Leaderboard

I think the difference between the old way (site ads) and the new way (youtube ads) is that now OCR is making revenue off of specific, identifiable remixes, instead of just "remixes in general." I think it should be ok, with a couple of caveats: 1. We should update the remix agreement to include specific language about the fact that the remix videos on youtube are monetized, with the funds going to OCR and not to either the remixer or the original artist(s) 2. We should make sure that none of the original artists (Nintendo, Square Enix, etc.) would have any viable claim against OCR making money from their original work 3. We should do some budget projections to see if making money in this way is even worth the possibility of pissing off ReMixers, viewers, and potentially original artists.

Ok since this is public, I'll say this publicly. I have offered repeatedly to take on this role and we have discussed it. I have an MBA in Finance and a ton of accounting experience; this is what I do. I did a budget template and financial statement templates and invited you to the Google sheets, I hope you've looked at them. It's time to revisit these budgeting templates in a big way. We need to have some serious conversations about budgeting. Tom has just started back to school (yesterday), so my time is more available now to work on this with you. I totally understand everyone's feelings about YouTube ads, and I share these feelings. It has a totally different perception than website ads, and it feels more like a personal "fuck you" when you're on YouTube and an ad pops in your face. I fear that YouTube ads may have a negative impact overall. But I totally understand your feelings about the different types of ads and your explanations are great. Let's budget it out to see if it makes sense to continue them, or maybe there are other options we haven't explored yet.

We were testing the waters, getting an idea of how it would work, the different settings involved, how obtrusive it would be, etc. We did legitimately want to see whether people would notice, and when. The community definitely deserves to know and provide input, and if a majority (or potentially a plurality) of artists are uncomfortable with it, we can reassess, but I'll lay out the general thinking below and you can see what you think. We can use this thread to discuss; just need to keep things civil & productive. This is not civil or productive; I'm confused why you're still registered and taking the time to chime in, if you're so convinced that the music is mediocre, which is kind of an insult to all artists contributing to this thread, either way... So this is surprising to me, because the way we see it, ads on videos are not materially different from ads on the website, all of which go directly towards funding the site. Nothing has changed, policy-wise. From http://ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy This remains 100% true; the only difference is that the ads are on YouTube instead of the website. We'd like to minimize or even eliminate ads on the website in favor of YouTube, primarily because they're more annoying, less relevant, affect layout/usability, and don't accomplish much. Based on @bLiNd's reaction, and perhaps others, it seems like people are drawing a major distinction between YouTube ads and ads on this website, and that's what this conversation needs to focus on, because from a policy perspective, again, nothing has changed - any $$$ goes towards operation & promotion, and the net effect is just that ads are offloaded from the site and onto videos, where we feel they make a bit more sense. No unskippable ads, FYI. There are other benefits to being a partner channel, including enhanced reach and protection from instant takedowns, that seem to make this a smart move for us, but nothing is concrete - let's talk it through, but let's focus on the core question: how is this different from the status quo?

Whether or not this is ethical as far as OCR's relationship with the artists who have submitted this music, to me, is secondary to the concern that this is kind of damaging the good case we had for Fair Use as far as arranging copyrighted material and releasing it publicly unlicensed. It seems silly to me to equate website ads to YouTube ads. Website ads are driven by traffic to the OCR website/forums, and the mix write-ups. On YouTube, the ad revenue is generated directly from the content that users are consuming. The ad is tied to consumption; when a user consumes the content on YT by hitting play, ad revenue is generated. It's monetizing the content itself. To me this isn't really subjective, if you look at it in terms of the actions the user takes that lead to these systems logging the transactions. (Of course there is an extent to which the evaluation of whether something is subjective/objective is in and of itself subjective) Besides personally feeling like an outdated submission policy has kind of been invoked on us artists, dormant patent troll style, to make it "okay" for OCR to do this because they're "covered" (I personally don't mind for my music because I'm invested in this community), I'm not sure why this isn't considered downright illegal. This music is not licensed, and should not be generating revenue; site revenue should come completely from donations, because OCR is (or at least approaches in spirit) a non-profit organization. Submission policy notwithstanding, I also feel artists should get appropriate portion of revenue. My music is creating money, why aren't I getting that money? Is it because paying me makes it legally inconvenient? Well, that, but also, it's because OCR doesn't have the technical infrastructure to organize the payouts to artists like that. And so that makes for two reasons why it shouldn't be done; it's monetizing unlicensed music and it's ethically "wrong" to not give people a piece of the pie for their hard work (and OCR literally can't do so even if they decided to because of resources). And because the policy protects OCR to not have to pay artists at all, I think the policy is too ambiguous and needs revision to match the climate of today's internet musical consumption models (streaming and such). On the other Spotify thread, I proudly said that OCR isn't trying to "fly under the radar" with anything we do, but I feel there's a strong case for this monetization being illegal, and now it's starting to look like we *are* flying under the radar, especially because DJP had stated one of the main points of the experiment was to see if anyone noticed it was being done. As far as Brandon Strader's opening sentiment, I think it's baseless, and insults the intelligence and collective intentions of the staff, as much as similar opinions were shared when Super Audio Cart was released or when the FF6 Kickstarter went up.

I think perhaps some people draw a strong line between web ads & YouTube ads, but I'm waiting to hear why that is - it definitely deserves to be talked about, and I'm going to apologize in advance to any artists who feel we should have informed them first BEFORE even testing the waters. We see these ads as equivalent to the existing web ads, as being preferable to them, and as not representing a change in our existing policy, and we wanted a "dry run" & to measure their impact as scientifically as possible. I'm interested in where this thread goes, and eager to answer any questions. Depending on the outcome, an official announcement will be made & sent out to artists in case folks don't monitor the forums. Some quick points: @Brandon Strader's right in that we started testing this on June 13th of this year Since that date, $130.99 in ad revenue was generated from ALL YouTube ads combined, a portion of which goes to our channel network This is considerably less than what web ads USED to make, but ever since we tweaked them to get rid of obnoxious & irrelevant content, web ads have tanked... so this is more than they ARE making at present. It's worth noting that it took two months for anyone to really notice... in my mind this is a successful experiment JUST in terms of gauging the impact to the average viewer/listener. Ads have NOT yet been enabled for the 3000+ video back catalog - we are waiting to do that based on the outcome of this conversation and after an official announcement. At that point the ad $$$ would obviously be more, but it won't be one video, or even one artist's videos, making a huge contribution to that - it's the aggregate. We were also hoping to time that announcement with a parallel announcement of filing for 501c3 status and debuting new artist pages which do a better job of promoting the artist than our current layout. So, why would we do this at all when the Patreon is completely covering the site's operating costs, with SURPLUS? An extremely fair question. To be honest, I hate managing the money side of OCR, I didn't sign up for this, and it's not something I derive joy in even contemplating. For the 501c3 I'm hoping someone on staff can take on the role of treasurer so I can free myself of it. Nevertheless, answers to the above question: I'm an IT guy. I have backups for my backups. I don't like having a single point of failure, and without a meaningful form of ad revenue, the site's existence would rest solely with Patreon. Membership in a YT network has other benefits... increased reach, an extra level of protection from content matches, etc. Mainly, at least for me, I saw that our web ads completely tanked after we tweaked them to exclude annoying/irrelevant content. I don't think Google's ad model for websites is as good as their model for videos. I'd love to remove most if not all Google ads from this site, and only feature completely relevant stuff like Super Audio Cart, OverClocked Records, and also use that space to promote our existing/upcoming albums. It absolutely is; our content policy still applies, and always will. For the 501c3 filing, there would be additional clarity required surrounding what specifically counts as an operational or promotional cost, tying our hands a bit further, in addition to more specific IRS documentation requirements.

I have no objections. It's no different than advertisements on the site going to help pay for the site. I'm kind of baffled that it's provoked such a negative reaction

I don't like it. Don't get me wrong. Ocremix has brought me a lot of opportunity and fans but the focus should be on the artist more than the entity of ocremix. You guys have basically taken the liberty to make money off of music you didn't make and that's unfair

snip snip; i don't think i'm cutting context though... Neblix made arguments that the submission agreement may not be valid in this case. I am not a lawyer, I do not know if those arguments are valid. My understanding (as a non-lawyer) is that neither does anyone else until it's been tested in a court of law (or there is some very-likely applicable precedent of which i'm unaware). You should avoid the non-profit thing, as it doesn't make the argument you're trying to get it to make. Non-profits generate tons of revenue each year, they simply can't account profit. Often the revenue goes directly to the board, or into a trust for their use. Non-profits are also not equivalent to charities. Even if they did, many charities have maintainers that line their pockets from their activities (I make no judgement of whether this is good/bad; I expect many earn their keep many times over). That OCR barely generates enough revenue to keep itself running is indeed a concern. It's unfortunately irrelevant to the legality of this practice (neither of us qualified to make real judgments about). If OCR aims to generate revenue directly from its content, I would expect it to do so in a manner that complies with (at minimum) US federal laws/regulations. That some members of staff share this belief and apparently this was not vetted is concerning to me. Not having money is not a valid defense for stealing, and concerns of single points of failure or unexpected costs are not a defense for not properly licensing content you monetize. Copyright is serious and important; I would expect you of all people to recognize this as someone who licenses their content relatively successfully. I am unaware of any statute that makes unprofitable ventures immune to the legal necessities of licensing content. Whether OCR can do this isn't something that needs to be discussed here. That is something staff should discuss with their accountant and lawyer. If OCR can do this, whether they should is something that could be discussed, but IMO is largely irrelevant to my knowledge as the prior question has not been answered by anyone qualified to do so.

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed. This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more. Facebook is monetizing people and their information. Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself. OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads. If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook. CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news. That's what they monetize with ads. It's their product. Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc. If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

I already mentioned it on Discord, but frankly I don't care about the YT monetization. For me remixing is just a hobby and I like OCR enough that I wouldn't mind supporting them through ad revenue from YT. Having said that, I do find YT ads a distraction in general (that Yousician ad is really starting to annoy me!) that prevent me from my need for instant gratification, but that's about as far as it goes for me. A big distinction on YT is that the ads are more in-your-face, even if you can skip them after a few seconds. On a site they are more an ignorable glance in the sidebar, and because of my banner blindness I hardly notice these ads anymore.

No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't look good when a site that has always been there to deliver free vgm mixes to peoples' ears, despite having had trouble in the past with Square-Enix and has a thread explaining why the mixes cannot be on Spotify due to licensing...it still has monetized mixes on YouTube. As was suggested, it could be that it auto-monetizes them, but that still doesn't make me feel better about it. If you want to put money into the site to keep online, it should be purely voluntary via buying a T-Shirt or straight-up donating.

This is something that needs to be addressed now that OCR has taken the plunge into monetizing the work of remixers on YouTube. This is the latest stop on the slippery slope of monetization that has been taking place on OCR. As far as I know, nobody was made aware that this change was going to be implemented. In short, it would be nice to know when this started and why.

It's not about if profit can be ethically justified, it matters if it's legal.

Don't worry, none of them are true, Brandon is just being Brandon.

Why doesn't it matter? I think it matters more than anything. If literally nobody involved with OCR makes any money whatsoever, that is entirely different than if we did. Again maybe we just feel very different on this. Let's say two charities want to use your music. One charity is staffed by all volunteers. Every single cent they earn goes to operations. 0% to administration. The other charity spends 30% on administration, 70% on operations. To me that is two completely different things and I feel entirely different about each one.

Concerns about the legal ramifications should perhaps be discussed separately than everyone's subjective opinions on this. Like Dave said, in monetizing this small number of videos, OCR has also joined a network which provides substantial protection against takedowns and support for fair use. Generating revenue does not preclude fair use; profit (not revenue) is just one factor that can contribute to a fair use defense. Everyone might think about their opinion like this: * I'm ok with OCR monetizing YouTube videos to provide revenue for its operations, and I am not worried about the legal ramifications (copyright claims) * I'm ok with the monetization, but worried about the legal stuff. * I'm not ok with the monetization, even though I'm not worried about the legal angle. * I'm not ok with the monetization, and I'm also worried about the legal stuff.

Well, let me rephrase. you asked: "Was it generated because someone visited the site? Or was it generated because someone wanted to listen to my remix?" What's the distinction between someone visiting the site to check up on new music (as opposed to any one song), then listening to a song and seeing an ad... versus visiting their YouTube home page, seeing a new track from OC ReMix, and listening to it? Is there a fine line there? As it is now (and as it has been for many years), user #1 is generating revenue for the site by visiting and clicking through to listen to a remix... Keeping in mind that some % of ad revenue as it is now DOES come from single-mix pages, where would that fine line be? The site staff, djp included, have not ever been paid... In a way it's even more "non-profit" than most non-profits. Here's a question for those who are not okay with this, to consider. Imagine Patreon folds tomorrow. As Dave mentioned, Google ad revenue is just about dead. Since so many people have moved to listening to music on YouTube and fewer people are visiting site proper, how would you propose OCR generates revenue for itself if it cannot monetize sources outside visits to its own site/domain? Think longer term. In 5 years, for all we know, visitorship will be down to 1/10 what it is now, but the YouTube channel is now huge (already, 100k+ subs is a pretty big channel.) In that case, Google ad revenue will be completely dead. What is the solution to bring in revenue, if not YouTube?

@AngelCityOutlaw is the crux of your objection that the monetization is taking place through a third party, who have their "hands in the revenue stream"? How or why is it any different than ads through Google (who take a cut) or support through Patreon (who also takes a cut)?

Good question & points. At this point in time we have a "budget surplus", but we do anticipate that filing for the 501c3 could be costly - I spoke with Nick from MAGFest, and they had actual counsel, and it took a good long while & cost five figures. I'm hoping we can do something faster & more streamlined and thus (hopefully much!) cheaper, but it's those types of things that are "operational" but only come up once in awhile. Beyond keeping the site functional, we really want to improve it AND the videos themselves, and we've been working on both, so our definition of "operational" includes improvements & striving towards goals, not JUST keeping the wheels turning. The ads on the website ARE attached to the music in the sense that Google has the power to personalize them based on page content, which is exactly what they do with videos as well, but I hear you... it's a subjective thing, I don't think it's inherent, I think it's perceptual, but I see where you're coming from. This might be the biggest problem - the perception that YouTube ads are somehow functionally different in terms of how the revenue would be utilized. I don't know... it's not accurate, but I agree that this perception might exist.

An initial WIP, any WIP at all -- people who already turned one in are good. This is more for the majority of remixers who haven't turned in anything over what will be a 9 month span come September 12

Last ReMix for a while - since I'm headed off to grad school literally today, Chris and I thought we'd work on a Metroid mix to follow our 2013 "Let's Upset a 'Troid!". Here's how it turned out! https://app.box.com/s/j3wcpb77b9o2k5ron5jy882l78524gt5 - MP3 Also available on SoundCloud:

Hey guys! This is my first attempt at remaking a game track. This was originally produced by Sonic Mayhem for the ID Software game quake 2. Let me know what you think.

Great. That's your view. Maybe OCR won't get sued. Maybe they will. But is that the view of every single person who has had their remix unknowingly monetized? What if they don't share your optimism? What if they are concerned about getting tangled in legal action which, even if it is highly unlikely, is still possible? You didn't get permission before involving other people in, at most, potentially illegal and, at least, ambiguously legal activities. You could have made a simple announcement: "Hey, we're going to monetize videos. If you don't want your video monetized, inform us and we will take it down from YouTube." If it's 100% your material and you want to fly with it, great. But when other people are involved, get permission. At least notify them. Isn't that something that pretty much everyone knows to do? When you're going to do something with someone, don't you ask if they want to do it? Instead, you went under the radar. That's irresponsible.

Re: legal stuff. A lot has been said on this. Here's a quick primer. Any and all use of copyrighted materials, by anyone for any reason other than licensees or copyright holders, is de facto infringement. Let's get that out of the way. If you make a fan remix and upload it on YouTube with no monetization, that is by default considered to be infringement. Let's make that 100% crystal clear. Fair Use is a legal concept that exists as a defense against claims of copyright infringement. So if Party A uses Party B's copyrighted material, and Party B says "Hey, I'm going to sue you", Party A can say "nuh-uh, it was fair use." Whether or not that defense is valid is determined on a case-by-case basis. There are no universal rules, just standards that are used to evaluate each case individually. So if you want to take a hardline view, then OCR since day 1 (with or without ads) has been infringing copyright. But obviously that's not the whole story, since in all of OCR's lifetime and even after considerable publicity, it has never been sued, despite many major copyright holders being well-aware of the site's existence. That's because Dave has done his homework, consulted with lawyers, and come to the conclusion that OCR would likely fare well in court (if it came to that) with a Fair Use defense. And chances are those entities have taken no action because they believe OCR's use is in fact fair, and does not interfere with their own rights to commercialize their work. My own view, as a music industry professional (though not a lawyer), is that having monetized videos on YouTube is not going to make any material difference in a court of law compared with advertising on the site itself. If a copyright holder believes that OCR's use of copyright is infringing, my own (educated) guess is that they are not going to say that site ads are OK, but YouTube ads aren't. Very unlikely, especially given the extreme proliferation of unlicensed covers on YouTube including some on major channels. Put simply: in my view, informed through my experience in the industry, if you think YouTube video monetization is illegal, or otherwise infringing/wrong, then everything OCR has ever done is illegal. --- On the topic of YouTube and shielding from liability specifically, the advantage of YouTube in that department is that you can work with multi-channel networks (MCN) who have the resources and connections to take care of copyright issues. That's why so many major channels are part of networks, so that when a developer or publisher flags their Let's Play video (or whatever), they have a team that can deal with the claim and come to an arrangement. That was one big reason why Dave was considering this at all, because we'd be able to work with an MCN. There's the conspiracy theory explanation, and then there's the explanation that Dave (the only person who has any actual authority related to the site, its financials, etc.) is married, with a full-time job, and two very young kids, on top of existing responsibilities running the site, that have taken up the majority of his time and he hasn't gotten around to having a deep conversation with Chimpazilla on this. I was talking to her today and I'm sure Dave would have chimed in, were he not en route to Otakon.

I am certainly not suggesting a gradient of legality; something either is or isn't. I don't know enough about copyright law or creative content law to voice a informed stance on that. However, that is still very much what this discussion ought to remain about. An audit very well may need to be done just for the benefit and sake of the site; not because you think David is pocketing "profit" (as opposed to revenue going to the site). I'm also against my work being monetized unless I am aware of it. For me, game arrangement is a hobby. It's a pity it gets recognized more than my original work does but my original work is where I will seek to monetize it and strike it rich (in that perfectly crafted dream world that isn't real). No I don't expect "Invertebrate Retreat" to make me any money (although I was ticked for quite some time that it was the title track of an anthology album released by Tommy Tallarico way back and I didn't see a dime of royalty since of course he owned all the licensing and blah blah water under a bridge that no longer exists). I just don't get the assertion that there's funny business going on. Bad business, perhaps. But funny business? Now you're calling out their character and that I'm not going to support. Whereas you are suggesting they are guilty until proven innocent, i maintain they are innocent until proven guilty. Not because they're my friends but because that's the American thing to do... which you would think with so much Americanness in your sig, you'd be down with. For the record, I do not currently have a stance on the YouTube ads issue. I see both sides and both sides are compelling. If I felt that OCR was making boatloads of cash (lol) off it, then I might have a problem as I've dedicated the past god knows how many years putting music together for the community and have yet to make a penny off it or because of it. I don't like the idea of somebody else making even couch-fodder change off my sweat any more than anyone else. But I also don't think OCR is making any real profits here at all. The revenue, from all indications, is for self-maintenance. Otherwise, if sources such as Patreon or peddling merch at cons or the site ads or YT ads go to shit, the site ends up needing to be paid out of pocket (which is an outrageous thing to ask considering the sheer magnitude of it) and if that can't happen, then OCR is toast. Which is precisely what happened to VGMix. Nobody, unless wealthy and so inclined, is going to just self-fund the whole thing perpetually. Maybe when I strike it rich and become the rockstar i've always wanted to be, I'll spot OCR 100k a year for posterity. But let's just keep this talk nice and clean, fellas.

Brandon, you're literally sounding like Donald Trump right now. I hope you realize that is not a compliment. As has already been said, you initiated a much needed conversation on this subject as it needed to be exposed and addressed. We all have varying opinions on the YouTube monetization issue but right now you're derailing it by being a knucklehead. I've been a part of or around the staff for over a decade and a half and i have yet to catch any inkling that anybody was pocketing any kind of cash off the site. I surely haven't seen a dime. Honestly, you need to knock it off and get back on the subject at hand which is the ethical and legal ramifications of monetizing fan arrangements and stay off that wonky tinfoil shit.

Well then there you go. Don't do it. It's not fair to the original creators and it's not logistically possible for you. It's possibly not even legal, as Neblix brings up a valid point that he (and I) are still waiting to hear an answer. But once again, it's your decision to go down this path and good luck with it. And once again, I stick by my recommendation that you get awareness and agreement with the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of the original composition that you are making money off of their song while they receive nothing. And that you immediately stop monetizing all the videos that you've already done so until you get the awareness and agreement with the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of each original composition that you are making money off of their song while they receive nothing. And that you clearly change the language of the submission guidelines to reflect this strategy and post an official announcement of the change instead of performing an experiment that violates usage without agreement and then addressing it months later when people "take notice".

In the end, of course it's your decision what you want to do. I agree with Chimpazilla that if you're going to do it though, I would recommend ensuring that both the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of the original composition are both aware and agree with you making money off of their song while they receive nothing.

This is probably the most pragmatic thing said in this thread.

This looks like a good idea to me

Still got a whole page of discussion to catch up on, but I see the word "profit" being thrown around a lot here and I'm not sure everyone understands what that word means. Profit and revenue are two different things. Just keep that in mind. Putting ads on YouTube videos isn't necessarily going to mean that OCR is "profiting" off of them, especially if the money goes back into stuff like site maintenance. This doesn't mean that generating revenue off of YouTube videos of ReMixes is necessarily ethical either (that's what the discussion is about), but keep in mind that there is a difference.

Non-profit is not the same thing as a charity. The money being made only goes back to administrative costs and, again, it's really not that much to start with. DJP has paid more out of his own pocket to keep OCR running all this time than anyone else has been owed anything resulting from it, so again I remain unimpressed with the criticism of it.

It does matter to me. It matters a lot. I don't think it has too much bearing when there are legal ramifications involved however - If Square or Nintendo come knocking and say "hey, you're using copyrighted material and making money of it - that includes my stuff - I am associated with that. I'm a staff member. Thats not what I signed up for. It is relevant to me, i'm suggesting it won't be from a legal perspective. Honestly, I'm a bit worried.

I'm late to the conversation, but I feel compelled to comment anyway. I'm baffled at the extreme reactions this topic brought out in people, particularly those of you getting panties rocketed up the wazoo over not making money for your fan remixes of music. This line sticks out to me particularly. "Great, instead it goes to the publisher and probably some to YouTube - who can make money off a totally for fun fan arrangement I made. [...] If there is going to be money involved in fan arrangements, I'd just not bother with OCR or YouTube and licence the tracks myself." Good lord, dude. Go check your couch cushion, you'll find your royalties there. These things, from my continued experience and reference, really don't generate people much money. You're not missing hundreds of dollars here, more likely, you're missing hundreds of cents. It's not worth getting upset over. I'm also baffled why so many of you are opposed to Youtube's ads from a financial point of view anyway. Youtube is in the running for the most important, most used and most influential website since time began on planet Earth and has billions upon billions of videos, data exchange and much more that it never asked a penny from you to provide unless you yourself were purchasing advertising on there. Did you really think Google is doing all that for free? If Youtube wasn't doing things like that, there wouldn't be a Youtube where you'd be complaining about your lost royalties in the first place. It's taking a fair amount of restraint for me to remain civil instead of diving into more far biting, sardonic criticism I feel is better owed to this sense of entitlement from grown ***damn adults with college-level educations. I don't get why you did something for free, without the idea it was going to directly make you money, and then suddenly change that mindset when something changes to make you think you could've directly made (not much) money from it or where that chump change is going. Is it the principle of the thing? That's just something people say when they do something knowing it's not really logical or reasonable in the first place and still want to complain. If it's copyright, Nintendo and Square-Enix and CAPCOM and Konami and NAMCO et al all know how to get a hold of us if they want. If you're worried about copyright, you best stop doing fan remixes in the first place - it's potential infringement from the first note on. In short, I feel nothing about this warrants the criticism it's receiving. I feel this has at least some to do with my overarching thesis that composers these days are adopting an irrational, ironclad, black-and-white financial defense mechanism for any audio they do no matter the scale or how trivial it is. Very little has actually changed, so very big critical backlashes for it are unwarranted.

This is a needlessly utilitarian approach; if OCR doesn't seek to have its community members comfortable with what it does, it damages the reputation and retention of community members. Saying "it doesn't matter how you feel" is side-stepping what the issue is in the first place, which is primarily fueled by how people feel in wake of what OCR is doing now.

So when I found out about this, I was... concerned. I expressed my thought process and suggested that I might leave staff. The response from staff, long story short, was that I hadn't thought it through. Seeing this come public and having a lot of time to think this through after hearing the arguments... Yeah... I still have some issues On one side of the argument, you have issues with copyright, and it feels a bit morally grey to be profiting directly off someone elses work. You use the website ads as an argument, but I am in the camp that you're making money directly off the music submitted to the site. People go to the youtube videos primarily to hear the music. OCR didn't create that music, it was donated by the many talented people of the VG Remixing Community. Primarily, I will repeat what Neblix said " My music is making money, why aren't I getting that money?" Well, I have never monetised my youtube videos of my remixes - I don't like making money of others work without going through the proper legal channels. OCR have jumped over that hoop and gone for it anyway. The fact that ocr is non-profit, imo - is irrelevant. As for the website... I feel the website is different because thats more than just the music, its a forum, the home of the community, and I am very willing to accept that people donate to keep that going as a whole. That said, the money is going directly to the website. Its not making DJPs pockets any heavier with cash, and yeah... I can see that and thats fine. I guess its a question of this: Do you view youtube ads as OCR profiting from your music, and if so, are you ok with it? Also, are you ok with how the money is being spent? Personally, I think it is both ethically and legally problematic.

I'm sorry but I fail to see any of these arguments holding ground, with the exception of intrusiveness in youtube ads vs website ads, which is a point in favor of having the website ads instead of youtube ads. Other than that, nothing has changed in where the money goes, which is, back to ocr, and what is actually being monetized, which are the remixes. I'm willing to bet money that less than 1% of the people who visit ocr do it for other reasons than to listen/download the remixes, thus ocr's product has always been the remixes and that's what we monetize.

I'm alright with it, provided the advertisements are going specifically to keep the site functioning, and if you are getting more than that, what's the plan for dealing with the rest of the revenue? As for how its different... 1.) It inherently feels more personal. The ads on the website are simply that, they aren't really attached to the music, but the website as a whole. Youtube ads on the otherhand.... 2.) The perception of Youtube Ad Revenue is one of pure profit. People think banner ads help sites function, people think youtube ads are for making money.

Maybe we could wait on @djpretzel/any staff member's answer before taking this too far?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if OCR were to monetize the channel, wouldn't all of the videos have ads?

Maybe it is due to a new update in YouTube's bot, design, or something else, as Ivan suggested. My association got a video monetized (due to the use of a copyrighted song) although our monetization is deactivated. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation (and there's no need to jump to OCR's throat without their explanation).

they still get 20% after the publisher gets their 80

You're the one who delivered friendo. <3 This mix was a lot of fun to be a part of.

I'll *most likely* be going. Unfortunately no Marshall Art shows this time around (streifig's going to be a father by the end of the year and can't make it to MAGFest as a result D:) but maybe I'll get to do visuals for some chiptune performers again, who knows?

Just want to say that I FINISHED BATTLE THEME (Like almost 2 weeks ago but I'm too much of a shithead to bounce everything)! Well...for now that is...until the panel decides that it is a piece of garbage. Still gotta send Strader my tracks though.

I made some changes to my mix. I updated my post with a new link.

I just finished my first draft (which is pretty near complete) of my actual arrangement for the album. I'd appreciate any and all feedback. There's still a long time before the album will be released, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. The link is posted over in the private forum.

@Larsec Strader wanted to let you know that you could claim the source if you'd like He also wanted everybody to know that a WIP deadline is being set for September 12th (" anyone who doesn't turn in a wip will be cut, no 2nd chance ")

Sorry I haven't chimed in in a while. I've been finishing up a track for another compilation album that's coming out soon. Now that that's out of the way, I'm able to get back to my arrangement of "Blue Fields". After a lot of careful listening, I've pretty much finished the note-for-note copy of the original. Now I just have to figure out what to do with it! I don't think I want to stray too far from the original, so I'll be focusing more on instrumentation and hopefully giving the piece a fresh skin without making it feel too unfamiliar.

I would also like to claim 'The Stage is Set' then. Already sent an audtion.