amount of time, but the status quo is that the mix is posted, the onus of initiating change falls on the person who wants the status quo to change. In this event, it would be the person who wants his mix removed. As I said earlier, you would merely need to throw up an announcement on the forum, then wait for anyone who is dissatisfied to contact you.

Essentially, once physically published, the existing removal policy would hold true. Since we intend to publish on last.fm and elsewhere, NOT JUST physical media, on a continuous basis, the number of "removal windows" is unforeseeable and potentially quite large, with concurrent, tangential timelines for different avenues. This is one of those proposals that I imagine sounds reasonable to those proposing it as a compromise, but... think through the logistics. Please.

I think Last.fm is a bad example. I just checked the Terms and Conditions of submitting work to Last.fm, similar to soundclick...

You or Last.fm can terminate this agreement at any time (upon providing no less than 30 days notice except where you breach this agreement, in which case Last.fm can terminate it immediately).

Taking Work off of Last.fm isn't very difficult, in fact, I think that it would be more time consuming to take the song off all the mirrors here at OCR than to axe it at Last.fm.

[djpretzel]

I find it quite perplexing that you somehow think you're in a better position to estimate the amount of work involved on my end than I am.

The gap between a mix being posted and a physical release of some sort is going to be indeterminate. Under your proposed policy, some people might have months to make up their mind, others days, which is ridiculous. No one's chimed in yet, but I don't think the compromise you're suggesting would truly please anyone or change most minds, given the potential implications. The logistics involve so many contingencies that I don't even know how you'd word it, and I can't think of any EULA or site policy I've ever seen that works that way.

When a compromise pleases no one fully, it's probably a decent and equitable notion... when it pleases no one at all, however (besides, I'm assuming, yourself), I'd say it's rather not.

[DragonFireKai]

I find it quite perplexing that you somehow think you're in a better position to estimate the amount of work involved on my end than I am.

Am I wrong in my estimation? Would it be more difficult to remove a song from Last.fm than it would from the mirrors of the OCR?

The gap between a mix being posted and a physical release of some sort is going to be indeterminate. Under your proposed policy, some people might have months to make up their mind, others days, which is ridiculous. No one's chimed in yet, but I don't think the compromise you're suggesting would truly please anyone or change most minds, given the potential implications. The logistics involve so many contingencies that I don't even know how you'd word it, and I can't think of any EULA or site policy I've ever seen that works that way.

If you want to set it so that any mix that's been released in a physical form can't be removed from the site, then it does create that inequality. However, inequality exists in everything else, OCR is no different. The fact that people might not get equal time to exercise a right does not mean you should revoke the right entirely. That's akin to banning alcohol because varying lifespans mean people would have unequal amounts of time to exercise the right to drink.

What I was actually trying to put out there was a policy which would allow for removal from all forms of media that are not permanent. Something along the lines of "A remixer may terminate this license by making a request during a one week annual period, when such a request is recieved, the site will remove the Work from the site proper and any other sites hosting the Work. However, the Work will not be removed from any physical media already released, as the site does not have the power to fufill such a request."

Most of the site policies I've checked from sites that host music allow the artist to remove their work with either a timed notice, or no notice at all. From what I've seen, you're establishing new ground here by trying to treat the site as a physical release. As such, any attempt at compromise will partially be in that new ground.

When a compromise pleases no one fully, it's probably a decent and equitable notion... when it pleases no one at all, however (besides, I'm assuming, yourself), I'd say it's rather not.

I'm not the only person who brought up this idea, I simply fleshed it out a bit more.

I was thinking that perhaps, in the case of remix removals, there could be a period of the year in which all remix removals requested/in queue are removed from torrents and the site. That way the staff will only have to mess around the torrents ad the database once a year, sort of a lockdown.

This could be a good compromise. If you want your remixes removed, you must request it during a specific period of time. A "spring cleaning" of sorts.



By the way, I never got an answer as to weather or not the Grandfather clause we discussed was added to the third draft.

[The Author]

Actually, I finally see DJP's point. Even as a non-remixer I wasn't sure about the no removal policy, but as he said, the people who requests it, once every 10 week, are a minority.

Even the once every 10 week is wrong, since there were "mass exoduses" in the past. Or some remixers having all their remixes removed. At this point, DJP turning down a removal once every 6 months seems almost more logical. Think about it, you mass produce a DVD, and 6 months later, someone wants his remix removed?

Even worse, the very nature of bittorent implies that removing the file kills the filesharing since the BTs are different. Which means that the costs for the website will be bigger.

Also, if we use a "not published" approach, remix 2001 will have a lot more time before being included in a torrent than remix 2000. The only fair and equal choice in this case is a flat "you wanted in, you stay in."

[djpretzel]

The third draft has been completed and is available for review at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy

Major changes include the following:
General rewording with assistance from Prophecy
Additional ownership clause:
"By submitting material, YOU indicate that YOU are the sole owner(s) of the material and contributor(s) to the arrangement of said material in the form of a derivative work, as defined by the current Submission Standards and Instructions (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions) and subject to review."
Modification to OCR removal clause:
"OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time due to violations of the current Submission Standards and Instructions (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions) or requests by third party copyright holders."
... meaning we can't just remove your mixes because we think you smell or you hurt our feelings...
Modification/addition to license termination clause:
"Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to most removal requests, and will evaluate such requests with regards to the best interests of the community."
... clearly spelling out with far less ambiguity what's been discussed...
Modification to terms of use:
"In the case of public or semi-public performances where accreditation is not reasonable, responding to audience inquiries with this information will suffice."
... meaning that Taucer's gym classes or other situations where citing every last artist/mix would be ridiculous are cool, so long as people are directed to ocremix.org if they take the initiative and ask... There's more equality now... while we might refuse removal requests, we ourselves can't just remove any mix because we feel like it. Furthermore, there's a declaration of intent regarding license termination that makes it clear that removal is unlikely, so we're not trying to pull a fast one. Finally, Taucer's concern about accreditation for semi-public performances has been addressed.

Site projects will be covered by this policy. The policy itself does not need to explicitly refer to such projects; rather, the project guidelines will be modified to indicate the necessity of this agreement upon project completion.

The "grandfathering" of previous mixes does not need to be spelled out in this policy. If no one explicitly agrees to a policy, it clearly can't be enacted retroactively without consent. We plan on seeking out such consent for all existing mixes. ReMixes of those who decline or are unreachable will not be removed, but will also not be included in certain distribution/promotional channels.

I'm still very up for discussing and potentially revising this policy, but after due consideration with input from many, I continue to believe that the license termination policy should remain intact and essentially unaltered. All removal reasons to date have not swayed me on this point, and all alternatives suggested have been impractical, infeasible, very limiting, highly undesirable, or some combination thereof. Therefore, please focus on aspects of the policy not related to license termination.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

This addresses one of my concerns about using the music for routines, but not the other: I often (in fact, almost always) have to modify tracks to make them work as floor routine music, which goes explicitly against part C of the terms of use.

I have always asked the ReMixers before using their ReMixes as routine music. Does this constitute getting a separate license from the remixer? If so, then don't worry about changing the terms of use just to accomodate me; I can just continue to use remixes with permission (ie licenses) obtained directly from the arranger.

IF we go by the assumption that I am using it under an independant license from the remixer, it raises another issue: should/could I still attribute the track to OCR if anybody asks? I would be using a modified version of the mix under a different license from the one offered by the site; though it would not be explicitly against the terms of use for me to attribute it to OCR, it seems it would be a violation of the submission agreement for the arranger to give me permission to do so.

[djpretzel]

This addresses one of my concerns about using the music for routines, but not the other: I often (in fact, almost always) have to modify tracks to make them work as floor routine music, which goes explicitly against part C of the terms of use.

Well, note the bold term:

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3

Performance isn't really redistribution; we're concerned about modification of the files themselves if the files are being moved around, but playing them out loud is less distribution and more... playing them out loud. So the modification clause is moot, since it's not redistribution.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Ok, that clears things up. Thanks.

[andyjayne]

By submitting material, YOU indicate that YOU are the sole owner(s) of the material and contributor(s) to the arrangement of said material in the form of a derivative work, as defined by the current Submission Standards and Instructions and subject to review.
A few of the mixes on the site have samples from films or little motifs taken from other tracks, what would the situation be when using them in a submitted mix?

This license may be terminated at any time if both YOU and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to most removal requests, and will evaluate such requests with regards to the best interests of the community.
I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:
Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.

...redistributing OverClocked ReMixes in the context of commercial advertisments.
Just pointing out a spelling mistake in section A of the Terms of Use.

I think this new version is much more solid. Most of my issues have been addressed either through the topic or in the new draft.

[Sir_NutS]

I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:
Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.


I agree with andy.

I still don't see this is the right way to do this, and as much as you repeat "YOU" and "ownership" all over the document, the fact that OCR still retains the right to keep distributing a remix without an artist's approval still seems contradictory and not very.. nice.

However, seeing as the posibility is at least left open (not a complete denial as before), and that some measures have been taken in consideration to prevent retards from waking up one day feeling like they hate ocr and removing their mixes only to come crawling back the day after, I see this draft as passable.

Congrats for all the work invested in this, and for letting us voice our opinions, bests of lucks.

[DragonFireKai]

The Third Draft looks a lot better, it's seems more balanced than the previous two. I still don't like the removal aspect of it, but I'm obviously in the minority here. You have absolute power here, Dave, and if you honestly feel that that is the most fair and equitable way to go about it, it's up to you.

[Fishy]

Don't know if this has come up yet:

What about projects? I'm particularly interested in this because i'm on like loads of the newer ones. Do those apply to this draft? We never really officially submit them unless we do it seperately or they're showcased, so how do they fit into the policy?

[andyjayne]

What about projects? I'm particularly interested in this because i'm on like loads of the newer ones. Do those apply to this draft? We never really officially submit them unless we do it seperately or they're showcased, so how do they fit into the policy?
It has, here's all you need to know:
Site projects will be covered by this policy. The policy itself does not need to explicitly refer to such projects; rather, the project guidelines will be modified to indicate the necessity of this agreement upon project completion.

[Fishy]

Problem solved.

[Dhsu]

The Third Draft looks a lot better, it's seems more balanced than the previous two. I still don't like the removal aspect of it, but I'm obviously in the minority here. You have absolute power here, Dave, and if you honestly feel that that is the most fair and equitable way to go about it, it's up to you.
Indeed, I've learned from experience that you never really win in an argument with djp, but you can usually reach a mutual understanding.

[djpretzel]

I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:
Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.

Just pointing out a spelling mistake in section A of the Terms of Use.

I think this new version is much more solid. Most of my issues have been addressed either through the topic or in the new draft.

Thanks; I like your wording better, and have also fixed the spelling error.

[djpretzel]

Please refer to my initial post, which I have updated. While discussing the policy ad infinitum might have continued to yield beneficial feedback, at some point we need to move on with a living, breathing document. We've decided to enact the policy in its present form, which represents feedback from mixers and listeners, lawyers and laymen (and women), and which I think is a step in the right direction.

It may need further revision. We may find that it leaves certain territory too vague, or is too restrictive elsewhere. It's difficult to get something 100% right the first time, and by enacting the policy in its present form we're not claiming we have, we just feel we've reached a comfort level with many and are ready to take things to the next level.

Without implying any cessation of feedback, I'd still like to thank those of you who offered your thoughts. Given that this is the type of thing that often gets people up in arms and makes even the most rational among us very passionate, sometimes irrationally so, I think we did a pretty fantastic job of taking an initial draft that admittedly had some gaping holes and coming up with something that better realizes the original intent.

[Prophecy]

Looks good to me.

[Dark_T_Zeratul]

However, seeing as the posibility is at least left open (not a complete denial as before)...It was left open before. "Reserves the right to" is a VERY common bit of legalese that grants the ability to do something, but does NOT indicate that it will always be done. For example, most restaurants have signs that say, "we reserve the right to refuse service." This means that if they don't want to, for whatever reason, they can tell someone that he (or she) isn't allowed to eat there. Obviously, restaurants don't automatically enact this policy, because if they did then they wouldn't have any customers. It simply means that if there's a reason for them to not serve someone (or for OCR to not take down a track), they are within their legal rights to do it.

[Dafydd]

Ok, I'm a little confused.

# YOU are free to distribute and/or license these materials elsewhere, so long as they are not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and such distribution or licensing does not conflict with the terms of this agreement. OverClocked ReMix maintains sole control of the distribution of materials under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix. Does this mean that I can download a song from OCR and then put it on my own website, and that's ok as long as I don't tell people it's from OCR? Why would you not want me to say it's from OCR? :dstrbd: 'm guessing I'm interpreting this thing wrong, but that's what it reads in my mind. If you can't say it's from OCR, you'd have to remove the OC_ReMix suffix and all mentions of it in the tag as well, but then you'd be violating

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../). This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.So, bottom line, you can't distribute OC remixes. But that kinda goes against... oh wait.

This is the submission agreement. Ignore the above part of the post. Sorry...

Anyway, for clarification, I think it should be "not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and so long as such distribution"... if that's what you mean. Why are legal documents always to difficult to understand anyway? Silly lawyers. :)!!

As for projects, are all remix projects on OCR to be encompassed by this license, or only the ones approved to be "official" OCR remix projects?