OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - 2nd Draft Poll, closes 5/24/07

[djpretzel]

This poll is being conducted to gauge current feedback on the second, revised draft of the OverClocked ReMix Content Policy.
All votes are public.
A thread discussing this draft is available at http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628.
The final vote tally will be closed Thursday, 5/24/07, midnight EST.
"Disagree" votes will only be counted if an explanation is provided. We will tally the number of explanations and reconcile this with the number of votes.
The draft will not be edited until this poll has been closed.
The draft may still be edited after this poll has concluded; we are primarily interested in feedback on the core issues, which will likely remain the same, but smaller issues may still need clarification.Currently, this draft reads:

OverClocked ReMix Content Policy 2nd DRAFT

Submission Agreement

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

Terms of Use

OverClocked ReMix grants all parties a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use, redistribute, incorporate into other works, and publicly perform OverClocked ReMixes as long as the following criteria are met:

A.) No profit is made from the exercise of this license. This includes but is not limited to incorporation of OverClocked ReMixes into commercial works, charging more than the cost of the delivery means for redistributing OverClocked ReMixes, or redistributing OverClocked ReMixes in the context of commercial advertisments. 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.

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.

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../). This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to terminate this license at any time. In such instances where OverClocked ReMixes have been incorporated into other works or are being redistributed or performed, the original artist may be contacted to obtain a separate license for the material in question, so long as all references and attribution to OverClocked ReMix are removed. 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. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies those utilizing OverClocked ReMixes from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

[DragonFireKai]

Well, I guess I'll be the first voice of the loyal opposition here.

I applaud the effort taking place here, but I don't think the one sided termination rights in favor of the site are morally correct, or needed. It's close, but I can't in good conscience give it the go ahead with that clause attached.

[Mustin]

much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much better.

Kid Tested, Mustin Approved.™

[Fishy]

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not something I would personally have a problem with. A vg remix isn't exactly something that I would be bothered about someone else distributing, because its not as personal as an original composition or something like that.

[DragonFireKai]

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not something I would personally have a problem with. A vg remix isn't exactly something that I would be bothered about someone else distributing, because its not as personal as an original composition or something like that.

But someone else might, personally, I really don't have a whole lot at stake here. I don't have a lick of musical talent in my body, so I don't have to worry about other people distributing my songs, because no one would want to. But it's a moral point to me. I just don't think that it's right for one side to have all the power in this context. It's not something I'm going to quit the site over, but if the site staff is going to ask, I'm going to voice my reservations.

[Bahamut]

But someone else might, personally, I really don't have a whole lot at stake here. I don't have a lick of musical talent in my body, so I don't have to worry about other people distributing my songs, because no one would want to. But it's a moral point to me. I just don't think that it's right for one side to have all the power in this context. It's not something I'm going to quit the site over, but if the site staff is going to ask, I'm going to voice my reservations.

If there was little known about OCR as a commercial entity (if it was a random no-name organization), I would agree with your POV, but as OCR has defined itself as a non-profit organization in the draft, I see no reason why such a moral qualm would still hold.

[DragonFireKai]

If there was little known about OCR as a commercial entity (if it was a random no-name organization), I would agree with your POV, but as OCR has defined itself as a non-profit organization in the draft, I see no reason why such a moral qualm would still hold.

It's the fact that I don't expect people I don't know well to hold to good intentions. And to be honest, I don't know a single person on this website beyond what they present on the site. So when I look over an agreement I see being set up to be legaly binding, I hold them to the same standard as I hold everyone else I don't know. I tell all the members of my platoon to look over everything they sign, even if it's from the Army, because while I don't expect the Army to hose me, I really don't know who's sending what down the pipe, so a measure of caution is needed. In God I trust, all others I check.

[Bahamut]

It's the fact that I don't expect people I don't know well to hold to good intentions. And to be honest, I don't know a single person on this website beyond what they present on the site. So when I look over an agreement I see being set up to be legaly binding, I hold them to the same standard as I hold everyone else I don't know. I tell all the members of my platoon to look over everything they sign, even if it's from the Army, because while I don't expect the Army to hose me, I really don't know who's sending what down the pipe, so a measure of caution is needed. In God I trust, all others I check.

But what issue could possibly arise from a non-profit organization, especially when the gesture by the licensor granting the license is a gift of sorts to everyone? I'm probably one of the most meticulous people on this site when it comes to reading contracts & agreements, and I really don't see much of an issue at all possibly arising here.

[DragonFireKai]

But what issue could possibly arise from a non-profit organization, especially when the gesture by the licensor granting the license is a gift of sorts to everyone? I'm probably one of the most meticulous people on this site when it comes to reading contracts & agreements, and I really don't see much of an issue at all possibly arising here.

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.

[Bahamut]

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.

See draft discussion thread for response.

[Anorak]

Well, I'll be the next opposing vote then. Not that it will matter, since I have no mixes on the site and the poll is already heavily tilted in the other direction.

Personally I don't have any problem with drawing up a legal policy to protect Overclocked. It really is a good idea to expand the proceedings beyond a handshake agreement. But like Kai, I can't agree to the termination rights that favour OCRemix. Maybe it's my predisposed nature of assuming that everything will go wrong, but I can't help but imagine a scenario where mixes will be eternally trapped in a glass cage; their makers want them down, but because they once had an altercation with the site staff or their reasons are declared "too selfish", their request denied.

From here on out, god help you if you didn't read that other topic.

I'm guessing that this policy is being put into place because of the exodus, virt, etc.. If so, I can't help but feel that everyone who has ever (and ever will) submit a mix here is being punished for their actions. And consequently it feels like we are all being lumped into that group. Like you're all assuming that as soon as we tire of the site, we'll pull our mixes and be gone. Not all people are like that.

On Wikipedia (wait, I'm going somewhere with this) they have a policy called AGF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith). If you didn't bother to click the link, it stands for Assume Good Faith. Now, OCRemix and Wiki are completely different sites, with different content, rules, yada yada. But the rule is an interesting one. Summarized, it describes that when a good intentioned edit is made that is incorrect, one should NOT assume it is vandalism. You should assume they are trying to help the site.

The idea of a mix getting removed helping Overclocked is completely bizarre, of course. But take the rest of that policy into account. If I may rephrase it into terms which apply to our current situation:

"Not everyone who is requesting that their remixes be removed is trying to harm Overclocked Remix."

DJP went over a few reasons why someone would want their mixes removed in the other thread. In the same post, he said, concerning remix removal: "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." Then why is the one sided termination clause in the contract anyway?

To wrap up, and summarize this wordy mess, I just wish that the site would have some more good faith concerning its mixers. We all aren't plotting a mass exodus on a VBulletin Board somewhere. Having this clause in the agreement is going to keep a lot of remixes on the site, but it's going to drive a lot of mixers away too. I like this site a lot and I just hope there is some reconcilliation between those two numbers. But I'll have to be in the second group.

There, that's my reason. I know nothing about law, but you asked for it, and there it is. I hope you can forgive my emotionally vague, idiotic, embarrassing, and drawn-out ramblings. Now you know why I didn't post before.

P. S. When this passes, please place it where every remixer can see it - right before they submit a mix.

[Dhsu]

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.
I still hold that the second sentence is redundant. :P

I'm curious, though...does this mean that a situation could occur in which OCR wants to terminate the license, but the ReMixer doesn't? :D I don't see this EVER happening, as it's a rather silly scenario to be honest, but the implication here is that OCR would be stuck with the distribution rights (ohgnoes!).

[Tenucha]

I would agree to these terms.
They seem fair to me for both the artist and the site.

I have included a couple remixes in a video but gave credit to the artist and (OCReMix) in the credits (I'll get the video online for viewing purposes and then get the attetion of the YouTube group).



The idea of a mix getting removed helping Overclocked is completely bizarre, of course. But take the rest of that policy into account. If I may rephrase it into terms which apply to our current situation:

"Not everyone who is requesting that their remixes be removed is trying to harm Overclocked Remix."


On this note... if a remix is violating any form of applicable laws including copyright infrignment... then it would benefit OCR to remove the conent from the website.
It doesnt mean it will happen or not however this gives the site the right to remove it.
An instance would be if a submitted remix were to pass and get hosted here and, later on down the road, someone from the team or just a listenier realizes that there is too much original work being used (this is just for aguments sake... I know the Judges Panel wouldnt allow a remix thats so obvious like this haha) from the original source.

I dont think this constrans the artists or anything... I think it gives everyone a heads up.
This really is no different from any other "Dont cross our content policy" on any other website or community's Terms of Service.

[DragonFireKai]

I still hold that the second sentence is redundant. :P

I'm curious, though...does this mean that a situation could occur in which OCR wants to terminate the license, but the ReMixer doesn't? :D I don't see this EVER happening, as it's a rather silly scenario to be honest, but the implication here is that OCR would be stuck with the distribution rights (ohgnoes!).

It is redundant, and I'm fairly sure that some of the remixers who got their mixes ganked during the lockdowns would have prefered to keep them up.

[Dhsu]

Nowhere in the license does it imply that OCR is obliged to distribute the ReMixes. And removing a mix doesn't necessarily mean relinquishing the right to distribute it. So I really can't see a situation in which OCR would actually want to terminate the license.

[Broken]

I like the idea of a quasi-legal document that spells out some of the un-asked questions that I've had about this site for a while. I may or may not ever submit anything here (or I should say, I may or may not ever be accepted here,) but if I ever were to submit something I now have a better idea of what I'd be getting myself into.

And thank you for clarifying some of the more intricate details of this agreement. I'm sure there is still plenty of grey area left and other details that could be covered, but I know that I have no authority or experience with this area of music (ie. rights, legalities) so I'll just leave my opinions as stated.

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the idea here is this: If I submit a mix to OC ReMix, I am saying to Dave and the judges that I think this mix is good enough to be hosted as an OC ReMix. In turn, if this mix makes it past the judge's panel and onto the site, that mix is officially accepted as good enough material to bear the name of OC ReMix. That is an agreement entered into between the site and the mixer.

Therefore, if a mixer comes back later and simply says "I think my mix should be removed for this and such a reason," the mixer is basically telling Dave and the judges "I think, in retrospect, that it was a mistake on your part to allow this mix to be posted." But if Dave and the judges allow it to be posted, what the mixer personally comes to think of that work later is, to a great extent, irrelevant. Dave and the judges said it was good enough. It will remain so, even if your personal taste and/or musical skills have moved past the style or complexity of the mix.

They're not saying there will be a refusal to remove a mix if, for instance, a mixer wishes to update it with a version they feel is better. I think what they're trying to avoid here is a situation like JD Harding, who (in my understanding of the situation) had 7(?) mixes on the site and consistently requested removals of his own materials because of his personal taste.

As such, I endorse the new policy. Nice work. :nicework:

[Kanthos]

The only thing I can see that might need changing is that the submission licence implies that mixes can be distributed by OC Remix without using the OC Remix name.

[Shael Riley]

Though I'm made uneasy by the irrevocableness of the agreement's terms, this second draft is, at a glance, seemingly comprehensive in its attention to preserving the safety, stability, quality, longevity and expandability of the Overclocked ReMix project; and well-written for clarity. Offsetting my fear, though, is my trust in Dave's, and, (to a slightly lesser extent) the Judges' and Judges-to-bes', intentions to not fuck up my shit, or the shit of others. Considering the afformentioned,

I approve.

[DCT]

Looks a lot better than the original draft. I can rock with this.

-DCT

[The Coop]

Having given the 2nd draft a read through, I still find...

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.

... the bolded part to be too one sided. You're saying you can deny a remixer's request to remove their mix(es), but you can remove it for various reasons that have nothing to do with the remixer. This, coupled with your admitted lack of respect given towards the removal request reasonings you posted earlier, comes off badly. I can see why this section makes people uncertain about having their remixes on here.

Now yes, I understand that removing even just one remix would mean plucking it from not just the site, but the mirrors and the torrents. I know that's potentially a lot of work. But, I refer you back to my comments here (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=272508&postcount=130) about a two week "cool off" period, and the "Once it's gone, it's gone" concept, and here (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=272549&postcount=135) regarding what I feel is a need to expand upon, in policy, how removal requests will be dealt with. How it's worded now is ambiguous, and leaves much open to interpretation. You know removal requests are going to happen, so why not formulate a way in which you can explain to the submitting remixers how you will deal with such requests?

I still firmly believe that simply telling someone "We're not removing it" is a very poor way to run things, but as you said, that's not necessarily a policy-centric concept. However, I'm quite convinced that not addressing in some way, in policy, how OCR will deal with removal requests is a bad idea.



Regarding the policy as a whole, that portion was the only area I personally have an issue with. If that small section could be worked on so it was more informative, I'd have no issues agreeing with it if I were still submitting remixes here. But as it is right now in this 2nd draft, knowing what's been said, I question whether I'd agree with it or not, as I'd really have to stop and think about the above section for a while.

[Tenucha]

The only thing I can see that might need changing is that the submission licence implies that mixes can be distributed by OC Remix without using the OC Remix name.

I thought they only ment that if you, the mixer, wanted to host the song say, MySpace, or on your own website... you can without the OCReMix name attached...
Otherwise if you get it from OCReMix then it IS an Overclocked ReMix and therefore you gotta keep all the tags and names assigned and so on.
Thats what I got out of that o_0

[DZComposer]

Ah, much better. It still has that removal request clause that I don't like, though.

I think I'll wait before voting.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Terms of Use

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.

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/../). This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.

What does this mean with regards to allowing my girls to do floor routines to Remixes? This would seem to conflict with point B, as I can't really announce that it's from OCR and give the URL and the artist every time somebody practices a routine (ie every time the music plays during practice,) and the only way I can think of to do it at a meet would be to take out an ad in the program at every single meet; which I'm not sure would really qualify under the terms of use anyway.

It would conflict with point C, because I have to edit and cut the songs so they will be the right length for the girls to do routines to, and often I have to take chunks from different parts of the mixes instead of playing one contiguous chunk of the mix. Would this violate the clause against modifying it for redistribution?

In short, would I still be able to allow my girls to use OCRemixes as routine music, or would I have to go and get these mixes directly from the remixers, or from VGmix or R:TS (or wherever else I may be able to find them)?

[Shael Riley]

I think the idea here is this: If I submit a mix to OC ReMix, I am saying to Dave and the judges that I think this mix is good enough to be hosted as an OC ReMix. In turn, if this mix makes it past the judge's panel and onto the site, that mix is officially accepted as good enough material to bear the name of OC ReMix. That is an agreement entered into between the site and the mixer.

Therefore, if a mixer comes back later and simply says "I think my mix should be removed for this and such a reason," the mixer is basically telling Dave and the judges "I think, in retrospect, that it was a mistake on your part to allow this mix to be posted." But if Dave and the judges allow it to be posted, what the mixer personally comes to think of that work later is, to a great extent, irrelevant. Dave and the judges said it was good enough. It will remain so, even if your personal taste and/or musical skills have moved past the style or complexity of the mix.

They're not saying there will be a refusal to remove a mix if, for instance, a mixer wishes to update it with a version they feel is better. I think what they're trying to avoid here is a situation like JD Harding, who (in my understanding of the situation) had 7(?) mixes on the site and consistently requested removals of his own materials because of his personal taste.

As such, I endorse the new policy. Nice work. :nicework:

I don't think anyone wants the document in question to facilitate a repeat of the mass exodus of 2002, or the the JD Harding situation; that's pretty clear. What you must consider, though, when examining the irrevocable nature of the contract you're going to be held to as a remixer, is that OCR is now given your legally irrevocable permission to distribute your work in as-of-yet unspecified ways; that is, they can do anything they want with your arrangement so long as it is legal and is not explicitly forbidden by the terms of use outlined in the content policy. What could they do with my mix to which I would object? I don't know. I haven't thought of anything yet, as I'm generally interested in disseminating my music--even my older music that might not be representative of my current level of ability--to as many people and through as many channels as possible. Nevertheless, knowing that my music could be disseminated against my will, through some channel I have not yet discovered and will not approve of, makes me uneasy. Not only that, but if, on the off chance, this channel would hold some potential for financial compensation to be given to me for use of my mix, assuming I could work out the details with the copyright holders of the original arrangement, an admittedly unlikely scenario, I would be barred from taking steps towards receiving the money to which I may be entitled. And the same could happen to you, if you are or plan on becoming a contributor. That's what you have to consider, not JD and the gang.

That said, this is merely me playing devil's advocate for the sake of facilitating discussion, for the sake of, in turn, banging out a policy agreement endowed with the fortitude to endure the arrows and slings of whining from the future.

[Tenucha]

What does this mean with regards to allowing my girls to do floor routines to Remixes? This would seem to conflict with point B, as I can't really announce that it's from OCR and give the URL and the artist every time somebody practices a routine (ie every time the music plays during practice,) and the only way I can think of to do it at a meet would be to take out an ad in the program at every single meet; which I'm not sure would really qualify under the terms of use anyway.

It would conflict with point C, because I have to edit and cut the songs so they will be the right length for the girls to do routines to, and often I have to take chunks from different parts of the mixes instead of playing one contiguous chunk of the mix. Would this violate the clause against modifying it for redistribution?

In short, would I still be able to allow my girls to use OCRemixes as routine music, or would I have to go and get these mixes directly from the remixers, or from VGmix or R:TS (or wherever else I may be able to find them)?

Its a good point.
Because of my position at local anime conventions... the DJ ended up hearing some of my OCReMixs and ended up playing a few of the more heavy rave tracks from this site (Which I was not present for... I think there was a Tetris and Mario theme... perhaps Star Fox's Metrorave and maybe a Final Fantasy as well) during atleast one (that I'm aware of) rave/ dance over the conventions weekend.

Obviously he didnt get on a PA to announce it as an OCReMix...

[djpretzel]

Note that my intention was to still have most of the discussion take place back on the other thread, and that this thread was for voting and explaining "disagree" votes... but what the heck:

Regarding playback at Otakon or for a gymnastics class, the policy should be rewritten to specifically require accreditation for public performances. I don't think either would qualify as a public space, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll look into this.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Sorry, would have made that post in the other topic, but this could definitely effect whether I agree or dissagree with the draft.

If the answer is that it's ok for me to continue using remixes as routine music, I have no objections to anything else in the policy, and would vote in favor of it. If I can't, I don't know. Most likely I'd either abstain from voting or vote against it.

[Tenucha]

Note that my intention was to still have most of the discussion take place back on the other thread, and that this thread was for voting and explaining "disagree" votes... but what the heck:

Regarding playback at Otakon or for a gymnastics class, the policy should be rewritten to specifically require accreditation for public performances. I don't think either would qualify as a public space, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll look into this.

This was at AniZona's 3rd year this past Easter Weekend which is a very little Arizona baised con.
It might be public space depending on location... the dance room was bascelly one of the conference rooms with all the chairs stacked along the walls haha

[Bloomer]

Is this where I put my vote explanation? Well, I voted 'disagree' for now. Like many folks I do not like the lack of unrestricted ability to remove a mix. The best workaround I've seen discussed in the forums was The Coop's 'Cooloff period + 'once it's gone it's gone'' ideas. I'd like to suggest something else but I can't really think of anything. Not that I've gone out of my way to do so :)

Btw, some context - I've 1 remix on here, and visit very occasionally, so I'm in no way a major user of or contributor to OC. I know nothing of the exodus of 2002 I've seen mentioned. However the principle of retaining control of distribution of one's work at the broadest official level is important to me and I believe in protecting it for all folks, especially in this not-for-profit context. Caveats are ok, so long as that initial path for me to say 'ok, I wanna remove this song' and know it will be acted on if I don't swerve is in place.

[Compyfox]

There goes another one for oposing vote.

The reasons are stated in the other thread, and are still ignored with the words "it's unlikely that this will ever happen". Furthermore I miss the part with GEMA and ASCAP members.

Additional to that:



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 applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement. This license explicitly prohibits OverClocked ReMix from distributing submitted materials for profit.

"You retain ownership and copyright" definitely doesn't swing with "You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable...license" - with emphasis on "perpetual" and "irrevocable". In other words, you give your track to OCR, and you loose all futher rights.

Which makes that following sentence abundant.

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

Especially with the following part.

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination.


On one hand, the track still belongs to us, but on the other you can do whatever you feel like doing with it. Including releasing on a physical medium, while we're left out and can not decide if we're even agree to that (I personally don't). In short, we loose all rights to OCR's benefit - and I don't agree to that.

Sorry - a clear no on my end.

[anosou]

It sounds great, thansk for listening

[djpretzel]

Sorry, would have made that post in the other topic, but this could definitely effect whether I agree or dissagree with the draft.

If the answer is that it's ok for me to continue using remixes as routine music, I have no objections to anything else in the policy, and would vote in favor of it. If I can't, I don't know. Most likely I'd either abstain from voting or vote against it.

As written, it's vague, but that'll definitely be added. The sticking point for most seems to be mix removal. We're interested in ReMixes being played in MORE locations/contexts, not less, so if this issue is your primary sticking point, please vote in favor. The only reason I'm not modifying the draft right now is because there's a moratorium while voting takes place; afterwards language will be added that clearly allows accreditation exceptions for certain types of performances.

[Least100Seraphs]

Explanation of my no vote: as others have mentioned, the idea that an artist has to give up distribution rights for an indefinite period of time with no recourse to have it removed unless OCR's staff allows it is simply something I couldn't accept.

And yes, I am aware that I am not a remixer with works hosted on OCR. I will say, however, that if this Content Policy was put in place, I would most likely not submit any works to OCR.

As for the non-profit angle - it is precisely because OCR has no financial constraints regarding profit or revenue, that this "removal refusal" clause is so out of place (and IMO, out of the question). OCR is not a business with large amounts of money tied up in lucrative record labels, sponsorship and merchandising deals, or stockholders that require their quarterly dividends. OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so they've no need to retain distribution rights, as it is, by definition, without value.

[djpretzel]

OCR is not a business with large amounts of money tied up in lucrative record labels, sponsorship and merchandising deals, or stockholders that require their quarterly dividends. OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so they've no need to retain distribution rights, as it is, by definition, without value.

I'd counter that that argument can be used in the other direction - OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so there are no compelling arguments to remove it, since no fiscal loss is being incurred. Our non-economic desire to retain distribution rights has been covered in the discussion thread, FYI.

[OA]

Explanation of my no vote: as others have mentioned, the idea that an artist has to give up distribution rights for an indefinite period of time with no recourse to have it removed unless OCR's staff allows it is simply something I couldn't accept.

I think you (or perhaps me, someone correct me if I am wrong) are misunderstanding that you are giving up distribution rights. You can still do whatever you want with your mix, it just can't distribute the mix with the OCR tag on it.

Say I created the awesome "Linkin Schala" mix, and it made it onto OCR. Basically now, there would be 2 versions of the mix, the "Linkin Schala", and "Linkin Schala OcRemix". They sound exactly the same, and I can do whatever the hell I wanted with the "Linkin Schala" mix as far as distribution. The OCR version, stays with them and has become part of the OCR history, and they can distribute it as they see fit, as long as it is not-for-profit, but I can't distribute it or anything. Basically I am entrusting a copy of the mix to OCR.

I think the system in place is good, and I appreciate the effort being made to involve the community.

[Least100Seraphs]

To the two above - I do understand the nature of the agreement. However, the removal refusal clause does affect the remixer's distribution rights, and he does give up distribution rights by agreeing to that clause - specifically he gives up the right to decide how his material is distributed by OCR, and for what time period.

Now, it is true that this is somewhat of non-issue, because the policy clearly lays out answers to both question of how, and for how long. I'm certainly not saying such a clause cannot or should not be in the policy (I have gone into more detail regarding this in the discussion thread). I'm simply answering the question the poll asks.

It asks "Would you submit a mix if these were the rules?"
My answer is "No".

[Dhsu]

"You retain ownership and copyright" definitely doesn't swing with "You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable...license" - with emphasis on "perpetual" and "irrevocable". In other words, you give your track to OCR, and you loose all futher rights.
The emphasis should be on "non-exclusive." That means OCR doesn't become the *only* party that can distribute your work. That's why you still retain your rights.

On one hand, the track still belongs to us, but on the other you can do whatever you feel like doing with it. Including releasing on a physical medium, while we're left out and can not decide if we're even agree to that (I personally don't).
No, you're not being left out. You're being asked RIGHT NOW by this license to decide if you agree to have your track released "in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed." If you don't agree to that, fine, then don't and be done with it. But don't accuse the license of leaving out something that you just missed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my vote...I'm abstaining for the moment. While I personally don't have any problems with the remix removal policy and its implications, reading other people's posts and argument has made me realize that the principle of the matter is also important, as distributing something against a person's will (no matter how petty or silly the reason) is not something that seems morally or ethically sound.

I think that if Atomic Dog or another lawyer had the time and interest to weigh in on this again, it's likely he would be able to provide citations and other evidence that it's illegal to do what you want to do with only a license. But I also think something could be worked out that's both legal and not as threatening to the ReMixer. So, I'm going to hold out for possible changes to the policy before agreeing to it.

[djpretzel]

As for my vote...I'm abstaining for the moment. While I personally don't have any problems with the remix removal policy and its implications, reading other people's posts and argument has made me realize that the principle of the matter is also important, as distributing something against a person's will (no matter how petty or silly the reason) is not something that seems morally or ethically sound.

I think that if Atomic Dog or another lawyer had the time and interest to weigh in on this again, it's likely he would be able to provide citations and other evidence that it's illegal to do what you want to do with only a license. But I also think something could be worked out that's both legal and not as threatening to the ReMixer. So, I'm going to hold out for possible changes to the policy before agreeing to it.

Abstaining is fine, and I understand your rationale, but we do want as much feedback as possible before the poll closes, so hopefully you'll still chime in with a vote before the cutoff. Your help in clarifying the policy as written to date has been very valuable, by the way - thanks.

I honestly don't believe what we're trying to do is "illegal" in any way, shape, or form. The citations of the specific wording that we're now using involving "non-exclusive, irrevocable, sub-licensable" etc. is pretty boiler plate and appears to be in common usage on various sites, including all of Disney's sites. Not that we want to aspire to the same levels of Draconian legalese that Disney tends to, you understand, just that I'd imagine they have ample lawyers advising them and wouldn't attempt themselves to implement an illegal policy, or one which wouldn't stand up in court. That's another point that needs to be made: the policy itself really can't be "illegal" until:
We enact it
Someone agrees to it
That person objects to it after the fact
Their objection is not reconcilable with us
They initiate legal action against us
Said legal action goes to court, and last but not least...
A judge finds our license unenforceable and thus null and void...... after which the policy itself would still not be "illegal", but enforcing it would be...

Now, raise your hands if you think any of that is *actually* going to happen in the first place...

Yeah, I didn't think so. Your point about principle is taken to heart, but again, I feel it's a matter of principle to keep to your word and to contribute free music, in this case arrangements of someone else's music, without too many strings attached. Yes, this policy is trying to cut some of those strings forceably instead of taking things on faith, but in a situation where a mixer wants something removed and we've spent hours evaluating it, posting it, promoting it, and others have spent time reviewing it, there's no way to get any of that back. There's principle involved on either end of the equation, but since we're the ones writing a policy and not the other way around, and since "principle" doesn't translate to this type of document that well (at all), we're taking this step.

I feel pretty strongly on this issue, and many seem cool with it, but like you I'm interested in seeing objections. The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something...

[avaris]

Pertaining to the last paragraph: Remixer A creates some kick ass rhythms for an OC Remix they submitted when they were 18+. Then the remixer uses the rhythms verbatim in an original commercial song with no reference to OverClocked Remix. My impression of this policy is that said actions would not violate the policy.

Also a general note: If this is retroactive to include all OC Remixes the license/policy would not hold up to a remix someone submitted when they were under 18.

An example in law classes relating to contracts. A 16 year old buys a car from you. He/she goes and crashes it. Then he/she returns the car to you and receives all of the $ back. Why the contract was never valid in the first place.

Also since we are all from different countries how will the policy hold up internationally? In the US you have to be over 18 to enter into an abiding contract. What about other countries?

I think the concerns of international validity and the 18+ rule are the biggest things OCR might want to consider before putting the policy into affect. As is besides the 18+ dilemma it’s fine for merican remixers.

Also for remixers who submitted songs before the policy comes into affect, they never agreed to any contract. There is no legal standing to hold them to a contract either. My impression is that the policy would not be enforceable for those remixes.

My experience with law only relates to business and it's very basic. So correct me if I'm wrong or if there are loopholes in anything I'm saying. IMO it's pretty damn hard to make an iron clad contract/policy.

To make sure someone agrees with the policy won't the submission standards need to change. Hence the remixer(s) will need to include a generic statement stating they agree to the policy/contract located at "X". Or they could just paste the contract into the submission. Since the web address for the page the contract is listed on will prob change in a few years.


I haven’t voted yet. Although, I will still submit remixes if the said policy is put into effect. As a 21 year old american I think it’s fine. If I voted yes it would show my support for the policy. Frankly I wouldn’t want to support a policy that could cause a lot of friction down the road for OCR and it’s artists due to international law and the 18+ law.

[Compyfox]

The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something...

I stated a couple of possible reasons, where you commented "that's no reason for me" or "that'll most likely not happen". Now if someone doesn't agree with the draft now, and/or the draft works retroactive, wouldn't it be a valid and excellent reason to say "sorry - I do not agree with your (future) policy, please take my mixes down"?

Or do you say, that is is no valid reason for a removal, too? Yes I'm beating the dead horse, sorry about that, but your opinion is just close-minded, while you expect us to be open-minded to your draft.

[Dhsu]

If a person doesn't agree with the new policy, then they don't have to submit new mixes. My understanding is that all their old mixes will still be under the old policy, and they can still ask for them to be removed. But since the new policy doesn't even affect them, there isn't really a point to doing that, unless you just wanna annoy djp.

[Compyfox]

Didn't Dave just post in the other thread, that some stuff will be "forced" in some kind of way?

Sorry, but this is getting more and more strange. And would you please stop shredding every bits of my posts to pieces and tell me that I'm wrong on all ends? Thank you!

[The Coop]

I feel pretty strongly on this issue, and many seem cool with it, but like you I'm interested in seeing objections. The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something...

Let's give this a whirl...


- Several years ago, I submitted three remixes that were eventually accepted onto your site. While I was most grateful for the hosting and the visibility your site have provided, I have begun a new chapter in my remixing life.

I'm currently working on making a website for both my remixes, and various other works that I've made over the years. I have the intension of making my website the only place sanctioned by myself to provide my remixes for download, and it'll be going live in a couple of days. As such, I request that you remove all three of my remixes from your site.

Thank you for what you've done, and I wish you the best for your site and its future.



- Several years ago, I submitted "X" and "Y" to your website. They were accepted, and posted. Since that time, as an active member of the OCR community, I've been watching this place grow and change. However, in the past year, I feel a number of the actions you and your staff have taken were ill informed, childish, and abusive towards both contributing members of the community, and the community overall. The events surrounding the sidebar and UnMod deletion were bad enough, but when you showed up drunk and began randomly deleting threads and banning users, and then had to gall to make that pathetic excuse for an apology... well, that was the final straw.

I have become thoroughly disgusted with how this site is being run, and by those running it. As such, I request that both of my remixes be removed from your database, as I no longer wish to be a part of OCR in any way, shape, or form.


:?:

[Dhsu]

Didn't Dave just post in the other thread, that some stuff will be "forced" in some kind of way?
The only thing I can of that you might be talking about is his mentioning that he'll be asking all current ReMixers to agree to the policy. The ones that don't or can't agree will not be bound by the new policy unless they submit new ReMixes.

As for the off-topic part of your post, check your PM box.

[CHIPP Damage]

Well, I didn't read ALL of the posts, but I'll throw in my two cents. Like many others, I just wish that the refusal of termination line would be cut out. If a remixer doesn't want his or his remix on the site any more than so be it. They should be able to have it removed. Having said that, I don't really see why we need to worry about this whole contract thing in the first place. It seems like the simplest way would be to say that by submitting a remix to OCR, you are giving OCR the right to post it only on Overclocked Remix and do nothing more with it there after. Then whenever someone asks to remove a remix from the site, they remove it for us. And whenever OCR guys wanna do something more with the remix, they ask the remixer. If they can't get in touch with the remixer, they don't use it. Anyway, it probably going to be criticized as being "way too simple for something so important." But that's how I like it, I guess. ^_^

So I'm going to go ahead and oppose the current draft.

[djpretzel]

Well, I didn't read ALL of the posts, but I'll throw in my two cents.

...

So I'm going to go ahead and oppose the current draft.

While feedback is appreciated regardless, it's pretty clear that, like you yourself say, you didn't read all the posts. There are more concerns governing the introduction of this policy and, in my mind, necessitating it than simply "wow, this seems like a good idea", and we've taken a good bit of time already to refine it from its previous incarnation.

[Sir_NutS]

I'm going to have to oppose. I said this in the other thread and I'll say it again. The artists are the sole owners of the rights to their work, and for that, they decide where it should be distributed and who should have it. By telling the artist you won't remove his mix from the website you're telling him that you own the rights to distribute his work, and that he has no right to stop the distribution of his work wherever and whenever they want.

I think compy and specially coop have put up some valid points to prove a valid scenario of a remix removal could be presented. I think you're basing this, as I said in the other thread, in guessing that no one would want his mix removed permanently. Coop gave some goosd scenarios and I bet that some others that no one has thought of could be presented in the future, so I think the right policy here would be to accept the removal requests, and do not accept back the removed remixes.

EDIT: Also if we have to explain our opposing vote, why no one has to explain their accept vote and counter the sticking points? bias much?

[DragonFireKai]

EDIT: Also if we have to explain our opposing vote, why no one has to explain their accept vote and counter the sticking points? bias much?

No, it's so that the staff can gauge what people feel is wrong with the policy. Telling them that you think they got it right doesn't help them a whole lot, as it's implied by the vote. A no vote on the other hand, could apply to any aspect or combination of aspects of the policy, and that needs to be clarified to be helpful for the purposes of overhauling the draft. What I don't understand are the people who vote yes, then express reservations about the wording. That just strikes me as bizzare.

Also, AP posted his reasons for his vote in the other thread, so please count his vote.

[Dhsu]

I also have a feeling that just as (or perhaps more) important than the explanations for the votes, are the actual people making them. I can't help but notice that most of the dissenting votes are from non-ReMixers, or inactive ReMixers. But if a popular ReMixer such as bladiator or Reuben Kee were to disagree, however, I'm thinking it would hold a lot more weight.

[DragonFireKai]

I also have a feeling that just as (or perhaps more) important than the explanations for the votes, are the actual people making them. I can't help but notice that most of the dissenting votes are from non-ReMixers, or inactive ReMixers. But if a popular ReMixer such as bladiator or Reuben Kee were to disagree, however, I'm thinking it would hold a lot more weight.

Sometimes the people with no attachment to a situation have the clearest perspective.

[Sir_NutS]

Meh, I'm a (somewhat) active remixer in the community, and my issue is not something that I will apply to myself, as I highly doubt I would remove any of my songs after being a ocr member since almost it's beginnings. However I can see this as a point that could easily bring issues in the future, and that given the new official status of the term of use, could be troublesome to handle for david later.

and DragonFireKai, I stated that because I see that there's an attitude of "none of the points given are valid, shoo", when I haven't seen any valid counterpoints to these statements.

anyways, good luck with this, as I said, I don't think this will be an issue for me and won't determine my further support for ocr but I can see this as a weak point in the document.

[andyjayne]

I also have a feeling that just as (or perhaps more) important than the explanations for the votes, are the actual people making them. I can't help but notice that most of the dissenting votes are from non-ReMixers, or inactive ReMixers. But if a popular ReMixer such as bladiator or Reuben Kee were to disagree, however, I'm thinking it would hold a lot more weight.
Not that I disagree with your point but if you're going to look at it like that then the consider who voted in agreement as well. I doubt that out of the 68 voters so far all were active and popular ReMixers.

I haven't voted on this myself and am hoping some things will be clarified before the poll ends.

[Dhsu]

Good point. There's quite a few big names in there though...including a certain recently unbanned ReMixer, I noticed. ;)

Meh, I'm a (somewhat) active remixer in the community, and my issue is not something that I will apply to myself, as I highly doubt I would remove any of my songs after being a ocr member since almost it's beginnings.
Yeah, that's why I said "most"...in fact, I think CHIPP has a mix waiting to be posted as we speak.

[Liontamer]

Good point. There's quite a few big names in there though...including a certain recently unbanned ReMixer, I noticed. ;)


Yeah, that's why I said "most"...in fact, I think CHIPP has a mix waiting to be posted as we speak.
Indeed, he has one waiting. For the record, out of the 10 no's so far, 6 are from ReMixers. Of the 60 yes's so far, 39 are from ReMixers. Fun stats! FUN!

[BrainCells]

Well here's my opinion. I really like this place. I was welcome here since day 1 by Larry, and Djp made me really feel at home with his well structured and intelligent reviews about my arrangements. The whole community philosophy is ok for me, though I must say that for a musical growth I chose to be more active at VGMix.com. Everyone I met here are great people and I'm really thankful for being part of this community. I really consider DJP and all the judges around people of good will.

However, the music I work in, be it original work or arrangement, is a part of who I am. It says so much more than how I play or produce. It tells how I was feeling on that moment and so much more of my own philosophy and personality, and I'm pretty sure that what I'm saying must make sense for every single person on this planet who created a piece of art in life.

Because of that, it seems very important to me to have some control about how my music is distributed, and I'm not talking about profit at all. Untill last weeek, I could say that I was 100% ok with OCR's rules. Today, not anymore. This alone proves my point that things change, I can change and so the site's policy or philosophy can change into something I cannot make part anymore in the future, and I'm not telling it could change to something worse, just something I don't agree with, something that I don't want to be part of anymore.

I saw in the past OCR going through all the songs already posted to see if some should be deleted. It's OCR telling us that what they did in the past may not be the best situation for the present. Let me say, as a musician, that I can't affirm what I did yesterday is my choice for the rest of my life.

Also, I think it's very unfair that the site retains the right to delete your song at any time, but the reverse way doesn't work the same.

I wish I can be part of all of this forever, but I can't set it in stone. Because of that, I reserve my right to choose the destiny of my music and that's all.

That's where I disagree.

[zircon]

BrainCells, I can understand your concerns, but let me ask you this... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR? It's already out there, people have already listened and formed an opinion. All you would be doing is stopping new people from enjoying your existing music - and believe me, people do enjoy it, as you are a great remixer. :)

[djpretzel]

Also, I think it's very unfair that the site retains the right to delete your song at any time, but the reverse way doesn't work the same.

Would it change your vote if this weren't the case, and we could only remove your mix if we found that it violated submission standards, or due to a cease & desist? The "reasons including but not limited to" does indeed suggest that we could remove it if we just felt like it... in actuality, for the same reasons that we don't want to facilitate removal, we wouldn't do so. If more assurance from us that we won't just remove your mix for whatever reason we choose would actually change your vote, let us know. It's worded open-ended because there may be reasons we'd want to remove a mix by someone that we haven't thought of... for example, if someone tried to DDoS us repeatedly, we probably wouldn't want their music on our site, etc.

[BrainCells]

... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR?...

Actually what concerns me is not who listens to my song, but where my image is attached to. You see, when an artist signs a contract with a record label and produces an album, that piece of art will be available forever, but since it s in a distinctive type of media, most of all CD's and DVD's these days, it's not something that can be changed suddenly in it's content. I pretty much doubt that the record label can change, for example, Metallica's Black Album cover to a plain white image, or even change the songs order or anythig else you can imagine, since it's surely stated in contract that they can't. Even so they cease the contract in a distant future, what happens often, they are sure that who holds the rights of the material in question will not change it drastically, and, in most of the cases, the artist still have the option to make a deal and buy its own rights.
That, for such a dynamic media as a website, is impossible to control. I really don't know tomorrow which path OCR is going to choose and it really bothers me that today I must give my "OK forever" for something I really don't know how is going to be in 10 years.
Let's imagine DJ Pretzel dies (and I hope not, of course) and a relative of him takes the control of the site, changing its philosophy to something completely different, or let's imagine that due to some reason unknown he decides to sell OCR for some company or a third person. Things like this can happen and i'm not sure that in 2026 this will be an environment where i will want my image attached to.

Would it change your vote if this weren't the case, and we could only remove your mix if we found that it violated submission standards, or due to a cease & desist? The "reasons including but not limited to" does indeed suggest that we could remove it if we just felt like it... in actuality, for the same reasons that we don't want to facilitate removal, we wouldn't do so. If more assurance from us that we won't just remove your mix for whatever reason we choose would actually change your vote, let us know. It's worded open-ended because there may be reasons we'd want to remove a mix by someone that we haven't thought of... for example, if someone tried to DDoS us repeatedly, we probably wouldn't want their music on our site, etc.

You see, I have these days asked myself about this policy, and if I would bother about that if it was already like this when i joined OCR, and probably it would make no difference for me, i'd go and submit a song the same way.

About your question, yes, that really would sound better if some distinct reasons were stated in the policy for removal of songs, instead of the open way it is right now.

I totally agree with the reasons why you are going through this policy and I even thik it is totally necessary. I just don't see where taking away the right of the user to remove his own piece via request clashes with the needs you state as necessary for the policy at all.

A doubt I still have: How often does that happen that a user asks his songs out that can drastically affect the site in a negative way?

For the cases of some people just angry about some bullshit in the forums or because a new song got rejected, why not to include a clause in the policy, saying that all removal requests will be effective in 90 days from the day of request, and a confirmation will be needed after this period. this way it would avoid from deleting songs from people who just were angry in the heat of a moment...

I'm saying all this because, as a member, I was invited to be here. All I'm putting here are just my sincere opinions to make this policy as fair as it can be for both sides. However, I can say that the way the policy is right now, with the changes that DJ Pretzel said possible to me, would really be ok. I really think that all the future plans for OCR, like distributing songs in physical media and all the kind of advestising possible is VERY positive and of course I love the ideas.

I don't think the way the new policy works would be impeditive for me to submit new songs on the site, however, what I suggest here i think is fair and in no way could bring any kind of prejudice to OCR and its contributors.

[Sir_NutS]

BrainCells, I can understand your concerns, but let me ask you this... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR? It's already out there, people have already listened and formed an opinion. All you would be doing is stopping new people from enjoying your existing music - and believe me, people do enjoy it, as you are a great remixer. :)

You seem to don't get our point, as we aren't stupid enough to realize that a song that had some time up at ocr has been downloaded everywhere already by thousand of people. That is not the point, the point is about rights. Does the fact that you've stated give ocr, or any other entity, the right to hold my music and distribute it, even if I don't want to be part of that community/entity or as braincell stated, I don't want my image attached to that anymore? Besides, keeping the song would mean even MORE people everyday will download the song with the OCRemix label on it which is what, in the first place, an artist wouldn't want.

The point here is not what you think the artist is thinking when he asks for removal. It's not if he'll beg you to posts his songs again up in the site. It's about the right of the creator of a piece of art to have complete control of it's use.

As i said, sorry but I still remain oppossed to this policy, it's contradictive and antiethical.

[zircon]

As I posted in the other thread, you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here.

A compromise such as the one djp/BrainCells are talking about would make sense however.

[Sir_NutS]

As I posted in the other thread, you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here.

A compromise such as the one djp/BrainCells are talking about would make sense however.

uuh.. braincell is talking about the same thing. o_0

though he added another issue that is the specific cases in which ocr will remove songs from the site, which is just fine as this is his site and as such he has the right to remove any song from it, if it clashes with his hosting policies/goals/terms of service/user conduct policies. Now if my own policies or plans as an artist clash with those of the website, I can't remove my songs from there? oh so it doesn't goes the same both ways?

I would agree that in some producing/publishing deals you lose control over your songs, however, ocr/djp aren't making money out of this, they are posting the songs to fulfill the mision/vision of the website:

"This website is dedicated to arranging video and computer game music. Our mission is to prove that this music is not disposable or merely background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form."

[BrainCells]

...you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here...

Sorry to disagree, but that's like "he kills, so I'll kill too" attitude for me. That alone doesn't justify the situation, and is just another prove that something awful from this culture is entering through wide open doors in this comunity.

[zircon]

I do not agree, and I could go into a lengthy discussion, but I will be brief. Think about these things:

* Grandmothers and little girls getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading and sharing MP3s

* Sony DRM protection on CDs that made computers vulnerable to hacking

* Windows Vista DRM that degrades picture quality if it thinks content is not "legitimate"

* USB Dongles for programs like Cubase and Arturia synths that are expensive, bulky, inconvenient, cause computer problems, and slow down the software

* New legislation in the US that would effectively shut down thousands of internet radio stations (this was barely avoided)

All of these things arise from people wanting to "control" their copyrights. The attitude of people wanting to have ALL rights at ALL times, more often than not, hurts the general public and is not fair to them. For centuries, in all countries - not just the US - the purpose of copyright has been to encourage the creation and distribution of creative works by giving people a limited monopoly over them. Keyword is "limited". The purpose is NOT to give artists, writers (etc) total, permanent, exclusive control. When people do try to obtain that you get situations like those I outlined above.

I am an artist myself and I can empathize with wanting control, and believe me, I am a huge defender of copyright. But to say that we should always have total control, and that the public at large should pay the price... well I just don't agree, and I think most people in the world don't either.

[BrainCells]

...The attitude of people wanting to have ALL rights at ALL times, more often than not, hurts the general public and is not fair to them. ... The purpose is NOT to give artists, writers (etc) total, permanent, exclusive control. When people do try to obtain that you get situations like those I outlined above.

I think that what we're discussing here is far different than "wanting to have ALL rights ALL the time". If you analize the section of the policy draft that talks about removal requests
you'll see that it's pretty much the opposite, since OCR gives you zero control about it, It's like it said "If you want your song removed for whatever the reason you "think" is fair, it's up to us to decide, there's nothing you can do about it. Never. Forever." Besides it's absolutely clear that DJ Pretzel can't see a fair reason to accept the removal request, so it's probably never gonna happen.

Did you understand when I said ZERO control? It's far different than wanting to have it all, even because that is not what I want.

All I want is, since it's open for discussion, a fair policy that gives both sides at least one option to change things, cause the way it is , about this particular section, it's given the artist zero option if needed. It's important to find balance between both sides and this is the point where I think the weight goes all over one side.

[Dhsu]

Okay, well after no small amount of deliberation on my part, I've decided to vote no. Here's why.

Like I explained earlier, the problem isn't so much the actual act of distribution...there's no way an artist would be able to control that, short of DRM like zircon mentioned. The issue here is more about the matter of association with the site...akin, perhaps, to a situation in which a store continues calling itself "Bob's Pizza" long after Bob got disgruntled and left. It might have the legal right, and it'd be a pain to change the signs and phone books, but it seems like a reasonable courtesy to Bob. And sure the ReMixer agreed to the terms in the first place...but so did Antonio when he offered a pound of flesh to Shylock.

Now, from what I understand, the main objections on djp's part to allowing ReMix removals is three-fold:


djp personally disagrees with the most common reasons for remix removal.

This is irrelevant and has no place anywhere in the process of creating a formal policy.


It's a "pain" on the part of the staff and reviewers.

This objection is valid, but not sufficient in my opinion. The relatively low occurrence of removal requests makes this not a strong enough reason in my eyes to justify distributing an artist's work against his will.


Allowing removals would make certain things infeasible, such as providing torrents and compilation DVDs.

This is the one I most agree on, and here djp's "one big album" analogy makes a lot of sense. Until now, this was the only reason I agreed with the policy's wording, but upon further consideration, I can't help but feel there has to be a better alternative than refusing practically all removals.

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. Granted, it'd be more work, but I believe it gives ReMixers a bit more breathing room and to me is, if not a huge improvement, a much more palatable option than instating an automatic and perpetual state of lockdown as the current policy draft would do.

If that's not reasonable, I'm sure the community could work something else out. I'm just not convinced that flat-out refusal is the solution.


And there you have it. Those are my reasons. That said, I'm going to be a hypocrite for a moment here and admit that even if the policy were passed as is, it probably wouldn't be enough to keep me from submitting in the future, as I personally don't anticipate it ever becoming an issue for me. So if I had to agree to the current draft in order to get my stuff on the site, I would, albeit with considerable reluctance. Although honestly, if djp asked for my first-born, I'd probably give it. :P

[DragonFireKai]

You know, for a little while, I was scared that i was going to be the only one opposing this. I would have looked rather foolish getting blotted out 66 to 1. But I'm glad that not only I wasn't the only one who voted against, but some promenent members of the community share my reservations. In the end, I don't think this policy will destroy the site, or even make a noticable impact, but I stand by my comments I made.

[Rambo]

Like I said in the comments thread, I wouldn't be able to accept the terms knowing that I couldn't have my work removed without consent. And by the sound of it, consent would likely not be delivered.

I had just started remixing and was excited about potentially joining the community in the near future. I know my No won't mean much in terms of impact to the site since no one has any idea who I am, but I figure there may be others like me who would just opt not to vote thinking the same thing.

In any case, I could personally want to have work removed for one of 2 reasons.
Should I feel after a length of time that a past submission is a very poor representation of myself, I wouldn't want it displayed as such. The second is if I have serious problems regarding site management (or a member of). Similar to someone harassing management or attempting to hack, should a member of staff do something of the same degree it may lead to me not wanting association with the organization.

I do think that should DJP feel that it is a very poor decision or not agree with the action at the time, he should hold the right to refuse future submissions.

In any case, thanks for the opportunity to vote and discuss.

[Dhsu]

Er, judging from the above post, I'm guessing your voting "yes" was unintentional then?

[Rambo]

Er, judging from the above post, I'm guessing your voting "yes" was unintentional then?

Uh... I swear to God I hit no. Shit.

[Liontamer]

Uh... I swear to God I hit no. Shit.

You win! :<

[Rambo]

You win! :<

Well that is terribly embarrassing... and I'm gonna stfu now.
In any case, for the record I did in fact mean No. Sorry.

[DragonFireKai]

Smooth, Rambo, Real smooth. I could've had a baker's dozen of like minded allies, now all I have is a pedestrian regular dozen.

[andyjayne]

I missed voting because I was too busy yesterday but I would have voted no on account of the wording used in the section regarding removal requests.

Edit: To clarify it's not because I disagree with the policy I just really think that section seems intimidating/threatening.

[Compyfox]

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 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-hypocretical 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.

[Sir_NutS]

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

[The Author]

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

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

[Rambo]

Smooth, Rambo, Real smooth. I could've had a baker's dozen of like minded allies, now all I have is a pedestrian regular dozen.

God damnit man, I'm said SORRY! :-x


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

Genius. You're the balls.
It seems like a pretty reasonable and fair solution.

[Compyfox]

But what good is it, if the "headquarters" don't even comment on them whether or not they'll accept it? Or even "think" about it.

Either nobody cares, it's a clear NO right from the start.

[Dhsu]

Or maybe they're still discussing it. These things take time to decide.

Not to mention they're trying to locate the 9th piece of 8, and they still haven't elected a pirate king.

[The Coop]

Not to mention they're trying to locate the 9th piece of 8, and they still haven't elected a pirate king.

Did they look under the old sea chest that had the two oysters in it?

[Compyfox]

Or maybe they're still discussing it. These things take time to decide.

Tomorrow (today already for me) the draft discussion ends - and no reaction whatsoever in both threads. Time needed for decitions or not, but this is a serious compromise that needs to be commented on.

Unless however, it really doesn't matter anymore. Butd as soon as the discussion is "closed", the draft is set. A lifesign would be nice indeed.

[zircon]

We (the site staff, including djp) are all busy people... unfortunately we can't devote all of our time to this kind of thing. But, take our word for it that we do care about the public opinion, and if we didn't we would have just implemented the policy without asking. Just sit tight...

[Sir_NutS]

We (the site staff, including djp) are all busy people... unfortunately we can't devote all of our time to this kind of thing. But, take our word for it that we do care about the public opinion, and if we didn't we would have just implemented the policy without asking. Just sit tight...

I did like that this time the staff sat down with the comunnity to hear what we think before changing anything. And even if the decision taken about the discussed points is not what I would want, I would still be happy that the staff took us all in consideration.

Kudos, and good luck with your last draft.

[herograw]

I had every intention of voting "no" but it just so happened that I was banned at the time. oops... anywho I'll say now what I intended to say a week ago.

there's nothing I need to mention here that braincells and others haven't mentioned before. However, i'll speak a bit regardless. dave and co(horts) expects a good explanation while at the same time stating that he can do whatever regardless of his own reason. while this isn't fair, this is the truth. it's his site, his community. but how enjoyable is a community in which one feels as though he has no control over his own property? I suppose the only choice we have is whether or not we want to contribute in the first place.

Zircon can't seem to wrap his mind around the idea of association. That is to say, whether or not one wants to be associated to this site. At one point a mixer might submit his mix, hoping to get it on the site and proud to be a part of ocremix. at a later point he might dislike the direction the site is heading and no longer want to be a part of it. by having a mix up, he would still be associated with ocr. It doesn't matter how many people downloaded this mix previously. zircon responds to this with a "wut to do" attitude analogous, in my opinion, to an american slave owner saying "well it was right for the past x years, so it must be right still." I think ocremix at many points in the past was a much better place. had I submitted a mix in 2004 and had it accepted, i'd be asking it to get taken down around now, because regardless of how much I liked the site back then I perhaps wouldn't want my name attached to it now. And once again, if 2309524906724 people already downloaded [random mix] so it's pointless to take it down, why do we have lockdowns? the mixes ocr removed during both lockdowns are in the possession of plenty of people.

So in all futility I vote NO. had I been able to before the deadline I would have.

-rob

[djpretzel]

I'm locking this thread as continued discussion can take place on the official announcement thread or draft thread.