OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - Final Enacted 6/12/2007 [Archive]

Dyne

05-16-2007, 12:21 AM

The following represents my first stab at creating a formalized content policy for OverClocked ReMix. It has been reviewed by the judges panel for content and policy and by a couple lawyers I know on more technical grounds.

Before finalizing this and putting it into effect, we're interested in getting some community feedback, especially from ReMixers, who it most directly affects, but also from those using mixes in their podcasts, radio stations, projects, etc. Even if you're neither, if you have suggestions/comments/questions, please let me know. This is the first time we've taken steps to develop something that clearly maps out what can and can't be done with ReMixes, by the site, by submitting artists, and by third parties, and is thus an important document that deserves to be discussed and revised until it's ready for prime time.

In many ways this document only states the status quo more formally - most of the written policy was already informally followed or inferred elsewhere. However, there are a couple entirely new points that are covered:
Copyright owners of the original arranged music may use OverClocked ReMixes in a for-profit context.
Formalized mix removal policy (extremely important to all submitting artists).
Live performance exemption for commercial contexts.
No indemnification of either submitting artists or third-parties using OverClocked ReMixes elsewhere.The entire document is worth discussing in detail, but these points perhaps deserve more focus due to their not previously being articulated, formally or informally, on the site. Obviously, this site is fueled by listeners, but the engine itself is made of ReMixers, and since this policy affects the music they bleed, sweat, and toil to produce and submit, feedback from this group is particularly valuable. If you know any mixers that may not frequent these forums often, please let them know this discussion is taking place, as they will most likely want to chime in, or at least see what's going on.

I've always liked the less formal, more fun attitude we've all taken towards doing this, and that's not gonna change, even if the legalese below sounds all fine-print and evil and Microsoft EULA-esque. I tried very hard to clarify the lines between ownership and utilization, and believe appropriate control has still been left in the hands of ReMixers, where it belongs. Nevertheless, we get a lot of questions about using mixes elsewhere, and other related issues come up routinely, such that a formalized content policy seemed like a necessary step towards growing the site both outward and upward in a manageable fashion.

Your feedback is appreciated!

Thanks,

David Lloyd
President & Founder, OverClocked ReMix
__________________________________________________ ______________________

OverClocked ReMix Content Policy DRAFT

For submitting artists:
Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.
OverClocked ReMix evaluates submitted works from all individuals, regardless of age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual preference, or ethnicity.
OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music 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.
Evaluation and acceptance or rejection of submitted works is under the sole discretion of OverClocked ReMix.
OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies submitting artists from legal action on the part of copyright holders.
OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to redistribute submitted works through outlets other than http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../), including but not limited to streaming radio stations, physical media, and mirror sites.
Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. Artists whose removal requests are granted may no longer have their submissions evaluated and be effectively prohibited from contributing further material, depending on the nature of the request.
OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted and accepted works at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.
OverClocked ReMix will not distribute submitted works for profit.
All revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted works will be used solely for site operating costs.For those broadcasting OverClocked ReMixes live or including them in other works (videos, school projects, presentations, podcasts, streaming radio, etc.):
OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).
OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given. At a minimum, credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix as well as contextual presentation of the full site URL, "http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../)". This information should be presented as close to the utilized material as reasonably possible; if the OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, it should be prominently displayed in context with the utilized works. Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible.
Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred.
OverClocked ReMixes may not be credited to anyone other than their actual, submitting authors and the website itself.
If OverClocked ReMixes are being made available in redistributable form as audio files, 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.
OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.
OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies those utilizing OverClocked ReMixes from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

I honestly believe that this is long past due. It clearly defines for one and all what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. It helps a lot of the newer forum users a lot in that they no longer need to ask questions about the context in which they may want to showcase to their peers and others OCR, all they need do is read the Content Policy, and be enlightened.

Excellent step in the right direction. It only gets better from here.

big giant circles

05-16-2007, 12:40 AM

I think it's essentially to dissuade people from throwing tantrums and badgering us to remove their mixes on a whim, then later coming back and saying "No, wait, I didn't mean it." Could be wrong though.

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

Dyne

05-16-2007, 01:08 AM

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

Which is good policy. It keeps people from being stupid and undermining the operation by wanting their remixes removed for no other reason than "Oh snap! Take it down cuz I think it suxx0rz!" Or the like...

José the Bronx Rican

05-16-2007, 01:10 AM

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

Makes perfect sense to me: why put themselves at risk for future "removal requests" (read: the next mood swing) from the same person?

Everything looks fine where I'm sitting.

Dhsu

05-16-2007, 05:51 AM

I think that if a ReMixer throws a tantrum, his judgment has already been clouded by his emotions and he's not really going to be swayed by some fine print he probably hasn't even read. That's why people always change their minds *after* the fact. And what's the point of punishing them at that point?

That said, it's not so much that I mind djp refusing to put old mixes back up, as that's kind of a hassle. What I'm bothered by is the threat of rejecting all future submissions...that in my mind crosses the line from being practical to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If this is in response to the infamous J.D. Harding incident, well...how often do things like that happen, really? I think extreme cases like his are few and far enough in between that it wouldn't hurt to just humor them.

If it's really that big of a deal to remove someone's remixes...then don't remove them. It solves the problem just as effectively, and without resorting to exile.

PassivePretentiousness

05-16-2007, 06:19 AM

If OverClocked ReMixes are being made available in redistributable form as audio files, 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.

I can't burn a mix cd for someone?

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 05:25 AM

If it's really that big of a deal to remove someone's remixes...then don't remove them. It solves the problem just as effectively, and without resorting to exile.

Thank you sir; I've considered this suggestion and believe it makes sense. I've removed the "grudge clause" and simply indicated that we reserve the right to refuse removal requests, which is sufficient.

I can't burn a mix cd for someone?

I've added a line that clearly indicates that we're referring to public redistribution, and that modification for personal use is acceptable.

As for the very tricky subject of prior submissions, made before this policy is formalized and put into effect... I don't know yet. One possibility is that, when submitting any future works, that mixer would also be agreeing that previously submitted works would be subject to the same policy... but for artists that never submit anything ever again, their stuff might be "grandfathered" under more lenient guidelines. I don't know, our previous policy was really almost identical, except that we never flatly refused to remove mixes, because I felt doing so without a formalized policy in place would be unfair.

I have also updated the thread title to indicate that, unless there is ongoing, unresolved discussion that represents the concerns of multiple individuals, we aim to finalize this document next weekend on 5/27/07 and put it into effect immediately afterwards.

debeerguy007

05-17-2007, 06:06 AM

My eyes went crossed reading this.

ROFL.

The draft seems fairly reasonable thus far, so no big complaints from me.

Joe Redifer

05-17-2007, 06:24 AM

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 06:27 AM

Looks good to me, but perhaps the following needs a bit of clarification:
OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.This might contradict with the ownership of the original submitter. I shall grace thee with an example. Let's say ReMixer A allows me to use his remix in a video I made, and the ReMix is currently here at OCR. The ReMixer A says I can use his tunage whenever and wherever I may exhibit the video. But if OCR (for whatever reason... doesn't matter) decides to deny the right of continued usage of the tune in my video, who wins? I highly doubt anything like this would ever happen, but it is good to find holes in order to close them. In answer to this "problem", I would say the original submitting artist's wishes would win.

They'd absolutely win; the subtlety here is that we're denying usage of the music specifically as an OC ReMix; if the mixer wanted the piece used but we didn't, for some reason, then the piece could still be used, but attribution to OCR would need to be removed. It's the attribution to OCR that we're concerned about, primarily; a mixer owns his or her music, and we can't say where they can or can't use it.

If, however, the mixer was unreachable, or had not yet been contacted, then simply removing the attribution to OCR wouldn't be good enough, as the implicit allowance of use through the OCR policy would have been retracted.

Joe Redifer

05-17-2007, 09:07 AM

Cool. Gotcha.

Rexy

05-17-2007, 09:20 AM

Well I've been slowly practicing with music videos recently, but if I need to use a specific song, should I explicitly ask the artist or the site staff?

With that question out of context however, the DRAFT looks promising.

Wintermute

05-17-2007, 09:24 AM

For the most part this seems like very clearcut, useful rules, many of which are aimed at protecting the work from wanton stealing, etc. I like it.

Compyfox

05-17-2007, 10:35 AM

I guess as longtime mixer/engineer who's hanging out in several communities, I have to comment on some stuff for sure. Don't get me wrong, but some stuff is negating each other and this definitely reminds me of Cafepress where they cut off the total rights of the original artist and sold the stuff as "their work".

While this might clear some things, this whole text does indeed sound like a "big label", not a friendly community anymore as it used to be. Of course you can complain about it, but well... we mixers were asked to comment (and in a pretty short time too if I may add), and I take my right to do so.

OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music 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.

This is bugging me a bit. Okay it clearly states where a remix is coming from (example: Sharing communities), but this sounds to me like that this track is "only" available on OC Remix. But what about if the mixer submitted it to a different page at the same time, or earlier, or after it was submitted on OCR but cleaned up a tad?

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to redistribute submitted works through outlets other than http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../), including but not limited to streaming radio stations, physical media, and mirror sites.

I personally do not accept that to be honest. Mirrors are okay to help keep the bandwidth low, but I have something against it giving my mix away - for example to people like Last-FM (which is bugging me anyway, why am I listed there anyway?) or other community pages who "port" the material from example from OC Remix and redistribute them. (worst case scenario - doesn't mean that it's happening right now, but what if they'll do in the future?)

As mixer I'd loose control over my track, and I'd loose track over the comments from my songs. While putting this into one place, everything's collected.

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

I object to that, due to several reasons:
1) What if I want to withdraw that track, remix it (as in form of in-depth mixing, mastering, maybe even enhnancing it), and then sell it on a CD compilation that's also paying royalty fees to the firms who whold the copyrights?

If the stuff is still on a remixing community page, the firms would be screwed, so are those who paid for the CD or the file distribution (internet download), not to mention the artist who shelled out the money for the distribution, and the fees involved to be allowed to do so.

2) What if the artist wants to move away from OCR, like happened with Mustin, Virt, etc and distribute that stuff somewhere else, or on the own page from the creators. Is that forbidden now as in "you submitted to OCR, this is OUR mix now and we can do whatever we want - even change the name"? Clearly, I won't accept that as creative participant who's helping you, the president of OCR, to keep the page interesting and running.

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted and accepted works at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.

This is what was bugging me back in the day a couple of times with the "lockdowns". Some opinions were obviously biased, some mixers weren't informed and the "delete" button was faster pressed than you could say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". The only comments from sides of those who deleted that material were "this was a violation, and he/she was long enough on OCR anyway".

This is what's bugging me a bit. First of all you say "if you come to us, we will present your skill" as in terms of "we're a professional distributing platform", and then later you say "this is just a drumloop with a melody in it - violation of our standards, delete - sorry buddy". It's as if you'd wipe out the history of this page, and kick those in the face who helped you become big.

Personally I think the invoved artist should have all rights to say "I accept your decision" or "I won't accept that, that track stays on OCR" rather than a supreme court who's like "our standards changed, we now erase all tracks that don't fit them anymore", as it happened twice already. At the moment it sounds a bit like "you're allowed to help us, pimp us out, remix, participate, help us grow" but as soon as the stuff is submitted, you'll loose all rights on your material.

In terms of "standards", I have a lot more to say, but you know how I think about it - and some stuff is really ridiculus, but this is not the point here.

OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).

This conflicts with the point of "reserves the right to reject removal requests". As stated a bit further up, if the artist wants to sell his remix in some sort of compilation or even an official CD, the upper point states "you can't do that", and this point states "as long as it's the official remixer, it's allowed".

Two edged sword. Especially if the remixer is a member of the RIAA or German GEMA. Because those people are usually NOT allowed to submit anything for free - every track has to be cleared to collect royalty fees, etc. Overall OCR is a greyzone anyway, as all remixes submitted are NOT cleared with the copyright holders, and that'd be the original musicians, or the firms who still distribute the videogames.

OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given.

Somebody tell that G4-TV, Gametrailers.com, random TV stations, etc (who're financed by fees to use the page, or PayTV fees). They used tracks from OCR/VGMix/KWED already and never gave credit, not even on their page. Maybe it's because they think "this remixing scene is a greyzone anyway, so it's okay that we go into the greyzone too"

If OverClocked ReMixes are being made publically available in redistributable form as audio files, 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, such as burning mix CDs or reformatting for other devices, is acceptable.

Okay I had to read this a couple of times to fully understand it. Else I would have asked "but what about if that mix is also submitted to VGMix/ThaSauce/KWED?". But we're talking about "made available on", and in this case, if the track is loaded from OCR, it's an "OC Remix".

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.

And this page will terminate in 5 seconds... *cough*
Once again, tell that the Game TV stations, or those who illegally sell OC Remix compilation packs. That's a two edged sword again. First you say "you have permission if credited", and then you're "if you use OCRemixes over and over, we deny that we gave permission/that this track is coming from us" or even "we deny the permission to use the files". In ths case, I think the involved musician should have the last word.

It's funny how a page covering a "grey zone" is acting as a major label now - complete with adhesion contract, and with the same breath denies all actions involved if a lawsuit shall clash down. Makes me really think whether or not I should submit a remix to OCR or not from now on. Sorry to say that, but you wanted an honest opinion, so... here it is.

DCT

05-17-2007, 12:27 PM

The draft looks cool at first couple glances, and many of my main concerns have already been asked by other members. I'm probably gonna have to go through it again when I have my faculties about me (it's wayyyyyyy too early for me), before I have something more constructive to add to this thread.

-DCT

Shael Riley

05-17-2007, 01:32 PM

I see cause for concern with several aspects of this proposed content policy. Consider the following:

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

Why would you reserve that right? Do you have the legal authority to do so? Where does this authority come from if the rights to a submitted arrangement remain legally in the hands of the arranger (the rights to the original piece that has been arranged, which remain with the appropriate company, not being of relevance to this issue).

OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).

This implies legal ownership of an unauthorized arrangement on the part of the copyright holder of a piece, which isn't the case with OverClocked Remixes or any other unauthorized arrangement. When a composer, or, more likely for our purposes, a company, owns the rights to an original piece of music, that does not guarantee them the rights to an arrangement of said piece. If I were to cover Crazy, by Gnarls Barkley, and the company that owned the rights to that song, their record label, were to license the use of my cover in a film score, I would be able to sue the makers of the film and/or the record label in question, because, while they hold the rights to the song, they do not hold the rights to my arrangement. Likewise, I would not be able to license my cover to a filmmaker, because, though I own the rights to my arrangement, I don't own the rights to the song in its strictest sense. The aforementioned begs the question: When I submit to Overclocked Remix, am I entering into a legal agreement in which I give certain usage rights to an arrangement I've made to the copyright holders of the piece that I've arranged? Furthermore, is Overclocked ReMix vested with the legal authority to hold me to such an agreement, and, if so, under what penalty?

Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred.

Does this mean that if I put on a live show at which I perform Music of my Groin, and there's a cover charge to get into said concert, I'm violating policy? I've slipped Blood on the Asphalt and Music of my Groin (http://jeremy.subbuteoclub.com/music/shaelriley-thewesternfront) into my setlist on several occasions, and I have no plans to refrain from doing so in the future. While I'd like to put on all of my shows for free, playing venues with a good sound system, in an accessible part of New York City often necessitates going through an agent who will charge a non-negotiable cover.

I'm willing to give up certain rights to the arrangements I make for the sake of facilitating a stable, sustainable, quality-controled archive, but I'm made uneasy by the seemingly dubious legality of the aforementioned clauses, even though they comprise mostly instances in which I will very likely have no personal cause for concern. There is, though, one clause for which I do have personal cause for concern: the clause addressing live performance in a for-profit environment. I need to know that my rights to perform my own arrangements live, at a venue people have paid to gain access to, are not being challenged, because unlike the other aspects of the policy I've brought under scrutiny, this one is pertinent to me, and will continue to be as I resume playing live shows, at which I may very well open with Music of My Groin--always a crowd-pleaser--during sound check, during the Summer.

The Orichalcon

05-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Why would you reserve that right? Do you have the legal authority to do so?

Yes. That's the point of the policy draft. It's a disclaimer. Once people submit their remixes to OCR, they're subject to the points in that list, legally.

Shael Riley

05-17-2007, 01:51 PM

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

Do you have the legal authority to do that?

Yes. That's the point of the policy draft. It's a disclaimer. Once people submit their remixes to OCR, they're subject to the points in that list, legally.

OK. Say someone submits a removal request that you deny, and then sues OCR on the grounds that they own the rights to the arrangement in question and OCR is distributing it without their permission, indeed, in the explicit absence of their permission. How does that play out?

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 02:04 PM

As a caveat that isn't at all intended to criticize anyone's mastery of the English language, we do intend to translate this into other languages once it is finalized. Obviously, however, for the point of providing feedback, we're stuck with the English version for better or worse.

This is bugging me a bit. Okay it clearly states where a remix is coming from (example: Sharing communities), but this sounds to me like that this track is "only" available on OC Remix. But what about if the mixer submitted it to a different page at the same time, or earlier, or after it was submitted on OCR but cleaned up a tad?

The point is that the mix is only available on OCR as an OC ReMix; it can be freely distributed elsewhere without "OC ReMix" labels of any kind, given the artist's permission.

I personally do not accept that to be honest. Mirrors are okay to help keep the bandwidth low, but I have something against it giving my mix away - for example to people like Last-FM (which is bugging me anyway, why am I listed there anyway?) or other community pages who "port" the material from example from OC Remix and redistribute them. (worst case scenario - doesn't mean that it's happening right now, but what if they'll do in the future?)

As mixer I'd loose control over my track, and I'd loose track over the comments from my songs. While putting this into one place, everything's collected.

Well, I agree that OC ReMix is the one place I'd go to for video game mixes, and that the convenience of having everything together is beneficial. However, it's a large Internet, and trying to prevent distribution elsewhere would be, in my estimation, futile. Therefore, we're just trying to be honest about it, and also encourage that the site and artists be properly credited.

As a side note, you'd be listed on last.fm regardless of whether or not we made songs available there; your artist profile was automatically created by virtue of being present in ID3 tags, which last.fm's database is built off of. We just made the music listenable and downloadable by registering as a label; the information regarding the tracks was already there.

I object to that, due to several reasons:
1) What if I want to withdraw that track, remix it (as in form of in-depth mixing, mastering, maybe even enhnancing it), and then sell it on a CD compilation that's also paying royalty fees to the firms who whold the copyrights?

If the stuff is still on a remixing community page, the firms would be screwed, so are those who paid for the CD or the file distribution (internet download), not to mention the artist who shelled out the money for the distribution, and the fees involved to be allowed to do so.

If the mix is your own, and you're mastering it & enhancing it, I don't see the problem - the "superior" version would still only be available on your licensed CD. If you wanted to start selling a piece of music you'd previously made available for free... good luck. We won't remove the track for that reason now, and we never would have, even before this policy was created. When you submit something here, you're making it freely available, period. If you can get a license and then sell the piece as well, that's fine, but it'll remain freely available here as well. Tens of thousands of people have already downloaded every single song on the site... it's out there, and trying to recall it would be, again, futile.

2) What if the artist wants to move away from OCR, like happened with Mustin, Virt, etc and distribute that stuff somewhere else, or on the own page from the creators. Is that forbidden now as in "you submitted to OCR, this is OUR mix now and we can do whatever we want - even change the name"? Clearly, I won't accept that as creative participant who's helping you, the president of OCR, to keep the page interesting and running.

First above all, ReMixers who submit their music because they think they're helping me personally should reevaluate their reasons for making music in the first place. This should be about honoring game composers and creating music for everyone, not just me. Secondly, we don't rename tracks on a whim. I admit that we used to, before people understood the concept of an original mix title and named their piece things like "Stage 1 Techno" all the time, but our submission standards spell this out, and once posted, we don't just decide we like a different name. I don't know where that's coming from, but it doesn't seem grounded in reality. Lastly, everyone's free to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit... such distribution is not mutually exclusive with OC ReMix continuing to distribute their music as well. This honestly seems like a misunderstanding on your part....

This is what was bugging me back in the day a couple of times with the "lockdowns". Some opinions were obviously biased, some mixers weren't informed and the "delete" button was faster pressed than you could say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". The only comments from sides of those who deleted that material were "this was a violation, and he/she was long enough on OCR anyway".

This is what's bugging me a bit. First of all you say "if you come to us, we will present your skill" as in terms of "we're a professional distributing platform", and then later you say "this is just a drumloop with a melody in it - violation of our standards, delete - sorry buddy". It's as if you'd wipe out the history of this page, and kick those in the face who helped you become big.

Well, the lockdowns were problematic and potentially offensive in a number of ways. I really don't think we'll ever need to do anything remotely similar ever again. I can assure you that we didn't start quickly deleting pieces on a whim - on the contrary, the process was very long, drawn out, and involved revoting on a number of pieces and serious discussions on policy.

That being said, lockdowns aren't explicitly part of this policy. We do reserve the right to remove pieces for a number of reasons, but the actuality is that we're not going to start randomly taking stuff down, as there'd be no reason to, when both the mixer and site staff expended a good deal of effort in making it available in the first place.

Personally I think the invoved artist should have all rights to say "I accept your decision" or "I won't accept that, that track stays on OCR" rather than a supreme court who's like "our standards changed, we now erase all tracks that don't fit them anymore", as it happened twice already. At the moment it sounds a bit like "you're allowed to help us, pimp us out, remix, participate, help us grow" but as soon as the stuff is submitted, you'll loose all rights on your material.

Again, lockdowns are not part of the site's normal operating procedure, were done to correct mistakes almost entirely made by yours truly, and should never need to occur again. I don't rule out the possibility only because I hate having my words used against me, but I'd be very, very, very, very surprised if we ever had to do another lockdown. Ever.

This conflicts with the point of "reserves the right to reject removal requests". As stated a bit further up, if the artist wants to sell his remix in some sort of compilation or even an official CD, the upper point states "you can't do that", and this point states "as long as it's the official remixer, it's allowed".

Two edged sword. Especially if the remixer is a member of the RIAA or German GEMA. Because those people are usually NOT allowed to submit anything for free - every track has to be cleared to collect royalty fees, etc. Overall OCR is a greyzone anyway, as all remixes submitted are NOT cleared with the copyright holders, and that'd be the original musicians, or the firms who still distribute the videogames.

See my previous answer; nothing is prohibiting commercial sale of a previously posted mix, assuming the artist has obtained licensing permission, the piece is not being presented as an OC ReMix, and the label understands that a version of the track will continue to be distributed freely as an OC ReMix.

However, if you really, really, really wanna rule out the possibility of being prevented from making money off your ReMix... don't submit it. We make music freely available. This is directly contrary to any intention to one day charge for it...

Somebody tell that G4-TV, Gametrailers.com, random TV stations, etc (who're financed by fees to use the page, or PayTV fees). They used tracks from OCR/VGMix/KWED already and never gave credit, not even on their page. Maybe it's because they think "this remixing scene is a greyzone anyway, so it's okay that we go into the greyzone too"

That's partly why we're formalizing this policy. Even so, policing the entire Internet looking for artists being miscredited or ripped off is not within our power; if you want to spend the rest of your natural life tracking down such injustices, we're not stopping you.

And this page will terminate in 5 seconds... *cough*
Once again, tell that the Game TV stations, or those who illegally sell OC Remix compilation packs. That's a two edged sword again. First you say "you have permission if credited", and then you're "if you use OCRemixes over and over, we deny that we gave permission/that this track is coming from us" or even "we deny the permission to use the files". In ths case, I think the involved musician should have the last word.

OC ReMix can deny that third parties continue to use mixes accredited to OC ReMix; if the submitting artist wishes that they continue using their work, they can personally allow the music to continue to be used, so long as references to OC ReMix are removed. I honestly don't see this coming up too often, but the musician has the last word.

It's funny how a page covering a "grey zone" is acting as a major label now - complete with adhesion contract, and with the same breath denies all actions involved if a lawsuit shall clash down. Makes me really think whether or not I should submit a remix to OCR or not from now on. Sorry to say that, but you wanted an honest opinion, so... here it is.

That's fair enough, and it's your call. Most seem okay with it, and most of the policy itself was already in effect, just not written down anywhere. You haven't raised any specific points that I would see as resulting in modifications to the document; you seem generally opposed to the notion of having any such policy whatsoever. We've already decided that a policy is needed, so the discussion of whether or not to have one isn't relevant. I think there's some minor misinterpretation, and I think your concerns about being able to sell your mixes after the fact are misguided. This site's about free music, always has been, and always will be.

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 02:13 PM

OK. Say someone submits a removal request that you deny, and then sues OCR on the grounds that they own the rights to the arrangement in question and OCR is distributing it without their permission, indeed, in the explicit absence of their permission. How does that play out?

You're agreeing to the content policy (once in effect) when you make the submission.

Your ownership of the material is moot; you could be submitting an arrangement or an original that you owned 100% of the rights to. You're agreeing to let us distribute the piece as an OC ReMix, period. The only people who could sue would be the owner of the original, copyrighted material, e.g. Nintendo, since they never agreed to the policy in the first place. If Nintendo for some bizarre reason transferred full ownership of the original material to you as a ReMixer, you still couldn't sue, because you knowingly agreed to the policy. Or, rather, you could sue, and lose. So litigious! Do you really see it coming to this, anyways?

Most of the points in your previous post center around legality, which is indeed slippery when we're talking about music that involves arrangement of copyrighted material. The important distinction is that we're focusing on the piece being presented as an OC ReMix more than anything else; you're free to distribute your music however you like, to whomever you like, so long as it's not presented as an OC ReMix. Once submitted to us, with acceptance of the content policy, we're the only ones who can really control where the mix is specifically presented as an OC ReMix. Realistically, that's laughable, as we're not going to police the entire Internet looking for hoodlums claiming their music is an OC ReMix and presenting it as such. But 100% enforceability is not necessarily the target; we're looking for a policy that protects mixers, protects the site, and doesn't focus as much on the content of the mixes (and their precarious copyright situation) as how the mixes are presented, i.e. as OC ReMixes, or not.

Kanthos

05-17-2007, 02:26 PM

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 02:32 PM

Much of the confusion here seems to be over the fact that it's implied, but never stated, that OC Remix only has the rights to distribute music for free under the OC Remix name. Perhaps one more clause or an overall rider should be added to clarify this.

OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music 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.

Is that not good enough? Maybe it should be moved to a general section, as you suggest, since it applies equally to submitting artists and third parties...

Kanthos

05-17-2007, 02:42 PM

It's not quite the same. Your clause states that OC Remix will distribute using the OC Remix label; it doesn't state that OC Remix *won't* distribute using *any other* label.

Just a suggestion anyway; I'm hardly a legal type :)

Shael Riley

05-17-2007, 03:10 PM

Your ownership of the material is moot; you could be submitting an arrangement or an original that you owned 100% of the rights to. You're agreeing to let us distribute the piece as an OC ReMix, period.

I noticed you changed your policy on mix removal requests after getting some feedback. Has the new policy been looked over by the same lawyers who gave the OK to the old one? I ask because my inclination--albeit my inclination as a layperson--would be to say that you're unable to wrest from a copyright holder the rights to control how their intellectual property is distributed, even after they've entered into an agreement with an online distribution platform; that is, to create an agreement in which the owner of the material to be distributed cannot renig, I think ink and paper at the very least, if not licensing under formal contract, would have to be involved.

And yes, I'm suing you. My lawyers are on the phone. And by "the phone" I mean the AIM. And by "my lawyers" I mean JesustheDarkLord. And by "suing you" I mean speaking of you with stern disapproval.

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 03:28 PM

I think ink and paper at the very least, if not licensing under formal contract, would have to be involved.

Well, there's this:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

Which takes far more control from the end user, and requires no ink and paper, nor licensing under formal contract. Of course, they're in legal trouble right now :-D I think if you look around at the EULAs for online competitions or free hosting services like YouTube, though, you'll see plenty of comparable, inkless, paperless agreements of this ilk. So, no. Also, you're bald.

suzumebachi

05-17-2007, 03:33 PM

And I'm hairy. FRISBEE CAPITOL OF THE WO

So anyways, I'm thinking so long as it's still cool to post crap wherever (so long as it's not labeled as an OC ReMIx) it's all good. I also dig the idea of the original copyright holders being able to use the songs in whatever arrangement albums or compilations they throw together. Even if we don't make money off it, the recognition is always good.

Also, :sleepdepriv:

Siamey

05-17-2007, 03:34 PM

sounds good!

anosou

05-17-2007, 03:39 PM

OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given. At a minimum, credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix as well as contextual presentation of the full site URL, "http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../)". This information should be presented as close to the utilized material as reasonably possible; if the OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, it should be prominently displayed in context with the utilized works. Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible.
[/LIST]

Does this mean anyone can use the remix in anything non-profit and not even mention the remixer? I think that is a bit un-cool :) That's how I understood it, but English is my second language :( It seems like the "credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix" means that the attribution is only the site..
I think they should mention the remixer and the homepage at least.

Shael Riley

05-17-2007, 04:01 PM

Well, there's this:

Which takes far more control from the end user, and requires no ink and paper, nor licensing under formal contract. Of course, they're in legal trouble right now :-D I think if you look around at the EULAs for online competitions or free hosting services like YouTube, though, you'll see plenty of comparable, inkless, paperless agreements of this ilk. So, no. Also, you're bald.

I know there's that. EULA's can be very binding, but you can, if I'm not very sorely mistaken, opt out of a EULA at any time, forcing them to stop distributing your work; the EULA just makes it so you can't hold the party you entered into the EULA with (hereafter referred to as "them") accountable for what they did with it during the time you'd given them permission to distribute it. In other words, a EULA protects how, but not for how long a work can be distributed.

I'm proposing that, though a submitter is agreeing to the content policy, there's nothing within the policy that could prevent them from discontinuing and retracting their agreement at any point, thus freeing them to demand a work be taken down. Y'know?

Compyfox

05-17-2007, 04:10 PM

As a caveat that isn't at all intended to criticize anyone's mastery of the English language, we do intend to translate this into other languages once it is finalized. Obviously, however, for the point of providing feedback, we're stuck with the English version for better or worse.

I'm honored that it seems that I understood at least some of that jibba-jabba. *cough*

Well, I agree that OC ReMix is the one place I'd go to for video game mixes, and that the convenience of having everything together is beneficial. However, it's a large Internet, and trying to prevent distribution elsewhere would be, in my estimation, futile. Therefore, we're just trying to be honest about it, and also encourage that the site and artists be properly credited.

It's not about distributing the material on a random fan page (for example the Turrican Central in Germany). It's about giving my song "away" without asking me first. And to that I count Last-FM as contrary. I don't want to be involved with them, neither do I give you permission for the future, if I should ever submit a remix, to give the tracks to them for "listing" or even "releasing".

Whoever started that crap, and thought it's great, should be shot in my opinion. No offense, but it's enough that I'm listed on that musicmap thing along with Dr. Alban!

If the mix is your own, and you're mastering it & enhancing it, I don't see the problem - the "superior" version would still only be available on your licensed CD. If you wanted to start selling a piece of music you'd previously made available for free... good luck. We won't remove the track for that reason now, and we never would have, even before this policy was created.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. For example the Final Fantasy track that's featured on Project Majestic Mix by Jan Van valbourg (if I can remember correctly that was Anxious Heart) or was it that "Underneath the Rotting Pizza" remix (which also vanished from OCR all of a sudden a couple of weeks after it was released). Both tracks were removed one or the other way because the tracks were later sold on CD.

Steven Kennedy still permits to re-re-release (no typo!) any of those tracks (Zeratul and I wanted to release his Magus remix as remastered version once, but it wasn't possible as the CD is "still sold" and we didn't get permission, even if it was his creative property). So if a firm makes a contract with me, says "your remix is great, redo it please/mix it up, we put it into our next game/on our next compilation CD", or even I decide to release that track as official single internationally, you refuse to remove that track, even if it was online for like 1 year because you insist on "this is OCR, we release our stuff for free, if you want to sell it - screw it!"?

Now that's seriously messed up and arrogant. Would you even continue to stick to that if the lawyers of the original/momentary copyright holders start to sue your page? I guess not. VGMix offered the possibility to remove tracks by the artist, if somebody at KWED would do the same, they say "no problem". What you do here, is setting up a adhesion contract for both musicians and live performers. As if you own the right, even if that is not the case. This is why people went haywire with Cafepress.

Tens of thousands of people have already downloaded every single song on the site... it's out there, and trying to recall it would be, again, futile.

Not if the track is:
a) uncompressed on CD (Stereo)/ DVD-A/SACD (Surround)
b) enhanced in terms of sound and/or arrangement

Then again, so what? Even if there was once a freeware version, the new version is different, an official release - and if I say "take it down", you have to give in. According to the "rules" setup by you and your lawers, paragraph one, we still remain the rights to our track, which you negate with the very same paragraph we're discussing here.

First above all, ReMixers who submit their music because they think they're helping me personally should reevaluate their reasons for making music in the first place. This should be about honoring game composers and creating music for everyone, not just me.

Sorry, then you should STOP INSTANTLY with what you do and posing with your page on anime conventions. Even if it's a fact that most cames come out of Japan and that topic "games" is spread at conventions, it is no point of having a pannel to pimp your popularity.

It is a fact, that you got that popular thanks to us remixers. WE devoted our time to suit your needs and standards, WE present(ed) your page in radio shows, live gigs, podcasts and conventions, WE wear your swag. In short - WE help you personally. If you think we shouldn't do that, or shouldn't have done that, then think about why OCR is so popular. Sure not because you started it as offspring of that Overclocked webcomic, or as platform to present your remixes.

Nobody is getting popular without any form of help.

Lastly, everyone's free to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit... such distribution is not mutually exclusive with OC ReMix continuing to distribute their music as well. This honestly seems like a misunderstanding on your part....

Must be either my language barrier - or due to the rules you setup in your first post that I get the impression that something's fishy going on here.

Well, the lockdowns were problematic and potentially offensive in a number of ways. I really don't think we'll ever need to do anything remotely similar ever again. I can assure you that we didn't start quickly deleting pieces on a whim - on the contrary, the process was very long, drawn out, and involved revoting on a number of pieces and serious discussions on policy.

With most of the involved mixers EXCLUDED. Especially with the second lockdown.

That being said, lockdowns aren't explicitly part of this policy. We do reserve the right to remove pieces for a number of reasons, but the actuality is that we're not going to start randomly taking stuff down, as there'd be no reason to, when both the mixer and site staff expended a good deal of effort in making it available in the first place.

This is the problem... The Lockdowns started because somebody decided that the quality standards needed to be pulled through and that certain mixes don't fit OCR anymore, because they're just "not good enough for what OCR is all about".

What if you change the standards in the future, then randomly decide "this mix is off balance, the mixing could be better - we will remove it" or "this mix is not true to the original" or even "this mix is too true to the original, this is no remix", then you remove the remix out of reason because you think this track is not good enough for OCR anymore? This counts to me as censoring at it's worst pace, erasing some of OCR's history, saying that mixer A "was not good enough - so we took him down after two years - he got his share, he should be happy". In other words as with Mission Impossible "we deny that we know you and work for our institution".

This is, in my opinion, just another excuse of powerabuse and negates all rights of a remixer that is submitting to OCRemix.

Again, lockdowns are not part of the site's normal operating procedure, were done to correct mistakes almost entirely made by yours truly, and should never need to occur again. I don't rule out the possibility only because I hate having my words used against me, but I'd be very, very, very, very surprised if we ever had to do another lockdown. Ever.

Wasn't there a third one planned, as soon as you hit 2grand? Or was it 1,5grand? I still remember that from before I was banned. Will you really stick to that?

See my previous answer; nothing is prohibiting commercial sale of a previously posted mix, assuming the artist has obtained licensing permission, the piece is not being presented as an OC ReMix, and the label understands that a version of the track will continue to be distributed freely as an OC ReMix.

No, the label will say "put it down", and you have to give in - period. It's their right to do so, as they hold the only rights for the distribution now. I on the other hand had to remove it from all places where it was "once available" to fulfill that contract.

Please read some books about it (in German it's GEMA, GVL & KSK - very informative), or ask your befriended lawers. It was always like that, always will be.

However, if you really, really, really wanna rule out the possibility of being prevented from making money off your ReMix... don't submit it. We make music freely available. This is directly contrary to any intention to one day charge for it...

Clearly an adhesion contract. You can't write "all rights remain to the original artist" and in the same time you prevent us musicians to do with the track what we want to at a later page. From releasing it commercially, to performing it live (Shael Riley for example), to use it in a video or whatever comes to mind at that point.

If you'd hold the rights to all the tunes that were remixed, and would present them as the label who holds those rights in the first place, I'd understand that. BUT... your page is presenting fanmaterial that is, blatantly said, illegaly distributed. It is accepted because it's a "fanproduction" (like fanart), but if we're looking at it as if it's all "legal and stuff", you clearly pull off an illegal thing, try make it look like legal, and steal yourself out of the responsibility, should something ever happen like a lawsuit for example.

This is not okay - and I highly object as remixer and longtime member of OC Remix, like it was asked to do so by you in the first place (via eMail).

That's partly why we're formalizing this policy. Even so, policing the entire Internet looking for artists being miscredited or ripped off is not within our power; if you want to spend the rest of your natural life tracking down such injustices, we're not stopping you.

Then this whole draft is useless, as you try to enforce our rights, yet you say "it's not within our power". I'm sorry, but why even try to pull off these rules then?

OC ReMix can deny that third parties continue to use mixes accredited to OC ReMix; if the submitting artist wishes that they continue using their work, they can personally allow the music to continue to be used, so long as references to OC ReMix are removed. I honestly don't see this coming up too often, but the musician has the last word.

If they ask the mixer directly, why even bother? Only if somebody is pointing fingers and is like "this and that dude used a mix from OCR", will you go off and say "did he use that with permission from us? No, he's not allowed to do so."

IMO a totally useless point in your draft that looks to me like just another add-on to look good in the end.

That's fair enough, and it's your call. Most seem okay with it, and most of the policy itself was already in effect, just not written down anywhere. You haven't raised any specific points that I would see as resulting in modifications to the document; you seem generally opposed to the notion of having any such policy whatsoever. We've already decided that a policy is needed, so the discussion of whether or not to have one isn't relevant.

Wait wait wait wait... Is it not my right to comment on it? Do we start this kind of crap again as it happened with the sitedesign (and the resulting random bans)? Then why was I informed to participate in the discussion if comments and objections are, I wouldn't say not being allowed, but being ignored right from the start?

What's the use in this thread then anyway?

I think there's some minor misinterpretation, and I think your concerns about being able to sell your mixes after the fact are misguided. This site's about free music, always has been, and always will be.

Excuse me but this is your interpretation. I just wrote about "selling mixing" because it's a thing to discuss, same as with performing music live. It's a possibility that can occour and I commented on that.

To me your whole draft sounds like a box filled with hot steam, but nothing else in it. The set up rules are either ridiculus and/or cut off the rights of the participating artist, even if stated in the first post that this won't be the case. It's as with disclaimers warez and ROM pages "you can test that stuff for 24hours, then you have to delete it", or even better "if you have the original cart, you're allowed to have the ROM" - but it is still illegal. You just want to be on the save side somehow.

Seriously now, if you really insist on those rules...
...then I highly advice that nobody should ever submit any remixes to OCR anymore!

*the very same as you told me earlier too, btw. this really reminds me of Cafepress, only a bit more sweetened up*

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 04:22 PM

Compy, if you want to discuss this further, please PM me.

Your inability to behave and to comprehend relatively straightforward material makes it very embarrassing to further discuss this issue with you in public. Advising anyone to not submit is not what this thread is about; you can choose to do so yourself, but there's no need to talk about that here. We're discussing a policy. If you continue to disrupt the discussion with your outbursts, action will be taken. Everyone else seems to be able to communicate their concerns in a civil manner.

Corran

05-17-2007, 04:28 PM

Another ReMixer opinion:

Personally, I don't have any problem with OCR being able to keep my mix even if I wanted it taken down or was planning on selling it. I actually plan on one day remastering a lot of my most popular works on vgmix and making a CD available for "donations only." However, I certainly didn't plan on taking the old ones down.

However, I think part of the problem is the actual legality and how real record labels would feel about it, not just me. On that point, I am unsure and therefore do not feel equipped to comment.

But I would say I think a clause needs to be added that in the end, the original remixers holds all rights outside of OC ReMix to their work. Like Shael Riley, he can perform it live, or I can sell my works on a CD if I feel like, etc. That might have been in there but it seems you've been clarifying it a lot just now. Just the outside OC ReMix part anyway.

There's my 2 cents, thanks for informing us via e-mail.

-Corran

Compyfox

05-17-2007, 04:35 PM

Er... there we have it again:
outburts, disruptive behaviour - "watch it boy". *sigh - I give up*

The only outburst I did was my last comment, and it's true I shouldn't have written it down, then again so shouldn't have you. I'm discussing this new... policy as I see it in my opinion, you asked us remixers to state our points, so I did in a calm way which obviously seems to either be misunderstood, or not wanted. Once again it is layed out for me as if I'm only causing trouble.

Okay... fine with me, note taken. Please feel free to continue on discussing this topic - I guess I stated my point and there's nothing more to say from my point of view. Unless of course, you want to David - my PM folder is open.

- Roland

The Orichalcon

05-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Thankyou Compyfox for providing the Devil's advocate side of the policy draft. It is necessary that we look at all points of the draft with as much critical integrity as we can. After all, it's better that we iron out all the details here in this thread now than being surprised down the track with possible lawsuits and such.

I'd only ask that you, Compyfox, try not to take such a hostile tone with the site and with Dave in particular. Understand that we're not perfect. We're not lawyers, and this site stands on very shaky grounds as we attempt to find the balance between free art and law. It's fine to argue all aspects of the draft. But attacking the very idea of the policy that we're trying to put forward goes against the direction of the site that we're attempting to take, and is simply hostile.

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 04:45 PM

In other words, a EULA protects how, but not for how long a work can be distributed.

I'm proposing that, though a submitter is agreeing to the content policy, there's nothing within the policy that could prevent them from discontinuing and retracting their agreement at any point, thus freeing them to demand a work be taken down. Y'know?

No, that's not correct. There are plenty of agreements that are indefinite in nature; most online competitions fall into this purview. Once you've submitted something, they can use it wherever they want, whenever they want. We're not trying to be as open-ended as most of these are, but your understanding of the temporal, at-any-point voidable nature of submitting works under a EULA is inaccurate.

But I would say I think a clause needs to be added that in the end, the original remixers holds all rights outside of OC ReMix to their work. Like Shael Riley, he can perform it live, or I can sell my works on a CD if I feel like, etc
-Corran

Is the below not clear enough to cover this concern? It's the first bullet for a reason, as I (and apparently many mixers as well) consider it the most important:

Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.

It seems like the "credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix" means that the attribution is only the site.. I think they should mention the remixer and the homepage at least.

I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

DragonFireKai

05-17-2007, 04:54 PM

Wow, Compy just took my sticking point and ran with it. Here's my two cents, I think that this could be solved by having OCR retain all rights to the mixes, save redistribution for profit. This wouldn't sit to well with some of the remixers, but I think that it would fly on a legal level. I don't think that's exactly fair though. I have no problem with the Grudge Clause of the previous version, I just think that to be fair, the remixer should have the right to control where their work is posted, especially when they're doing it for free.

Understand that we're not perfect. We're not lawyers, and this site stands on very shaky grounds as we attempt to find the balance between free art and law.

On that note, have you considered having AD take a look at this? Because he is, you know, a lawyer. It might not be his specialty, but he might be able to help here.

Corran

05-17-2007, 04:55 PM

Is the below not clear enough to cover this concern? It's the first bullet for a reason, as I (and apparently many mixers as well) consider it the most important:

Well that's fine, except for the "otherwise stated" part. I think you've made it clear that we own our work regardless of what OCR wants, except for when it is directly related to the site. I think another sentence clarifying that we can do anything we want with our work as long as OCR is kept out of it, be it profit or not. The "otherwise stated" clause is what's getting people, I think.

I guess it should be obvious but again Shael is asking if this policy affects his live performance, which clearly it should not. Basically I think everyone wants to have a clause that assures them that submitting things here does not completely strip them of their privileges to use the work themselves anymore! Which could be the case if you wanted. I've entered several music composition contests in which their legal statement said the work was theirs to do what they wanted with, be it selling or otherwise. That's what I think needs to be defined. Specifically, that OCR is not going to do that.

djpretzel

05-17-2007, 04:59 PM

I guess it should be obvious but again Shael is asking if this policy affects his live performance, which clearly it should not. Basically I think everyone wants to have a clause that assures them that submitting things here does not completely strip them of their privileges to use the work themselves anymore! Which could be the case if you wanted. I've entered several music composition contests in which their legal statement said the work was theirs to do what they wanted with, be it selling or otherwise. That's what I think needs to be defined. Specifically, that OCR is not going to do that.

Sounds good; I'll think about it some more and draft an extra clause sometime today.

anosou

05-17-2007, 05:18 PM

I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

That's actually good enough for me.

I have another question. I'm not really good enough at english to understand if there's something about this in the policy draft. Can I, as an artist and the submitter, release my remixes that I released here on other locations under maybe the CreativeCommons License or can I release any of them on a compilation for commercial use? Can I do it if I remaster or do something to the remix that makes it unique from the version posted here? It's still my re-arrangement.
oh, but I guess I would need permission from the original composer to release it commercially though.. am I right(amIevil)? :D

Steffan Andrews

05-17-2007, 05:22 PM

I've read most of this thread but forgive me if this was brought up already..

Formalized mix removal policy (extremely important to all submitting artists).

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

I'm wondering what your plans are for this exactly? I think it's important to clarify it before this agreement settles. What are the criteria, and what is the process for removing a mix? The agreement just says you retain the right to decide whether to honor removal requests or not. It does not say whether requests for removal are possible or will ever be honored. Even if this remains in the "grey area" I'd still be interested in knowing what your plans are.

Kanthos

05-17-2007, 05:32 PM

That's actually good enough for me.

I have another question. I'm not really good enough at english to understand if there's something about this in the policy draft. Can I, as an artist and the submitter, release my remixes that I released here on other locations under maybe the CreativeCommons License or can I release any of them on a compilation for commercial use? Can I do it if I remaster or do something to the remix that makes it unique from the version posted here? It's still my re-arrangement.
oh, but I guess I would need permission from the original composer to release it commercially though.. am I right(amIevil)? :D

Between the policy draft and the comments in this thread, the intent of the policy is that you, as an artist and submitter, retain all rights to the song for its use outside of OCRemix, so releasing elsewhere and remastering and marketing your music would be fine, as long as you have appropriate licensing from the original composers.

anosou

05-17-2007, 05:33 PM

Between the policy draft and the comments in this thread, the intent of the policy is that you, as an artist and submitter, retain all rights to the song for its use outside of OCRemix, so releasing elsewhere and remastering and marketing your music would be fine, as long as you have appropriate licensing from the original composers.

Good, then I'm pretty happy. If they don't missuse the ability to remove any remix. Like some mix was great before but now doesn't cut it, that's wrong. Or if someone with the power to remove remixes has a grudge against someone and removes it therefor.
Bad idea.

Bahamut

05-17-2007, 05:44 PM

Good, then I'm pretty happy. If they don't missuse the ability to remove any remix. Like some mix was great before but now doesn't cut it, that's wrong. Or if someone with the power to remove remixes has a grudge against someone and removes it therefor.
Bad idea.

The staff isn't that petty :razz: .

anosou

05-17-2007, 06:13 PM

The staff isn't that petty :razz: .

Naah, don't think so either but it would always be a possibility with like , a change of staff or someone behaving badly and pissing off the staff.

The Coop

05-17-2007, 07:04 PM

I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

How is making both mandatory unrealistic? The remix isn't by OCRemix, it's by a given remixer. Seems to me, that if someone's going to be hosting the files outside of OCR, or playing them on a podcast/radio, the site name and the remixer name should be there. If the terms being set forth here are geared towards enforcing aspects (or "rights") of the OCR brand and name, then that name/brand should also be doing the same for its "clients".

Maybe it's just me, but to imply that the "OCRemix" tag is the most important part of a file made by someone else, and everything else is negotiable, just doesn't ring right.

The Author

05-17-2007, 07:10 PM

I think that the issue with the "reserves the right to not remove a mix" aspect of the policy is due to the fact that we don't know when a remixed will be left despite the requests.

While I understand the tantrum prevention effect (some of my friends got hold of some of my WIPs and I hate to hear them on their playlists), I can understand the fact that the constant deletion based on a remixer's whims would be annoying.

However, should someone have a chance at using an improved version of the remix in an official compilation, he could well expose his case to the management and have it removed due to a logical reason. Quite frankly djp, I strongly doubt that you would deny that request should one remixer that started here end up on a professional, official compilation of a specific game. While you cannot expect everyone who downloaded the song to delete it, it could just be a sign of respect for an artist's wishes as he embarks on a professional career that is basically an extension of the OCR career.

But, getting back to a more rational argument, the "reserves the right" basically means that it will be done on a case by case basis, which on its own would require another policy.

Lyrai

05-17-2007, 08:12 PM

I just have a small question, I have access to a university connection a few times a month, and occasionally I'll use it to download massive amounts of OC REmixes, toss them on a burned DVD, and mail them out to friends who are stuck with dial up, or no internet at all. I don't charge them for them, a few of them give me a handful of dollars to cover the DVD and postage, but that's it. Does this conflict with anything in there? Do I need to clearly mark on the DVD "OC Remixes"? It seems obvious what the answer is, but I've been burned in the past for assuming what I think is the obvious, and would prefer to have direct clarification.

Bahamut

05-17-2007, 08:18 PM

What about prior submissions?

I'm wondering about this because if a remixer submitted his/her remix prior to the change (accepted or still in the queue), what would the legality be here?

anosou

05-17-2007, 08:23 PM

I'm wondering about this because if a remixer submitted his/her remix prior to the change (accepted or still in the queue), what would the legality be here?

Yeah, this would be nice to know for people who will not agree to the new policy (if any)

Dhsu

05-17-2007, 08:25 PM

Yeah, this would be nice to know for people who will not agree to the new policy (if any)
It was kinda buried in a different post, but I found it.
As for the very tricky subject of prior submissions, made before this policy is formalized and put into effect... I don't know yet. One possibility is that, when submitting any future works, that mixer would also be agreeing that previously submitted works would be subject to the same policy... but for artists that never submit anything ever again, their stuff might be "grandfathered" under more lenient guidelines. I don't know, our previous policy was really almost identical, except that we never flatly refused to remove mixes, because I felt doing so without a formalized policy in place would be unfair.

LuIzA

05-18-2007, 12:21 AM

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 12:26 AM

You should, because there's a considerable chance that it's due to a misunderstanding, or is something that can be negotiated.

djpretzel

05-18-2007, 12:56 AM

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.
You should, because there's a considerable chance that it's due to a misunderstanding, or is something that can be negotiated.

Indeed. We're going into detail, and we're asking for feedback, at this stage. Not going into detail and dismissing the whole thing is an attitude I simply can't respect, and one I've never personally held in my entire life. If you object to something, state your objection. Otherwise... who are you? If you're the type of person that flatly objects to something but refuses to say why, at all, or explain yourself in any way... then yes, it's probably better that your music isn't here.

I just have a small question, I have access to a university connection a few times a month, and occasionally I'll use it to download massive amounts of OC REmixes, toss them on a burned DVD, and mail them out to friends who are stuck with dial up, or no internet at all. I don't charge them for them, a few of them give me a handful of dollars to cover the DVD and postage, but that's it. Does this conflict with anything in there? Do I need to clearly mark on the DVD "OC Remixes"? It seems obvious what the answer is, but I've been burned in the past for assuming what I think is the obvious, and would prefer to have direct clarification.

As described, without alteration to the files themselves, and without making a profit, you're not only 100% groovy, but we appreciate your efforts. :nicework:

JJT

05-18-2007, 01:03 AM

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.
well played.

edit: honestly, there is no reason not to give at least a brief explanation, except for possibly spite. what's the deal?

Antipode

05-18-2007, 02:25 AM

A question that I'm pretty sure hasn't already been answered:

You first say that "OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music under its name, as designated by...the 'OC_ReMix' file suffix" and follow up later with a note that, when anyone else redistributes them, they're not allowed to remove OC_ReMix from the MP3. Doesn't this imply that OCR is the only party allowed to redistribute ReMixes? I mean, I know you allow redistribution, and you say so, but those two parts seem to contradict each other.

EDIT: Just reread the thread and found the answer. Nevermind. I don't see any real problems with this - I think it could help to have some actual rules set down so there won't be any kind of a mushy area.

big giant circles

05-18-2007, 02:28 AM

Bahamut

05-18-2007, 02:36 AM

Well, I can't speak for others, but my question was a legal question so that it could be worded better when it comes to technicalities.

big giant circles

05-18-2007, 02:44 AM

Well, I can't speak for others, but my question was a legal question so that it could be worded better when it comes to technicalities.

right, and that's cool. offering advice/comment on how something is worded aight. i was just speaking of people who tend to draw up all these crazy "what if" instances, which (to me) is like asking "what if a grizzly bear was to come charging into my room as i type? what then, huh???"

sure, i suppose it'd be good to know what to do in that exact situation IF it ever happened, but really, who's going to worry about that?

DragonFireKai

05-18-2007, 02:46 AM

what is all the fuss about?

i'm still not certain why people love to draw up all these highly improbably "what if...?" scenerios?

let's keep this simple. OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc. so what's the deal? why the fuss?

honestly. i sincerely don't understand the paranoia.

Well, it's the fact that the site is entering a transitional period. It's going from just another quirky website, to a legitimate organization. Things like this draft are going to go from vauge guidelines, to legally binding documents. Once discussions close on this draft, for all we know, it will be set in stone. So it's in the best interests of all involved, but especially remixers such as yourself, to foresee and account for any potential problems now, while this policy is still in it's formative stages, then when it's a legally binding policy that you can't really fight. I believe this is DJP's reasoning for even making this policy available to be reviewed. It allows people to prepare themselves for this change. Because in the end, a lot of people fear the fact that it's changing more than the change itself.

The Author

05-18-2007, 02:46 AM

People ask the what if scenarios because a good policy would have to respond to those what ifs.

big giant circles

05-18-2007, 03:00 AM

Well, it's the fact that the site is entering a transitional period. It's going from just another quirky website, to a legitimate organization. Things like this draft are going to go from vauge guidelines, to legally binding documents. Once discussions close on this draft, for all we know, it will be set in stone. So it's in the best interests of all involved, but especially remixers such as yourself, to foresee and account for any potential problems now, while this policy is still in it's formative stages, then when it's a legally binding policy that you can't really fight. I believe this is DJP's reasoning for even making this policy available to be reviewed. It allows people to prepare themselves for this change. Because in the end, a lot of people fear the fact that it's changing more than the change itself.

right, i mean, i get that; i summed it up with OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc.

People ask the what if scenarios because a good policy would have to respond to those what ifs.

right, and fair enough, but i guess what i'm so puzzled by is how people tend to jump the gun and automatically "head for the hills" instead of just simply approaching the matter in a mature fashion. i'm all for moving the site forward. i just don't understand what makes people so worried that they feel the need to start throwing out all these scenarios (most of them unlikely or otherwise far-fetched) and spouting "A pox on thee, OCR-demon!"

i'm no lawyer myself, and wouldn't say i have any impressive knowledge of the subject, but from a common-folk-common-sense perspective, it's frustrating to comprehend the *real* motivation for people to panic, as it seems.

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 03:15 AM

I think by "people" you mean "one person." Maybe two. Everybody else seems to have dealt with this pretty calmly.

DragonFireKai

05-18-2007, 03:25 AM

right, i mean, i get that; i summed it up with

OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc.

To some people it's about other things too. People here have used OCR as a staging area for launching commercial music albums, some of them original content, some have been remixes, a few, as Compyfox pointed out, were remastered mixes that were earlier posted on OCR. These are people's personal hopes and ambitions that OCR is now instituting policy upon, and I would like to see it done in as fair a manner as possible. You said you didn't understand why people were bringing up all these "What If" scenarios, but most of the scenarios that were presented were fairly straightforward situations that either have specific examples, or happen on a regular basis in day to day interactions. A lot of them were simple misunderstandings, but some problems, like those that Project Majestic poses, still have some aspect that haven't been fully laid out. The assumption that everyone here is doing what they're doing simply out the of the desire for the greater glorification of Nobuo Uematsu is a dangerous one, because the closer and closer this community gets to the mainstream, the more exploitable it is as a means of making a profit. Human nature, when dealing with a situation where one can make a profit, acts entirely different then it does when it's a hobby. OCR is heading to the mainstream, and these problems are best addressed before they become significant.

right, and fair enough, but i guess what i'm so puzzled by is how people tend to jump the gun and automatically "head for the hills" instead of just simply approaching the matter in a mature fashion. i'm all for moving the site forward. i just don't understand what makes people so worried that they feel the need to start throwing out all these scenarios (most of them unlikely or otherwise far-fetched) and spouting "A pox on thee, OCR-demon!"

Through interaction and lurking, during several of the upheavals this community has gone through, I've come to the conclusion that, out of the thousands of members of this site, there's maybe 100 who can deal with such a discussion in a mature manner in the face of all the other irrational people here. Of those, only about 1/4 of them actually care enough to participate in discussions about those changes. Everyone else will either make a valid point in all caps, and piss everyone off, or make some snide remark that contributes nothing to the discusion, save more flames. The "Head for the Hills" group, is that group of everyone else.

i'm no lawyer myself, and wouldn't say i have any impressive knowledge of the subject, but from a common-folk-common-sense perspective, it's frustrating to comprehend the *real* motivation for people to panic, as it seems.

What's that old saying about the rarity of common sense?

big giant circles

05-18-2007, 04:00 AM

I think by "people" you mean "one person." Maybe two. Everybody else seems to have dealt with this pretty calmly.

you're probably right :P

summary: intelligent words

i appreciate your comments--for what it's worth, i suppose it helps put things in perspective for me, too. good to know there actually *are* mature people out there :)

The Coop

05-18-2007, 04:49 AM

BGC- The thing with this policy draft (and things of a "legalese" manner in general), is that it's not just dealing with one person or place, but rather it's trying to deal with that place/person, and everyone who partakes in its/their activities. People are genuinely concerned about how this draft is going to affect them, this site, and the future of both. No one wants to be locked out of having a say regarding what they've put their time and effort into, or have their contributions lessened. This policy draft is a big step from "unspoken rules", to fully defined agreements. Such things make people nervous, or even upset, due to how final they seem. Both sides want to make sure they're not getting the short end of the stick, and having their desires and input brushed aside.

In a way, this policy is almost like a contract. You're agreeing to a lot of things now, and you have to expect some feathers to get a bit ruffled as it all gets hammered out... as we've seen. People are going to bring up what can seem like unlikely scenarios, and ask a lot of "What if" questions. But in truth, it's those scenarios that can make something like this policy draft tighter, and give more coverage to all parties involved. They can help with getting the wording right, so that eventual future happenstances can be better dealt with... regardless of how odd they may seem at first. I mean, we may as well make this thing as well rounded as we can, right?

So try not to let the potentially emotional side of this issue get to you :smile:

Now if I could just get someone to address what I brought up a page ago. I feel so left out :sad:

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 07:15 AM

I think djp made a good point: ReMixers don't always stay with the same name (*cough* McVaffe *cough*), so the site URL is probably the safer bet.

The Coop

05-18-2007, 07:30 AM

If you're talking about the URL bar in the ID3v2 tag, then yeah, the OCR URL makes sense. But when I read...

I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

... I wasn't entirely sure what he was talking about (still ain't really). Is djp talking about the ID3v2 tag URL bar, or the file names themselves (i.e. "Thunder_Force_4_Bio_Tech_OC_ReMix.mp3")? As I said, I can understand about the URL bar in the ID3v2. But for file labeling purposes, I feel the remixer's name should be featured there with the "OC_Remix". As I said, it's not a remix by OCR.

I might be addressing the wrong thing, but I'm not entirely sure what djp's talking about there. So I wanted to put my thoughts on it if he was talking about file names.

djpretzel

05-18-2007, 02:30 PM

I might be addressing the wrong thing, but I'm not entirely sure what djp's talking about there. So I wanted to put my thoughts on it if he was talking about file names.

We're talking about the name/URL accredited when OC ReMixes are redistributed elsewhere. Filenames will remain the same.

DragonFireKai

05-18-2007, 03:01 PM

I gotta agree with DJP as far as the filenames go. The artist's name is embedded in the tagging, so the filenames themselves really don't need to be changed. Plus, updating all the filenames, at all the mirrors, would be a pain in the ass. However, for accrediting a mix on another site, or Podcast, or college radio type deal, I don't think it's asking to much to have them cite both the OCR URL and the artist's name. I don't think the argument that some artists, (MCVAFFE!) change their name (constantly) holds too much water here. I mean, even aspects of the site itself still reference remixers by their old names, like this (http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCR00173/) writeup of a lovely final fantasy remix by QuasiKaotic. However, the important aspects, the ID3 tagging, and the citation of the mix in the search engine, are all kept up to date. If a DJ cites that mix to QuasiKaotic, because he read the writeup, and ignored all the other fields that clearly say McVaffe, then maybe he shouldn't be a DJ.

On a somewhat related note, DJP, in my itunes library, I add a few tags to the OCR remixes, mainly I add the OCR Logo as Album art, so it looks all spruced up, like my other songs, add the lyric info on the vocal mixes, and add comments to each song based on my impressions as I listen to them. Do I have to delete all that? Cause I really don't want to.

djpretzel

05-18-2007, 03:10 PM

On a somewhat related note, DJP, in my itunes library, I add a few tags to the OCR remixes, mainly I add the OCR Logo as Album art, so it looks all spruced up, like my other songs, add the lyric info on the vocal mixes, and add comments to each song based on my impressions as I listen to them. Do I have to delete all that? Cause I really don't want to.

Covered that; modification for personal use is 100% groovy. Spruce away. Realistically, it's also cool if you share those files with friends, etc., but we'd prefer you point them to the torrents instead, and if you happen to have 100+ friends, we really wouldn't want the modified versions distributed en masse like that...

I'm considering the issue of accreditation to both OCR and artist as being mandatory.

Atomic Dog

05-18-2007, 05:17 PM

So I got this in my PM box:

DJPs trying to draw up a Content Policy, and the debate over some of the language is getting a little heated. The main sticking point seems to be these two lines.

Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

TO and DJP keep stressing that they aren't lawyers, so it's bound to have some flaws. I figured that you are a lawyer, and might be able to help clear up some of the problems.

http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628

OK, first off, you should capitalize the word Work, because it's the "thing" these terms and conditions revolve around. So, from here on out, when you see the capitalized version of "Work", you'll know that I'm referring to "remixes submitted to the site".

So, onto the question at hand. These two clauses DO appear to be inconsistent with each other and here's why: they refer to the Work in two different ways: as possessory interest, and as a non-possessory interest.

In laymens terms, "possessory vs. non-possessory interest" is analogous to "ownership vs. permission".

In an instance of possessory interest like this, the owner (ie. the remixer) GIVES UP (some of) his rights to the Work and conveys them to a new owner (OCR) who can do with them what they please. (You see this a lot in record contracts. It's why when someone infringes on copyrights, the RECORD LABEL is a party to the suit, because they have an ownership interest in the music.) Usually this requires contract consideration of some form, but given the nature of OCR, it's more like a gift.

Conversely, in an instance of non-possessory interest like this, the owner (again, the remixer) PERMITS his Work to be used by a licensee (OCR) - and more importantly, since the owner is still in legal possession of the Work, he can A) dictate the terms of use; and B) revoke the license at will.

To illustrate "A", suppose I were a remixer. I could go to OCR and say, "I will let you post this on your site - but you have to put it at the top center of every page for download." It's perfectly legitimate for me to condition the terms by which OCR uses my work. Why? Because it's MY work, and if OCR wants it, they get it on my terms or not at all. Of course, if OCR doesn't like those terms, they can just as easily tell me and my remix to go pound sand.

To illustrate "B", again suppose I were a remixer. I go to OCR, submit my work, and they decide they would like to publish it on their site. As convoluted as it sounds, when you submit your work and OCR approves it, what OCR is effectively saying is, "OCR would like permission from you to use your Work on our website." Of course, based on my understanding of the submission process, this step is kind of skipped (which is OK) because OCR basically says, "By submitting your work, you're giving us permission (ie. granting us a license) to publish it if approve it."

But the key feature of a license is that it is revocable, at will, for any reason, at any time, by the owner. Why? Because OCR has no rights to the Work whatsoever - just permission from the owner to use it.

Looking back now at the above-quoted terms, the first clause "all Works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist" implies that they are going to have a license to use the Work. The second clause "OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests," however, implies an ownership interest. Why? Because the second clause expressly deprives the owner (ie. the remixer) of the right to revoke - therefore, it CAN'T be a license.

So, basically, OCR has to decide what kind of interest it wants to have in the Work - possessory or non-possessory. Do they want to be, effectively, a free online record company that takes an ownership interest in the Work they agree to publish under their name? If that's the case, then they'll be fully within their right to reject removal requests because the owners will have granted them ownership rights (and by the way, if you do that, you should probably get some kind of writing that memorializes the transfer of rights) in their remixes (the same way that a band who gets in a fight with their record label can't demand that the record label stop producing existing albums under the label's name). OR, do they want to simply give remixers a place to host music that meets their quality standard? If that's the case, then they're receiving revocable licenses from the remixers, and they MUST honor an owners decision to revoke the license at any time.

Also, since it was mentioned in the thread, I feel it's important to point out that OCR is not comparable to Youtube. The key difference being that Youtube (to my understanding) gives people the ability to personally control their submissions. Youtube members can add and remove content at their discretion. OCR doesn't do that. OCR has exclusive control over what gets added or not added to the site. If OCR wanted to be similar to Youtube, they'd have to create a member system that allows individual users to add/remove their content as they please.

Hope that clears up some questions/concerns.

DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. BY PUBLISHING THIS, I HAVE NOT AGREED, DO NOT INTEND, NOR HAVE I BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OR USERS OF OVERCLOCKED REMIX. IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AND RETAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL.

LuIzA

05-18-2007, 05:36 PM

Indeed. We're going into detail, and we're asking for feedback, at this stage. Not going into detail and dismissing the whole thing is an attitude I simply can't respect, and one I've never personally held in my entire life. If you object to something, state your objection. Otherwise... who are you? If you're the type of person that flatly objects to something but refuses to say why, at all, or explain yourself in any way... then yes, it's probably better that your music isn't here.

I don't want my music there because it seems to me you guys want to have more power over my music than just hosting it, and having a comment system for it. Isn't that what this site is about? a vg community for who wants to listen? not for you having any exclusivity over what's mine. Sure the original music covered is legally owned by their respective companies, but my arrangements are legally mine, and mine alone. I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it, given all the legal crap, and that's that. So there, here's why I don't like your policy.

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.

The Author

05-18-2007, 05:46 PM

I don't want my music there because it seems to me you guys want to have more power over my music than just hosting it, and having a comment system for it. Isn't that what this site is about? a vg community for who wants to listen? not for you having any exclusivity over what's mine. Sure the original music covered is legally owned by their respective companies, but my arrangements are legally mine, and mine alone. I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it, given all the legal crap, and that's that. So there, here's why I don't like your policy.

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.

First of all, take a deep breath.

The arrangement is, if I understand correctly, still yours. However, distribution of such work under the OC_remix "label" is OCR's propriety. I doubt that djp will react badly if you distribute your remix on your own, without the OCR label. I think you fail to see that djp is doing this to protect you and your music. Since OCR is a gray area, before the policy anyone could download a song, and use it commercially with you and OCR lacking any resources to stop him.

Now, through this agreement, distribution of the OCR labeled remix is subjected to DJP's rules (which means no one can just download it and make money off of it... TAKE THAT POLAND), and distribution of your original work is subject to your own decisions. Meaning that while it is available for free online through OCR, it won't be possible to use the fact that OCR is free to allow anyone to use your music without you OR djp agreeing.

OverCoat

05-18-2007, 06:20 PM

hmm...

I'm getting the feeling that OCR is "losing its innocence" as a community. Not sure why I haven't thought that before, but this whole rights of ownership mumbo jumbo makes it seem like you're no longer doing this for fun, but for... Well, it can't be for making profit, can it? Maybe OCR is getting too political, or maybe "ethical" is the right word.

I'm fine with you distributing my song, but maybe out of fairness give other artists a chance to remove their song(s) before this policy gets formalized, if they don't agree with it [e.g. Luiza]. Zircon tells me over and over again that "these policies already existed" but I sure didn't know that! Go ahead with this plan, but my gut's telling me this site will lose something precious and important as it gains more business-like properties. Maybe it's just my own personal evolution, but it's like VG remixing is no longer just a fun hobby. I'd like to think this is just a small thing, but it's all part of a larger idea, right? I have an idea what goes on behind the scenes, and of your plans for the future, and I see this as a small stepping stone towards that future. Of course, some people are undoubtedly not going to follow you there. I think Luiza's frustration is well-founded, some people don't want their songs owned by anyone else at all, in any small or large part, and that's understandable. So I'm going to again recommend you give the artists who disagree a chance to uhh... have another exodus. Unless you have another more well-thought-out plan.

edit: HERE I AM BLATHERING ON AND ON and I hardly ever remix VG music anymore :(

The Coop

05-18-2007, 06:38 PM

We're talking about the name/URL accredited when OC ReMixes are redistributed elsewhere. Filenames will remain the same.

Ooooooooooooooh. My bad. I misunderstood that part.

Well, then to adjust my comments, I feel that the accredited line should have the remixer's handle... or least, the remixer's handle when the mix was accepted by OCR. Both the URL to OCR, and the remixer's handle, are bits of info that belong together when these things are being redistributed. They're both rather important, and I honestly don't see the hardship in telling people both are required.

And just to make things easier on yourself for the future, maybe you could add something to the policy statement that covers this. Something like...

"When a remix is submitted and accepted, the remixer's handle at the time of that remix's submission will be permanently added to the ID3v2 tags, and to any accreditation tags for the remix's redistribution. Should the remixer decide at a later date to change their handle, the handle on their previous submission(s) will remain unchanged."

Bahamut

05-18-2007, 06:50 PM

JJT

05-18-2007, 07:22 PM

I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it

Fair enough, but what would you want to do with your music that this policy prevents?

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 07:26 PM

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.
I'm pretty sure djp's question was rhetorical...

I think you're reacting more to the *idea* of a policy than the actual policy itself. Take a chill pill and actually go through it phrase by phrase, and if there's anything you disagree with, list it in this thread and explain why. djp is a reasonable person, things can be worked out.

If you actually are disagreeing with the actual concept of a policy...well, I guess you're free to opt out and feel good about randomly "fighting the power" for no reason if you want.

I'm getting the feeling that OCR is "losing its innocence" as a community. Not sure why I haven't thought that before, but this whole rights of ownership mumbo jumbo makes it seem like you're no longer doing this for fun, but for... Well, it can't be for making profit, can it? Maybe OCR is getting too political, or maybe "ethical" is the right word.
I think OCR started out that way, but quickly evolved into something different from the "just for fun" sites like VGMix quite a while ago. That's arguably what started the whole exodus in the first place.

P.S. I think AD wins hard. Frawress victoly.

Atomic Dog

05-18-2007, 07:46 PM

Looking back at some of the debate over this alliterative "reserves the right to reject removal requests" clause, I noticed something that needs to be addressed:
That rule is pretty much there to prevent another remixer "exodus" from happening again. ie: If people insist on having all their remixes removed out of anger for the site or some similar train of thought, then Dave holds the right to refuse to allow them to ever submit again, or "come crawling back" in a more fitting description.

You can't do that with a license TO. If remixers want to exodus, for whatever reason, you have to let them. A licensee cannot dictate that the licensor continue granting his permission to use the object of the license. You can't hold their stuff hostage unless you actually have rights to it - and under a license, you don't. You only have permissions. Analogy: Suppose we're good friends and I tell you that you can have unlimited use of my car. You take the keys and enjoy many long months of driving it. Then you do something to piss me off and I say, "Give me back my keys bitch. You can't drive my car anymore." You HAVE to give me the keys - because I have revoked the license I gave you to drive my car. Keeping it would be an unjust deprivation of my property without adequate compensation.

The same goes with OCR. If the nature of the remixes are a non-possessory license, then OCR HAS to give them up if the owner revokes that license.

If you want to keep that "reserves the right to reject removal requests" clause, then you're going to have to remove that "ownership of the works is retained by the artist" bit - because it's not. By removing their right to revoke, you are changing the interest in the Work from non-possessory to a possessory, and you'll have to add something to the effect of, "By submitting your remix, you are hereby granting ownership of it to OCR."

Assuming, of course, that OCR wants to take ownership of submitted remixes. If not, then just get rid of that "reserves the right to reject removal requests" bit, stick with the non-possessory license and deal with the fact that if remixers want to exodus, they're within their right to.

DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. BY PUBLISHING THIS, I HAVE NOT AGREED, DO NOT INTEND, NOR HAVE I BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OR USERS OF OVERCLOCKED REMIX. IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AND RETAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL.

Liontamer

05-18-2007, 07:51 PM

I'll post in more detail later today. But people are starting to banter out the idea of OCR wanting to own all of the ReMixes. LuIzA seems scared about it and OverCoat used the word "ownership".

I want to make it clear that OCR doesn't want to own any ReMixes. At all. In any way. We don't own them. We're not asking to own them.

The policy stuff does not mean arists can't have their tracks elsewhere, like VGMix or OneUp Studios, on a personal CD, or a homemade release like housethegrate's "Houseworks". That's all gonna continue as usual.

But it does mean that we ask not to distribute the files to make money with "OC_ReMix" in the name or "OC ReMix" in the MP3 tags. Once that stuff isn't in the filenames or tags, everything's fine if you're the artist that made the tracks.

OCR doesn't want to be attached to any ownership or profit-making that involves using the OC ReMix name by either OCR itself, the artists, or third parties, because we are a non-profit organization. That's all.

Atomic Dog

05-18-2007, 07:54 PM

I want to make it clear that OCR doesn't want to own any ReMixes. At all. In any way. We don't own them. We're not asking to own them.

If you're expressly reserving the right to reject a remixer's desire to have his stuff removed, you are.

The Author

05-18-2007, 08:13 PM

Well, AD, you are heading into one of the major issues of electronic authoring.

Imagine that by letting your friend use your car, it somehow created a second car, identical to the first with the exception of a vanity plate stating OCR for him to use. It would not in any way prevent you from using your car. And the only way for you to stop him from using the copy car is to destroy that car. (But there may be copies of that car made by other people who liked it, and you have no control over that.)

The way I see it, having a work posted on OCR creates a new entity. It creates the OCR version of the remix. That version, while created by the remixer, could be concidered the "propriety" of OCR.

The existence of the OCR version does not prevent the existence of an non-OCR version of the remix.

Liontamer

05-18-2007, 08:14 PM

If you're expressly depriving the remixer of the right to remove his stuff, you are.

While not implying that I'm dumbing it down for you, but mainly to make it clear to everyone else, what you see before you is the discussion of how the policy is going to go. It's not finalized.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not even against your call that not honoring removal requests can legally seem like an ownership situation. But clearly, we do not want any express or implied ownership of the works and I'm confident that whatever we put into place will make that 100% clear. If that has to involve honoring any removal request without fail, even if the person changes their mind hours or days later, then I feel like we would compromise to that policy.

My personal point of view though is that we still need a policy in place to prevent artists from leaving specifically for fickle reasons. Some hate the site or the staff for whatever reason, but then change their mind. Some question their skills as a musician or how an older track holds up to the more recently posted material. While I don't agree with removing tracks, all are perfectly valid reasons to do so.

We've had several artists through the years ask to remove their mixes, only for them to a) either subsequently withdraw the removal request because the request was impulsive in the first place or b) ask for the removed material to be put up again after it was already taken down.

Because of the work djpretzel and the staff put into evaluating tracks, doing the writeups and providing free hosting, I understand why djp wants a system in place where removal requests can be turned down, if only because the overall track record has been that most people end up changing their minds and asking for the material to stay.

There should be some way to address these issues of not immediately honoring what come across as impulsive removal requests while also making clear that OCR does not own or want to imply ownership of the tracks. So the issue I'd pose to you, AD, is whether you feel (in a non-legally binding capacity of course), that those afforementioned wants, both 0%-ownership/not approving all removal requests) are actually mutually exclusive goals. If not, is there a way to draw up terms that properly establish both scenarios?

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 08:19 PM

Sir_NutS

05-18-2007, 08:25 PM

I just saw the email today, and here are my opinions:

I agree with most said in the draft, however:
"OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works."
this, as AD said, implies ownership over the remixes submitted by the artists, thus transfering the rights of distribution to OCRemix, which is not right imho. I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies. You can't deny distribution without ownership, and OCRemix is not in any way owner of our remixes.

Also, my congratulations to the staff for giving the chance to the community and people involved with OCRemix to voice the opinions BEFORE decisions are taken. I think it gives the whole thing more of a concensus feel, and a community sense, so kudos on that.

My objection stands though.

Liontamer

05-18-2007, 08:25 PM

If it turns out the two goals can't be reconciled, I think it would be understandable to institute a "once it's gone, it's gone" policy, while at the same time not threatening to bar the ReMixer from submitting *new* work (unless perhaps it becomes a chronic problem with that particular ReMixer).

Absolutely. In all likelihood, I would think that's the policy we'd settle on, provided that we can't work out something better.

I agree with most said in the draft, however:
"OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works."
this, as AD said, implies ownership over the remixes submitted by the artists, thus transfering the rights of distribution to OCRemix, which is not right imho. I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies. You can't deny distribution without ownership, and OCRemix is not in any way owner of our remixes.
I agree. I think what we would need to do is revise the wording so that we can "deny continued usage of the OC ReMix NAME", rather than the tracks themselves. For the tracks themselves, we don't own them, but we definitely own the name of OCR and that's the main thing we're trying to protect from being used without permission, for profit, or in a fraudulent way.

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 08:27 PM

I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies.
Correctamundo.

Sir_NutS

05-18-2007, 08:37 PM

I agree. I think what we would need to do is revise the wording so that we can "deny continued usage of the OC ReMix NAME", rather than the tracks themselves. For the tracks themselves, we don't own them, but we definitely own the name of OCR and that's the main thing we're trying to protect from being used without permission, for profit, or in a fraudulent way.

Thanks for the aclaration, then it's just a change of words there to make the thing more clear.

I also agree with the "once it's gone, it's gone" position. The other alternatives are too conflictive and guess based.

The Author

05-18-2007, 08:41 PM

The once its gone its gone policy is a good idea. However there is an issue with it. What about updated versions?

Should it be: "Once its gone, it cannot come back unless you worked on it" ?

Sir_NutS

05-18-2007, 08:47 PM

herograw

05-18-2007, 09:05 PM

Just parroting others' agreement that the "once it's gone, it's gone" policy seems a lot more fair. It's dave's site but it's not his music (for the most part) so while he should be able to remove mixes for any or no reason at all, the opposite does not apply. I think we also need to actively search for whoever is providing the endless supply of sand that ends up in dave's vagina, because it makes him emotional.

The incident this rule is trying to protect the site from is isolated and almost never happens.

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 09:19 PM

Haha, suddenly I feel like I'm at VGMix.

Liontamer

05-18-2007, 09:31 PM

The once its gone its gone policy is a good idea. However there is an issue with it. What about updated versions?

Should it be: "Once its gone, it cannot come back unless you worked on it" ?

People who send updates to their remixes never remove it beforehand, that's kinda pointless. Everybody who submits updated versions contacts the staff and then they evaluate the new version and decide if it's worth to substitute the old one for the updated version.

http://ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions#Can_I_submit _a_revision_of_an_existing.2C_posted_ReMix.3F

Even if the track is no longer posted, my interpretation in this scenario would be that to "bring back" the track to the site it would still have to be different enough from the original arrangement (see: Zitwra's "Blue" (http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00763/) vs. "Blue (Shooting Star Mix)" (http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01251/), which was the situation that finally caused this policy to be put in writing). If the fixes were minor, it would probably not be allowed back on. But ultimately any choice of reposting a track would be up to the discretion of djpretzel. If djp could forsee scenarios where a mixer would be allowed to bring back material in good faith, he may not want a "gone is gone" policy.

The incident this [removal] rule is trying to protect the site from is isolated and almost never happens.
It's not frequent, but honestly, removal requests have happened often enough. Often enough where having a policy became important enough for discussion. The choice was made years ago to retain a policy of denying a removal request when the request seemed impulsive.

With the current policy in place now (i.e. NOT the content policy we're discussing in this thread), we'd rather talk to whoever's involved and decidedly make sure that they're set on removal for the long haul and that there's no misunderstanding. Only after a reasonable period of time, when it becomes clear there that removal is a choice that has been thought through without misunderstandings/misgivings, we'd go ahead and remove whatever material. We'd still like to retain this flexability even with a more formal policy, while keeping in mind that we don't mean to imply any ownership of the music.

Tepid

05-18-2007, 09:56 PM

I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say ghkjgkjdffljgfkgfkhf.

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

And yes, I'm suing you. My lawyers are on the phone. And by "the phone" I mean the AIM. And by "my lawyers" I mean JesustheDarkLord. And by "suing you" I mean speaking of you with stern disapproval.
Haha, and to Shael, one day I hope to meet you and your majestic groin.

Kanthos

05-18-2007, 09:59 PM

If it turns out the two goals can't be reconciled, I think it would be understandable to institute a "once it's gone, it's gone" policy, while at the same time not threatening to bar the ReMixer from submitting *new* work (unless perhaps it becomes a chronic problem with that particular ReMixer).

There doesn't even *need* to be anything explicitly in the policy stating that the remixer could be banned from submitting new work should they abuse the removal policy, since there's nothing compelling djp and the panel to accept a mix in the first place.

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

The point of the policy is that it doesn't really *change* anything. It's just a formalization of the way things currently work so that no one has any excuse to do something like distribute someone else's mixes commercially and then claim they didn't know.

LuIzA

05-18-2007, 10:41 PM

First of all, take a deep breath.

The arrangement is, if I understand correctly, still yours. However, distribution of such work under the OC_remix "label" is OCR's propriety. I doubt that djp will react badly if you distribute your remix on your own, without the OCR label. I think you fail to see that djp is doing this to protect you and your music. Since OCR is a gray area, before the policy anyone could download a song, and use it commercially with you and OCR lacking any resources to stop him.

Now, through this agreement, distribution of the OCR labeled remix is subjected to DJP's rules (which means no one can just download it and make money off of it... TAKE THAT POLAND), and distribution of your original work is subject to your own decisions. Meaning that while it is available for free online through OCR, it won't be possible to use the fact that OCR is free to allow anyone to use your music without you OR djp agreeing.
thing is, I don`t want anyone else (e.g OCR/djp) having a say on that in the first place.

Fair enough, but what would you want to do with your music that this policy prevents?
yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

I'm pretty sure djp's question was rhetorical...

I think you're reacting more to the *idea* of a policy than the actual policy itself. Take a chill pill and actually go through it phrase by phrase, and if there's anything you disagree with, list it in this thread and explain why. djp is a reasonable person, things can be worked out.

If you actually are disagreeing with the actual concept of a policy...well, I guess you're free to opt out and feel good about randomly "fighting the power" for no reason if you want.

I think OCR started out that way, but quickly evolved into something different from the "just for fun" sites like VGMix quite a while ago. That's arguably what started the whole exodus in the first place.

P.S. I think AD wins hard. Frawress victoly.
yes, I read the policy through before saying anything and I`m quite calm... I AM disagreeing with both the items I find limiting to me in the policy AND to the fact that there IS a policy.
first off, my music IS being distributed for free here and it has been that way for 5 years now. that being said, personally I don`t think you guys are in any position to put a policy now. the fact that I own my arrangements makes it up to me to stop people from something if I don`t like what they`re doing with my song, not ocr. and well, I don`t want it to be up to them. this site was meant to host songs, and I don`t think it should have more power over the music it hosts.

second off, whether I have a cd in the works or not, I still make music `just for fun` and that`s how it`ll stay, that means I don`t want my music subject to policies. I`m not even trying to `fight the power` as you say, ocr can do whatever they want just as long as it doesnt affect me. if that`s too much for you guys to understand, then at least just take my music down and get it over with.

DragonFireKai

05-18-2007, 10:47 PM

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

The goal here is to set up concrete policy, as opposed to making it up as you go along, or these "Unwritten Rules" that Arek refers to. The other bonus the community gets out of this is a well structured policy that can set the stage for a potential change of command when DJP decides he has better things to do than babysit the site. Think about what would happen if DJP decided to leave OCR, there's enough of how OCR works that he handles personally, that even if someone tried to pick up the torch, we'd at best get an OCR that's radically different than what we all know and love, at worst, OCR dissapears into the ether. By establishing a series of publicly known, concrete policies governing OCR, it creates the possibilty for a smooth change of leadership that could allow OCR to persist long after DJP's bones have turned to dust.

And it's better we have the complications now, while it's just a draft, then later, when it's a legally binding document. It'd be a real shame for this to get rushed through, and then have an incident occur and find out that the content policy is in violation of intellectual property laws. A pint of sweat here will save a gallon of blood when it counts.

There doesn't even *need* to be anything explicitly in the policy stating that the remixer could be banned from submitting new work should they abuse the removal policy, since there's nothing compelling djp and the panel to accept a mix in the first place.

Yes, there does, especially if removal requests are as prevalent as Liontamer would have us believe. By formalizing a policy beforehand, it prevents DJP and the panel as being painted as a megalomaniacal oligarchy that rules with an iron first that crushes prospective remixer's dreams.

The point of the policy is that it doesn't really *change* anything. It's just a formalization of the way things currently work so that no one has any excuse to do something like distribute someone else's mixes commercially and then claim they didn't know.

which is exactly why it is needed.

DragonFireKai

05-18-2007, 10:59 PM

yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

It's not set in stone yet. As the policy currently stands, you can include Fire Cross on your CD, you just won't be able to title it as Fire Cross OcRemix. But this is why it's still a draft. What exactly do you want in the policy to assuage your fears? If it's a fairly reasonable request, it'll probably be implemented.

yes, I read the policy through before saying anything and I`m quite calm... I AM disagreeing with both the items I find limiting to me in the policy AND to the fact that there IS a policy.
first off, my music IS being distributed for free here and it has been that way for 5 years now. that being said, personally I don`t think you guys are in any position to put a policy now. the fact that I own my arrangements makes it up to me to stop people from something if I don`t like what they`re doing with my song, not ocr. and well, I don`t want it to be up to them. this site was meant to host songs, and I don`t think it should have more power over the music it hosts.

A policy needs to be implemented at some point to aid the growth of OCR. If you could give me a direct quote of the segment of the draft that's causing you uneasiness, I'd be happy to help you come up with a draft to present to the staff that you find more acceptable.

second off, whether I have a cd in the works or not, I still make music `just for fun` and that`s how it`ll stay, that means I don`t want my music subject to policies. I`m not even trying to `fight the power` as you say, ocr can do whatever they want just as long as it doesnt affect me. if that`s too much for you guys to understand, then at least just take my music down and get it over with.

If you want your music to be exposed anywhere, you'll need to submit to policies of some sort. When you submitted it to OCR, you already accepted certain policies that where in place at the time. Such as a potential review by the judges panel, and that it could be pulled in a future lockdown. Those were policies that you accepted, weather you knew it or not. But here, you have an opportunity to make your concerns heard before the new policy goes into effect. You're a valued member of this community, and your input is wanted.

JJT

05-18-2007, 10:59 PM

yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

As I understand it, the only thing the policy would limit for such a release is you using OCRemix in the track tag...which you wouldn't do anyway. So what's the problem?

Dhsu

05-18-2007, 11:56 PM

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.

JJT

05-19-2007, 12:02 AM

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.
lets keep this civil.

DragonFireKai

05-19-2007, 12:06 AM

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.

There's the potential for a mistranslation. Don't forget, a lot of the posters here are running the site through babelfish, or other translation software.

Furthermore, a lot of the fears this policy is inspiring are precisely for the reason you said. It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

DarkeSword

05-19-2007, 01:22 AM

There's the potential for a mistranslation. Don't forget, a lot of the posters here are running the site through babelfish, or other translation software.

Furthermore, a lot of the fears this policy is inspiring are precisely for the reason you said. It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

People can be fools.

For the record, I like the policy, particularly the part about "if you ask for a mix to be removed, you can't submit anymore."

DZComposer

05-19-2007, 01:36 AM

Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.

This statement is scary, and the fear isn't relieved unless one reads the whole document. Of course someone should read the whole thing, but maybe rewording it so that "unless otherwise stated" means "when relating to the OCR name" wouldn't scare people off before they go further.

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

Hmm... I don't like this, but it isn't a huge deal to me. I don't foresee myself asking to have my stuff taken down.

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted and accepted works at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.

If OCR receives a DMCA Takedown Notice, how would this be handled? Would the offending song be pulled in a knee-jerk fashion, or will an attempt be made to determine the viability of the notice? The DMCA has been widely abused, and things that do not violate the DMCA are being removed by some sites based solely on the abusive notices. Knee-jerk reactions to DMCA notices can cause censorship.

I don't like the "violation of submission standards" clause, as it implies that accepted songs can be deleted later if it is decided that they no longer fit any new submission guidelines. I feel that once in, it should stay in unless the artist wishes it removed.

At a minimum, credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix as well as contextual presentation of the full site URL, "http://www.ocremix.org"

Even though you later say "Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible," I think the artist's name should be in the 'minimum' as well. Most people will only do the minimum, it's humnan nature. I do not understand why the artists name isn't in the minimum to begin with. :/

The other stuff looks good to me. None of these concerns are "OMG! This is horrible!" but I do think they should be considered.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity for input.

Dhsu

05-19-2007, 01:40 AM

lets keep this civil.
Sorry, irrationality irks me.

For the record, I like the policy, particularly the part about "if you ask for a mix to be removed, you can't submit anymore."
You mean the part that was taken out? :P

DragonAvenger

05-19-2007, 01:56 AM

On the idea of people wanting to remove mixes on a whim, would it be possible to have a 'one month waiting period' or something before the mix is actually removed? Something similar to the 'waiting 3 days before you can get a gun so you can cool off' idea. That way the remixer still has control over whether a mix can be taken off, yet there is sufficient time for their actions to be thought out and carefully considered.

I'm not all that good with legal stuff, so I don't know how viable this actually is.

Atomic Dog

05-19-2007, 02:04 AM

Well, AD, you are heading into one of the major issues of electronic authoring.

I'm not heading anywhere. I'm not a remixer. I could give a rats ass what ya'll decide. But, I'd like to think that I play an active role in our little community (even though I don't remix and haven't posted a review in months...), so I do what I can. I'm just letting you guys know what the difference between "ownership is retained by the artist" and "reserves the right to reject removal requests" is.

Imagine that by letting your friend use your car, it somehow created a second car, identical to the first with the exception of a vanity plate stating OCR for him to use.

A better example is, suppose I write a book. Suppose I lend you that book. You then copy that book word for word and give it a different title. You don't create a "new entity" - the substance of the work is exactly the same, you just made a copy and renamed it. That doesn't give you any propriety interests - it's still just a license. The license extends over the substance of the work. Copying and renaming it doesn't mean that you're not still using what the original owner gave you permission to use.

The existence of the OCR version does not prevent the existence of an non-OCR version of the remix.

No, but the "OCR version" isn't something that OCR has rights to simply because they made a copy and renamed it. If the original owner/creator decides to revoke your permission to use the substance of his work, then OCR has to honor that - regardless of the reasons for revocation.

Unless, of course, they decide to take ownership of it - which Liontamer says they don't want to do.

=====

My personal point of view though is that we still need a policy in place to prevent artists from leaving specifically for fickle reasons.

But you can't do that - not if you plan to say that "ownership will be retained by the artist". The artist has every right to leave for fickle reasons. Yea, it may be a pain in the ass for you - but just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean you can hold his work hostage if he tells you he wants it removed.

We've had several artists through the years ask to remove their mixes, only for them to a) either subsequently withdraw the removal request because the request was impulsive in the first place or b) ask for the removed material to be put up again after it was already taken down.

I suppose that's just the nature of the beast Lion. You can make incentives not to do that (the "once it's gone, it's gone" policy is one example), but you can't keep something of someone else's without their permission. It's that simple. The only way around that is to assert ownership rights.

Because of the work djpretzel and the staff put into evaluating tracks, doing the writeups and providing free hosting, I understand why djp wants a system in place where removal requests can be turned down, if only because the overall track record has been that most people end up changing their minds and asking for the material to stay.

If it's really that important to him, then he needs to get them to transfer full or partial ownership. As it stands, regardless of how much work DJP puts into it, at the end of the day he has absolutely no rights whatsoever in the works of someone else - not even if slaps an OCR label on it. Just because the licensor (remixer) comes to HIM looking for approval and place to host their music, doesn't change the fact that the licensee (djp) only has it by the permission of the licensor. Like I said - it's convoluted, but just trust me on this.

There should be some way to address these issues of not immediately honoring what come across as impulsive removal requests while also making clear that OCR does not own or want to imply ownership of the tracks.

There isn't. Like I said, the core nature of a license is that it's revocable at will by the owner. All you can do is threaten to penalize the licensor by saying, "If at any time you choose to revoke your license, none of your Work will be welcome here ever again." Or something to that effect.

So the issue I'd pose to you, AD, is whether you feel (in a non-legally binding capacity of course), that those afforementioned wants, both 0%-ownership/not approving all removal requests) are actually mutually exclusive goals.

They really are Lion, much as I know you don't want to hear it. Like I said, those two concepts are fundamentally at odds. Possessory vs. non-possessory. You can't exert possessory control over something you want to have a non-possessory interest in. You can't say, "I don't want to own your car, but I still want to drive it even though you don't want me to."

And thanks for acknowledging the "non-legally binding capacity" thing. For those that don't know, that's a CYA thing for lawyers. I have to put that at the end of my writing anytime I'm giving legal information for a specific problem. We can instruct people on the nature law, but people have to understand that we're not providing them legal counsel when we do. I'm even required to bold/caps it - because we have to ensure that the disclaimer is conspicuous and readily apparant to a casual reader. You'll see it at the end of this post too, because it contains specific explanations of legal concepts that people might rely on.

I think what we would need to do is revise the wording so that we can "deny continued usage of the OC ReMix NAME", rather than the tracks themselves.

You can definitely do that. This is where it starts to get a little confusing, because there are effectively two licenses at play. The license the remixer gives to OCR to allow them to host their music, and the license OCR gives the remixer to allow them to use their name in association with the remix.

But that's a separate issue, and should be a separate clause for the T&Cs. If OCR decides they don't want anything to do with the remixer anymore, then the remixer has to honor that - the same way OCR has to honor the remixers request not to have anything to do with them anymore.

=====

It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

Believe me when I say that it's always, always, always, always better to have a writing to rely on. Maybe this is just lawyer cynicism - but people who don't want to put their intentions to paper are people who one day plan to renege on the deal.

=====

DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. BY PUBLISHING THIS, I HAVE NOT AGREED, DO NOT INTEND, NOR HAVE I BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OR USERS OF OVERCLOCKED REMIX. IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AND RETAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL.

Atomic Dog

05-19-2007, 02:15 AM

On the idea of people wanting to remove mixes on a whim, would it be possible to have a 'one month waiting period' or something before the mix is actually removed?

No. Revocation of a license is an absolute right of the licensor. The only way there might be an exception is if OCR suffered a material/economic harm. Example: If I grant you a license for a tool you need for a job that's due in a week, and I revoke the license 3 days before you're done, thus preventing you from completing the job - you might have a claim against me because you relied on me not revoking the license to your economic detriment. But that's not the case here, because OCR doesn't suffer any actual harm from a remixer revoking his license. At best, OCR is annoyed by it - nothing more.

Something similar to the 'waiting 3 days before you can get a gun so you can cool off' idea.

The two concepts aren't similar. You're comparing a waiting period before being able to purchase something, with a waiting period before you can revoke a license (which you can't do, save for the aforementioned exception.)

DragonFireKai

05-19-2007, 02:16 AM

Believe me when I say that it's always, always, always, always better to have a writing to rely on. Maybe this is just lawyer cynicism - but people who don't want to put their intentions to paper are people who one day plan to renege on the deal.

I understand completely. I think that setting down the policy in writing is an important step for OCR. I was simply saying that I understand how some of the Remixers who have been here for longer than I have who might have some reservations about any changes that they might see as disrupting the way things have been run for years. Resistance to change is natural. Think of it as inertia of experience.

LuIzA

05-19-2007, 02:51 AM

well, the main problem I had with the policy was clarified now. I however still have a problem with the fact that ocr can deny a remove request. sure its annoying when people just go and do it out of impulse, but isnt that still in their right? afterall, they are still the owner of the arrangement... I do agree with the fact that if you remove a song, you cant submit. but deny a remove request doesnt seem too right.

EDIT:and yes, the fact that things are being set into stone is rather scary for a `just for fun` musician such as myself.

DragonFireKai

05-19-2007, 03:08 AM

well, the main problem I had with the policy was clarified now.

That's good.

I however still have a problem with the fact that ocr can deny a remove request. sure its annoying when people just go and do it out of impulse, but isnt that still in their right? afterall, they are still the owner of the arrangement... I do agree with the fact that if you remove a song, you cant submit. but deny a remove request doesnt seem too right.

There seem to be many remixers with reservations about that particular portion of the content policy draft. While the final say does remain with DJP on this, I do think that there's been enough questions raised about that issue for alternatives to such an invasive policy should be looked into.

EDIT:and yes, the fact that things are being set into stone is rather scary for a `just for fun` musician such as myself.

It's human nature. But keep in mind, DJP and the mod/judge clique tend to be on the fairly reasonable side of things, as long as you remain civil with them. It's obvious that you're passionate about your Works, and that's a good thing, but it's important to stop and take stock with what's really being said before taking such an aggressive stance. Things aren't set in stone yet, they can be changed.

The Coop

05-19-2007, 03:16 AM

I understand completely. I think that setting down the policy in writing is an important step for OCR. I was simply saying that I understand how some of the Remixers who have been here for longer than I have who might have some reservations about any changes that they might see as disrupting the way things have been run for years. Resistance to change is natural. Think of it as inertia of experience.

I'm not so sure it's a resistance to change, as it is not not fully understanding what's being put forth based of how this policy's written. This draft is a WIP if you will, and right now people are trying to get a feel for where it's going. There are parts that don't mesh well to them, and clarification is needed... on both sides. As AD has shown, one section of the policy seems to be at odds with another section, and these things need to be ironed out, and the language cleaned up, before it's finalized. That's what we've got going on right now.

Most people know that when a remix is submitted to OCR, the OCR version can be used in just about anything officially authorized by the site admin. Podcasts, sanctioned radio shows, Internet streams, mirror sites, torrents... we all know the songs are going to be there, and we all know people are going to be using them outside of OCR. The issue is, some of the written policy language being used doesn't line up with what's being said by the site staff. I don't deny that people are a bit wary or nervous, because this policy is much like a contract (and as I mentioned to BGC (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=272039&postcount=77) reagrding anyone signing a contract, they want to know what everything means, and how it could be used both for and against them). But this thing becoming "official", as opposed to "assumed" like it was when it was unwritten, just doesn't seem to be the sticking point. The rules are basically the same, and OCR will still use the remixes in the same ways it always has.

So again, I'm not seeing a resistance to this going from unwritten to written. I'm seeing people expressing their concerns over this policy's wording, people trying to figure out how it's current wording is going to affect them, and site runners trying to get that wording right so that the policy says what they intend it to say.

Bahamut

05-19-2007, 04:01 AM

There seem to be many remixers with reservations about that particular portion of the content policy draft. While the final say does remain with DJP on this, I do think that there's been enough questions raised about that issue for alternatives to such an invasive policy should be looked into.

Well, AD suggested viable alternatives to punish fickle requests, but I think maybe it should be toned down to if they want a remix removed for a reason, future cases will be judged judiciously according to the situation.

It's human nature. But keep in mind, DJP and the mod/judge clique tend to be on the fairly reasonable side of things, as long as you remain civil with them. It's obvious that you're passionate about your Works, and that's a good thing, but it's important to stop and take stock with what's really being said before taking such an aggressive stance. Things aren't set in stone yet, they can be changed.

Hey, we're pretty reasonable even in the face of unwarranted anger! Above all, none of us on the staff are out to screw anyone over for doing something that is their prerogative, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's, so it'd do well for anyone who feels they're in the right to communicate with us as best as they can.

djpretzel

05-19-2007, 04:52 PM

You can't do that with a license TO.

I appreciate the legal acumen being granted pro-bono here, but would be a little more comfortable if it was accompanied by some sort of citation/caselaw, as opposed to our taking your word for it because you sound like you know what you're talking about, which you do. As a general point of interest to those reading this thread, I'd also recommend requiring citation any time you're receiving legal advice of any kind.

http://www.songwritingcompetition.com/rules.htm << entrant retains ownership, but agrees that music be distributed on CD for promotional purposes, and thus (seemingly) cannot request its removalhttp://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/srrpub09-rfo.htm << interesting; not *exactly* the same issue, but deals with IP, and mentions "a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, enterprise-wide license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such Intellectual Property" << this would seem to fly in the face of your points re: licenses being terminable at any point.
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/visx/medjet.lic.2001.08.17.html << ditto: "Subject to the provisions of Section 6,
Medjet hereby grants VISX a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable
license, with the right to grant non-exclusive sublicenses, to use, reproduce,
translate, distribute (by any means known or hereafter developed, including
electronic distribution), market, make derivative works of and otherwise exploit
the Medjet Technology."http://www.austindev.com/policies/hosting-terms/ << "g. Intellectual Property License. Customer hereby grants to AUSTIN WEB DEVELOPMENT an unconditional, irrevocable, non-exclusive license (exercisable without royalty or other payment by AUSTIN WEB DEVELOPMENT, but only in connection with the exercise of its remedies) to use, license or sublicense any patent, trademark, trade name, copyright or other intellectual property in which Customer now or hereafter has any right, title or interest, together with the right of access to all media in which any of the foregoing may be recorded or stored."This one's more interesting because of its "Except as limited under applicable law" caveat:

http://www.foreverjewelers.com/policy/termsofuse.htm << "Except as limited under applicable law, for all material submitted by You to the Website, You automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such material has expressly granted, ForeverJewelers.com the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, fully-paid up right and license to use, reproduce, create derivative works, publicly distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, assume any sound recording rights or moral rights of attribution or integrity, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed (including, without limitation, print and electronic form, media and technology) for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material. Except as limited under applicable law, You also permit any other Website user to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that Website user’s personal use."My bottom line being that "irrevocable", "non-exclusive" licenses to use the intellectual property of others without conveying full ownership DO seem to exist. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'd really appreciate as much citation as possible, as I'm sure having gone through law school you'd be used to providing.

I happen to be in an amazing position to find as conclusive an answer to this question as possible, as my girlfriend is starting work next week for Finnegan Henderson (http://www.finnegan.com/), and since they're one of the top IP firms in the world, I'd have to think someone there can provide a conclusive explanation. It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well.

If royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable licenses were truly impossible, as AD claims, then how would sample libraries be licensed? How could I be able to utilize royalty-free clip-art? Are you saying that at any point East-West can terminate their license, break down my door, and take my Colossus and RA libraries back? Again, not being contentious... there's an answer out there, I'm sure.

As AD has shown, one section of the policy seems to be at odds with another section, and these things need to be ironed out, and the language cleaned up, before it's finalized. That's what we've got going on right now.

Again, let's not grant anyone the benefit of the doubt because they sound good; he may be wrong, he may be right, but thus far I'm not convinced that he's conclusively correct, especially given absence of citation. Again, I'd advise everyone, in any context, to not take things like this at face value, and to require ample corroborating material.

As an interesting aside, in an email from 2002:

Mr. Lloyd,

I have decided to discontinue participation in your website - Please remove all of my music from your server immediately.

This includes the following material:

DrMario_Funky_Pills_OC_ReMix.mp3
Contra_MEGAMIX_OC_ReMix.zip / mp3
BalloonFight_SkaPoppin_OC_ReMix.mp3
Faxanadu_Funk_Fusion_OC_ReMix.mp3
Toejam&Earl_WakeUp!_OC_ReMix.mp3
Adventure_Island_Higgins_Goes_to_Miami_OC_ReMix.mp 3

You fail to provide any information -whatsoever- about your acquision of distribution rights - either on your website or during the submission process. This means you have none. Maybe you should get on that.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Love,
-Jake

Better late than never?

The Coop

05-19-2007, 05:37 PM

Again, let's not grant anyone the benefit of the doubt because they sound good; he may be wrong, he may be right, but thus far I'm not convinced that he's conclusively correct, especially given absence of citation. Again, I'd advise everyone, in any context, to not take things like this at face value, and to require ample corroborating material.

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp :wink:

But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

djpretzel

05-19-2007, 05:42 PM

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp :wink:
But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

Did you read my post re: irrevocable, non-exclusive licenses? Your comment doesn't address the points I raised...

If OCR receives a DMCA Takedown Notice, how would this be handled? Would the offending song be pulled in a knee-jerk fashion, or will an attempt be made to determine the viability of the notice? The DMCA has been widely abused, and things that do not violate the DMCA are being removed by some sites based solely on the abusive notices. Knee-jerk reactions to DMCA notices can cause censorship.

It's never happened, so I don't know. How we'd handle such a situation doesn't really need to be described in this specific policy, so it's a bit off-topic, but I certainly wouldn't go to the great lengths required to remove mixes unless someone compelled me to do so. It'd be a lot of work, for one, and as you say, the DMCA can be abused. It wouldn't be knee-jerk.

I don't like the "violation of submission standards" clause, as it implies that accepted songs can be deleted later if it is decided that they no longer fit any new submission guidelines. I feel that once in, it should stay in unless the artist wishes it removed.

Realistically, the submission standards aren't going to change drastically... ever. We've refined them down to pretty specific levels. This clause is largely to address situations where we post something that turns out to be, for example, a MIDI rip, that somehow we missed in the evaluation process, and need to remove afterwards. I do not believe it needs to be rewritten.

Even though you later say "Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible," I think the artist's name should be in the 'minimum' as well. Most people will only do the minimum, it's humnan nature. I do not understand why the artists name isn't in the minimum to begin with. :/

Alright, everyone seems to be in favor of this. I'm trying to maintain a balance between making the requirement realistic and giving credit where credit is due. I think two pieces of information should be the minimum.
remixer name
www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org)That way, even if the artist name changes, the site URL still lets users look up the track by name or game and find out the new artist name. Credit is given to the artist, but in terms of referencing information about the track or finding similar music, people would be directed to OCR.

This seems to be a big sticking point for some; I can't expect everyone to share my attitude that, when it comes to arrangements, it should be more about game & composer and less about achieving personal fame, I suppose.

Would this combination of information be acceptable to those who've previously expressed concern?

Compyfox

05-19-2007, 06:19 PM

I'm sure as hell no lawyer, but having experience with "the law" in certain ways, I can at least give some comments. I leave the rest to those who really know their thing.

If royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable licenses were truly impossible, as AD claims, then how would sample libraries be licensed? How could I be able to utilize royalty-free clip-art?

Most royalty free samples and art is released on some sort of "common ground". Those people are happy to share their material, try to gain popularity and at a later place maybe get known on a commercial base, but can still release their stuff for free as "demo" or better said "appetizer".

Most of that stuff is still released with some form of copyright information (who did that stuff), then an additional info how you're allowed to use them (for samples it's "Creative Commons", with possible restrictions and conditions) and whether or not you're allowed to share that material, and if so in which form.

While you indeed try something similar here, I have to mention however that the samples, the music material, art, written form or whatever comes to mind is still not your creative property. In other words, you only have a "license" to use the material in a certain form, but you don't "own" it in any way, and have no rights to change that or interfere with the interest of the original creative mind.

Are you saying that at any point East-West can terminate their license, break down my door, and take my Colossus and RA libraries back? Again, not being contentious... there's an answer out there, I'm sure.

While they're of course not allowed to go on a rampage, they can indeed deny you the use of their licenses (especially with Call/Response systems) if you violate against their rules.

For example, if there's written: "These samples are licensed, not sold, to the purchaser and remain the property of Wilbert Roget, II. Redistributing, duplicating, reselling, electronically transmitting, uploading, sharing, or renting these samples is prohibited by law"

...it does indeed mean, if you want to use it in two studios, even if one's your home studio, and the other one a studio you have with your partner - that's not allowed. You'd duplicate and share the samples, use "two licenses" even if sold for one - which would make that action illegal (though in reality, most users ignore that). Same as if a client would come over, and ask you to mix his track with "his samples" and you work on your own. Collaborating is a different thing, as most samples are used in a musical context then (exchanging rendered files), still it has to be cleared in some sort of way.

If you violate against one of those rules, the firm you bought the samples from can indeed exclude you from future purchases and sue you. This'd be the form of "kick my door in and get back their samples". Though the negative side on it - first they have to get to know whether or not you're abusing against their rules. With Call/Response it's easy, but not with normal sample CDs that don't need keys or dongles.

I'm kinda happy that the issue with "ignoring removal requests due to selling the material" is being discussed and considered to be changed in some sort of way (though it's not done yet, and it's uncertain if that ever will be), along with other issues I adressed. But like LuIzA, I also rather won't submit my material anymore but rather go to another place with "less restrictions", or a more "open system", towards the participating person, as this is indeed not aimed for a "fun community" anymore. Unless the rules are laid out in a understandable and fair way for all participants.

This is in no way a disruptive behaviour or an outburst due to misunderstandings, it's just my personal opinion on this issue.

Best wishes and a nice evening.

The Coop

05-19-2007, 06:20 PM

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp :wink:

But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

Did you read my post re: irrevocable, non-exclusive licenses? Your comment doesn't address the points I raised...

I did indeed. The point you made (if I read it correctly) was that you believe there is a way to retain use of the song, without claiming ownership, even if the remixer demands their tune be taken down. That doesn't apply to telling someone "No. We're keeping your remix", which is simply bad form if nothing else. If a remixer throws a hissyfit, and demands you remove all their remixes, telling them "NO" (see what I did there?) creates an interesting problem. With the submission of a removal request, regardless of what may happen a month from then, OCR would in essence be using a remix without the remixer's consent... something I believe this site is against, yes? If you set a standard where you tell the remixer to basically go pound rocks when they submit a removal request for whatever reason, what kind of image is being sent? What kind of problems and issues is this going to raise? It seems this should also be a concern now that OCR is getting bigger.

I know the amount of work that would go into pulling remixes from torrents and the like is pretty substantial, but that's why I believe the ideas of a two week "cool off" period, and a "Once a remix is removed, it's gone" clause would work. The first would give them a chance to come to their senses, and the second would mean not having to go through the process of implanting the remix back into the line up. It would also make it so the remixer who submitted the removal request, could still submit future remixes (though perhaps not the same ones that were removed).

These aren't the nicest ways of dealing with the problem, but I believe they would be the most effective once they've been spelled out in legalese, and they would do away with what's proving to be one of the biggest sticking points in the policy draft.

djpretzel

05-19-2007, 07:16 PM

I did indeed. The point you made (if I read it correctly) was that you believe there is a way to retain use of the song, without claiming ownership, even if the remixer demands their tune be taken down. That doesn't apply to telling someone "No. We're keeping your remix", which is simply bad form if nothing else. If a remixer throws a hissyfit, and demands you remove all their remixes, telling them "NO" (see what I did there?) creates an interesting problem.

I think that we're running up against the difference between a content policy / license and how the site will actually respond to such requests. How we answer such requests - whether it be a with a "no", a two-week cool off period, etc. - really shouldn't be baked into the policy, which is more attuned to legal terms than those sorts of specifics. AD made a post questioning the legal feasability refusing removal without obtaining full ownership, and I responded with information that I believe suggests it is legally feasible. You seem to be questioning whether it's a good idea, or the procedure surrounding it, as opposed to the legal enforceability of the clauses as written.

Which is fine, by the way, but they really are two different topics.

In the six plus years of running the site, we've had removal requests that more or less fall into the following categories:
I don't like OverClocked ReMix anymore. Please remove my mixes.
djpretzel, someone on the forums, or a member of the site staff has offended me. Remove all my mixes.
I've found Jesus or had some other type of epiphany/revelation in my life, and no longer wish to make my music available online in any form, anywhere. Remove my mixes.
I don't like one or more of my mixes any more, and believe it represents either my own abilities or OverClocked ReMix itself in a negative fashion. Remove my mix(es).... and that's it. And, since some of us have decided to be more frank/hostile than others, I'd just like to say that I don't personally respect any of these motivations very much.

The first is petty; usually someone doesn't like something we said or did and thinks they can punish us by removing their material, or make some sort of grand political statement. The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music. Music that you supposedly made with the site's mission statement in mind: to honor game music and game composers. Removing your mix because of personal motivations is just that - personal. To me, it represents selfishness. This was somebody's ELSE's music that you've arranged and made available for free, and suddenly you have the nerve to use it as a bartering mechanism, or to make some sort of statement? Reserve that type of action for your own music, that's 100% yours, 100% original.

The second is worse than the first, as instead of any sort of ideological or procedural objection that could at least be seen as an issue of principle, we're instead talking about personal insults. Let me explain something: the tens of thousands of people that listen to and enjoy this music don't have any idea of the dramarama and politics that sometimes occur here, and don't want to. And they're the ones most directly affected by mix removal. And, again, if you wanna rebel against something... do it with original works. While I'm the first to acknowledge and appreciate that ReMixes involve a great deal of original material - we emphasize this all the time, in fact - they still represent arrangements of someone else's music. To try to "punish" OCR via mix removal is misguided in the first place; to do so with emo motivations doubly so.

The third is interesting. I might tend to have the most sympathy with this sort of explanation. However, along with the first two motivations, it too is selfish: I personally dedicate a good deal of my time to preparing and posting each mix, as does the site staff in judging them and moderating review discussion, and listeners in reviewing them. There's numerous people who've invested time and effort to every single mix on the site, not just the submitting artist. Luiza has emphasized, among other things, that she does this for "fun". That's fine - so do we - but for the fun that each submitting mixer has in making the mix, there's still a lot of work involved, and this holds true on our end as well. We're all about the fun, but OCR chews up a lot of our time as well. If as an artist you don't give a shit about that and could care less about the site staff's time and the opinions of those who have reviewed your pieces to date... don't submit in the first place.

The fourth I'm very sympathetic to because, quite honestly, I've got some pretty seriously shitty mixes on this site. Not god-awful, and (unfortunately) not in violation of standards to the extent that they could be removed on those grounds, but still... pretty bad. And yet I've still received compliments on some of them, even recently. Which is testament to the extreme subjectivity of opinion when it comes to music. With OCR, we are trying to build a representative collection of works - a canon, if you will - that best exemplifies what we've set down in our mission statement and submission standards. We can't do that if mixers are removing pieces because they simply don't like them anymore. Again, as with the third motivation, the mixer's wishes have to be weighed against the amount of work that went into judges evaluating the mix, my posting it, listeners taking the time to review it, and the entire staff's effort to promote it via torrent distribution and other channels. This is ultimately too subjective a motivation to entertain.

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Hale-Bopp

05-19-2007, 07:23 PM

djpretzel

05-19-2007, 07:33 PM

Hey guys, I have an inquiry regarding the following policy:

"Copyright owners of the original arranged music may use OverClocked ReMixes in a for-profit context."

Is this referring only to the original game composer that the arrangement or remix is based off of? I'm assuming it is, but I dunno, I can't tell. I hate making assumptions without more details.

The reason I ask is because, for example, my Summertime remix contains original material written solely by me (the melody in the chorus along with the breakdown are my original ideas) and I've always assumed, naturally I suppose, that I still retain my rights to that particular original material that I wrote, meaning that I at least retain partial control over how the entire remix would be distributed, for profit or not.

I've always been in the dark on this subject and knew I'd have to bring it up at some point somewhere. May as well be here and now.

Thoughts?

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously.

It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so.

I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you.

So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question.

As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

Compyfox

05-19-2007, 08:17 PM

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

But in other words that still means "whoever wants to remove his songs, no matter what reason, we`re not going to do that" - unless I get that wrong. Especially if it's a legitime reason like "I'm sorry, but I was chosen for a CD compliation/I want to release my remixes with proper permission and contract, but this contract asks me to remove all sources of possible releases, may it be free or planned to be sold in any other way"?

Of course it's dissapointing that people want to part with OCR for you. But it's their decision, their creative work and not just a 1:1 remix from (let's say) Mitsuda alone, as demanded in the quality guidelines from OCR anyway (else it wouldn't have been submitted). So they can indeed do with their material as they please. And this is what it's all about, this whole discussion, and that's what AD commented on, too.

Is it really that difficult and troublesome? Nothing against you, Dave. But OCR is really not the only (videogame) remix related community out there.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Then why not doing the other way? Get a bit more lenient on rules, be more open minded. Does every track really have to be uber-produced to be suitable for this page? Do new mixers really need a massive quality check if they can get feedback and help from established mixers? Does every track need to be reviewed by the page founder and leader individually (if he's on a timer anyway)?

It worked with all those remixing projects out there, didn't it? And I guess this is what other communities made so popular. They work on a more musician focused basis, rather than on a quality forced and bottle-necked system. Fun vs. Uber-Professional Machinery - one is not the other.

Please don't see everything as mega difficult and highly professional. This is no record company that's talking about millions in terms of money income per year, but a "hobby community". Lighten up a little. :)

The Coop

05-19-2007, 08:22 PM

I think that we're running up against the difference between a content policy / license and how the site will actually respond to such requests. How we answer such requests - whether it be a with a "no", a two-week cool off period, etc. - really shouldn't be baked into the policy, which is more attuned to legal terms than those sorts of specifics. AD made a post questioning the legal feasability refusing removal without obtaining full ownership, and I responded with information that I believe suggests it is legally feasible. You seem to be questioning whether it's a good idea, or the procedure surrounding it, as opposed to the legal enforceability of the clauses as written.

Which is fine, by the way, but they really are two different topics.

Hmmmm... true. Perhaps I did mix the two a bit. But I do honestly believe both could affect the site in equally bad ways. They might not be able to take legal action over you're rejecting their removal request, but word of mouth can cause just as much hassle. I know the old saying goes "There's no such thing as bad press", but in reality, there is. I'd hate to see this place setting itself up because of the way a line of text is worded, and not expanded upon.

Speaking of which...

"Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist."

... is basically baking into the policy that you can/will reject removal requests by a given remixer. I may be wrong on this, but since you're telling people you can/will reject such things, isn't it a good idea to include how you will go about doing this? That seems like a rather important part of the policy being left out to me. I know it means properly wording even more things, and possibly delaying the policy's implementation, but a few small subsection additions like...

* Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. The actions taken upon a removal request may consist of...
- A two week postponement of the removal, during which the remixer can review his decision to have his/her remixes removed. At the end of the two weeks, if the remixer still wants their remixes taken down, they will be.
- Another way.
- Yet another way.

Should a given remix be removed from OverClocked Remix at the request of its remixer, that version of their remix will be permanently removed from the site's database, and can not be reinstated.

... don't seem like that big of a hardship. Plus, it'll make the policy that much more clean cut, and less ambiguous.

And BTW... "I found Jesus"? No offense intended to whomever had such a reason, but that's a rather odd reason to remove one's music...

... unless of course the remix has someone screaming "SATAN SATAN SATAN, IS YOUR MASTER! LORD OF THE FLIES RULES, FOREVER AFTER!" or something :wink:

djpretzel

05-19-2007, 08:36 PM

But in other words that still means "whoever wants to remove his songs, no matter what reason, we`re not going to do that" - unless I get that wrong. Especially if it's a legitime reason like "I'm sorry, but I was chosen for a CD compliation/I want to release my remixes with proper permission and contract, but this contract asks me to remove all sources of possible releases, may it be free or planned to be sold in any other way"?

No one else has yet echoed this concern of releasing mixes commercially on a contract that clashed with OCR's policy. I've already stated that if you think at any time that you'll want to sell your mix for profit, it's better that you didn't submit it. You've already said that you wouldn't submit anything if this is the case. This site's about free music; I don't consider the point you've raised a major concern. I thank you for raising it, as it's interesting and wasn't addressed, but I don't feel the policy needs to account for it.

Of course it's dissapointing that people want to part with OCR for you. But it's their decision, their creative work and not just a 1:1 remix from (let's say) Mitsuda alone, as demanded in the quality guidelines from OCR anyway (else it wouldn't have been submitted). So they can indeed do with their material as they please. And this is what it's all about, this whole discussion, and that's what AD commented on, too.

Is it really that difficult and troublesome? Nothing against you, Dave. But OCR is really not the only (videogame) remix related community out there.

It's not a "1:1 mix from Mitsuda", but it's also not a "1:1 mix" from the mixer. This is moot; the point I was making is that effort is involved to evaluate, post, and promote the mix, and on the part of listeners, to review it. None of the reasons for removal I listed counteract that, nor would your concern about commercial release.

Whether we're the only game mix site out there or not is moot and off-topic.

Then why not doing the other way? Get a bit more lenient on rules, be more open minded. Does every track really have to be uber-produced to be suitable for this page? Do new mixers really need a massive quality check if they can get feedback and help from established mixers? Does every track need to be reviewed by the page founder and leader individually (if he's on a timer anyway)?

Most of this is off-topic and does not pertain directly to the policy. You've already been warned once about this. Your feedback about the policy is appreciated, but limit it to that topic please, or we will need to start moderating.

The policy as written gives us the right to refuse removal requests, period. We will probably reword this into submitting artists granting us a "perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to distribute", etc., since that seems to be what other entities are using and what AD has not yet addressed re: legal feasibility. As for whether or not we would grant a removal request, I've said my piece about the rationale and criteria previously stated and what Compy's brought up. As written, the policy doesn't rule out a situation where a removal request would be fulfilled, but since I can't think of any that I find particularly compelling, modifying the policy to include hypotheticals seems moot. If Compy got an AMAZING album deal and we needed to remove his mix, would we? Maybe. But the policy as written won't spell this out, because these types of things are almost impossible to spell out.

Compyfox

05-19-2007, 08:52 PM

No one else has yet echoed this concern of releasing mixes commercially on a contract that clashed with OCR's policy. I've already stated that if you think at any time that you'll want to sell your mix for profit, it's better that you didn't submit it. You've already said that you wouldn't submit anything if this is the case. This site's about free music; I don't consider the point you've raised a major concern. I thank you for raising it, as it's interesting and wasn't addressed, but I don't feel the policy needs to account for it.

I think it does indeed need to be accounted - especially if the certain mix involved was already released (let's say) half a year ago, and was also the reason the firm contacted you.

In this case, there needs to be a certain solution found.

Most of this is off-topic and does not pertain directly to the policy. You've already been warned once about this. Your feedback about the policy is appreciated, but limit it to that topic please, or we will need to start moderating.

*sigh* You sure are picky. I just commented on your post, and in this case, you went OT first. It's not like I hijack this thread and talk about the difference of an african or european swallow or something like that.

Dhsu

05-19-2007, 09:01 PM

Well, he was talking about the work it takes to post remixes, but then you went off on a tangent on the site standards...those two aren't really related, I don't think.

Pongball

05-19-2007, 09:02 PM

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously.

It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so.

I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you.

So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question.

As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

I honestly feel that it would be better to just leave that part of the policy out entirely. I can see where you're coming from in terms of trying to offer the copyright holders something in return for not sending out cease & desists, but at the same time, the remixers themselves are getting a pretty bad deal out of it.

From what I understand about copyrights, there are three different types that apply to music: there's separate copyrights over melodies, the recording itself, and any lyrical content. In the case of most remixes, the remixer actually holds more copyrights over their remix than the copyright holder of the source music. In most cases, the remixer owns the copyright for the recording itself, and also for any original material within the remix. The only copyright they're infringing on, obviously, is the notes of the melody that were taken from the source music.

In the case of a remix with original lyrics, the remixer actually holds three copyrights over their mix, while the copyright holder of the source music holds only one.

I personally agree that the exposure of having their music played in a commercial work would be great for most remixers -- but it should still be up to them to negotiate how it's handled. Having the site give the copyright holders of the source music permission to use a remixer's recording, original melodies, and possible original lyrics however they please just seems really wrong to me.

Assuming that this contract is retroactive, this seems really, really wrong to me. None of the remixers submitting music up until now have agreed to license their music for use in commercial material. This would basically be saying to anyone who opposes this part of the policy but has already submitted their music here, "Sorry, you're screwed, we changed the contract."

I wish I had a better answer for how to please the source copyright owners, but I still feel that this is not the way to go about it.

Liontamer

05-19-2007, 09:18 PM

I honestly feel that it would be better to just leave that part of the policy out entirely. I can see where you're coming from in terms of trying to offer the copyright holders something in return for not sending out cease & desists, but at the same time, the remixers themselves are getting a pretty bad deal out of it.

From what I understand about copyrights, there are three different types that apply to music: there's separate copyrights over melodies, the recording itself, and any lyrical content. In the case of most remixes, the remixer actually holds more copyrights over their remix than the copyright holder of the source music. In most cases, the remixer owns the copyright for the recording itself, and also for any original material within the remix. The only copyright they're infringing on, obviously, is the notes of the melody that were taken from the source music.

In the case of a remix with original lyrics, the remixer actually holds three copyrights over their mix, while the copyright holder of the source music holds only one.

I personally agree that the exposure of having their music played in a commercial work would be great for most remixers -- but it should still be up to them to negotiate how it's handled. Having the site give the copyright holders of the source music permission to use a remixer's recording, original melodies, and possible original lyrics however they please just seems really wrong to me.

Assuming that this contract is retroactive, this seems really, really wrong to me. None of the remixers submitting music up until now have agreed to license their music for use in commercial material. This would basically be saying to anyone who opposes this part of the policy but has already submitted their music here, "Sorry, you're screwed, we changed the contract."

I wish I had a better answer for how to please the source copyright owners, but I still feel that this is not the way to go about it.
I'll agree with that. Not simply on an "it sounds good basis", but I believe you're right that there may be enough ambiguity in the picture that we may need to rethink that policy.

We may have to state that copyright holders of the original material need to contact the ReMixers in cases where they would like to commercially use the arrangements. AFAIK, it's what Tommy Tallarico did with the ReMixers whose tracks are on the Earthworm Jim Anthology (http://gmronline.com/info.asp?CatNumber=none0277) album. Going that route would be, in effect, washing our hands of that whole process since we don't own the ReMixes anyway. I'm interested in other POVs.

Bahamut

05-19-2007, 10:17 PM

Geoffrey Taucer

05-19-2007, 10:34 PM

Pongball

05-19-2007, 10:34 PM

I agree with Pongball & Larry on the part that should probably be taken out - the ReMixers did make the arrangement, and so they should be compensated somehow if it's used commercially. It gives less incentive for rearrangers out there to submit to OCR since a company may be able to hijack the track without giving proper credit to them.

Well, it's more that I think the remixers should have a bit more control over that situation should it come up. Many remixers would probably be fine with letting the company use their remix for no compensation. Others might find that unfair, and prefer to arrange a deal with the company themselves. I'm sure most would prefer to at least be contacted first.

It's a pretty sticky situation no matter how you look at it, since the remixer is infringing their copyright to begin with, but I think many copyright holders (such as the example that Liontamer gave just now) would still be rather sympathetic.

Anyway, like I said before, I can totally understand that djpretzel is just trying to protect the site by offering copyright holders a benefit too, but when you think about it, it's pretty doubtful that a company that has a problem with the site would suddenly be like "Oh wait, this changes everything!"

GODJonez

05-19-2007, 11:34 PM

This new draft seems to cover the parts missing in the current policy nicely, especially the content that I was wondering about.

Keep up the good work. Everyone.

zircon

05-20-2007, 12:12 AM

I want to bring up a couple things regarding intellectual property, as this is an area of law that I am studying.

With regards to the license issue, AD is partially correct. When you license something you are not giving ownership. Copyrights can be split and shared among any number of people. Additionally, specific rights can be shared and not others. Take my song "Throwdown". I can retain full control over the right to mechanically reproduce & distribute the song, and also the right the synchronize it with a visual. To date I have licensed the song to several people, giving them the limited right to synchronize the song with their video. They have no ownership. They cannot use the song for anything else than what I allowed them to use it for.

But there's another side of the story here. Just because you own a copyright doesn't mean you transcend contract law. Let's say I sign a contract saying, "I hereby grant Person B the non-exclusive right to synchronize my song 'Throwdown' in 'Crappy Student Film III' and edit it as necessary." Then, I decide I don't want Person B to use my song. I can't simply say "You don't have the right to use my song anymore. I own the copyright, and you don't, so what I say goes." I signed a contract that was legally binding, and if I bar them from using it they can sue me for breach of contract.

I'm speaking from experience here, BTW - besides my school studies in areas like copyright, business law, contract law, and publishing, I also actually deal with licensing music and copyright manipulation all the time because I license my own music (and license things from other people) and have to read/write contracts for it.

djpretzel

05-20-2007, 06:17 AM

Alright, there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed. I'll edit it and remove it now.

BrainCells

05-20-2007, 02:40 PM

big giant circles

05-20-2007, 03:01 PM

Well, I agree a policy is needed and honestly the terms here are not as hard as we're used to see around. I agree with most of it and I even understand your points about removal requests, how much work is involved and all that.

However, after reading most of this thread, it sounds to me like "we're not taking your songs out no matter the reason" and it's not ok for me, since it's obvious that IF I someday have a reason to ask my songs to be removed, it will not be taken in consideration.

In the six plus years of running the site, we've had removal requests that more or less fall into the following categories:
I don't like OverClocked ReMix anymore. Please remove my mixes.
djpretzel, someone on the forums, or a member of the site staff has offended me. Remove all my mixes.
I've found Jesus or had some other type of epiphany/revelation in my life, and no longer wish to make my music available online in any form, anywhere. Remove my mixes.
I don't like one or more of my mixes any more, and believe it represents either my own abilities or OverClocked ReMix itself in a negative fashion. Remove my mix(es).... and that's it. And, since some of us have decided to be more frank/hostile than others, I'd just like to say that I don't personally respect any of these motivations very much.

The first is petty; usually someone doesn't like something we said or did and thinks they can punish us by removing their material, or make some sort of grand political statement. The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music. Music that you supposedly made with the site's mission statement in mind: to honor game music and game composers. Removing your mix because of personal motivations is just that - personal. To me, it represents selfishness. This was somebody's ELSE's music that you've arranged and made available for free, and suddenly you have the nerve to use it as a bartering mechanism, or to make some sort of statement? Reserve that type of action for your own music, that's 100% yours, 100% original.

The second is worse than the first, as instead of any sort of ideological or procedural objection that could at least be seen as an issue of principle, we're instead talking about personal insults. Let me explain something: the tens of thousands of people that listen to and enjoy this music don't have any idea of the dramarama and politics that sometimes occur here, and don't want to. And they're the ones most directly affected by mix removal. And, again, if you wanna rebel against something... do it with original works. While I'm the first to acknowledge and appreciate that ReMixes involve a great deal of original material - we emphasize this all the time, in fact - they still represent arrangements of someone else's music. To try to "punish" OCR via mix removal is misguided in the first place; to do so with emo motivations doubly so.

The third is interesting. I might tend to have the most sympathy with this sort of explanation. However, along with the first two motivations, it too is selfish: I personally dedicate a good deal of my time to preparing and posting each mix, as does the site staff in judging them and moderating review discussion, and listeners in reviewing them. There's numerous people who've invested time and effort to every single mix on the site, not just the submitting artist. Luiza has emphasized, among other things, that she does this for "fun". That's fine - so do we - but for the fun that each submitting mixer has in making the mix, there's still a lot of work involved, and this holds true on our end as well. We're all about the fun, but OCR chews up a lot of our time as well. If as an artist you don't give a shit about that and could care less about the site staff's time and the opinions of those who have reviewed your pieces to date... don't submit in the first place.

The fourth I'm very sympathetic to because, quite honestly, I've got some pretty seriously shitty mixes on this site. Not god-awful, and (unfortunately) not in violation of standards to the extent that they could be removed on those grounds, but still... pretty bad. And yet I've still received compliments on some of them, even recently. Which is testament to the extreme subjectivity of opinion when it comes to music. With OCR, we are trying to build a representative collection of works - a canon, if you will - that best exemplifies what we've set down in our mission statement and submission standards. We can't do that if mixers are removing pieces because they simply don't like them anymore. Again, as with the third motivation, the mixer's wishes have to be weighed against the amount of work that went into judges evaluating the mix, my posting it, listeners taking the time to review it, and the entire staff's effort to promote it via torrent distribution and other channels. This is ultimately too subjective a motivation to entertain.

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Well, other than wanting to take a song that's been posted for free distribution, and then wanting to revoke it so it can be sold for profit, is there any other reason Dave hasn't covered that would truly justify wanting to take down a mix? Not to sound like a kiss-ass, I think Dave pretty well covered his reasons for not counting those as valid reasons, and he explained his reasoning really well.

My questions are: Will this policy work for previously released material? If I don't agree with the new policy, would this be the right time for me to ask my songs to be removed?

that part, i can't really answer for you, but i will say i hope not.

djpretzel

05-20-2007, 03:12 PM

However, after reading most of this thread, it sounds to me like "we're not taking your songs out no matter the reason" and it's not ok for me, since it's obvious that IF I someday have a reason to ask my songs to be removed, it will not be taken in consideration.

My questions are: Will this policy work for previously released material? If I don't agree with the new policy, would this be the right time for me to ask my songs to be removed?

Edit: I'm not saying I'm gonna do that...

Well, if there were truly no way we'd remove your mixes at all, we would just say "OverClocked ReMix will refuse all removal requests" instead of "reserves the right to", but as I've stated, I can't think of any good reasons. Compy's issue about commercial licensing is probably the best reason thus discussed, and even then it would depend on the circumstances, but not barring that sort of situation... I suppose, hypothetically, if I started putting swastikas everywhere on the site and donating all ad revenue to white supremacist groups, as a ReMixer I'd want my tracks removed as well. Hopefully there's a good bit of trust that that won't happen...

This policy will not automatically be applied to previous mixes without the artists' consent. I intend to ask all mixers to grant such consent, but if they choose not to, their pieces will not be removed unless they so desire. Submission of any future material, however, would involve the policy not only being applied to that individual submission, but prior submissions as well. We'll keep track of who has or hasn't accepted the policy, our of necessity. I'd like to think that there's trust going both ways here that, after six years of hosting mixes for $0.00, spending hours upon hours working on the site, etc., that we're not actively out to screw anyone, much less the group of artists responsible for getting us where we are.

Pongball

05-20-2007, 03:25 PM

Hale-Bopp

05-20-2007, 03:37 PM

Awesome. :) Thank you.
Seconded. :)

Compyfox

05-20-2007, 05:40 PM

Well, if there were truly no way we'd remove your mixes at all, we would just say "OverClocked ReMix will refuse all removal requests" instead of "reserves the right to", but as I've stated, I can't think of any good reasons. Compy's issue about commercial licensing is probably the best reason thus discussed, and even then it would depend on the circumstances, but not barring that sort of situation...

Sorry for double asking, but just to be sure because my english is just in "buffer overload mode" in terms of translation.

I mean... what other circumstances need there to be? If a mixer says "this track doesn't reflect my current standards anymore, so I want to remove it please", or "I'm bound to a contract which makes it impossible to offer this track for free anymore"... isn't that enough information?

Maybe I just understood it wrong (like I said, buffer overflow, same as with the sentence "there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed" - even after translating it for the 5th time with a dictionary I still don't really get it), but at the moment it still sounds to me "we accept your opinion, thank you - but unfortunately we have to reject your request".

Also, I still see that "reserves the right to" part in the draft on page one... hm...

DUH! Head-asplode... can't that be a bit simpler and not that much like lawyer english? I'm not that bad at english, but in this case, I definitely lost track of what-the-hell-is-going-on.

djpretzel

05-20-2007, 06:20 PM

I mean... what other circumstances need there to be? If a mixer says "this track doesn't reflect my current standards anymore, so I want to remove it please", or "I'm bound to a contract which makes it impossible to offer this track for free anymore"... isn't that enough information?

No. In fact, the first reason I've already said I find insufficient, period. The second can't really be true; unless the contract was agreed to BEFORE the mix was submitted, the contract would be void if it required something that was not yet done to have effect.

Now, let's say you were ABOUT to sign into a contract that would require removing the track. We'd need a good deal of information. For example, it couldn't be a contract between you and yourself that you've created simply to remove the track, and we'd probably want to talk directly to the third party writing the contract and try to persuade them that our offering the track was in their best interests.

I'm not really sure too many people are interested in this aspect of the policy besides you; I've already sorta said that if you wish to use pieces for profit in the future, I'd recommend not making them available for free anywhere, including OCR. That being the case, if this hypothetical situation indeed came up, we'd want to see the contract and talk to those who drafted it to see if an exception could be made first.

I have rewritten the artist policy and intend to rewrite the third-party usage policy as well. I believe the rewrite is a bit clearer, more legally sound, and organizes the different thoughts better:

You retain ownership and copyright of all material submitted to OverClocked ReMix. By submitting material You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide right and license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed. This license explicitly prohibits OverClocked ReMix from distributing submitted materials for profit. All revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted materials will be used for costs directly associated with the operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix. Evaluation and acceptance or rejection of submitted materials is under the sole discretion of OverClocked ReMix. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies You from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

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.

This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.

Dhsu

05-20-2007, 08:29 PM

Wow, "perpetual" and "irrevocable" sound really ominous, even in the "non-exclusive" context. I'm not really suggesting a change of wording...just stating an observation.

djpretzel

05-20-2007, 09:39 PM

Wow, "perpetual" and "irrevocable" sound really ominous, even in the "non-exclusive" context. I'm not really suggesting a change of wording...just stating an observation.

I agree. It's unfortunate. However, AD made some comments that prompted research on my part, and this is pretty much boiler-plate wording for what we're shooting for, employed by a lot of different sites/organizations. I know there have been suggestions to go for a more layman's language, informal approach, as the result of this legalese is that it makes us sound like we're going to steal your first-born children, but if we're going to have a policy at all, I'm shooting for one that would actually hold up, if it ever needed to. I honestly don't think it ever will, and I highly suspect that once this policy is in place and we've got something that most everyone can agree on, things will remain the same, and people will forget the contention surrounding certain aspects.

I'm trying to please as many people as possible; we DEFINITELY put this out in draft format with the full intention of modifying it based on feedback, and have been doing so, with the changes to make mixer name mandatory when redistributing and to remove explicit for-profit usage exemptions for copyright owners. But not all changes proposed are going to be implemented. We can't please all the people all the time and end up with a policy that says hardly anything, so the legalese and ominous wording really has to stay.

djpretzel

05-20-2007, 10:53 PM

Very important addition:

"This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement. "

This essentially makes the policy retroactive, but only if you submit something additional after it goes into effect.

Also, I've renamed the two policies "Submission Agreement" and "Terms of Use" as these are more intuitive and official. In addition, I've reworded and reformatted the Terms of Use so that they are similar to the Submission Agreement. Essentially, submitting artists are granting us one license (which is sub-licensable), and then we're turning around and sub-licensing it to... pretty much everyone, as long as they meet the described criteria.

Geoffrey Taucer

05-21-2007, 12:05 AM

Compyfox

05-21-2007, 06:44 AM

*sigh* Sorry to cause a big rukus on this, but this is really bugging me. Maybe others too, but it's just that I'll play the black sheep and play that till the end.

No. In fact, the first reason I've already said I find insufficient, period. The second can't really be true; unless the contract was agreed to BEFORE the mix was submitted, the contract would be void if it required something that was not yet done to have effect.

You still can't do that. The material is still the property of the creative mind. It's not how you personally think about this issue, you set up rules here, and there're no "personal opinions" allowed, but only objective judgement.

Furthermore, once more a "what if" but these are all possibilities that can happen, and happened already... What if the track was submitted already, and due to the fact that "this" particular track was submitted, a certain firm came to you and said "wow this track is awesome - we want to feature it, please put it down, we write you a contract with further rules and info of how you'd getting paid". This is the same as you said, but it's happening AFTER it was released (or even submitted and/or in the judging process) on OCR. It's a reversed contractract in this case and you have your written confirmation why you have to put it down. No further check needed, or a discussion "but can we keep it?".

Or can you see into the future and know "this track will be put on CD someday"? I sure can't!

Same as with all other removal request. Virt said he didn't want it on your page anymore, because you didn't have some sort of rules layed down what to happen with his tracks. If I can remember, JDHarding put them down due to quarrels, others asked for putting their stuff down because they had re-mixed (as in form of newly engineered) material at hand, or they were like "sorry, doesn't reflect my style anymore" (which is still their right to do so). And if we look at it from another point of view, that stuff is still "spread" on OCRemoved, even though most of those stuff listed there, is posted without our permission(!) - for example that "Mission of Mana" mix of mine, and it's also having the OCRemix tag(!), where you in the draft say "we can deny the usage of "OCRemix".

Were talking about something that you try, to my impression, forbid as if it's happening every other day. Of course it's some sort of extra effort, but it is still the Work of it's original creator. And due to the fact that you wrote on your new draft enhancement, that you're only a licensee, the mixer providing his material still has the final word on it, hasn't he?

I'm not really sure too many people are interested in this aspect of the policy besides you; I've already sorta said that if you wish to use pieces for profit in the future, I'd recommend not making them available for free anywhere, including OCR. That being the case, if this hypothetical situation indeed came up, we'd want to see the contract and talk to those who drafted it to see if an exception could be made first.

Like I said, I may be the only one expressing it, but it is a delicate situation and it needs to be discussed. The problem is, you can of course go to a firm and say "I have a mix, am I allowed to distribute it commercially" before you consider going "public domain", but usually they're like "who the heck are you?" and reject that request. Unless however, you're already known in the scene (example: OCR, or to the remixed artist) and/or you're really good, then they're more friendly and be like "nice tracks you got there, want to be featured maybe?". In this case, all that's coming next is kinda rolling backwards, and chances are, if you mixed for three different games, one of them being the game in question for the compilation, that these tracks will be needed to be removed. And you have to agree.

In reality, we're not even allowed to submit anything online the one way or another. This counts to Soundclick, MySpace, mp3.com, KWED, thSauce, VGMix, AnimeMix, AmigaMix and OCR. We're doing the illegal thing but tag it as "fanwork" - it's accepted, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do so. We just do it.

To get back on topic - the new draft enhancement is still kinda preventing that. For example you say

By submitting material You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide right and license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed.

Which means you will post it on your behalf as presentation platform, but the track still belongs to the mixer. However a couple of sentences later:

This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination.

Well from my side, I "have to" agree the termination (even if it's only partially, meaning only one of the games I mixed - again as example with the contract), but in the same time it still sounds to me "only if we see a reason in it", while negating that with the request to speak to the contract holder to be "really sure" and ignoring requests from people who say "sorry - doesn't reflect my work anymore". This is contradictorily and doesn't really work IMO. The whole last passage doesn't really work to be honest. First you refuse to remove the material, second you can remove it anytime if you think it's a violation of the rules.

I know I'm picky, I stand to that point, but to me it's still as if it's a adhesion contract. While we still have all "rights", we loose them at the same time with that small paragraph. Why not simply remove it completely? This makes all "what if's" possible and rather write "we give you a two week grace period if you decided out of anger to remove your stuff - should you after two weeks still want to remove your stuff, we will do so but ban further submissions". Everything else is a more or less rare exception and shouldn't be "backward-punished", as written in this sentence:

This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement.

Don't you think so, too?

In the end, you saying "removing that part" didn't happen after all. We're still kinda running in circles - and there's no "fun" involved anymore either. Sorry about that...

Bahamut

05-21-2007, 08:03 AM

Formalizing something is never fun, but there's always necessity for it - if not, you open up the road for plenty of exploits, which users have seen over the years in the community (fraudulent claims, selling OC ReMixes, etc.). To say that there is no fun at all is vapid and completely missing the point. To be honest, a formalized policy should always be drawn when making even a website for fun when it involves several people. I have to do the same soon enough as well, as people have shown that they will abuse privileges on the Internet if allowed to.

While we still have all "rights", we loose them at the same time with that small paragraph. Why not simply remove it completely? This makes all "what if's" possible and rather write "we give you a two week grace period if you decided out of anger to remove your stuff - should you after two weeks still want to remove your stuff, we will do so but ban further submissions". Everything else is a more or less rare exception and shouldn't be "backward-punished", as written in this sentence:

You do not lose most of them by such a paragraph at all - perhaps you're misinterpreting it. You do not lose the right to distribute the song of question by other means. You do not lose the right to license the song out to another. You don't even lose the ownership of the song. The paragraph just assigns certain cases in which you can seek for a license termination. As the draft asserts OCR as a non-profit organization, OCR cannot use the songs for profit, promotion, or anything commercially related, so there are well-stated bounds on what OCR can do. So I ask, what rights do you lose? It appears to be nothing lost but what is strictly agreed to by the licensor & the licensee.

Also, keep in mind that the site's purpose has always been to honor video game music. If someone wants to release a commercial album, and there's an issue about using a currently available track on OCR and the desire of the person to use it in his/her album, it would be incredibly narrowminded to try to force OCR to take down the track instead of writing another one, as it would be an example of someone exerting greed for what he/she once gave freely and without limit, and contrary to the site's stated purpose. Would you consider it worth it to exert pressure for what you once gave freely for greed? I don't see how anyone can justify exerting pressure via the composer/company owning the original composition with the site's purpose in mind without being one of the most petty & ruinous people out there.

I don't even see why record companies would refuse allowing OCR to remain hosting the song in question, as there is already a couple of examples of songs here that are similar or exactly the same as songs sold on an album - the most striking example is the Estradasphere OC ReMix "Super Buck Jazz". This song is on their commercial album as "Super Buck II", and there has been no issues to this date as far as I'm aware, as it IS free advertisement.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 12:00 PM

Compyfox

05-21-2007, 12:11 PM

EDIT:
THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BEFORE DJP COMMENTED ON BAHAMUTS LAST POST! So if something sounds like an outburst of some sort, I'm sorry about that and my chosen words. Furthermore, this is a direct answer to Bahamut's post, not DJP's.

I'm slowly giving up now. You obviously don't want to understand what's the problem here. Fine... whatever.

You do not lose most of them by such a paragraph at all - perhaps you're misinterpreting it. You do not lose the right to distribute the song of question by other means. You do not lose the right to license the song out to another. You don't even lose the ownership of the song. The paragraph just assigns certain cases in which you can seek for a license termination. As the draft asserts OCR as a non-profit organization, OCR cannot use the songs for profit, promotion, or anything commercially related, so there are well-stated bounds on what OCR can do. So I ask, what rights do you lose? It appears to be nothing lost but what is strictly agreed to by the licensor & the licensee.

I CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! Period. I can not say at this moment of day "oh... this track I'm working on will be featured on a CD". I can however try to get it on a CD, though if it doesn't work, I can think about the option going to OCR (even if I'm not allowed to one way or another - the "fanmaterial" thing again). Then again I can't predict the future of what might happen so that I need to take down the track one way or another.

According to Dave's words, some issues are a strict no-no situation and he'd reject the request (one of them being "put them down due to quality reflection of the creative mind"), and others need to clearly discussed, considered and accepted first, before there is a "yes - we will remove your track(s) but you're not allowed to mix for us anymore in the future".

Same as with remixing projects for example. It's not a rare issue that people presented their remixes "before" their tracks were featured on the project (happened with all OCR projects except "Relics of the Chozo", as it was made with barely no attention). Now if I, as founder and leader of this project say "you're not allowed to submit anything before the proper release, and may it take years", but you go ahead and do it anyway, the track is getting submitted, released, I see that and I write the page founder "sorry, one of my mixers ignored one of the rules for this remixing project to be created - please put down the track" - can you still say "no, as this track is a free release, it'll be on the project anyway - see it as promotion"?

This doesn't work this way. And this is what's clearly glaring at me! Maybe you misinterpret things, or don't understand it - or it is my language barrier, but I can't be that off.

Also, keep in mind that the site's purpose has always been to honor video game music. If someone wants to release a commercial album, and there's an issue about using a currently available track on OCR and the desire of the person to use it in his/her album, it would be incredibly narrowminded to try to force OCR to take down the track instead of writing another one, as it would be an example of someone exerting greed for what he/she once gave freely and without limit, and contrary to the site's stated purpose. Would you consider it worth it to exert pressure for what you once gave freely for greed? I don't see how anyone can justify exerting pressure via the composer/company owning the original composition with the site's purpose in mind without being one of the most petty & ruinous people out there.

This is not a thing to decide, isn't it? And so what if it's really the same song? If the firm wants it that way, and it'll be put into (for example) the next Tony Hawk 1:1 to what it was available for free over here, then so be it. You still have to put it down according to the contract, because now there're different forms of royalty payments involved. And even if you can't change the factor "fan downloads" anymore, you can change the factor "page/internet releases".

Or do you call Machinae Supremacy greedy because they released half of their current albums for free on their own page (though lately snippets only rather than full tracks like they used to be)? Or what about Linkin Park? Popular OCR mixer examples would be SGX, Haroon Piracha and zircon, too.

A contract is a contract - am I writing all this in vain?

I don't even see why record companies would refuse allowing OCR to remain hosting the song in question, as there is already a couple of examples of songs here that are similar or exactly the same as songs sold on an album - the most striking example is the Estradasphere OC ReMix "Super Buck Jazz". This song is on their commercial album as "Super Buck II", and there has been no issues to this date as far as I'm aware, as it IS free advertisement.

Did they make contracts with the original copyright holders? Were they asked to be featured on a official CD? Is their music so popular that they play in high ranks or is it more "urban" and nobody really cares "what" is on the CD or whether or not they pay proper royalty fees?

These are all essential things to consider to wheter something is adjusted or not. But okay, from all answers I got to my posts, I clearly get the wink "forget it, never happened, never will be, you're screwed - go somewhere else or don't submit it".

And due to that, I draw the shortest straw and give in. If this issue is discussed on a close minded basis only, I really don't want to be a part of OCR as remixing participant in the future, as I won't agree with the points made in the draft and therefore rather reserve my rights to post my (upcoming) remixes at another place.

Sorry about that.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 12:30 PM

Compyfox, I was under the impression that you didn't intend to submit anything additional to OCR anyways, before this policy was even introduced or being discussed. I believe you've indicated this yourself on numerous occasions: that you would help others produce their own mixes, but not create or submit your own. Since this was your intention prior to the introduction of this policy draft, it's hard to take your objections very seriously. Is this not accurate?

Compyfox

05-21-2007, 01:30 PM

That doesn't mean that I stopped mixing and not consider releasing stuff. It is indeed correct that I stopped submitting out of my own will, and also due to the fact that I barely have any material to submit which would suit the "current standards". It is also correct that I still help mixers/musicians to enhance their material from time to time (on a free and commercial basis).

Then again, this is kinda off-topic and doesn't have anything to do with the draft. No matter if I decide to submit or not is out of the question at that moment - I wrote my comments in general. Like I said, I may be the only one voicing those concerns, but it can hit anyone out there who's going the way of a more professional musician, or is on "the edge" rather than being a hobby musician only.

As someone who had to do with the law in terms of "copyright issues" already, I can relate and know a thing or two. This is why I raised my voice.

Geoffrey Taucer

05-21-2007, 01:37 PM

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 02:33 PM

I'm a bit concerned at the direction this is taking, because as of right now, with the policy as it stands, the only one raising serious objections and continuing to protest is Compyfox. I'm not sure where Luiza stands, given the revisions made, and I'm not sure besides these two if there's anyone else that has serious concerns.

As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time. I really do appreciate Compyfox's continued interest in discussing it, but I'm also not sure if we're making any progress - for one, there appear to still be misinterpretation issues, and also the core things being objected to aren't things that I think we're going to change unless we see far more concern from others. Additionally, many seem to be fine with the current draft.

So I'd like to suggest that anyone who agrees with Compyfox and has serious issues with the draft in its current state chime in, and that he remain quiet for a bit while we see if there are others who agree with him and can state his objections more clearly or add to them.

We're still in the discussion/draft stage, but I'm much happier with the current draft. If we don't see a lot of new issues being raised in the next day or so, or new people echoing the same sentiments, then I intend to run a poll trying to gauge general opinion of the draft, and proceed from there based on that feedback.

Argh, just got back from drill.

Anyhow, I think the new wording of the draft is more sound on a legal basis, but it still seems unfair to me. I just think that creative control of the work should remain with the person who made it. I understand asking for a cool down period, or barring further submissions as a for of "look before you leap", but I think that people should be allowed to control who and what gets to display their Work, especially when they're doing it for free.

And here's the one thing I don't understand yet. What does this site gain from siezing control of the mixes? DJP has already stated that he doesn't respect the reasons for asking for a remix to be removed, but I don't think that the motives behind the request should really come into the picture.

From where I stand, asking for your mix to be removed from OCR is no different than, say, pulling your mix from a project album. People may not like it, you might be doing for spiteful reasons, like not wanting to associate with someone who's working on the project, but in the end, it's the same thing, and I think it should be your right to do so. I just don't understand why rejecting removal requests help the site.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 03:01 PM

From where I stand, asking for your mix to be removed from OCR is no different than, say, pulling your mix from a project album. People may not like it, you might be doing for spiteful reasons, like not wanting to associate with someone who's working on the project, but in the end, it's the same thing, and I think it should be your right to do so. I just don't understand why rejecting removal requests help the site.

It's no different from pulling your mix from a project album AFTER that album has been released. Doing so beforehand would be like withdrawing a submission, which is fine, but doing so afterwards is not only silly, because the album has already been widely distributed, but petty, and insulting towards the project coordinator and others who worked on it.

We think of OCR as one big album, not just as a hosting service for files.

Many sites take that approach, but we're not them. Everything we post involves substantial work on our part, that work is non-refundable, and when you submit you're in essence forming the same type of partnership that all musicians do when they collaborate on an album. You wouldn't see Run-D.M.C. trying to halt all distribution of their collaboration with Aerosmith because Steve Tyler hurt their feelings, and the Beatles didn't try to go back and edit Lennon out when he ditched them for Yoko, or attempt to stop distribution of their albums.

We may not be at that level of musical recognition, but we aspire towards excellence, towards raising perception and awareness of game music, and we use OCR as one, big, cumulative album to do that. To succeed, I believe this concept needs the same type of trust those individuals had that they wouldn't want to somehow magically recall their music out of personal motivation.

You're asking me what we gain, and I'm telling you we gain professionalism as well as protection from personal motivations, resulting in the ability to treat OCR as the evolving, cumulative, representative album of game arrangements we believe it to be.

To achieve this end, we're asking for mixers to think of OCR as a physical album release - once it's out there, it's out there. This is consistent with our policy on replacing older versions with newer versions that are only somewhat improved: we won't do it unless it's a totally different mix that can stand on its own. There's no rewriting history, and (except maybe in extremely hypothetical scenarios) we don't want to be erasing it, either.

We ask for nothing unusual relative to the terms of collaborating on a physical album release that involves multiple artists, and we offer in return free hosting, critique, and promotion of your music.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 04:31 PM

You're asking me what we gain, and I'm telling you we gain professionalism as well as protection from personal motivations, resulting in the ability to treat OCR as the evolving, cumulative, representative album of game arrangements we believe it to be.

To achieve this end, we're asking for mixers to think of OCR as a physical album release - once it's out there, it's out there. This is consistent with our policy on replacing older versions with newer versions that are only somewhat improved: we won't do it unless it's a totally different mix that can stand on its own. There's no rewriting history, and (except maybe in extremely hypothetical scenarios) we don't want to be erasing it, either.

We ask for nothing unusual relative to the terms of collaborating on a physical album release that involves multiple artists, and we offer in return free hosting, critique, and promotion of your music.

But that's the thing, you don't gain professionalism, you gain possesion. Professionalism cannot be secured by any legal contract, it's a manner of behavior. When JDHarding had his spat and bailed, it was very unprofessional. Do you really think this clause would have made him act in a more professional manner? No. But he took his mixes and left. I think that by keeping the mixes, it forces a link to remain between the remixer and the site, and just drags it out farther. Case in point, Protricity. Very unprofessional in his actions, and he became a reccuring problem that lasted for over a year.

The analogy I think of is kids playing catch. Kid gets pissy, takes his ball, and goes home. It's petty, but it's his right, and it'll end there. If the other kids decide to keep his ball, then things get much uglier, the kid might start a fight, or get higher powers involved. All for another half hour of playing catch? Is it worth it?

You want to treat OCR like a physical album, but it's not. It's not even close. It's constantly evolving and changing. A physical album is a one and done affair, it gets released, then it does not change after that. OCR, on the other hand, is a constant work in process, it's constantly changing. It's a project that never gets finalized.

I'm going to go back to Bound Together here, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just trying to convey my mode of thought here to you, and I think that going over the motivations of a similar situation might help me figure out where you're getting this from. When you bailed on BT, it was because something changed. On this occasion, it was because Virt was unveiled as part of the lineup, and for whatever reason, you didn't want your work in the same lineup as his. I see this as the same situation, the community and lineup here at OCR is constantly changing. If something changes, and it rubs a remixer the wrong way, they'll find themselves in a situation very similar to how you did on Bound Together. You'll find yourself in the same situation as Joe Cam was in. You'll have someone who doesn't like a change you allowed to take place, and wants out. I personally, am a firm believer of the right to exit, the right to take your ball and go home, if you want to. I don't believe that the motivations that drive you to exit are important, it's nice to explain them to the people who will have to deal with it, but in the end, you can go. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a right to enter, or re-enter.

I look at OCR as a club, and DJP and the Judges panel are the owners. As the controller of this fine establishment, you can allow people in, or bar them from entering, you can kick them out once they're in, however, you can't keep them there against their will. That's just my thoughts on this.

Compyfox

05-21-2007, 04:35 PM

EDIT: Answer to DJPs post...

Still we can't predict the future if something like I mentioned earlier is really happening, and it is a delicate issue.

Removing mixes due to the fact that it's not good enough for the participant anymore is a different issue. I mean, even worldwide known actors need to live with a certain release, so it kinda is understandable to reject the request (unless it has a very deeper background involved, like... MIDI Rip for example, or a very, very bad mixing, which shouldn't be the issue anymore due to the song standards - whoever wondered why I put my track down, this was the reason and I barely wrote anything since then). But everything else, even if it's a "extremely hypothetical what-if scenario" needs a certain solution.

From the chat with you just a minute ago, I know that you'll look into it, and some other things we discussed. I just have the feeling that we still are a bit restricted in our rights as people participating to this... giant "album".

EDIT2:
And thanks to DragonFireKai. You share my concerns in a different light, but with the same outcome. Much appreciated.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 05:18 PM

I'm going to go back to Bound Together here, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just trying to convey my mode of thought here to you, and I think that going over the motivations of a similar situation might help me figure out where you're getting this from. When you bailed on BT, it was because something changed.

....

I look at OCR as a club, and DJP and the Judges panel are the owners. As the controller of this fine establishment, you can allow people in, or bar them from entering, you can kick them out once they're in, however, you can't keep them there against their will. That's just my thoughts on this.

While this policy cannot guarantee the professionalism of those submitting, obviously, what it can help protect is the professionalism of the site entire. We're presenting OCR as a canon, and while you're right that it's constantly being added to, removal is not the same.

You're perfectly fine by me with bringing up BT; in that instance, the album had not yet been released. I would not have objected to a policy for BT which stated that, once released, pieces were not retractable. I still would have been pissed to have been intentionally kept in the dark on an issue that was important to me, but once the album is released... what can you do? That was, I believe, a violation of my trust. My recourse, had such a policy existed and I agreed to it, would be to not collaborate with those individuals again. So behaves the music industry. Additionally, in over six years I don't feel that OCR has ever violated trust in a comparable way to what happened with BT, and I endeavor to ensure that it never will. As an additional side note, I'm not as sure as I once was that the intentions of those behind the BT thing were "bad" - I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding that should have been preventable with foresight, but not an outright attempt to screw me over.

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, and if someone adamantly wanted their piece removed, we'd be out the $1000-$2000 it cost to do a large run of such items. From our perspective, we were trying to promote everyone's music in yet another way, but one person came along and made that impossible, and cost us thousands of dollars in the process, which was taken from ad revenue or donations. I don't think so... not on my watch. I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

andyjayne

05-21-2007, 05:35 PM

Will project albums be subject to this? I have mixes that I completed years ago that are on unreleased project albums.

Also I'd imagine that age should be a required detail for submissions as "a minor has the right to rescind contracts because a minor lacks competence to make them." (http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Termination.html)

The situation that Compyfox was addressing - I don't see why the material should be taken down, surely a better solution would be to politely ask djp to add a link to the album on his review or something. I cannot even see a scenario like this happening where a company would try and take it down unless for legal reasons. On the other hand if you send a request to remove it as it was a violation of standards or you ripped off someone else I believe they would promptly remove it provided there was evidence.

As for personal removal reasons I do believe it should be assessed per individual, if someone genuinely has a good case then I don't really imagine the staff here would refuse. I imagine this covers that situation:
This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination.

I must admit there is something frustrating about handing over total distribution and performance rights but as long as OverClocked ReMix have to credit the artist in every case then I don't personally have a problem with it.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 05:43 PM

Compyfox

05-21-2007, 05:56 PM

Sorry but I HAVE TO comment...

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

In that case, you should also be fair to contact a mixer, if you decide to take a mix down due to reasons unknown. The mixer should have influence and the final words. The participant AGREE's to your rules, you're just the licensee (as stated). Unless the participating mixer gives you the full right of a mix, he can do with it what he wants. From asking you to remove it, to asking you not to remove it. The same as AD said.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, [...snip...] I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

Hold it right there! You can't simply do that off hand. You'd still have to ask the mixers "are you cool with that?". One example would be Novatunes and mp3.de. The time you sign up and submit a song, you're asked to whether or not you agree that this song may be featured on a compilatio/demo CD with some sort of payment for you, or the chance to win a complete paid CD release for you.

If you take this into consideration, the people are allowed to do what they want with their tracks. After all, Novatunes is a netlabel that signs you for 2 years, and mp3.de is an open community like OCR. You have 1578 tracks on OCR at the moment. All of them exceed 5,75GB, a normal DVD-5 has 4,7GB (though in reality more like 4,2GB). That alone would make 2DVDs. Now if people say "sorry, but I don't agree that you will put my track on DVD and share it on a printed media" (which is their right to do so), you don't have any problems at all if they should ever dedice that their stuff might go commercial, or they want to reject it. And even then you STILL have enough material to present to the masses, and you can write on the disk "wanna hear more? Come to our page".

Seriously, the more I hear in defense from your side, Dave, the more I really don't want to submit anything at all anymore. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Rules good and fine, but this is slowly growing ridiculus if you ask me.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 06:04 PM

Compy, please stop replying. You're covering the same territory and saying the same things. Your intention to not submit anything is hardly surprising since that was your feeling before this policy even existed. I've already stated that I believe AD is incorrect, legally, and unlike him, I cited examples of the type of licensing agreement we are pursuing, which appears common enough. He has not yet responded.

You've said your piece. I've asked you to be quiet and let others speak and you seem unable. Further comments made by you on this post will unfortunately have to be deleted, and your account re-banned if you continue to persist in making them.

Dhsu

05-21-2007, 06:05 PM

I agree that most of Compyfox's scenarios are unlikely, but so are some of the other situations that were addressed in the policy such as "what if there's another exodus" and "what if a composer wants to commandeer my arrangement." So it's worth talking about stuff like "what if a company wants to use and take down a remix that was posted before this license." Then you can't really use the argument, "Well if you wanted to sell it, you shouldn't have submitted it in the first place."

Anyway, I think I'll take a shot at answering some of these questions (at least the ones I understand)...

Furthermore, once more a "what if" but these are all possibilities that can happen, and happened already... What if the track was submitted already, and due to the fact that "this" particular track was submitted, a certain firm came to you and said "wow this track is awesome - we want to feature it, please put it down, we write you a contract with further rules and info of how you'd getting paid". This is the same as you said, but it's happening AFTER it was released (or even submitted and/or in the judging process) on OCR. It's a reversed contractract in this case and you have your written confirmation why you have to put it down. No further check needed, or a discussion "but can we keep it?".
I think what djp was saying is that he'd have to actually *see* this "written confirmation" and make sure it wasn't written by yourself or something. And even in this case, I think it could still sometimes be negotiated with the company to let OCR keep the track on the site.

Were talking about something that you try, to my impression, forbid as if it's happening every other day. Of course it's some sort of extra effort, but it is still the Work of it's original creator. And due to the fact that you wrote on your new draft enhancement, that you're only a licensee, the mixer providing his material still has the final word on it, hasn't he?
If you agree to the license, you're giving up your final word on removing remixes.

Like I said, I may be the only one expressing it, but it is a delicate situation and it needs to be discussed. The problem is, you can of course go to a firm and say "I have a mix, am I allowed to distribute it commercially" before you consider going "public domain", but usually they're like "who the heck are you?" and reject that request. Unless however, you're already known in the scene (example: OCR, or to the remixed artist) and/or you're really good, then they're more friendly and be like "nice tracks you got there, want to be featured maybe?".
I'm not even sure what you're saying here...can you clarify the situation you're describing?

In this case, all that's coming next is kinda rolling backwards, and chances are, if you mixed for three different games, one of them being the game in question for the compilation, that these tracks will be needed to be removed. And you have to agree.
So you're saying that if an artist did three different ReMixes from three different games, and a company wanted to use one of them, all three tracks would need to be removed? I don't see what right they would have to do that.

Well from my side, I "have to" agree the termination (even if it's only partially, meaning only one of the games I mixed - again as example with the contract), but in the same time it still sounds to me "only if we see a reason in it", while negating that with the request to speak to the contract holder to be "really sure" and ignoring requests from people who say "sorry - doesn't reflect my work anymore". This is contradictorily and doesn't really work IMO.
What do you mean you "have to" agree to a termination? The license says the it's only terminated if BOTH parties agree to it. Although, now that I think of it, that makes the "OCR has a right to refuse termination" part kind of redundant...

The whole last passage doesn't really work to be honest. First you refuse to remove the material, second you can remove it anytime if you think it's a violation of the rules.
The first rule is to preserve site history, and the second is to make sure it's correct in the first place.

I CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! Period. I can not say at this moment of day "oh... this track I'm working on will be featured on a CD". I can however try to get it on a CD, though if it doesn't work, I can think about the option going to OCR (even if I'm not allowed to one way or another - the "fanmaterial" thing again). Then again I can't predict the future of what might happen so that I need to take down the track one way or another.
So your objection is that the policy is too inflexible to accommodate unexpected situations in the future? Well, of course, it's impossible to forsee all possible outcomes, but the policy isn't talking about those. It's just talking about stuff that we know might come up and how to respond to it. If something comes up that wasn't addressed, it can be dealt with then.

Same as with remixing projects for example. It's not a rare issue that people presented their remixes "before" their tracks were featured on the project (happened with all OCR projects except "Relics of the Chozo", as it was made with barely no attention). Now if I, as founder and leader of this project say "you're not allowed to submit anything before the proper release, and may it take years", but you go ahead and do it anyway, the track is getting submitted, released, I see that and I write the page founder "sorry, one of my mixers ignored one of the rules for this remixing project to be created - please put down the track" - can you still say "no, as this track is a free release, it'll be on the project anyway - see it as promotion"?
Actually, that's never happened before. All project tracks posted before the project release were because of explicit agreement between the project coordinator and the site, for promotional reasons like you mentioned (in fact djp had to beg KyleJCrb to post his ToP track :P ). But if a track did happen to slip through at some point in the future, the track would be taken off of the project, not the site.

This is not a thing to decide, isn't it? And so what if it's really the same song? If the firm wants it that way, and it'll be put into (for example) the next Tony Hawk 1:1 to what it was available for free over here, then so be it. You still have to put it down according to the contract, because now there're different forms of royalty payments involved. And even if you can't change the factor "fan downloads" anymore, you can change the factor "page/internet releases".
You keep making it sound that OCR wouldn't comply under any circumstance. While they'd prefer not to take down a song, I think if a reputable company asked nicely, they would.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 06:08 PM

While this policy cannot guarantee the professionalism of those submitting, obviously, what it can help protect is the professionalism of the site entire. We're presenting OCR as a canon, and while you're right that it's constantly being added to, removal is not the same.

You're perfectly fine by me with bringing up BT; in that instance, the album had not yet been released. I would not have objected to a policy for BT which stated that, once released, pieces were not retractable. I still would have been pissed to have been intentionally kept in the dark on an issue that was important to me, but once the album is released... what can you do? That was, I believe, a violation of my trust. My recourse, had such a policy existed and I agreed to it, would be to not collaborate with those individuals again. So behaves the music industry. Additionally, in over six years I don't feel that OCR has ever violated trust in a comparable way to what happened with BT, and I endeavor to ensure that it never will. As an additional side note, I'm not as sure as I once was that the intentions of those behind the BT thing were "bad" - I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding that should have been preventable with foresight, but not an outright attempt to screw me over.

You can endevour, but you cannot guarantee. These are situations that need to be accounted for, because I have a feeling that you might want to do other things with your life, rather than simply babysit the site for all eternity. As you delegate more and more power to other individuals within the community, your ability to carry through with you endevour becomes more and more limited, and the site's policies need to be able to account for that. These policies are going to become SOP, something that affects all people participating in the site, and by your own wording, permanently. If there are sections of it that depend completely on the assumption of the good intentions of the man in charge, then we're at the whims of the man in charge, for good or ill.

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, and if someone adamantly wanted their piece removed, we'd be out the $1000-$2000 it cost to do a large run of such items. From our perspective, we were trying to promote everyone's music in yet another way, but one person came along and made that impossible, and cost us thousands of dollars in the process, which was taken from ad revenue or donations. I don't think so... not on my watch. I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

I understand a situation like that. One solution would be to create two distinct policies, one that allows for removal from the site proper, and all future physical releases, and another which explains that any physical releases given away at conventions or radio shows or whatever cannot be withdrawn, not as a matter of refusal, but simply as a matter of the impossibility of the logistics. Another would be to set up a listing of situations that you would release the music in, like radio, podcast, at conventions, so on and so forth, and then have the remixer tell you if he has any objections to any of the situations during the submissions process, so that you have prior consent that doesn't require hunting down remixers each time you want to release something.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 06:20 PM

These are situations that need to be accounted for, because I have a feeling that you might want to do other things with your life, rather than simply babysit the site for all eternity.

...

These policies are going to become SOP, something that affects all people participating in the site, and by your own wording, permanently. If there are sections of it that depend completely on the assumption of the good intentions of the man in charge, then we're at the whims of the man in charge, for good or ill.

...

I understand a situation like that. One solution would be to create two distinct policies, one that allows for removal from the site proper, and all future physical releases, and another which explains that any physical releases given away at conventions or radio shows or whatever cannot be withdrawn, not as a matter of refusal, but simply as a matter of the impossibility of the logistics. Another would be to set up a listing of situations that you would release the music in, like radio, podcast, at conventions, so on and so forth, and then have the remixer tell you if he has any objections to any of the situations during the submissions process, so that you have prior consent that doesn't require hunting down remixers each time you want to release something.

First off, your point about my role on the site is duly noted, but that's really a topic for a separate policy. We definitely intend to get to it, but this is more crucial. Beyond a will, in case I die, the logistics of defining terms of OCR being handed over are very complicated, and not something in my opinion that will necessitate the same type of public comment, discussion, and revision. As a sidenote, your choice of the verb "babysit" when referring to my role now or in the future is unfortunate and honestly rather offensive. I do far more than babysit, I can assure you, and intend to have a hands-on role for as long as I am capable.

Your two solutions are well-meant, I'm sure, but it's not like we haven't thought of such things. I don't consider them viable; I'd vastly prefer not to be distributing OC ReMixes that weren't really OC ReMixes any more because someone's ego got dashed on our forums or something, and two such policies would potentially put us in that position. Keeping track of specific licensing options would be a maintenance nightmare, as realistically people would want to be able to change that stuff, new options/technologies would be created and we'd need to ask everyone all over again, etc. There's a reason the more common implementation is to have the license be very open in terms of usage; anything else can be a nightmare to manage. That's time better spent on posting mixes (something I need to get back to doing rather soon) and promoting the site. If we need to check whether X mixer allowed X usage for X mix, trust me, it'd be highly prohibitive. Thus neither of these solutions persuade me.

Dhsu

05-21-2007, 06:40 PM

Hold it right there! You can't simply do that off hand. You'd still have to ask the mixers "are you cool with that?". One example would be Novatunes and mp3.de. The time you sign up and submit a song, you're asked to whether or not you agree that this song may be featured on a compilatio/demo CD with some sort of payment for you, or the chance to win a complete paid CD release for you.
I think that's the point of this policy. You're giving OCR a "non-exclusive" and "permanent" license to distribute your work.

If you take this into consideration, the people are allowed to do what they want with their tracks. After all, Novatunes is a netlabel that signs you for 2 years, and mp3.de is an open community like OCR. You have 1578 tracks on OCR at the moment. All of them exceed 5,75GB, a normal DVD-5 has 4,7GB (though in reality more like 4,2GB). That alone would make 2DVDs. Now if people say "sorry, but I don't agree that you will put my track on DVD and share it on a printed media" (which is their right to do so), you don't have any problems at all if they should ever dedice that their stuff might go commercial, or they want to reject it. And even then you STILL have enough material to present to the masses, and you can write on the disk "wanna hear more? Come to our page".
Maybe I'm just not understanding you, but...what does this have to do with the topic? djp isn't worried that there won't be enough material for a DVD...the problem is that if he prints out hundreds of CDs, but suddenly somebody says "I want my ReMixes removed and don't allow you to distribute them anymore," then he's now lost thousands of dollars because of that. He needs to make sure people won't be revoking their licenses left and right before he can even try to doing cool stuff like this.

Again, don't overreact before you're clear about the meaning of a person's post.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 08:12 PM

It would be nice if we could add something to the terms of use requiring that somebody make a good faith effort to contact the remixer and ask or at least inform them before performing it in a commercial place.

Sorry Jeremy, not ignoring you, just put this on the back-burner. I understand and agree with your notion, but I really wanna cut out all the "good faith", and "should" stuff and stick with the "must" stuff for this document.

I will have a separate preamble introducing these terms that covers good faith stuff but is not part of the actual agreement, and this will definitely be in there.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 08:35 PM

First off, your point about my role on the site is duly noted, but that's really a topic for a separate policy. We definitely intend to get to it, but this is more crucial. Beyond a will, in case I die, the logistics of defining terms of OCR being handed over are very complicated, and not something in my opinion that will necessitate the same type of public comment, discussion, and revision. As a sidenote, your choice of the verb "babysit" when referring to my role now or in the future is unfortunate and honestly rather offensive. I do far more than babysit, I can assure you, and intend to have a hands-on role for as long as I am capable.

I apologize for any insult I caused with my poor choice of language. Not my intention. I didn't specificaly mean in the event of your death, or even the event of you leaving the site, I simply meant the process that you've already engaged in, of empowering other individuals in the communities to excercise authority on your behalf. The more degrees of seperation you put between yourself and the work itself, the less control you have over how things are going. You can say pretty much anything you want, but you still rely on the chain of command to carry it out, and that can get garbled on the way down. By having documented, publicly-viewable standards on how you want aspects of the site to work, you minimize creep throughout the site, and it does give a sense of security to the general masses on the site.

Your two solutions are well-meant, I'm sure, but it's not like we haven't thought of such things. I don't consider them viable; I'd vastly prefer not to be distributing OC ReMixes that weren't really OC ReMixes any more because someone's ego got dashed on our forums or something, and two such policies would potentially put us in that position. Keeping track of specific licensing options would be a maintenance nightmare, as realistically people would want to be able to change that stuff, new options/technologies would be created and we'd need to ask everyone all over again, etc. There's a reason the more common implementation is to have the license be very open in terms of usage; anything else can be a nightmare to manage. That's time better spent on posting mixes (something I need to get back to doing rather soon) and promoting the site. If we need to check whether X mixer allowed X usage for X mix, trust me, it'd be highly prohibitive. Thus neither of these solutions persuade me.

I think you could probably crank it all into an excel spreadsheet pretty easily, depending on how specific one wants to get in terms of distribution catagories, and at that point, a canned E-mail could provide a checklist that the remixers simply fills out and returns during the submissions process.

Dhsu

05-21-2007, 08:41 PM

I think that'd be more red tape than most people wanna deal with...

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 08:53 PM

I'm pretty comfortable with the revised draft and have started a poll to gauge current sentiment towards it, as previously mentioned. We can continue to discuss it here but no modifications will be made until the poll has closed. If only minor additional points have been introduced, beyond already stated concerns, and the poll indicates that a sufficient majority are OK with it, then we'll proceed with finalizing it. Otherwise, we'll extend the 5/27 deadline for feedback and continue discussing the major concerns.

I don't have an exact figure for how the poll would have to breakdown in order for us to proceed; I'd hope for at least an 80/20 split, more like 90/10, but the nature of the explanations being made for each "disagree" vote will also factor in.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 09:00 PM

I think that'd be more red tape than most people wanna deal with...

This whole set up is more red tape than some people want to deal with. But as I've stressed earlier, it's important to get it as right as possible while it's still in draft phase.

I've got another idea, set what's essentially a term limit on the content policy, say, six months. Spend six months with the policy, see how it works, then in six months open up a new discussion with the community to see what they think is working, and what they think is ate up. Then fix the points that are causing problems and keep what's working.

Bahamut

05-21-2007, 10:08 PM

From the poll thread:

The way the current draft is structured, the site can sieze a mix that a remixer no longer wishes to have posted on the site. I'm a firm believer in the right to exit, and that's being taken away here. So if something comes up that a remixer doesn't want to be associated with as the site evolves, they're trapped.

If there is a change in policy or such, then that change does not apply to them. Maybe a clause can be added that if there is a change in policy, then a ReMixer can opt to terminate their license.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 10:12 PM

From the poll thread:

If there is a change in policy or such, then that change does not apply to them. Maybe a clause can be added that if there is a change in policy, then a ReMixer can opt to terminate their license.

I could accept that. I'd like unrestricted right to exit, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Giving an out in the event of policy changes is an acceptable compromise.

djpretzel

05-21-2007, 10:22 PM

I could accept that. I'd like unrestricted right to exit, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Giving an out in the event of policy changes is an acceptable compromise.

Well, it's not really necessary - we won't and can't just go changing the policy willy-nilly after you agree to it, anyways. What you agree to when you submit will be the current version of the policy, always. If you're talking about some OTHER aspect of the site's functionality, it's a legit concern, but the Submission Agreement and Terms of Use are covered by the nature of agreements - we can't modify them after the fact without asking you all over again if you agree.

We will store the policy in our Wiki and all edits will be tracked so that mixers and staff alike can see what the policy looked like at any specific point in time. So if you agreed to the policy, submitted a mix, and afterwards we changed the policy to require that you donate your spleen along with every submission, you'd be cool. As long as you didn't submit anything after this modification was made. Any major edits would be accompanied by announcements, but you could always see what's been modified on the Wiki, once it's there.

Yes, this means that every time you submit, you might want to verify that the policy hasn't changed markedly, but we'll embed that reminder into the submission standards themselves to help remind you.

DragonFireKai

05-21-2007, 10:33 PM

Well, it's not really necessary - we won't and can't just go changing the policy willy-nilly after you agree to it, anyways. What you agree to when you submit will be the current version of the policy, always.

We will store the policy in our Wiki and all edits will be tracked so that mixers and staff alike can see what the policy looked like at any specific point in time. So if you agreed to the policy, submitted a mix, and afterwards we changed the policy to require that you donate your spleen along with every submission, you'd be cool. As long as you didn't submit anything after this modification was made. Any major edits would be accompanied by announcements, but you could always see what's been modified on the Wiki, once it's there.

Yes, this means that every time you submit, you might want to verify that the policy hasn't changed markedly, but we'll embed that reminder into the submission standards themselves to help remind you.

Well, DJP, you have absolute power over this site, you can change the policy whenever you want, to whatever you want. Weather or not you use that power, and in what manner you use it, remains to be seen.

But your comment about the wiki is a good step here. I'd like the grandfather clause put into the draft.

Other than that, I've already laid out what I do and don't like about the draft extensively, and laid out my suggestions for changes, so I won't repeat them here.

Bahamut

05-21-2007, 11:18 PM

Response to Anorak:

Well, from everything I've seen, just about every license agreement favors the licensee in termination...unless someone can point out otherwise why it should ever be the other way, I can't say I share that sentiment. Anything that does not favor the licensee in termination is unfair on the licensee because it allows the licensor to hold the licensee hostage, and in this case as far as I see it, it applies even more because as a non-profit organization, the site's intentions is to help the ReMixers, and allowing particular ReMixers to hold the site hostage for petty/selfish reasons is one of the worst things you can ask for to happen for a well-intentioned site (by site purpose).

Corran

05-21-2007, 11:20 PM

Well you've addressed my main issue, the one about specifically saying that the ReMixers holds all ownership. While I was at work there's been a lot of replies, which I don't have time to read honestly, but wasn't the "right to reject removal requests" established as something you couldn't legally do? That's what it sounded like, anyway. Regardless, I can see honestly no reason that I'd ever want my ReMix(es?) to one day be pulled, so it doesn't bother me, but I'd still rather not see another mass exodus because of the stubborn inclusion of that clause.

Other than that:

But your comment about the wiki is a good step here. I'd like the grandfather clause put into the draft.

jmr

05-22-2007, 12:35 AM

Will project albums be subject to this? I have mixes that I completed years ago that are on unreleased project albums.I have tracks on both released and unreleased projects, and would like to know about this as well.

B.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, performed, or incorporated into other works, materials used must be clearly attributed both to the ReMixer(s) who created them and to OverClocked ReMix. This accreditation must be in the form of the ReMixer name(s) followed by "OverClocked ReMix (www.ocremix.org)". In applicable contexts where user interactivity is possible, such as websites, the site name and URL must be linked to http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../). Accreditation must be presented as close to the utilized material as possible; if OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, accreditation must be prominently displayed in context with the utilized material.If one was to play an OC ReMix on a radio station, what would be the proper way of crediting the site? Simply naming the artist and the url?

One more small question: when the policy is enacted, if someone violates the terms of use (say, someone uses a remix in a television commercial (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6647) without giving proper credit (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?p=215523)), what would be the site's course of action?

Antonio Pizza

05-22-2007, 05:05 AM

...despite overcoming my personal distaste of spooky legal words such as "perpetual" and "irrevocable", I cannot comfortably give my support to a plan that would potentially deny the artist control over their works (or "Works"). I know and have seen people have their mixes requested taken down for reasons 1,2, and 4 as highlighted by djpretzel (though I don't personally know of anyone finding Jesus being a cause for a request, yet I do know that JAXX's faith was instrumental in him deleting his pirate music program and samples years back, but I digress...).

And while I realize that it is for protection of the staff who works longer, harder, and more thanklessly than ever before (I speak from experience), I personally don't feel comfortable greenlighting something so concrete that I'm not 100% satisfied with. Granted, you probably deny yourself more rights just by using Yahoo! Mail, but give a trickle of probablity for just and due proper credit and/or monetary compensation and that's when we really bust out the bifocals and start reading the fine print (but now I'm delving into a PPR thing, and quite poorly at that).

Enough rambling. The point is that I wouldn't feel comfortable unless the issue of removal was revised. I do recognize and respect that this is unlikely and that you, David Lloyd, are pulling your hair trying to satisfy hundreds of artists, thousands in the community, and millions around the globe. No one is going to be satisfied 100% and I understand that and appreciate the fact that you are at least trying as best you can, which is all that can be asked. I just wanted to be on record as saying I do not agree with the draft policy as is, as of now. Then again, I argued against created PPR in the beginning as well.

The thing I got out of all of this as most critical was this:

I happen to be in an amazing position to find as conclusive an answer to this question as possible, as my girlfriend is starting work next week for Finnegan Henderson (http://www.finnegan.com/), and since they're one of the top IP firms in the world, I'd have to think someone there can provide a conclusive explanation. It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well.

>>Insert Tim Allen confusion grunt here<<

*wipes tear from eye*

I've watched you grow. You're finally becoming a man. I'm so proud of you.

tntpogbamtfbwy

-ap

P.S. Atomic Dog, though you did not offer what can be constituted as legal advice, I believe I do speak on behalf of others when I say thank you for using your legal expertise in a non-legally binding way to make clear the Lawyerspeak™ to the average Joe and below-average Moe ("Antonio Pizza") so that it could be understood, to paraphrase Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia", by a six-year-old. Yes, thank you.

Least100Seraphs

05-22-2007, 03:51 PM

Sorry Jeremy, not ignoring you, just put this on the back-burner. I understand and agree with your notion, but I really wanna cut out all the "good faith", and "should" stuff and stick with the "must" stuff for this document.

I will have a separate preamble introducing these terms that covers good faith stuff but is not part of the actual agreement, and this will definitely be in there.

This first (long segment) is largely directed towards DJP - any reference to "you" is basically DJP", any reference to "us/we/me/our" is a member of the OCR community - predominantly current, former and possible future contributors.

Unfortunately I believe that it is the very fact that you have not displayed the "good faith stuff" that is causing so many problems. Think of the "good faith stuff" as a clause in this contract (the term contract is a legally applicable one, as entering a contract is about the only legal way one can enforce a specific right such as the "removal refusal" while remaining merely a licensor in other aspects of the agreement). By displaying this contract without the Good Faith clause, you are asking people to sign off on a set of rules without allowing them opportunity to view all the rules to which they are agreeing.

There is also a certain contradictory nature to some of this policy. You are laying out a policy so that rules are available to be viewed and acknowledged by all, so that previous unwritten rules, common sense and good faith are no longer relied upon - and yet at the same time you are incorporating new good faith rules into the policy that are, as yet, unwritten. If the intention of the policy is to remove ambiguous, easily misinterpreted rules of good faith and common sense, then it seems futiles to embed new rules of good faith within the document. Instead, it would be suggested by the nature of this policy's design - to create and commit concrete rules, rights and responsibilities - that anything written in this section is devoid of ambiguity which may allow for subjective interpretation of the agreement.

Put simply, if you wish to make sure that everything in this policy is clearly stated and free from confusion or "good faith" concerns, then make that clear. A few times, when in defense of a certain clause or wording, you've said words to the effect of "Guys, trust me, I'm not going to screw you over." That's reassuring, but ultimately doesn't mean a lot, because it's not in the policy. If one day you did decide to screw us over, there's nothing we could do, because the contract we signed gave you permission to do that.

I think one concern shared by some here is to do with that. If there is no need for you to have certain rights and powers, and if you would never exercise those rights and powers anyway, why do you want those rights and powers?

Phew. Ok, this is just for general thread continuation.

As for the "right to remove" being able to be in this agreement - it's doable. Most anything legal can be waived in a contract - which is what this agreement is. It is quite feasible for DJP to ask remixers to give him the specific right to refuse removal of submitted works for any reason, as long as it doesn't interfere with other "higher" laws. Being a contract, the remixer has 2 options - sign the contract or not sign it. Individual remixers can of course try to negotiate with DJP for a different contract, with that clause altered or removed, but he's under no obligation to remove it, just as the remixer is under no obligation to sign the contract.

As for retroactive application of this contract, again, that's allowed as long as the remixer agrees to it. The remixer could choose to agree and have all earlier works fall under the new contract, or he could disagree, at which point the remixer and DJP could negotiate an alternate contractual arrangement.

However, as I am sure DJP is quite aware, this contract cannot be enforced on remixers or remixes already on www.ocremix.org until he has spoken to said remixer of said remixes. In fact, until a remixer specifically agrees to the new policy, his or her works are by default under the old "unwritten" policy. So someone that doesn't like this new policy has nothing to fear - these rules aren't being forced upon them. DJP has talked of a grandfathering system being in place - it is already in place.

The most important things to keep in mind within this entire debate are the following:
1. These rules are being put down not with the primary intention of controlling anyone, but with the primary intention of making the rules clear and acceessible, to make the system transparent, and to protect all parties,
2. These rules cannot be enforced upon existing remixers or existing works against their will, as such a thing is simply impossible, legally, and finally
3. both DJP and a remixer can prevent any future works from being encapsuled by this new policy by not submitting/accepting a remix. Put simply, you're not forced to agree to these terms, but DJP is not forced to accept yours either. If you can't reach a middle ground, then the song simply won't be hosted.

Bleh. I typed far too much. My apologies to anyone who is teased at school/work tomorrow for having keyboard imprints in their forehead as a result of falling asleep reading what I've written.

djpretzel

05-22-2007, 09:01 PM

I'll respond to the latest comments as soon as possible, but in the interim wanted to mention that we've unbanned Protricity so that he can provide feedback, since the policy would affect him and his numerous ReMixes.

JJT

05-22-2007, 09:16 PM

A few times, when in defense of a certain clause or wording, you've said words to the effect of "Guys, trust me, I'm not going to screw you over." That's reassuring, but ultimately doesn't mean a lot, because it's not in the policy. If one day you did decide to screw us over, there's nothing we could do, because the contract we signed gave you permission to do that.

If you could provide a concrete example of exactly how Dave would screw us over, that would help your argument.

djpretzel

05-22-2007, 09:38 PM

The most important things to keep in mind within this entire debate are the following:
1. These rules are being put down not with the primary intention of controlling anyone, but with the primary intention of making the rules clear and acceessible, to make the system transparent, and to protect all parties,
2. These rules cannot be enforced upon existing remixers or existing works against their will, as such a thing is simply impossible, legally, and finally
3. both DJP and a remixer can prevent any future works from being encapsuled by this new policy by not submitting/accepting a remix. Put simply, you're not forced to agree to these terms, but DJP is not forced to accept yours either. If you can't reach a middle ground, then the song simply won't be hosted.

Yes, that sounds about right. Regarding your previous comments about good faith - since I can't think of legitimate causes for removal, I don't know what we would be specifying good faith regarding.

As for existing mixers/mixes, once finalized, in addition to requiring the policy for new submissions, I plan on actively asking existing mixers to agree to it for all of their works. If they decline, their works do not fall under the policy unless they submit something new, and remain on the site. However, there will be distribution/promotional opportunities that those mixers/mixes will not be a part of unless they sign the policy; for example, having mixes played before and after the Video Games Live event, having mixes distributed on free DVD-ROMs to members of the press, etc. So there's incentive for agreeing, even if you're never going to submit anything ever again.

Compyfox

05-22-2007, 09:44 PM

I still say there needs to be a subsection included for distribution on CD/DVD Media, like most online labels do for "promotion material". As the stuff will be heard by the press, maybe even highend mixers looking for new talents, but a mixer might not be interested in that kind of stuff, he should be able to decline that "offer" for the particular track submitted (also working retroactive).

If we go more into deeper administation stuff, I think this wouldn't be much more work either.

Though... I guess I already know the answer.

Dhsu

05-22-2007, 09:48 PM

CDs and DVDs are included in the part that says "license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed." So I think that's covered.

Compyfox

05-22-2007, 09:59 PM

I said, stop shredding my posts to pieces, dammit! You're a worse troll than I ever was - seriously now.

I still say that it's definitely not okay to post stuff on physical media without our total agreement. You (OCR) are still only licensing our material. Then again, if the track is catching attention and the involved mixer is getting a contract to use "that" particular track in an official release, we have another interest conflict in terms of "removing tracks".

Another possible "situation", what'll most "unlikely happen" - but I felt like mentioning it. Thanks.

Dhsu

05-22-2007, 10:15 PM

I said, stop shredding my posts to pieces, dammit! You're a worse troll than I ever was - seriously now.
...do you even know what a troll is? I'm trying to help here.

I still say that it's definitely not okay to post stuff on physical media without our total agreement.
Okay, maybe I just don't understand what the problem is. Aren't you giving your "total agreement" when you give the license in the first place? And when you agree to the license, which says that it's okay to "use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed," doesn't that include physical media? Why does there have to be a separate section for that?

Compyfox

05-22-2007, 10:28 PM

...do you even know what a troll is? I'm trying to help here.

I should know, I was banned because of that. Then again, who says that I'm so bad in english, that I need "help"? Mind your own business please.

Okay, maybe I just don't understand what the problem is. Aren't you giving your "total agreement" when you give the license in the first place? And when you agree to the license, which says that it's okay to "use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed," doesn't that include physical media? Why does there have to be a separate section for that?

I just stated another possibility, which reverts to one of my infamous "what if" theories. Don't worry my friend, there doesn't need to be an extra point for that, but my concerns still remain - like it or not.

And with that said, I take my right to get some beauty sleep, or do I need to get a license for that first? ;-)

Scrobble

05-22-2007, 11:54 PM

as a person who has been around since the early days of OCR (though with 'animefreak', a horribly generic, useless nick) i am going to share my thoughts.

disclaimer (to djp mostly, but also to anyone else): Yes, i know you've already gone over this. Yes, i know you're very happy with it and unlikely to change your mind. Yes, i am aware that you don't agree with many things people have done, and the ways they have done them, over the site's history.

That being said, i still think that the 'may refuse to honor removal requests' or however you might have worded it is petty, silly, and will only continue the animosity of some, and breed animosity in others.

I'm sure it's a pain in the ass, and you hate doing it, but the 'high road', as it were, on the issue of removal is to just do it. If you feel like refusing every submission afterwards from people who've had works removed, especially in the case of repeated requests, that is entirely understandable. Nobody likes feeling like their work is wasted, as it must feel when you've committed time and effort to the upkeep and promotion of the site and to the evaluation of remixes, and suddenly a person or people want to bail because of whatever reason.

People have always been emotional and prone to changing their minds for any reason and for no reason. It may be silly, it may be stupid. They may be doing it completely out of spite. You may have absolutely no respect for them or their reasons.

Matching spite with spite by stubbornly refusing removal, as you have stated is the very likely chance, does nothing for you.

edited to add: If there is anything i have overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted, i welcome clarification. This is only how it appeared to be, to me, after reading the entire thread.

djpretzel

05-23-2007, 12:12 AM

as a person who has been around since the early days of OCR (though with 'animefreak', a horribly generic, useless nick) i am going to share my thoughts.

disclaimer (to djp mostly, but also to anyone else): Yes, i know you've already gone over this.

That being said, i still think that the 'may refuse to honor removal requests' or however you might have worded it is petty, silly, and will only continue the animosity of some, and breed animosity in others.

...

People have always been emotional and prone to changing their minds for any reason and for no reason. It may be silly, it may be stupid. They may be doing it completely out of spite. You may have absolutely no respect for them or their reasons.

Matching spite with spite by stubbornly refusing removal, as you have stated is the very likely chance, does nothing for you.

We wouldn't be matching spite with spite, we'd be matching spite with a calm response that protected the site's best interests and the interests of staff, other ReMixers, and listeners, all of whom contribute to the site and could potentially be affected by mix removal in one way or another.

Your calling us "silly" and "petty" only confirms my impression that you're one of the individuals that already have spite towards us, are influenced by this attitude in your evaluation of this policy, and would be unlikely to submit additional material whether or not this policy was even being discussed. Is that wholly inaccurate?

Scrobble

05-23-2007, 01:12 AM

I am a horrible musician, and have little to no creative ability in any other field. It is very highly unlikely that i will submit any material, regardless of whether the policy stays, changes, or is erased completely, based solely on my inability to create something that would meet the standards of the site. On that point, you are not inaccurate.

However, you are innacurate in taking an evaluation of that clause as 'petty and silly' as an attack on your person or character. I believe that the wording as it exists now serves no purpose except to be contentious.

I am also confused as to how "the site's best interests and the interests of staff" etc etc. are served by denying removal.

I do not see the positive effect that it would have on the community. Conflicts that arise will still exist, and most likely be heightened if Remixer A is offended in some way, decides not to be affiliated with the site, requests measures to accomplish that, and is told flatly 'no'.

Nobody comes into a community expecting to leave unhappily, but it sometimes works out that way, and to impede people's leaving will, in my opinion, only damage the community over time.

As a side note, You seem to have a notion of what you think i feel and believe, and in the same way, other people (including myself) have notions of what they think you feel and believe. I would enjoy the chance to get these likely erroneous notions resolved, and i am constantly disappointed in myself that i did not take the opportunity at MAGFest.

andyjayne

05-23-2007, 04:09 PM

bladiator

05-23-2007, 06:37 PM

I've read through as much of this as I can stomach and thought I would just chime in (damn you Dhsu for calling me out).

As far as remix removal is concerned, I have no problem with that. This is just the contract that you are going into by submitting remixes. If this changes your perspective on submitting remixes, then by all means, stay as far away as possible. At first glance, it seems that I am losing out on this prospect and that my personal work is being shackled in by this policy, but if I don't like it then I don't have to get my music distributed in such a public way. If I really think that I'm going to see as much traffic by putting up my own website with my music on it exclusively, then I will. But I seriously doubt that.

In submitting to OCR, I'm telling them that I appreciate the chance to get my music hosted and seen by a much larger audience on the internet than I could make happen myself, and in return I'm asking djp and the staff not to have to go through the ass-pain of someday having to remove my mix from their site, their mirrors, and their torrents. Can you even imagine how crappy it would be if someone decided to depart from OCR and all their music was removed from the torrents and re-setup only to have another dissatisfied remixer come along days later and do the same? These torrents would be screwed up all the time. Who the hell would know WHAT they were downloading, or hosting, or seeding? For this reason ALONE I think that the policy stands. Again, it's our decisions as musicians as to what we what done with our work. If OCR is a bad choice for you because of the policy, then make the right decision and don't submit.

As far as the public performance stuff goes, I don't imagine I'll be doing too much of that, but I think it's a little strenuous. I agree with Taucer's points in the other thread that actively yelling out "OCREMIX.ORG" for every time the music is played in any public venue is a little over the top. Especially considering that if you go to the remixer themselves and grab the original file before it became OCR submitted then you have no legal tape to worry about. In Taucer's case, I know that these type of shows/competitions never have anyone actually telling where the music came from. Maybe that's illegal on everyone's part but it's still over the top. It feels like being forced to advertise.

All that being said, the policy is fine with me. Back to work.

Prophecy

05-23-2007, 07:49 PM

Hi. I received two emails regarding this topic and have been reminded of its existence by (and prompted to participate in the discussion of) by several remembers of this board. I'm certain a reasonable agreement could be reached with or without my involvement, nevertheless, I will offer my thoughts on the subject in response to these promptings.

Relevant experience: I studied copyright law in college. I had planned to take other music related courses following my studies in copyright law, but was given, to borrow and old cliche, an offer I couldn't refuse. One of my former professors hired me into his record label, largely an artist development scheme, and thus began my career. Within a month, I was involved in my first legal dispute as a fellow employee (after being forcefully removed from the company) "commandeered" a piece of intellectual property of which I was the derivative source. My employers sued and the legal battle rages to this day. After this time, the head of A&R (artist research) had to go on hiatus in order to provide important witness testimony to another dispute with a band that had employed the production efforts of the company previous to my employment, and as such I was forced to assume an A&R role to cover for his absence. In this time, I became an artists' rights advocate and consultant. My largest success of this nature was aiding an artist in escaping an overreaching (legally enslaving) clause of a contract with a major record company for which the total value of the afformentioned written agreement had been in excess of 20 million dollars. In addition, I have maintained secondary employment as a work-for-hire (not to be confused with "work made for hire" which is a legal term and has a completely different meaning) freelancer, initiating my own negotiations, subcontracting work and conducting general licensing work with various clients.

It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well.

As luck would have it, he is dead wrong. This is why:

You can't do that with a license TO. If remixers want to exodus, for whatever reason, you have to let them. A licensee cannot dictate that the licensor continue granting his permission to use the object of the license. You can't hold their stuff hostage unless you actually have rights to it - and under a license, you don't. You only have permissions. Analogy: Suppose we're good friends and I tell you that you can have unlimited use of my car. You take the keys and enjoy many long months of driving it. Then you do something to piss me off and I say, "Give me back my keys bitch. You can't drive my car anymore." You HAVE to give me the keys - because I have revoked the license I gave you to drive my car. Keeping it would be an unjust deprivation of my property without adequate compensation.

If you will notice in his example, the two parties in question (in regards to their relationship to the vehicle and use thereof) have not signed any legally binding agreement.

A licensing contract is a legally binding agreement. If you put into writing that one relevant party has a certain right in regards to something you own, then they have that right. After all, you signed a legally binding document granting the other party a specific right. I'm not sure how this could be confused. It seems like AD is suggesting that licensing agreements don't exist.

Revocation of a license is an absolute right of the licensor.

No, not really. When you sign a legally binding contract with another party, you are in essence dictating the rights that you and the other party have in regards to the relevant subject matter. This most certainly can include giving up the right to revoke permission. Incidentally, that's pretty much what a licensing agreement IS in practice.

Just curious, do you have a copy of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act handy? If you could please look up section 203, you will find the relevant portions of the law to this discussion. The most relevant portions are parts 4 and 5, which I will quote here:

(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing, signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title.
(A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.
(B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

The first bolded text tells us (when translated into plain English) that if you want to have conditions for termination to a licensing agreement, you have to put it into the initial contract (or other relevant legally binding document).

The second bolded text tells us that you can't terminate the agreement if you (or some other authority of ownership) give away that right in writing.

That's what a licensing agreement is in practice. You give another party legal permission to use something you own with fixed limitations (or no limitations in a master sync agreement). If you want to be able to rescind those powers, you have to do so in the initial agreement, NOT retroactively, as you've suggested can be done, and as part 5 of Section 203 of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17) in particular seems to completely contradict.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it, you can read the whole thing for yourself, here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

Moving on.

I know there have been suggestions to go for a more layman's language, informal approach, as the result of this legalese is that it makes us sound like we're going to steal your first-born children, but if we're going to have a policy at all, I'm shooting for one that would actually hold up, if it ever needed to.

If you're looking for something that'll "hold up", I can help. That's something I do for a living.

I'd be more than happy to do a professional-grade revision of the current document, and/or, provide basic counsel on the legal options and nature of this particular instance.

However, I'm a reasonably busy person and see no reason to act unless the staff of ocremix feels that my efforts are warranted. You've got Zircon on board, and as I understand it, is fully capable of performing the task of creating a basic licensing agreement. In addition, DJP mentioned possibly having access to top IP experts. Thus, I'm not certain my services would even be useful.

If I were to suggest changes in the document, and they were to be enacted, the effects would be sweeping. Just using the first sentence as an example:

You retain ownership and copyright of all material submitted to OverClocked ReMix.

If a third party were to sue on the premise of loss of profit due to the unauthorized use of their intellectual property in derivative and/or collaborative works, they would seize upon this phrase and beat the defense over the head with it. It could very easily be interpretted to mean that the submitter is the sole copyright holder of the submitted material.

At the bare minimum, it should say, "You retain ownership and copyright of all ORIGINAL material submitted to OverClocked ReMix."

I would then create a seperate clause to define the nature of "original" in the context of submitted work. When a person submits a work to OCR, they are indicating that they are owners of 100% of the SR (sound recording) and partial or non owner the arrangement in the form of collaborative work. I can speak at length with the OCR staff on the legal nature of derivative works if they are interested.

As for this document, I'm pretty confident that it'll turn out fine, regardless who pens it. Besides, DJP is putting forth a great "in good faith" effort by making it available for the community to discuss/debate. We should feel lucky that he's even nice enough to do that.

Dhsu

05-23-2007, 09:30 PM

Nice, thanks for the clarification, Prophecy.

In other news, I think that talking with Scrobble (a friend of mine) and reading bladiator's input has helped solidify some of my feelings about the policy. I've decided to outline them below before I vote, on the off-chance that it'll help other people with their decision.

On one hand, as Scrobble mentioned, ReMixers are not going to agree to this policy EXPECTING to have their ReMixes removed in the future, and proceeding to tell them "NO" at a point when they're already emotional would likely aggravate an already-unpleasant situation.

On the other hand, it makes sense to ask them to agree to the license while they're still in a rational state of mind. Yes, they may regret agreeing to it at a later point, but it's even more likely that they would regret a decision made during a moment of illogical anger, such as removing a mix. (As a side note, having a personal opinion that none of the reasons for removal are "valid" is irrelevant, and should not affect the policy in any way.)

On the third hand (assuming I had one), OCR isn't just dealing with people's feelings here. There are other factors at stake, such as the time already invested into the mix by the judges, djp, and reviewers, not to mention the logistical nightmare of removing remixes, especially after they've been distributed across torrents and possibly various physical media. Allowing people to have their remixes removed in effect creates thousands of loose ends that would severely restrict OCR's prospects for promotion and expansion, as at any time someone could pull on their thread and unravel the whole thing. A lot of people objected to OCR "holding ReMixes hostage"...but what about ReMixers holding OCR hostage?

So for me, what the issue boils down to is deciding at what point the cost of removing remixes stops becoming reasonable and acceptable, and it becomes worth breaking a few fragile eggs to make the proverbial OCR omelette (with extra UNTS). And from the information I have so far, I agree with djp's decision in this regard. Asking people to explicitly agree with the policy will hopefully weed out the outright dissenters, and if after accepting the license a ReMixer feels trapped, well...at least he knows that he agreed to be trapped. And even then, the policy includes a loophole to allow for exceptions should the situation call for it.

Given the above reasoning, I would agree with the current policy as it stands. However, with that said, I feel that it would be a good idea to add some clarification within the policy itself, to make it less intimidating to new ReMixers and perhaps cause them to be more sympathetic to the reasoning behind the terms. For example, you might use something to the effect of "due to the nature of certain types of distribution (such as torrent packs, etc.), OverClocked ReMix cannot honor all removal requests and reserves the right to refuse license termination."

So with respect to the poll, I'm not entirely sure how to vote...I'd like to see the policy go through some minor cosmetic changes (so to speak) before I fully approve of it, but it's not like I would let the wording keep me from submitting a mix. I'll probably just pick "yes" though, unless someone informs me otherwise.

andyjayne

05-23-2007, 10:05 PM

3 hands & more
That is very much how I feel about the whole thing at the moment and I am wondering whether, if the general notion is in favour of this, the second draft would be used verbatim. I do think it could do with some rewording to sound less threatening and more reasonable (on a personal level), even if it ends up meaning exactly the same. I don't know if that is feasible within the legal documentation, though.

Least100Seraphs

05-24-2007, 02:31 AM

Regarding your previous comments about good faith - since I can't think of legitimate causes for removal, I don't know what we would be specifying good faith regarding.

If there is no case in which you would remove a mix, then for the sake of clarity, you should stop beating around the bush in what is supposed to be a concise legal document, and simply say "Once submitted, your remix cannot be removed at your request."

In response to JJT's "give us an a way in which DJP could screw us over", I was merely pointing out that while previously the idea of going on faith worked, that was because there was only the good faith to go on. Now that there's legally binding documents in place, DJP doesn't really have to worry about acting in good faith. I'm not saying he's going to turn into some sort of despot, but with the introduction of this document, he has the ability to act in a very different way.

Put simply - while DJP is saying a lot in this thread, what he says isn't what you're signing. His talk of good faith and retaining the current community values is talk - nothing more, nothing less.

I just want to stress a couple of things - firstly, I'm well aware of the fact that I am not a remixer, and that as such, I'm not important. Telling me I'm not important, or that my opinion is irrelevant or carries little-to-no weight, doesn't bother me. There's no need to remind me of this, whether as a believed legitimate reason, or simply as a point-scoring opportunity.

Secondly, in light of the first point - part of the reason why I decided to post was because I am the most detatched from this agreement. I am not a remixer, and this document doesn't directly affect me.
DJP can gain a lot from this document, but he can also lose out - there are already remixers who don't agree with this document, and this is despite them knowing DJP for a long time and having trust in him. There will be new remixers (there always are), and some of them won't submit work, because of the new contract.

Remixers are also standing to gain and lose from this document. They gain a lot of protection and some promotion from this, but in return they give up the right to ever have their mix/es removed from this site, for any reason.

I on the other hand, lose very little. We'll have some more people submitting, so I'll get a few more songs, if they are approved. We'll also see a few people stop submitting, so I might have to look at other websites. I don't have much to gain or lose from this, so I thought that my post might have the opportunity to provide some hopefully objective opinions that would be free of conflict-of-interest issues.

Finally, I would prefer not to be written off as a doomsdayer, or dissenter of OCRemix. I love the site in its current and previous forms, and have enjoyed this place since the very old days - black and blue design, under 500 mixes, etc. I've never been able to contribute much back to the community I've loved so long... but I was hoping this could be one way in which I could give back to the community.

zircon

05-24-2007, 02:55 AM

If there is no case in which you would remove a mix, then for the sake of clarity, you should stop beating around the bush in what is supposed to be a concise legal document, and simply say "Once submitted, your remix cannot be removed at your request."

He said he can't think of any case. Perhaps there WOULD be a legitimate reason, that he simply is not thinking of. Hence why the provision is in there that mixes can be removed with the agreement of both parties. Thus, I don't think the crux of your argument makes any sense.

DarkeSword

05-24-2007, 03:15 AM

Least100Seraphs

05-24-2007, 03:16 AM

He said he can't think of any case. Perhaps there WOULD be a legitimate reason, that he simply is not thinking of. Hence why the provision is in there that mixes can be removed with the agreement of both parties. Thus, I don't think the crux of your argument makes any sense.

I'm not arguing that it should be changed. I see exactly why DJP wants it implemented, and I don't blame him for implementing it. I'm just saying that it is the clause most likely to dissuade someone from handing over their song, because it is the most likely to scare a contributor away.

Of course I am aware that a mix can be pulled down at DJP's will, or if the remixer has a reason and DJP agrees with it. But the fact is that the remixer's opinion is void in this situation. If DJP wants to remove it, it's removed. If he doesn't, it isn't.

Additionally, you say that there is provision for the remix to be removed if there is a legitimate reason - but that is not true. The legitimacy of the reason for a remixer wanting a mix pulled is completely irrelevant. The only deciding factor is whether or not DJP wants to remove it. Whether it's a legitimate cause or not, it's removed only at DJP's will. The concept of legitimacy only applies if there is implied good faith - and DJP has already said that he has no intention of assuming good faith in this clause.

Edit:
In response to DarkSworde's post: I think many people here already realise that - I certainly do. The concern here is that with the advent of this document, there is no obligation by OCR to remove a request, and no obligation to discuss such a request. If this was a website running on good faith, I'd have no concern - but as soon as legally binding documents come into being, my spidey sense tingles, and tells me to be very careful with what I sign and what I give up, because whatever the salesman says to me while I sign on the dotted line is irrelevant. Only the bit I'm signing has any weight behind it.

avaris

05-24-2007, 03:27 AM

Why not supplement the current removal clause and include a list of valid reasons for removal of a remix?

Hence a remixer can have their remix removed if their request meets one the following reasons:

A
B
C

If there are generic reasons OCR would always accept for a removal of a remix why not include them into to the license?

José the Bronx Rican

05-24-2007, 03:54 AM

I'm here to say that I'm with bladiator 100%, and really appreciate that he managed to express my opinion before I had to bite a bullet and use up precious free time doing it myself. This issue - which probably affects a negligible amount of us artists who already risk violating the rights of others with our derivative works - should never have gotten this far. Dhsu followed up with reason that is also welcome. Time for me to go YES this....

Dhsu

05-24-2007, 03:55 AM

I hope people will eventually understand that just because OCR can deny a removal request, that doesn't mean OCR will always deny a removal request. If an artist has a good reason for making a removal request (and not a stupid, petty one like Dave described), then that kind of thing can be entertained.
Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights. That kind of attitude is arrogant and selfish, and gives OCR an extremely bad image. In that case you're not even protecting the site's "best interests," you're just forcing your opinion on somebody else. Even wasting the time of the staff, while inconsiderate and inconvenient, is a manageable cost and not sufficient reason in my opinion, considering the relatively low frequency of removal requests.

The ONLY reason I'm in favor of OCR claiming the right to reject removal is that, from my understanding, removal would cause severe inconsistencies and complications in the operations of the site that would be impossible or at the very least extremely impractical to reconcile or otherwise remedy. If my understanding is incorrect, and this is not the case, then my vote regarding this issue will be much easier.

zircon

05-24-2007, 04:00 AM

Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights.

Wow, talk about overexaggeration and hyperbole. We're talking non-exclusive licenses here, people. Perspective. You haven't lost your distribution rights, you still have them, except you willingly gave OCR a non-exclusive license to them - that's hardly Dave "wresting control", so don't use such inflammatory language. FYI you license rights to people ALL THE TIME with music and creative works in general, whether you're sending it to a factory to get it pressed on CD, uploading it to someone else's webserver, putting it on MySpace, Soundclick, you name it. You license tons of your other rights too. That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

I mean, are you aware that the minute you distribute your work in the US, you actually lose your "exclusive" distribution rights? It's written right into our law. Once your song is out there, other people can perform, reproduce, and distribute it for an extremely small fee (9.1 cents per song, but typically much lower). And that's not to even TOUCH on fair use provisions which encompass a wide range of topics, again "wresting control" of your rights. Give me a break.

Sorry if I'm sounding impatient and frustrated here, but before immediately objecting here, many of you need to do some legal research into EULAs and license policies of other websites, as well as US and international copyright law in general. You don't have as many rights as you think, and you give them out to other people more often than you think (and often without your explicit consent). Lucky for remixers here, we're not a big, evil record label out to monopolize your music from you, hence the non-exclusive, limited license that is for non-profit use only and gives you more attention to begin with...

DarkeSword

05-24-2007, 04:12 AM

Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights. That kind of attitude is arrogant and selfish, and gives OCR an extremely bad image.

Way to take it out of context? As zircon said, nobody's wresting any kind of exclusive rights from a remixer, ever.

And a few of the examples that Dave gave of reasons people want to remove their work are, in my non-site-staff opinion, stupid and petty, particularly the one about having a personal problem with a person on the site and using a removal request as a means of retaliation. That's petty, and to be honest, I don't think that something like that is ever a valid reason to remove one's music from the site.

But what do I know? I'm just a robot.

DragonFireKai

05-24-2007, 04:34 AM

Wow, talk about overexaggeration and hyperbole. We're talking non-exclusive licenses here, people. Perspective. You haven't lost your distribution rights, you still have them, except you willingly gave OCR a non-exclusive license to them - that's hardly Dave "wresting control", so don't use such inflammatory language. FYI you license rights to people ALL THE TIME with music and creative works in general, whether you're sending it to a factory to get it pressed on CD, uploading it to someone else's webserver, putting it on MySpace, Soundclick, you name it. You license tons of your other rights too. That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

Funny you should mention Myspace and Soundclick.

You have the right to terminate this agreement and all licenses granted to us at any time. (http://www.soundclick.com/docs/legal.cfm?site=music)

I'm fairly sure Myspace music allows you to pull your Work too.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I think Soundclick is a lot closer to what OCR is than a physical record. Particularly if neither OCR nor the Remixer gain any profit in the exchange.

Bahamut

05-24-2007, 04:45 AM

Not really - Soundclick is more of a site to host your personal music for whatever reasons, while OCR's purpose is quite different. By their nature, a comparison is sort of silly. I think the record label analogy is far more fitting with that in mind.

Dhsu

05-24-2007, 04:46 AM

Maybe my wording was off (I meant they lose exclusive rights as in they become non-exclusive), but my opinion stands: refusing to remove remixes from OCR is unacceptable unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. So okay, you might not have total control over how your work is distributed after it's out on the Internet, but what you should have control over is who you're associated with (for example, certain bad mens).

Yes, you do have to agree with the policy in the first place, and most people will, but people change their minds. The only thing this policy does is make it so they can't do anything about it. It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will. You can delete your work off a web server. You are allowed to take your songs down from your MySpace and Soundclick pages. And I feel OCR should offer that same courtesy if at all possible.

zircon

05-24-2007, 05:02 AM

Maybe my wording was off, but my opinion stands: refusing to remove from OCR is unacceptable unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. So okay, you might not have total control over how your work is distributed after it's out on the Internet, but what you should have control over is who you're associated with (for example, certain bad mens).

But you don't have control regardless. Hundreds of thousands of people will have YOUR mix, with YOUR name directly attached to "OC ReMix". It will be in their MP3 tags and in the filenames. They'll remember where they got it and associate you.

It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will.

Yet the entire worldwide recording, publishing, and songwriting industry more or less operates under legally binding contracts just like this.

DragonFireKai

05-24-2007, 05:10 AM

But you don't have control regardless. Hundreds of thousands of people will have YOUR mix, with YOUR name directly attached to "OC ReMix". It will be in their MP3 tags and in the filenames. They'll remember where they got it and associate you.

Yes, but it'll eventually slow down. There are some people who still associate Virt with OCR, but not near as many as who associate, say, yourself with OCR.

Think of it as a sink with a drain, and OCR is the faucet. As long as your mix is on OCR, the faucet is running, filling the sink. You take your mix down, you shut off the faucet. Now, there's still some water left in the sink, but as people delete your songs due to space constraints, changing their library, or hard drive crashes, that backfill flows out. Eventually, your association with OCR will be minimal. But you have to shut off the faucet first.

Dhsu

05-24-2007, 05:12 AM

Of course it's not practical to ask people to rename and retag their MP3s, but it is practical to ask a site to take down your work, and prevent more people from making that association. And chances are if you *could* rename everyone's files, you would. Just because you can't do exactly what you want to do isn't an excuse to not try doing what you can.

djpretzel

05-24-2007, 05:15 AM

Yes, but it'll eventually slow down. There are some people who still associate Virt with OCR, but not near as many as who associate, say, yourself with OCR.

Think of it as a sink with a drain, and OCR is the faucet. As long as your mix is on OCR, the faucet is running, filling the sink. You take your mix down, you shut off the faucet. Now, there's still some water left in the sink, but as people delete your songs due to space constraints, changing their library, or hard drive crashes, that backfill flows out. Eventually, your association with OCR will be minimal. But you have to shut off the faucet first.

Correction: we have to shut the faucet off FOR you. And it's several faucets. And they're a pain in the ass to shut off. And we're not getting paid. And we probably wouldn't have gone to all the work to turn the faucets on for you in the first place if we'd known you were just gonna turn around and have us do all this work to shut them off.

See the difference?

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

Nice try, but the point stands, and it was a weak metaphor to begin with since it likened mix removal to the relatively simple act of turning off a faucet... I hate to put it like this, but you're dancing around some of the points that have already been made multiple times, by different people, and I'm not sure what that's going to accomplish...

Yes, you do have to agree with the policy in the first place, and most people will, but people change their minds. The only thing this policy does is make it so they can't do anything about it. It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will.

I consider it ethically reprehensible to remove an arrangement of someone else's music from a free hosting service, which offered free evaluation, criticism, hosting, distribution, and community review, for almost any reason. Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal is one of the only potential exceptions. I think I've already made the point that there's "ethical reprehensibility" on either side of this equation.... multiple times... but heck, I'll do it again.

DragonFireKai

05-24-2007, 05:25 AM

Correction: we have to shut the faucet off FOR you. And it's several faucets. And they're a pain in the ass to shut off. And we're not getting paid.

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

Nice try, but the point stands, and it was a weak metaphor to begin with since it likened mix removal to the relatively simply act of turning off a faucet... I hate to put it like this, but you're dancing around some of the points that have already been made multiple times, by different people, and I'm not sure what that's going to accomplish...

But it's the only point I still disagree with, and I'll continue trying to figure out a way to convince people of that.

You bring up seepage, but that's a fact of life that all music hosting services create, Soundclick, MP3.com, Myspace, all of them. But that doesn't prevent them from extending this courtesy to their artists. The seepage from p2p distribution isn't close to what the distribution is from the source here. Most of the mixes that are removed from here, wind up being hosted at one of the OCRemoved sites, but they're known to be distinctly different from the real thing to be found at OCR.

And as Dhsu said, just because you can't do everything, doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can.

djpretzel

05-24-2007, 05:28 AM

You bring up seepage, but that's a fact of life that all music hosting services create, Soundclick, MP3.com, Myspace, all of them.

We aren't them and I don't want us to be.

Dhsu

05-24-2007, 05:49 AM

Villainelle

05-24-2007, 05:50 AM

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

I get that you're trying to protect OCR's investment (money, time etc.) in submitted work, especially in the projected case of manufacturing DVDs, but the language of the removal clause still seems more favorable to OCR than to remixers. I think this could be rectified simply by being more explicit.

Why not reword it so that any actual monetary or otherwise tangible investment on OCR's behalf (aside from web hosting/traffic) is protected, while accepting that investments of time or other intangible resources are offered at a loss? Something like: "...requests for removal of a ReMix from OCReMix.org will be fully honored, but removal may or may not be granted at OCR's discretion in the case of ReMixes which have been reproduced by OCR at cost on physical media or other formats, such as DVD compilations..." etc.

While unfortunate, I don't think the loss of time/work spent in judging and writing up a particular ReMix (or even several, e.g. in Virt's case) that gets removed at the artist's request is sufficient to word the clause in favor of OCR, nor is the situation itself very common. You can protect yourself from the loss of these intangible investments in the future by refusing to deal with a submitter who imposes excessive requests for removal or otherwise excessive administrative duties on you (e.g. JD Harding).

It just doesn't seem like there needs to be a clause that favors the site more than the remixer, just because of a situation that happens VERY infrequently, and which MIGHT in the future interfere with plans for DVD comps etc. (Has anything as bad as JD Harding's case even happened again since?)

Using Compyfox's and Luiza's et al examples, if an artist requests removal of a song, it should be removed ASAP from the web site, while the artist accepts (per agreement to this contract) that it may not be removed from existing or in-production media such as DVD compilations. Per the contract, OCR may refuse to consider any future submissions from that artist.

I suggest that you give notice to existing remixers first, and permit a reasonable grace period before manufacturing DVDs or anything like that, so that anyone who wants to opt out has the opportunity.

Just my 2c. I don't think there's any malice on OCR's behalf here, but the removal language is just too vague and unfriendly towards remixers, IMO. Also, discussion of "stupid/petty reasons," or "reasons" period, has no place here. If OCR is going to evaluate each request for removal on an individual basis using various undisclosed criteria, that needs to be stipulated clearly in the contract. Otherwise, the staff has no place to judge anyone's request for removal, whatever their opinions on it, and must honor it without deliberation.

Dhsu

05-24-2007, 06:01 AM

Using Compyfox's and Luiza's et al examples, if an artist requests removal of a song, it should be removed ASAP from the web site, while the artist accepts (per agreement to this contract) that it may not be removed from existing or in-production media such as DVD compilations. Per the contract, OCR may refuse to consider any future submissions from that artist.
But then you get into a situation in which you're distributing something that's not even an OCReMix anymore, which doesn't make sense and will confuse people.

Also, physical compilations aren't the only issue here...it would be impractical to modify the torrents as well every time someone removes a mix. Although it might be feasible to have a short quasi-"lockdown" period before a new torrent pack is created, to allow people to opt out like in your DVD scenario.

Rambo

05-25-2007, 02:55 AM

I know I'm a nobody on these forums, but I thought I'd share that I personally find my interests conflicting when I see agreements like that. I've wanted to submit some art pieces on certain sites in the past but have opted not to because of similar contract details. I've been fiddling around with music programs and have wanted to join the remixing community, but that agreement threw me off a little. I'm a bit of a perfectionist.. and should I feel in a year that my first, or any contribution SUCKED and wasn't a good representation of my work, I wouldn't want it displayed as such.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting what to do, because I'm sure a lot of work goes into integrating new additions onto the site (and removing), not to mention time on evaluation, but I wanted to let you know that it can certainly be a turn off.
I like the idea that should the person abuse it (not have a good reason) that DJP should have the right to reject future submissions.

zircon

05-25-2007, 04:40 PM

Worth noting.. at this point, no "bad" subs make it on to the site. Our standards are high enough that anything you do, even if YOU think it's crappy, will probably be quite good - and definitely enjoyable by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Like I said before I don't think it's really fair to the general public to want to rescind your stuff just because you don't like it, when so many people would enjoy it.

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed. How do you think the average person would feel if (what they considered to be) a great mix was removed on the whim of a remixer who just didn't want to share it anymore because he has better stuff? Nearly every remixer on this site has grown by leaps and bounds and we all have stuff up that doesn't represent our best work, but we keep it up anyway. This would probably not be a very interesting site if people removed their stuff that was over a year old. I doubt we'd have more than a few hundred remixes.

Just my opinion.

Sir_NutS

05-25-2007, 08:38 PM

I consider it ethically reprehensible to remove an arrangement of someone else's music from a free hosting service, which offered free evaluation, criticism, hosting, distribution, and community review, for almost any reason. Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal is one of the only potential exceptions. I think I've already made the point that there's "ethical reprehensibility" on either side of this equation.... multiple times... but heck, I'll do it again.

yes, and since there's ethical reprehensibility on both sides, what gives your side special treatment, or complete control over the decision? you did a lot of work to judge and post the song, and the artist did a lot of work as well in making his song to support this website that he considers worth of supporting. Nobody is earning money out of it here, so neither of the sides will get hurt on that. So why the closed-mindedness and the obvious bias towards the site?

I think that in this situations both sides need to get a part of the damage, and in the case presented, OCR protects itself agaisnt all damage, leaving the artist without any weapon to justify or defend himself. I will sound repetitive but I find this anti-ethical, and even more seeing as there isn't any intention of proposing a better solution from the staff's side at the moment. All I see is "you're wrong, I'm completely right"

Both sides, the artists and the website, are working together to fulfill the goals of this venture, which are clearly stated in the front page and I won't copy them again. In the case of a break between the parts, OCR is obviously going out of it clean, while the artist will just have to suck it up. If they are working together to fulfill the goal, and both get their own benefits from it, why the only one damaged when the deal is broken is the artist? could you please at least consider this, and think about an scenario where there is a conciliation (sp?) between the parts in the case of a breakup? That would make this document more "welcoming". Right now it makes OCR look like an entity that will "eat" your songs away instead of a welcoming community that will work together with you to fulfill its mission.

Compyfox

05-25-2007, 08:56 PM

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed. How do you think the average person would feel if (what they considered to be) a great mix was removed on the whim of a remixer who just didn't want to share it anymore because he has better stuff?

Then again, Andrew, there's still OCReMoved hosted by Doulifé where even my mix is still on there, also Virts long lost material (still love that Toejam&Earl track). If we take a closer look, we weren't asked either whether or not we agree that these tracks are still publised, they just are. And if we talk about that, VGMix also has/had some kind of mirror of OCR mixes, too. So the tracks are not really "that" lost in certain ways to those who want to really get it. And like mentioned over and over, people still "have" the song somewhere (or loaded already), not to mention that P2P systems are crowded with OCRemixes - so yeah, we'd still have no influence of the "fan side", but on the "page side" - the officual ways.

Anyway, this came up in the other thread, and I think it's a good alternative to discuss. Actually Dhsu came up with the idea, but let me quote from my other post:

Perhaps one such middle ground would be initiating lockdown periods before events such as torrent or DVD releases, and including a clause in the policy stating that remixes cannot be removed after they have been locked down. During the lockdown period, ReMixers would be given one last chance to opt out, and if they don't, their ReMixes default to being locked.

Two reasons why this would/could not work:
1) There will be no further lockdown according to DJP himself (chat)
2) How do you contact all remixers? And if you can't reach them within the time the lockdown runs out (for example in stormy area's), what then? Is it still valid?

I'd agree with this option however. This is indeed a more fair deal than just giving the tracks away and then you're stuck with an infinite and irrevocable release, or releases on physical medium. So if this'd be pulled off, I'd consider a vote change.

Though there's still the thing with my "uber-hypothetical what-if scenario" (/quote DJP), but this is something completely different, and while it's still a valid reason for a removal IMO, it's a special exception and needs to be discussed seperately.

This idea actually found some positive response in the "closed poll" already by Sir_Nuts and Radical Dreamer. If such a system could be implemented, it would mean a bit more work indeed, but it's making this whole "rules thing" a bit more interesting, not to mention more relaxed and open-minded, for all participants.

Though we still can't predict the future (my "hypothetical scenario" again), but it's a start. Maybe a thing to consider?

djpretzel

05-27-2007, 02:50 AM

We'll be extending the discussion with the goal of revising into a final policy on or before June 2nd.

DragonFireKai

05-27-2007, 03:48 AM

It'd be nice if you could give us an honest appraisal of the draft, in terms of what sections are pretty much set, and which sections are still up for debate, for the sake of streamlining the discussion.

Liontamer

05-27-2007, 03:54 AM

DragonFireKai

05-27-2007, 03:58 AM

He may show up later, but it's Memorial Day weekend, so AFAIK he's out for now.

Well, apparently we have until June 2nd now, so there's time. I don't need it immediately. I just think it'd be helpful for streamlining future discussion.

Bahamut

05-28-2007, 01:11 AM

So...any other concerns with the draft?

So far, my appraisal is that BrainCells brings a legitimate point of concern, although I do believe the community has grown to the point that if there is ever an exchange of authority from djp to someone else, that the transition would be seamless. It is still something to watch for as it is something that cannot be predicted nor prevented. I cannot say I agree with the mandated pulling of a track to put it on a commercial album though, for the reason djp already stated - I don't see that as right at all.

Dhsu

05-28-2007, 01:18 AM

I think we're mostly waiting for feedback on the mini-lockdown proposal, or perhaps some other alternative.

andyjayne

05-28-2007, 07:28 PM

I think we're mostly waiting for feedback on the mini-lockdown proposal, or perhaps some other alternative.

&

Will project albums be subject to this? I have mixes that I completed years ago that are on unreleased project albums.
I haven't heard any further mention of whether the policy/contract applies to project albums / tracks that are already done but are on unreleased project albums.

The Pezman

05-30-2007, 05:33 PM

I've been wondering this for a while...

I imagine some of you are aware of the concept of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/). It's a special type of licensing which encourages collaboration, reuse and remixing; an extension of the concept of open-source, except applied to digital production other than code. Not ALL rights are released, just some of them.

Has the idea of applying such a license to albums (if not individual songs) come up before? If not, I would enocurage it; doing so would create an official tie between OCRemix and Creative Commons, and people who were not previously aware of the concept would be brought into the fold. And if, by contrast, you already use CC licenses on your songs (and thus make most of this post totally irrelevant) I would request that you make it more public (perhaps a link to the CC website).

herograw

06-02-2007, 04:43 AM

Apologies for the belated post. Had I been able to I would have made it sooner. there might be some repetition in here from my post in the poll thread.

As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time.

I'm relatively certain the policy would please nearly everyone if you allowed remixers to take down their mixes by request. A lot of people in agreement aren't especially hung up on the issue we've been discussing and they would probably still agree with the draft if it were changed to allow removal. Perhaps you should do a poll for this and see which policy turns out more popular, instead of going all-or-none like you are.

That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

Yet the entire worldwide recording, publishing, and songwriting industry more or less operates under legally binding contracts just like this.

We aren't them and I don't want us to be (referring to other sites, such as soundclick).

We don't have a say in those other policies. Are you (zircon) trying to say that we should have as bad a policy as others? As dave stated, we don't want to be like another site. As we have been given the choice to look over the policy and suggest changes, that's exactly what we're doing. Dave wouldn't want us to look over it if he didn't expect modifications and disagreements.

And a few of the examples that Dave gave of reasons people want to remove their work are, in my non-site-staff opinion, stupid and petty, particularly the one about having a personal problem with a person on the site and using a removal request as a means of retaliation. That's petty, and to be honest, I don't think that something like that is ever a valid reason to remove one's music from the site.

Straw-man? lemme see.... ahh, wikipedia is always there for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. I have to mention right now that I don't believe it is relevant what reason the mixer has for wanting his mix removed. Why should we have to mention why? Dave doesn't. remixes can be removed by djp for any or no reason at all but the actual remixer is supposed to give a good reason to get his or her own mix removed?

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed.

These lockdowns were generally done by the judges and not the actual mixers. I think fans would understand better if the mix's actual creator wanted it removed.

This would probably not be a very interesting site if people removed their stuff that was over a year old.

Can someone who actually knows give us an idea of how often this sort of thing happens? because it appears that those arguing for the contract (generalized) believe people will want their mixes taken down all the time, and those against believe it happens scarcely.

random notes:

Those of us on the 'against' side have not only offered our reasons but offered several alternatives. dave and others offer no compromise whatsoever. They stubbornly stick to the original. Why is this? It's obvious that a significant portion of the community (and SURPRISE, this includes remixers) take issue with this part of the policy. Why not seek alternatives?

I said this in the poll thread, but it's worth restating. Those in agreement with the site at a particular time who submit mixes might want nothing to do with the site at a later date, due to whatever changes might occur. Now, if I want nothing to do with a group i've formerly been involved with I really mean "nothing." Having my mix on a site I no longer want anything to do with associates me unfairly. Fine, people downloaded the song thousands of time. There's a difference between being "previously" associated to a site and "currently" associated.

Just because you can't scurry around and change the ID3 tags on every downloaded file doesn't mean you can't do anything about it. Keeping the song on the site is analogous to continuing to use freon because it has done so much damage already. Yeah, it's a pain that we can no longer use freon. But we don't use it, do we?

As far as protecting the listeners by keeping songs on the site, you guys aren't protecting listeners by scaring away new and old talent with this policy. It's a trend that remixers tend to get better with experience. I'd rather get better new stuff than cling on to less impressive old stuff.

I could probably keep babbling but this should be enough.

-rob

djpretzel

06-02-2007, 05:26 AM

I haven't heard any further mention of whether the policy/contract applies to project albums / tracks that are already done but are on unreleased project albums.The policy will apply to projects. In order to become an official OCR site project, the policy must be agreed to by every contributing artist. We will attempt to attain policy agreements from past projects, to whatever extent that is possible. The policy itself won't spell out anything specific to projects; since it refers to "materials", this is broad enough already. The project guidelines at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Album_Project_Guidelines will be modified once the policy has been finalized to refer to them as part of the process.

I've been wondering this for a while...

I imagine some of you are aware of the concept of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/). It's a special type of licensing which encourages collaboration, reuse and remixing; an extension of the concept of open-source, except applied to digital production other than code. Not ALL rights are released, just some of them.

Has the idea of applying such a license to albums (if not individual songs) come up before? If not, I would enocurage it; doing so would create an official tie between OCRemix and Creative Commons, and people who were not previously aware of the concept would be brought into the fold. And if, by contrast, you already use CC licenses on your songs (and thus make most of this post totally irrelevant) I would request that you make it more public (perhaps a link to the CC website).

Actually, I asked Lawrence Lessig himself about that, and got this response:

CC licenses require the licensor have the rights to the content he licenses. So an arranger would need permission to arrange any copyrighted work.Pretty much. Even if it were possible, CC isn't *exactly* what we're looking for. Sure, we could build on it, but it appears Lessig himself rules CC out, and he probably knows it better than us, I'd hope :)

I have to mention right now that I don't believe it is relevant what reason the mixer has for wanting his mix removed. Why should we have to mention why? Dave doesn't. remixes can be removed by djp for any or no reason at all but the actual remixer is supposed to give a good reason to get his or her own mix removed?

...

Those of us on the 'against' side have not only offered our reasons but offered several alternatives. dave and others offer no compromise whatsoever. They stubbornly stick to the original. Why is this? It's obvious that a significant portion of the community (and SURPRISE, this includes remixers) take issue with this part of the policy. Why not seek alternatives?

I said this in the poll thread, but it's worth restating. Those in agreement with the site at a particular time who submit mixes might want nothing to do with the site at a later date, due to whatever changes might occur. Now, if I want nothing to do with a group i've formerly been involved with I really mean "nothing." Having my mix on a site I no longer want anything to do with associates me unfairly. Fine, people downloaded the song thousands of time. There's a difference between being "previously" associated to a site and "currently" associated.

A few things:
As far as your first point, as to removal reasons, I'd agree that the policy is one-sided in that it allows mix removal for pretty much ANY reason. I intend to rewrite that to be more limited. A third draft is on the way. It will limit removal reasons on our part to requests by the copyright owner or violations of the submission policy. Note that the submission policy changes, however, and is not carved in stone... this is unfortunate, but at the very least it would mean that we couldn't just remove mixes willy nilly unless there was SOMETHING in the submission policy that indicated as such.
As far as a significant portion of the community objecting, that's subjective. In a certain sense, even ONE person objecting is "significant"... in another sense, coming up with a policy that would please everyone and their grandma is probably impossible. Some of the "significant" objectors are people that have other beefs with us in the first place... 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. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?
As far as being "associated" with something... that's just weak. We're doing a substantial amount of work to evaluate and post each mix. If you don't wanna be "associated" with something... guess what: don't release any of your music, anywhere. If you think OCR is some sort of service that it is your RIGHT to submit music to and revoke at your whim, this policy is flatly stating otherwise; some people seem to not only understand, but support, that notion. Perhaps the modification to the policy that we can't just remove mixes for any reason we like will address your major concerns and that'll describe you as well. That's one compromise that's been proposed and which I think makes sense. But if you want to sit around waiting until we've made every compromise possible, and you can submit a piece, remove it, submit again under a different name, etc. and otherwise take advantage of the work that myself and the site staff and everyone else puts in... don't hold your breath.To everyone else, my apologies for not resurrecting this sooner; it's June 2nd, and I've been AWOL in terms of discussing the proposed compromises.

Let me state my general frame of mind:

I'm prepared, as stated above, to make it harder for OCR to remove an artist's mixes. I agree that the policy as written is lopsided in giving arbitrary removal to one side and almost none to the other. Seeing as I hate removing mixes, and only wish to do so if the submission standards have clearly been violated, this isn't a big "sacrifice", but it does address a certain unfairness in the current draft.

I'm still not persuaded to formalize any sort of "cooling off" period or intermittent policy freeze periods where artists would reaffirm their mixes existence on the site. My reasons are as follows:
It's more work. Sorry, just being frank.... devote seven years of your youth to a website and then see where you stand on issues like these :-D
It sacrifices/dilutes the positive aspects of the policy that will benefit many for the reassurance of the few.
There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.Prophecy has kindly provided a legal analysis of some of the wording that I need to look over; I don't think it will affect the substance of the policy, but it may.

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.

herograw

06-02-2007, 06:02 AM

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. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?

I like to take others seriously when in serious situations, such as this. When I make an argument based on reason I expect only my reason to be criticized, and not my character in other, unrelated situations.

While I still think we're not seeing on the same level on some points, I believe this disparity of opinion occurs at a deeper level, and further explanation isn't going to give my point the equivalent further clarity.

As for your other points about restricting removal rights granted to ocr, that sounds much better and overall more fair to me than previous discussion. If such actions are taken as reflect your current line of thinking I would wholeheartedly give my support. Not that you need by support, but it would be there nevertheless.

Thank you for responding civilly, regardless of whatever opinions you might have about my character.

-rob

P.S.
There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.

Perhaps you could give a reason for the remixer needing a reason :P

DragonFireKai

06-02-2007, 06:07 AM

Are we going to have an opportunity to look over this upcoming 3rd draft and give our input before it's made into law?

djpretzel

06-02-2007, 06:11 AM

Are we going to have an opportunity to look over this upcoming 3rd draft and give our input before it's made into law?

Absolutely. I do sorta want to avoid rehashing issues that have already been raised, but there wouldn't be much point to calling it a draft if it wasn't going to be revised, and the same group that's been revising it (indirectly - and doing a great job) should continue to be involved. That's everybody.

Bahamut

06-02-2007, 06:15 AM

I like to take others seriously when in serious situations, such as this. When I make an argument based on reason I expect only my reason to be criticized, and not my character in other, unrelated situations.

So far, a good portion of dissent with the policy has been demonstrated to be with those of questionable character with questionable skews. For the nature of the only valid point of contention (Braincell's dissent), character plays an important role here, and from what has been seen from a moderator perspective (as well as your tangential rant), you fall into this category for not taking moderators seriously. In addition, a large portion of your complaints use twisted, or even no justification, as has been addressed previously (i.e. the significant comment, and abuse of submission).

And an important reminder to all commenting on the policy: Do not use this thread or the poll thread as a platform to go on hate rants - this thread is for productive discussion to put together a feasible policy that is amenable to as many people as possible as well as the site. If you wish to make another thread on the (supposed) vices of OCR, you may in this forum, but only if it's kept civil.

DragonFireKai

06-02-2007, 06:24 AM

So far, a good portion of dissent with the policy has been demonstrated to be with those of questionable character with questionable skews. For the nature of the only valid point of contention (Braincell's dissent), character plays an important role here, and from what has been seen from a moderator perspective (as well as your tangential rant), you fall into this category for not taking moderators seriously. In addition, a large portion of your complaints use twisted, or even no justification, as has been addressed previously (i.e. the significant comment, and abuse of submission).

How do I have questionable character? Or Coop, or Dhsu, or AP? I think we've all raised valid points, and it's kinda insulting to get painted with a broad brush due to the past actions of a few people who share our views on this particular topic. Please don't write us off like that.

Bahamut

06-02-2007, 06:30 AM

How do I have questionable character? Or Coop, or Dhsu, or AP? I think we've all raised valid points, and it's kinda insulting to get painted with a broad brush due to the past actions of a few people who share our views on this particular topic. Please don't write us off like that.

Nah, not you guys or S|r Nuts, although I have to wonder about Dhsu at times. You guys are being candid and we appreciate that. Those others I reference there know who they are though.

Dhsu

06-02-2007, 06:58 AM

Some of the "significant" objectors are people that have other beefs with us in the first place...
And many aren't.

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. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?
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

As far as being "associated" with something... that's just weak. We're doing a substantial amount of work to evaluate and post each mix. If you don't wanna be "associated" with something... guess what: don't release any of your music, anywhere.
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.

If you think OCR is some sort of service that it is your RIGHT to submit music to and revoke at your whim, this policy is flatly stating otherwise; some people seem to not only understand, but support, that notion.
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. ;)

But if you want to sit around waiting until we've made every compromise possible, and you can submit a piece, remove it, submit again under a different name, etc. and otherwise take advantage of the work that myself and the site staff and everyone else puts in... don't hold your breath.
Okay, there's no way you seriously expect someone to actually submit anything with the actual intention of "taking advantage" of the system. For someone so skeptical of other people's hypothetical scenarios, you definitely come up with some odd ones yourself. In any case, the "gone is gone" policy would very easily take care of the "submitting again" scenario. We're not asking for "every compromise possible" here...just one which for some reason you happen to be particularly unwilling to give.

It's more work. Sorry, just being frank.... devote seven years of your youth to a website and then see where you stand on issues like these :-D
Fair enough.
It sacrifices/dilutes the positive aspects of the policy that will benefit many for the reassurance of the few.
I'm not clear on what positive aspects the requested changes would sacrifice/dilute. Mind clarifying?
There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.
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.

Edit: I just now realized how hypocritical the above post may seem, considering I'm criticizing your reasons. :P But the difference here is I'm not demanding a "100% persuasive" explanation for how your run your site...just asking for a small concession.