Leaderboard

I don't think you have. I don't think you've done your best to present "the facts as stated"... Here's why: "I think the major problem here is that the trust of the site is so far beyond gone that nobody has a legitimate reason to believe any staff or owner of OCR is not profiting from this." - this is not a fact, this is a thought that starts off personal, but then you assert that NOBODY has reason to believe anything we're saying w/ regard to profit... which is not only NOT a fact, but is in the proximity of libel... "Disregarding the unethical and potentially illegal aspect of them profiting off of the music itself" - right, as stated, we aren't profiting. The funds are earmarked solely for site purposes. Continuing to call this profit is synonymous with claiming that ANY money OCR *ever* takes in would be profit as well, in which case... no more OCR. So not a presentation of fact... "I'm going to assume from now on that each staff member is making a fair amount of income from the site." - this is you doing your best to present facts? "Your content policy doesn't stretch to youtube usage." - not a statement of fact; your opinion. Hinges on the word "context" which I happen to think most people would have a pretty good idea of... "Your own policy prohibits you from doing what you did" - not a statement of fact, ditto as above. "Were sales of Super Cart not too good? That's unfortunate." - not a statement of fact, just kinda douchey. It's sold pretty well, FYI... this is you doing your best to present facts? "We need an audit, we need someone to go over the financials, and the horrors within need to be disclosed." - which horrors? The ones you have absolutely no evidence of? So that's doing your best to present "facts"? "I have more reason to believe the site will be dead in a year because the financials weren't properly held and OCR falls into legal hell, than anything else. There's more evidence of that." - now you're talking about "evidence" that we'll fall into "legal hell" because financials weren't "properly held." This is actually libel, FYI. I have no intent to act on it, but I believe it would qualify. You're literally claiming that evidence exists of fiscal wrongdoing. This is not only not presenting "facts as stated", it's a statement for which you could be legally held accountable. "since it was hidden from us for 2 months, there is no way I will ever support this regardless of an audit." - this isn't a statement of fact, it's just you doing a full reversal of your above call for an audit. You literally said "we need an audit!" and then "I won't support this regardless of an audit!" - this isn't presentation of fact, it's schizophrenic. "And probably the reason I didn't find it sooner is because I was banned for over a month due to questioning OTHER shady stuff that occurred and staff behavior from the past." - this is misleading. You were informed why you were banned. If you want us making all of that public on this thread, we can. It wasn't related to "shady stuff"... "You say nobody but OCR should worry about legal issues, but the content policy clearly pushes liability onto the remixer." - this is not a statement of fact, and is again misleading. We CANNOT indemnify the submitting artist because our license is non-exclusive - they could post it elsewhere, they could sell it for $10,000, who knows. We can't indemnify that, and we're making that clear. "This really isn't about me in any way though" - sure... So... just to be clear... all of that was you... doing your best... to present the facts as stated? Anyone wanna defend that claim, or is it as egregiously false as it seems to me, based on the above?

I don't see why they should be different. All posted ReMixes should be handled the same. No one likes youtube ads, it's clear. Some people though have expressed that they don't mind too much, or at all. I think we will know more when we have the non-profit filing process underway, and we have done some budgeting to see if youtube ads are even a viable income stream for the site when balanced against the repercussions, real or perceived. I think we should brainstorm some other ideas for revenue too, hopefully we will come up with some ideas that are more lucrative than youtube ads with a whole lot lower pissing-people-off factor.

No anger implied by it (but it's the internet, so there's no emotion to pick up from what I'm saying), but if your specific question isn't answered, just re-ask the question; there are a ton of posts being responded to. Also, if you have follow-ups, just keep on asking, that's all. Your bad faith aside, Dave has been working to answer all of the questions. IIRC, you were asking how albums fall under the Content Policy, and it's the same exact policy, but I think the ethics conclusions you're drawing are over the top. I'm not a cheerleader for OCR in the sense that it can do no wrong and I'd unilaterally go along with anything at all, especially something that I felt was unethical. If something like that happened, and Dave was improving his house off OCR funds or anything non-related to OCR, I'd just quit the site and say it was a good run and be the first to publicize that Dave wasn't running things ethically. That said, the Content Policy has bound OCR to not do shady things with ad revenue, donations, or any money given to the site, even before any talk of 501c3 non-profit status. Even then in 2007, it was simply meant to codify the way he already ran this place to begin with. Everything has been functioning as a non-profit entity would do it, i.e. there's no profit motive, and excess funds are reinvested in improving the website and organization. Staff have also remained unpaid volunteers. I don't know what people are envisioning would be done with Google Ad revenue from YouTube, or how much would be there, but anything beyond operating costs is going to be spent on unsexy things for site purposes, e.g. video software for José to help him make trailers more easily, hiring someone to create a new YouTube video template, buying a new server, getting new forum software. Even the cases where staff have gone to conventions to promote OC ReMix, half the expense would go to OCR, half would be paid personally out of pocket. From what I understand, believing that what OCR does is a valid instance of Fair Use, we believe the ReMixes do not diminish the original work's value, and that the music is being presented for nonprofit educational purposes to advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new and transformative. That would be a scenario where, because of the Fair Use case, OCR 1) would not be required to seek licenses for the music, and 2) would not pay the artists because the derivative works would be created for profit rather than for nonprofit educational purposes. Everything about how djp has looked at this has been to continue the ReMixes as nonprofit fan works. That said, there hasn't been any decision on YouTube advertising beyond enabling it on a handful of videos to see how it works and if it's disruptive to the listeners; AFAIK, djp hasn't mentioned it yet, but the embedded versions of the YouTubes on OCR are a small enough size where ads are automatically disabled; a lot of his thought has been how to make it unintrusive and non-disruptive, including ruling out unskippable ads, so there's not been any effort to maximize Google ad revenue at all costs. This hasn't been a case of trying to sneak anything past anyone. As far as trying to hide enabling ads on videos, that's silly because how would you enable ads on all the videos, say nothing, and believe no one would notice or have questions? Obviously, djp sees it as a shift of where the Google ad revenue comes from, and it would be treated the same as the Google ad revenue from the website. Not to make anything personal about Brandon, but I don't believe there is any information or transparency that would alleviate his assumptions of bad faith. I don't think 501c3 status, an audit, an accountant on retainer, eliminating all advertising, or him joining the staff in some capacity would do that. There's a level of paranoia and bad faith that ends up negatively coloring everything, which is a shame because the way he insults people due to his political beliefs and his insistence on insulting the staff he doesn't like (DarkeSword and zircon) are the things that have caused him issues here, not any actual problem from the staff. A few weeks ago, Brandon tweeted at me that I was in favor of babies being killed because he concluded that I like Hillary Clinton (I don't, for the record); again, it's hard to convey emotion, but I truly didn't take any offense because it's politics and that talk can get heated. But at the same time, was it REALLY necessary to get that level of incendiary and accusatory with people you disagree with? It wasn't that long ago when the conspiracy was that the judges would never, ever approve Brandon's music. 89 mixposts later, here we are with the same bad faith. Anyway, it's not meant as any attack or an attempt to discredit or disarm Brandon & his concerns, because he's not the only one who's expressed them. But he is the only one that's expressed them with the belief that OCR's descended into a money grab, that staff are being paid -- maybe handsomely at that, that huge checks are being cashed from YouTube, that there would have been an effort to hide the mass enabling of ads on the YouTube channel (has anyone explained HOW would that be possible?), and that everything from djp has been about being slippery or dishonest. I don't understand why nearly everything has to be framed by Brandon that way. For all the appeals to transparency, this thread and the Facebook artists discussion could have been shut down or erased to discourage this conversation, and all dissenting voices could be silenced easily; this community handles drama with a pretty warts-and-all approach.

It'll all go into my presidential campaign super pac. The Coop 2032! Make America WTF again!

I don't know if there will be any kind of opt-out for monetization of videos. It hasn't been discussed. Dave can speak to it more since it's ultimately his call. Re: legality, again if you want to take a hardline stance, not only has OCR been "illegal" by making fan arrangements from day 1 (1999), but every arrangement you (Brandon) have made is also "illegal", meaning you infringed copyright as well, along with every other remixer on this site, on YouTube, and SoundCloud, ever, regardless of monetization, regardless of whether they were distributed free, downloadable, streaming,e tc., unless the works were explicitly licensed (and I can guarantee of all published fan arrangements on YouTube, less than 1% are licensed.) That interpretation of "illegal" is - imo - unproductive as a result. A more productive conversation is ethical vs. unethical, and why people feel that way. Most of us would probably agree that outright selling (charging money for) an unlicensed game arrangement and pocketing the money for yourself is unethical. People have been doing this for years on Bandcamp, btw. Most of us would probably agree that making a fan arrangement and distributing it for free is probably not unethical. This is what OCR has been doing since 1999. It's also what the vast majority of fan artists do. They make fan works and give them away. The spectrum in between that is what we're talking about. OCR has generated revenue from ads for a long time. Nobody seemed to think this was unethical, especially given that the money was (and still is) used to pay for operational costs, those being things like the dedicated server, software, mirrors / bandwidth, and promotion (such as OCR t-shirts, or promotional album giveaways.) So before even addressing YouTube specifically maybe it's a good idea to think about whether one thinks its ethical, or not, for OCR as an organization to distribute work for free but use tangential revenue (ads, patreon) to cover those operational expenses.

Alright, I think I'm caught up on the thread. I want to respond to the above comment from @Garde first because I've already apologized, and while apologies are nice, the simple fact that I made one at all DOES indicate that I agree that this could potentially have been handled better... ideally, our "experiment" would have been shorter, and we would have stuck with the original plan to make an announcement after the first week, kick off a discussion, and time that to coincide with 501c3 filing status and/or updated artist pages, where we hope to emphasize artist promotion more. Filing for 501c3 means having at least SOME of your ducks in a row, and while @Chimpazilla put some materials together that I've reviewed, most of my OCR time these days is consumed with posting mixes, coordinating albums, and trying to work on several different projects to improve the site, all at the same time. I'm not going to lie, being a father of two has affected the time I can devote to OCR, but I'm still doing everything I can. We were always intending to discuss this with artists BEFORE enabling the back catalog, and I want to emphasize this... the number of videos on our channel with ads enabled right now is less than half a percent of the total videos. That's not an explanation for not telling anyone about the experiment (which is more about observing the effects in a normal context), but it does hopefully support & make clear that our intention was to wait for this conversation to take place BEFORE enabling 99.5% of the rest of the videos. It might FEEL like back-pedaling... I get that, I do... but if you think about this point, and actually believe we were never going to tell anyone, then why have we NOT yet enabled ads on 99.5% of the videos? Okay, I did want to clear that up, because at least on the surface it's a legit point. Now, the current concerns seem to break down along these lines, with the following explanations: This isn't right, because OCR staff shouldn't make money off the mixes. We don't; our 2007 content policy stipulates how funds will be used (site operation and promotion), and banner ads have been in place for over a decade. Artists should have been informed prior to ANY videos being enabled with ads. We apologize for this being a surprise, but we DID want to observe the impact of ads for a small percentage of mixes in a neutral setting before discussing this with artists and then, eventually, enable it for 99.5% of the rest of the videos... we also wanted to time that discussion/announcement with 501c3 filing, which in retrospect has delayed things for too long. YouTube ads are different from website ads because they feel different, play before the actual music, are embedded, etc. A video ad IS different from a website ad in terms of the medium, but the end result is often the same. Having to "skip" an ad CAN feel more intrusive - which is exactly why we wanted to monitor the impact with a "test batch"...our observations have been that very few noticed or were adversely affected by this change. It's worth noting that we do not enable "unskippable" ads, and NEVER will. They are Satan. We've also never enabled certain types of website ads that are more obnoxious - "pop-unders" and full-page timed skippable things.... uhh, because we hate them. YouTube ads aren't covered by the current content policy, or it's not clear. When we worked with artists back in 2007 on our content policy, we very intentionally tried to make it "future-proof" by using flexible language, where it made sense. Regarding ads, we used the phrase "advertisements presented in the context of submitted material" - I personally feel that is clear enough to convey that we were NOT just talking about banner ads on websites, that it meant ads could be presented before, after, alongside mixes in a video, on a stream, or on whatever technology the future throws our way - VR, 3D, augmented reality, whatever. Who wants a policy that's out of date every time a new & relevant technology comes out? Nevertheless, it has been proposed that the content policy should be modified to clarify this point. This would not be a modification of substance/meaning, simply one of enhancing the clarity with real-world examples. I think this could definitely make sense. YouTube ads expose OCR and/or artists to additional legal risk. First off, you should know that I've poured tens of thousands hours into OCR and will thus always seek to protect it. I do appreciate the concern, but I don't appreciate the idea that I would somehow intentionally pursue a reckless course of action just to enhance revenue potential to support site operations. As @zircon has repeatedly indicated, YouTube makes it very easy for IP owners to assert their rights without going through traditional legal channels, and this happens quite often. OCR should be more transparent about how it handles its finances. The best thing we can do right now is get the 501c3 ball rolling. As many have pointed out, a 501c3 organization can still be corrupt, can still compensate its employees, etc. - simply having this status doesn't mean we couldn't be the evil, maniacally deceptive people that @Brandon Strader suspects But it's a good faith step in the right direction, it will involve something kinda-sorta like an audit to attain, and it will lay a foundation for decoupling OCR from, well.... me. Right now we're a sole proprietorship LLC, and while all OCR funds are kept in separate accounts, those are still MY accounts, and it all ends up on MY taxes. Attaining this status may actually be rather expensive for us, so when people ask what on earth we could possibly need a budget surplus for, this type of thing is a great example. It's also worth mentioning that while most of the cost is upfront, there is also a cost associated with MAINTAINING 501c3 status from year to year. I think that covers everything. If people feel the above six points are incomplete, I'll be updating this post with anything additional that isn't covered.

He said it's always been infringement, not it's always been illegal. He said if website ads were ruled illegal, than so would YT ads. And he also said if website ads were ruled legal, than so would YT ads. Fair Use and copyright infringement are not mutually exclusive. Fair Use is a defense for a category of copyright infringement that has been cleared by a court of law; in other words, it's infringement, but the judge says it's okay if he thinks it's Fair Use. OCR has always operated in this manner. Your own arrangements operate in this manner whether or not you make a single cent on them for ANY reason. All of your video game arrangements are copyright infringement, and always have been, and will continue to be even if OCR shut down Patreon, turned off the donation service, and took down all ads everywhere. Nothing you say can get you out of it. It doesn't matter if you release the music for free and non-profit outside of OCR, it's still infringement. Even if it's Fair Use, it's still infringement. There is nothing inconsistent between what Larry and Zircon said.

Brandon, you're the one not reading, or not processing, the responses being provided. It is disingenuous of you to characterize the extensive conversation taking place as our "dancing around" your questions. Please provide a numbered list of the questions you have that you feel remain unanswered; we've responded to some of them, but you're not acknowledging the response. In other cases, we've asked you for clarifications because the questions themselves are unclear... instead of engaging, you are choosing to stonewall our responses and pretend like they either do not exist, or do not address your questions. This latest post, above, is what I was afraid of - this is starting to feel more like an ego trip on your part and less like a genuine conversation about the topic at hand. You're using your position as an album director - which you've always done an excellent job of - as a threat/ultimatum for your voice to have more weight than the many other voices who have chimed in. Do you think that's right? Also, do you think of them as "my projects" - or are they community projects? Would you ask your participating artists to vote first, before making such a unilateral decision - the VERY type of decision you are accusing US of making? Would you at least talk it over with them - what they wanted - as we are attempting to do now? What does "pull everything down" even mean? Do you feel, at this juncture, that there is a single other artist who agrees with your views in full, as you have been presenting them in this thread? Can you summon the artists you've talked to and who would agree with what you're writing, the threats you're making, your decision to ignore our responses, etc., and have them explain why they agree with these actions, and confirm that they indeed do? This conversation is ongoing; if you're going to make it about you by threatening this type of thing, and you think that's appropriate, I'm very disappointed.

As has been established, website ads that are in individual mixes pages are fundamentally identical to YT ads. They aren't any less or more illegal or ethical. It would be ridiculous, to me, to expect to have someone get their song published, hosted and publicized, for free, but opt out of supporting the site back. Ultimately this is up to djp but I would be strongly against such practice.

Which "uploads"? What are you referring to, exactly? It's not clear... submissions from albums that are approved & posted have always been presented alongside banner ads... do those count as uploads? Or by "uploads" are you specifically talking about videos? Would they be opting out of web ads, too? We've historically never offered that option. Would it just be YouTube, or any streaming service? What if it's a collab, and two artists disagree? I don't think this would be a per-submission thing, but rather a per-artist - you contact us, you opt out, we flag your profile accordingly.... but the other questions would need to be answered as well. Brandon, at this juncture I feel like you're either not reading anything @zircon writes, or not processing it, or trolling, or.... I don't know. Publishers would never give their carte blanche approval for anything & everything to do be done with their IP. That's not how lawyers think. If we asked most publishers whether fan art of ANY kind should exist, or rather CAN exist according to their official policy, the answer is going to be no. This is true regardless of whether we ran any ads at all, whether we sold any shirts, whether we were an individual or a collective, whether we are a 501c3 or not. You keep reiterating bizarre, outlandish points as if they made sense... "illegal music ring"? What, like a drug ring? Again, as @zircon has painstakingly laid out, YT ads are not fundamentally different from a legal perspective than web ads in terms of supporting the community. You seem to be consistently ignoring this point and/or avoiding engaging with it, and you keep beating the "illegal" drum when that particular drum hurts the ENTIRETY of fan art, from fan fiction, to fan arrangements, to fan illustrations, regardless of this specific topic pertaining to YT ads. I'd like to think it'll be around forever, and 501c3 status is part of laying that foundation - it's decoupled from me, personally, so that if I get hit by a meteor or just die of natural causes or become too feeble to meaningfully contribute, it's NOT a sole proprietorship LLC whose legal & fiscal governance rest solely with me. Here's a good link: http://info.legalzoom.com/money-dissolving-501c3-21769.html "When a 501(c)(3) dissolves, the organization must settle all outstanding liabilities and distribute any leftover funds according to the provision set in its charter." So 501c3 status will FORCE us to codify what happens if things needed to be shut down. Right now we've got no such policy, and even if we did, the accounts would still all be in my name, and it could be messy... 501c3 gives us a formal structure to build policies around that address this question and many others.

Don't speak for the Pretz Dont ask leading questions like your "suplus" question when we all know the money will be reinvested back in the OCR community. "Worst case scenario" questions are counterproductive How dare you. DjPretzel will live forever. As a musician, I can say that this would noooot be enough, but if it was from Patreon *in addition* to gigs paying the bills, then yeah. And, I mean, ANY amount of money from Patreon is nice, it just can't be counted on to pay the bills. Also, Patreon exists for products, but a gigging, working musician is considered a member of the service industry, which pays more. MY FIGURING HERE is that the service industry (and i mean skilled work - not minimum wage) is about $1.25/minute, where on Patreon, tracks might be 99c a piece or something. I got sidetracked there, sorry. All that being stated, I am going to go become a monthly patron of OCR now because I just realized I haven't been doing my part.

This was kind of a depressing read (the fighting/bickering). As to the topic itself - I think @Chimpazilla's suggestions make the most sense to me. I do see where @Neblix is coming from (and can see myself agreeing on most points he makes), but at the same time, my thoughts still all end up to: if a mix of mine can help the site in any little way, I'm for it. (Maybe part of the negativity stems from a few bruised egos regarding seeing actual money being made from their music (that is not going their way).) The transparency aspect is one thing I have latched on mentally, but it's mostly because I found out about all this from @Brandon Strader's Facebook post (after, from what I have gleaned here - it running for two months?). I'm not sure how I feel about it or if I can put the thoughts together coherently. But, I do appreciate @djpretzel taking the time to make his posts (and for the other points made by everyone). Maybe the nagging sensation on my end comes from how the policy language was wide enough to draw out things people never quite expected to happen?

Okay, still no list of unanswered questions - for a while there you were repeatedly ragging on us for not answering ("dancing around") your questions, I've asked two times in a row for a numbered list that I can respond to in detail, and you've elected not to do that... why? But since you keep mentioning an "audit" I'm just curious as to what you mean. By a third-party? We're paying Price Waterhouse-Coopers or Accenture to come in? Any idea how expensive that would be? How extensive is said audit? Who performs it? How much would it have to cost for it to be a prohibitively bad idea? Here's what we're going to do in terms of an "audit" - we're going to apply for 501c3 status. Talk to @Chimpazilla if you want. Part of that process DOES involve a review of budget and expenses that could be likened to an audit. Since you haven't been at all specific, and you keep using the word "audit" as if everyone understands what that would be, who would do it, how much it would cost, etc., I'd like you to indicate whether you think the 501c3 application process is an acceptable form of this. If you're not willing to do the research on what an "audit" would look like OR what's involved with 501c3 status, you're basically just beating an empty drum and casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on OCR without a genuine interest in its betterment. The ball is in your court on this issue; failure to respond directly to this question to me is, at this point, an admission of disinterest in legitimate progress. We *believe* you're wrong about YT revenue and that the back catalog will end up generating more than newer mixes; even though you are correct in that newer mixes get more views, we're talking about 3000+ videos... we've already disclosed the net sum generated since June 13th, and it has been negligible compared to Patreon. If you were genuinely concerned about corruption & how money is being spent, you would be far MORE concerned about Patreon, because at present - prior to enabling ads on the back catalog, at least - Patreon is far more critical to the site in terms of support. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, rhetorically - you're the one "dancing" between the MEANS of revenue generation being the main problem, and how the revenue is being USED being the main problem. No one has yet chimed in who you claim is as gravely concerned as you are, from the projects you are directing. If you can get them to participate, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps this will be helpful: Things we ARE committed to thus far, moving forward, based on this conversation: Filing for 501c3 status in this calendar year. Updating the content policy with clarifying language surrounding "advertisements in the context of submitted material" meaning more than just banner ads, with YouTube as a specific example. Reaching out to artists via forum email addresses, social media, etc. for additional feedback on this topic prior to enabling ads on the back catalog of 3000+ videos. As @Liontamer said, I don't think there's a single thing or list of things we could do to make you happy. I feel like you've festered deep resentment towards the OCR staff, and I think at least some of that surrounds personal issues that aren't related to policy whatsoever. I feel like you've been intentionally misrepresenting our statements, ignoring our responses, casting doubt on our character, and attempting to stir up as much drama as humanly possible, and I think you're frustrated that many contributing to this thread and on Facebook are seeing that for what it is. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, in spite of your ignoring our at-length responses, I still want to this thread to result in a positive outcome. It probably won't be an outcome that satisfies you - I'm not convinced that's possible - but I'm very interested in what others have to say, including those who you've mentioned you've spoken to.

I'd be really bummed if the FF3 and FF8 albums became non OCR projects and I think a lot of people contributing to them might have been contributing to them specifically because they wanted to be involved with OCR. (When it comes to my remixes personally, I'm still usually down to be on whatever albums I have time for so I wouldn't drop my tracks but I'd still sub them to the panel probably).

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about: non-profit organizations and "profit". Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc. They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc. OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations. Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission: the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form. Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

So because you are not willing/able to contact everyone, of course their opinions probably fall in line with yours! I'm glad I don't have any songs on your albums, I'd have to become paranoid and constantly make sure my remix was still on the site. (Regarding the topic on-hand, this is the only strong opinion I've had since the thread started.)

So let me get this straight, if I have a bunch of unlicensed music, put it in a page, which is by the way the only way to download the song, and fill the page with ads which surround the unlicensed music in question, I am not profiting off of the song and it's ethical. But if I remove the ads, and put the ad before people click play, even though people are STILL watching ads because of the song, now this is unethical? This is absurd.

Youtube ads aren't nearly as intrusive as shitty forum signatures.

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

I think responding to Brandon at this point is not productive. We're repeating the same things over and over, and he's unwilling to listen or thinks any explanation is not enough. Fails to provide a list of point by point questions and is just ego ranting and trying to leverage his status as a prolific remixer and album director to get his views on what's right to be implemented regardless of reason or logic. This: Is something that has been stated as the next steps to be taking going forward. As reiterated before, people who have a point of view in disagreement are welcomed to join the discussion and drop their two cents, as well as people providing ideas. I don't like to dismiss people but I think the discussion with Brandon is turning out to be exhausting and pointless for everyone.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I tried reading the thread, made it a few pages and then gave up. Screw it. I'll just add my two cents: If it can be clearly shown how much money is being made, whence, and where it goes, and thus that there's no profit (as opposed to revenue) made from it, I'm cool with YT ads. Both on my remixes, and on any I listen to. I'd want to be notified of it first, though. Regarding albums, I'd say director's prerogative. Makes things easier to manage. I'm cool with the sd3 project having ads on its remix vids. But not on the trailer, because it's essentially an ad itself. And I feel the same way about other albums' vids.

I'll do these also in the interests of getting the project done(if no one has claimed them): the Soldiers of Kakariko Village Fortune telling house Guessing game house

There is no "monetization plan" - there is just the enabling of ads on YouTube. That's it. That's the "plan". As for projects, at present, we don't post every project mix to YouTube. We used to, but we don't anymore. That could change, but right now from albums what we DO post is submitted & approved ReMixes. Anything that gets submitted is subject to the same content policy that albums are. The project consent agreement references the exact same policy. Your concern about "monetization" would be just as valid back in 2013, with regard to banner ads on the website, as it is in 2016 relative to YouTube ads. If it's the same exact policy that's being agreed to, I think you know the answer - the policy would be applied the same, across the board. Albums would not have a special exception to the content policy, compared to individually submitted mixes. Why are you suggesting that contributing to an album should grant you special/different privileges than contributing a mix to the site? Why would artists in one context be treated preferentially? We've never done that in the past, and I'm confused as to why anyone would think that would be a good, or clear/intuitive, approach... Does anyone other than @Brandon Strader want to chime in and support the idea that album contributions should have a different content policy / agreement than individual submissions?

Probably most of the stuff I say has been said in one form or other, but since opinion sharing is encouraged and invited, I'll go right ahead. I personally don't mind the change because, as (hopefully informed) people explained, from the pragmatic viewpoint it's the same - ads, no matter the form, help cover the cost of OCR-related expenses. However, I do understand why there are people who do not share this view, because I have come to learn that Youtube ads specifically is a very sensitive topic, both for video/content makers and those who watch it. I agree with sir_nuts' statement "Perception != Reality", but I don't think the perception part should be looked down at as unimportant. This whole issue mostly has to do with the way community perceives this change, which has a huge impact on OCR (since the remixes are mostly produced by the community). In light of that, I can understand the staff trying to objectively test the waters and appreciate them encouraging discussions about the issue. This will provide them with knowledge of how to strike the sweet spot of both having high community morale/support and also reliably covering the costs (both of which I believe are extremely important). I also think the official non-profit status would be a step in the right direction and restore faith of people who might've lost it during this event. What I am a bit concerned about is the nature of Youtube ads. I believe they do make the music listening experience worse. @zircon asked whether ads on a page would be better than ads embedded in the video itself - I think yes, and significantly. I believe all the musicians here can understand how jarring an audible -6dB RMS ad can be while one is carefully and attentively listening to and appreciating music. That's my opinion.

PLEASE have them chime in here and ask their questions & express their concerns directly... that's what this thread is for, and it is more productive to hear from them in their own words... We are JUST as non-profit now as we were previously, with ad banners on the website presented alongside the mixes & album pages. We keep repeating this, and you keep ignoring it... I know you & some others perceive YouTube ads as profoundly different from banner ads, but it should be clear from this thread and FB that many OTHER artists don't perceive this difference. Neither do we, but we're talking about it... I keep saying these things, you keep ignoring them.... 99.5% of the videos on the channel still do not have ads, and we are committed to hashing this out & discussing it further before applying this retroactively. This feels like a victim/persecution complex or something, but let's make one thing clear: we have ZERO interest in pissing you off for no reason. OCR is a better place with your music, and your efforts as an album director. Why would we intentionally pursue a course of action that would jeopardize that, if we didn't think it would help the community? You've been antagonizing us prior to this conversation, prior to your being banned from the forums... you had strong objections to OCR's association with Super Audio Cart, and you flung all sorts of bad faith accusations our way that very few people seemed to agree with, and now you're doing this. We'd LOVE to make you happy - we want everyone to be happy - and in my previous post I requested that you provide a numbered list of the questions you want answered, which I'd still like to see. I feel like perhaps you're feeling frustrated at this point that MORE people aren't publicly supporting your crusade against us... expressing concern about this policy is absolutely appropriate, and we're talking it through, but you've been repeating accusations of corruption, of for-profit motives, of "betrayal", etc. non-stop...

What are you even on about?

Now this is an interesting idea for an album. An album based on energy levels, as stated in the directors notes, with the energy levels progressing from something with energy to the arrangements to serene lullaby arrangements that will put anyone in a relaxed state of mind. It’s not often we get arrangement albums that want to create soothing moods, so I really enjoyed evaluating this album for review. And as always, here are my takes on each individual track. And sorry if each track review seems short or abrupt in places. I was moving when I first listened to this, and I didn’t want to sit on this review forever. 1-01. "When Toys Come Alive" (The Secret of Monkey Island) Arranger: fredrikd Composers: Andy Newell, Barney Jones, Michael Land, Patric Mundy Source: "Guybrush and Elaine" It almost sounds like something out of a Danny Elfman soundtrack. Parts of the track sounded a little too hot to me though. Still, pretty whimsical. 1-02. "Mon Ami!" (.hack//Infection - Part 1) Arranger: BONKERS Composer: Seizo Nakata Source: "puti_farm (Grunty Farm)" I feel like when I hear this track, we’re building up to something extraordinary. It sounds like a great overture to something much bigger. Maybe this should have been the first track? 1-03. "The Slumber of the Beast" (Super Mario 64) Arranger: DaMonz Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Piranha Plant's Lullaby" I love the Piranha Plant lullaby. Then again, I love the Super Mario 64 soundtrack. This arrangement sounds like it could be used as a world map music track for a Mario game. 1-04. "Baby Blue Sky" (Yoshi Touch & Go) Arranger/Performer: Chimpazilla Arranger: halc Composers: Asuka Hayazaki, Toru Minegishi Source: "Sky Area" Reminds me of something you’d hear out of Hiroki Kikuta’s library. Love the bass. 1-05. "Baby Dreams of Lost Civilizations" (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) Arranger: Hylian Lemon Composers: Yoshito Hirano, Yuka Tsujiyoko Source: "Story of the Thousand-Year Door" Once again Hylian Lemon proves to be an expert at bringing chiptune, and “modern era” music together brilliantly. 1-06. "Psalm of the Summer Sky" (Secret of Mana) Arranger: Meteo Xavier Composer: Hiroki Kikuta Source: "Color of the Summer Sky" At first, I felt like this was an odd choice of music style for a soothing music album. But then I have to remind myself that this is the “playtime” album. So I shouldn’t expect the mood to be completely soothing in this part of the album. Even so, wonderful arrangement. 1-07. "Luxendarc Lullaby" (Bravely Default) Arranger: HeavenWraith Composer: Yasuo Kamanaka Sources: "Wicked Flight," "Serpent Devouring the Horizon," "Ballad Moving Towards Hope" A very beautiful take on Revo music. 1-08. "Dream Fast, Little Pilot" (Gradius, Nemesis 2 & Vulcan Venture) Arranger: rebrained Composers: Gradius - Miki Higashino, Nemesis 2 - Motoaki Furukawa, Masahiro Ikariko, Vulcan Venture - Yoshiyuki Hagiwara Sources: Gradius - "Coin (Coin Sound)," "Challenger 1985 (Stage 1 BGM)," Nemesis 2 - "Frontier Disputes (Life Planet Theme)," Gradius - "Free Flyer (Stage 4 BGM)," Vulcan Venture - "Burning Heat (Stage 1 BGM)" I feel like I’m in a ship, sailing….somewhere. An aimless journey almost. The melody is interesting. However, it’s kind of difficult for me to feel anything from this track other than “going somewhere.” 1-09. "Soothing Rain" (Animal Crossing) Arranger: Amphibious Composers: Kenta Nagata, Shinobu Tanaka Source: "Rainy Day" Very respectful to the Animal Crossing source material. 1-10. "Soporific Sonata" (Super Mario Bros. 2 & Super Mario Bros. 3) Arranger: DarkSim Composer: Koji Kondo Sources: Super Mario Bros. 2 - "Ending," Super Mario Bros. 3 - "Ending" Another fairly upbeat track more fitting for a “playtime” mood than a soothing mood. But what doesn’t make this a completely playful track is how it feels like you’re in that playful mood right before the end of the day. 1-11. "Another Sky" (Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure) Arranger: Rexy Composer: Hans Zimmer Source: "Skylanders Main Theme (Instrumental)" And here is the “wind down” portion of playtime. I love that this is an arrangement of Hans Zimmer, cause it sounds nothing like Hans Zimmer. It’s so innocent, and pure. Very lovely. ---- 2-01. "Iso ilo" (ilomilo) Arranger: Eino Keskitalo Vocalist: Birgitta Susi Composer: Daniel Olsén Sources: "Cozy Sofa," "Once Upon" I love the production put into this track. The vocals are very pleasant. 2-02. "Lullaby for an Old Soul" (Final Fantasy VI) Arranger: Abadoss Composer: Nobuo Uematsu Source: "Gau" Very peaceful, and relaxing. Can definitely be used as a lullaby, or a nice stroll. 2-03. "Adagio for Synths" (Final Fantasy IV) Arranger: bLiNd Composer: Nobuo Uematsu Source: "Edward's Harp" Delivers exactly what the title says it is. And that’s not a bad thing at all. 2-04. "Respite" (Kingdom Hearts) Arranger: Emunator Composer: Yoko Shimomura Source: "Dearly Beloved" Not really feeling this one. It’s kind of difficult to pull off a soothing piano arrangement of a track that’s already a soothing piano piece. It just comes across as a kind of “bootleg” attempt at Dearly Beloved. 2-05. "Thy Everlasting Winter Wind Blows" (Pokémon X) Arranger: timaeus222 Composer: Shota Kageyama Sources: "Snowbelle City," "Bicycle" Love the bells, and the synth strings. It feels like you’ve taken Snowbelle City, and made it sound like a town theme for an ancient snowy village. 2-06. "Cherish" (Final Fantasy VI) Arranger: Redg Composer: Nobuo Uematsu Source: "Relm" I know it’s Final Fantasy VI, but this reminds me of the slower music from the Super Castlevania IV soundtrack. And I absolutely love both soundtracks, so that’s perfectly fine by me. 2-07. "Pure Heart" (Secret of Mana) Arranger: Fredrik Häthén Composer: Hiroki Kikuta Source: "Still of the Night" Nice, and almost mysterious. You’re so drawn into this track, it’s almost disappointing that there isn’t more to this track. 2-08. "Merry Dreams" (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) Arranger: Chernabogue Composer: Yoko Shimomura Source: "Teehee Valley" Nice. Does a good job capturing the essence of a Mario & Luigi game. 2-09. "Baby Mario Sweepy" (Super Mario Galaxy) Arranger: k-wix Composer: Mahito Yokota Source: "The Star Festival" I love this. It sounds like both Super Mario Galaxy and Yoshi’s Island together at the same time. 2-10. "Rabbit" (To the Moon) Arranger/Performer: Brandon Strader Composer: Kan Gao Sources: "To the Moon - Main Theme," "For River - Piano (Johnny's Version)," "Trailer Theme - Part 2" (lyrics only) Now this sounds like what Dream Fast, Little Pilot should have pulled off. Music that makes you visualize a dreamlike journey filled with wonder, and whimsy. --- 3-01. "Namors Gnudlib Theme (djp Naptime Edit)" [The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time] Arranger/Performer: Sir Jordanius Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Prelude of Light" Nice, pleasant slow jazz vibe. 3-02. "Dream" (The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) Arranger/Performer: DusK Performer: Tuberz McGee Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Zelda's Theme" Great way to incorporate lullaby-esq lyrics to the Zelda theme melody. 3-03. "Off into the Night" (Chrono Trigger) Arranger: pu_freak Composer: Yasunori Mitsuda Sources: "At the Bottom of the Night," "Epilogue - To My Dear Friends" Reminds me of music from Joe Hisaishi. Wonderful arrangement of excellent Chrono Trigger tracks. 3-04. "Another Dream Will Start from Here" (The Legend of Zelda) Arranger/Performer: zykO Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Ending" Very quirky, and light hearted. A little too long for my tastes, though. Love the guitar work. 3-05. "Dreamtime" (Chrono Trigger) Arranger: E-Bison Composer: Yasunori Mitsuda Source: "Outskirts of Time" VERY dreamlike. Could almost fall asleep to this (in a good way). 3-06. "Dawn of a New Dream" (The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) Arranger: Radiowar Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Tatl & Tael" Not a good idea to put this track after the previous. Yes, it’s very dreamlike, but not as dreamlike as the previous track. 3-07. "Goodnight Moon" (DuckTales) Arranger: E-Bison Composer: Hiroshige Tonomura Source: "The Moon" Most appropriate arrangement to follow the lullaby theme. 3-08. "Sleep Tight, No Bed Bugs" (Super Mario Bros. 2) Arranger: norg Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Ending" I’m loving the piano in this track. 3-09. "Child of Legend" (The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) Arranger: LindsayAnne Pepper Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Zelda's Theme" Not quite as impressive as “Dream” but still a great lullaby arrangement of the Zelda theme. Nice way to end the album. --- 4-01. "Zone of the Esthers" (Zone of the Enders) Arranger/Performer: The Legendary Zoltan Composer: Masumi Ito Source: "Kiss Me Sunlights - Opening Theme" K.K. Slider sings you to sleep? Oh wait. It’s the mice from Babe. Still love it. Makes you feel like you’re dreaming in a wonderland. 4-02. "Namors Gnudlib Theme (djp Naptime Edit - Instrumental)" (The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) Arranger: Sir Jordanius Composer: Koji Kondo Source: "Prelude of Light" It’s…the same track. Only instrumental. Still love it. --- All in all, one of the most creative OCR albums I've ever heard from this website. Excellent work the whole lot of you.

The surplus goes into the organizations accounts to further the purposes of the organization. FIFA has a ~$1.5B reserve, for instance. This is not booked as profit, through some amount of financial wizardry. I would expect the OCR organization would be run by someone other than DJP at some point. Corporations very often outlive their founders. Based on his time availability and stated interests, I don't doubt that succession of the organization could happen relatively soon. Leaving him a role more aligned to his interests; eg, site design/maintenance. That's really up to DJP though. I'm not familiar with the process for closing NPOs, but I would assume funds remaining after legal fees would go to an NPO with a related mission. Based on my understanding of the current structure, all funds would go to DJP. I do not believe this would be the case after conversion to a 501c organization. The issue of tons of money left over seems odd though, as successful organizations don't typically just fold.

I can imagine it being donated to charity, or maybe it can be divided between other at that time current vgm fora. I don't think it's necessary to think about that now, since there are more than enough fair options.

The idea that you are making money off of other people's work rubs me the wrong way in some aspect. I feel generally agnostic about it, but I do have some conflicts. You might say it's to support the site, but isn't that, what that 2200$ a month Patreon is for? (Which I have zero qualms with) It doesn't paint the right image tbh especially when as far as I have recall. Historically OCR has specifically been against the profit of unlicensed fan made arrangements. Weird Al usually also asks permission to make his parodies, even though legally he doesn't have to. If you are going to be making money directly off of the hard work of someone else who did it out of love. They deserve their cut don't you think? Or is that where you draw the moral line in the proverbial sand of Fair Use? That doing so would actually be *real* profit and not money simply going to a supposed "Non-profit" that you don't actually need to hit the costs to run the site? And that they should be happy to get any kind of exposure? That it makes you more morally ethical than those that also release unlicensed derivative works in a way that generates revenue for themselves as an artist? So what is the whole point of this endeavor? Remove ads from the site? Why not remove ads all together from both if you clearly don't need the money to run the site from any kind of ads thanks to Patreon? Or seemingly additional revenue for whatever purpose? Ads on the site are understandably a necessary evil over the course of many years to keep the site running. But they were never intrusive nor a necessary barrier to have to bypass or wait to run out an allotted time period to gain access to content from this platform. And one can argue that Ads were never specifically targeted on a per song basis and that you weren't really monetizing the individual content you were distributing, but rather the site as a whole. Where as the opposite can be argued is true for Youtube can it not? On Youtube either a user has to wait to be able to skip the ad to listen to music, or block ads entirely, skippable or not. It's intrusive. (Not that I really listen to music on youtube much). And it's done on a song by song basis. And on the basis of business, any money made beyond covering cost is considered profit is it not? Or is that legally different for an NPO? I mean that sort of feels like an oxymoron. An Non-Profit Organization is obtaining revenue beyond operating costs. Of course, I am a layman who is ignorant on the real working innards of business, let alone an NPO. So it costs money to become an NPO and money to keep that status per year? How much? Would you not have had a fair amount of surplus already from ;again; Patreon beyond what was needed for keeping the site up?(That would build up more and more over time?) I really don't mind things helping cover cost of running the site, but unless there is some transparency on the number of dollars beyond what you need for cost, in order to maintain NPO status. Then it's understandable that people might be skeptical with undisclosed numbers. To that spectrum of things, what is the point of becoming an NPO? To spread the good will and cheer of Video Game Music? To make the active practice of what OCR does more ethically acceptable? I'm sure this has been covered before, but it seems applicable to this situation. Again on YT videos, would a system where people can actively consent when they submit a song whether they are ok with their song being monetized. (IE: They say no, so you release their song on youtube without ads. With if they say yes) be unacceptable?

On this point: Hooold on. Slow down. You have to take the time to understand the balancing act of copyright law with respect to derivative works before you start getting existential about your involvement. Take, for example, Weird Al. He continues to make his parodies - which, I believe, fall under the same class of work as OCR's arrangements. On some occasions, the artists will let him know he is not permitted to use their work, and guess what? He moves on. The key here is that copyright law requires the company itself to be responsible for choosing if and when it needs to defend that copyright. Unlike trademarks, they are not forced to act on derivative works to preserve that copyright. A whole industry of music parodies suspends on this balancing act. OCR does much the same, making sure we stay in favor (see Balance and Ruin!) and continue to positively represent the original works. We trust that these companies have no motivation to attempt litigation; if they do, then yeah, we'll have to worry, but so will the rest of the industry as well, most likely.

Voted! Very nice turnout this round, guys!

It seems to me that if we're talking about paying employees, it would be "administrative" people rather than "creative" people. Paying remixers, judges, album directors, etc would be weird, but someone like a lawyer, accountant, or web developer seems reasonable to me. I'm sort of assuming that this would all be happening after OCR gets official non-profit status, though.

So, I figured this would come up at some point, and I don't think many people are arguing the profit angle so much, but let me chime in with my experience: First of all, as far as I know, I'm the one of the only people doing this "game arrangement community" type of thing anymore. Jake has his own business going on and doesn't have time to worry about game arrangements too much. Most other people got out, or handed off to me. Arguably I don't even do too much anymore, at least visibly. We're constantly working on things, but 2 things keep anything from moving forward at a decent pace: time and money. Right now, my yearly operating costs, on the low end, are about $1,000. Between servers, web services, domains, etc, I spend about $1,000 per year. Like OCR those go through a sole proprietor LLC which comes out of my taxes. $1,000 a year isn't that much, but that's still a flat screen TV I put into, basically just hosting things, every year. Obviously OCRs operating costs are way more than that, and yes, apparently they're making more money than it costs to run the site, but that, in no way, means they don't need more money. Do you know what I would do if I had more money? I would put it back into the site, which is what Dave does. Advertising, event presence, etc. More importantly than that, I would outsource my job in a second, if I could afford it. Every hour I have to work on any one of the sites, is an hour I can't spend doing something else. Whether it be working on a freelance project, or just actually not working on anything for sanity. If I made a huge surplus I would hire people, paid people, that would work on maintaining sites, updating sites, adding new features to sites, for me, as a job, so I could do my own job which is a thing I get paid to do separate of this that pays my bills. Real scenario if I had to get control of OCR and Patreon and ads weren't a thing? It would close. Simple as that. I wouldn't be able to cover the operating costs, the government would desolve the LLC for not being a profitable company, and I would eventually drain my own bank accounts trying to keep everything afloat. tl;dr: It's very easy as someone on the outside, or someone who hasn't managed a project like this, to say "Well it costs X so you should get paid X to keep it up", and sure that's true...if X is the only cost ever, and if absolutely no work or time goes into growing or maintaining it. At the moment it requirements more time or man power, then you are operating at a loss. That an opportunity cost. I have no comment on the legal issues because I don't know anything about fair use or copyright law.

You really need to work on your numbers. 80% is coming completely out of your ass - again, you are the only one here that is even talking about alienation, here. A few more are saying they didn't like the move (which they have fair points), but even if they said they wanted to leave (they haven't) it would be a far cry from the apocalyptic numbers your shouting. Saying things like this doesn't suddenly make them the case, and you lose credibility for the fair points that you do hold. @Neblix There is a completely separate issue that actually comes up, if OCR decided to use the non-profit status to compensate it's staff: the submission agreement never covers this for those that are submitting their music, and those that submit under the previous agreement would have the right to claim that we broke our end of the agreement and demand that we take their music down. We COULD send out permission to the 1000+ arrangers whether this change was acceptable or not, but not only would that be incredibly time consuming, it would almost guarantee that we'd lose a load of users and content from those that didn't agree to the new terms. If we claimed that staff would be compensated from the beginning and filed for the non-profit status fro the get-go this issue would've been avoided, but go ahead and ask 1999 Dave whether or not it would've been worth creating a non-profit company out of his fledgling site. We already have a written agreement up, and it does not cover staff costs, merely hosting costs and promotion. No matter how you slice it, most of the staff are not involved with hosting the site. One can make the argument to compensate staff for promotion when they're involved with promotion (say, paying for panel spots for a big convention, perhaps), but that is minimal in comparison to moderating, quality control, feedback, etc., that really keeps OCR alive. Regular compensation would be a breach in the contract that we've already made with the previous artists.

It would be a tough call. On the one hand, yes, staff DOES work quite hard on keeping the quality control high on what is pushed through the site, as well as making sure music always meshes with the site objectives. On the other hand, Brandon's point that we shouldn't make money off of other people's work would come into play - why would the staff contribution to how this site is run outweigh the contribution that the artists put into their music? It's not a bad point, actually. I think both sides of the argument have merit, though I personally don't want to work with the quagmire of ethical and possibly legal issues involved in getting paid for this while the artist didn't. So from my stand point, I'd be against compensation for the work put into the site. On the other hand, I will point out that if this were a site about the free distribution of other people's original music, and we had the same work in quality control, I'd be all for compensating staff - the work that goes into quality control, feedback and hosting is definitely worth something. However, I would also be 100% for giving the artist a share in the revenue, too, as they would be contributing music to the site. That is neither here nor there, though - OCR will never have the benefit of original compositions passing through it, so this is moot. Since we can never compensate artists for their work, so too do I think we can never compensate the staff for their contribution. Alas. I do want to also note that my contribution to the thread is completely hypothetical - monetary compensation to the staff has never come up in my time working here, nor has it ever been considered a possibility, due to the nature of the work. I do have to make that clear, being a part of staff, and all. EDIT: Do note that this is a general statement on how to deal with revenue - I am not taking the non-profit status into account. I can comment on that aspect later. (Spoiler:I'd be against it for slightly different reasons)

As I've said many times, and explained pretty thoroughly, having the mixes monetized on YouTube would not make any material difference toward fair use. OCR has been distributing downloadable MP3s of remixes for many years, with ad support on the site. If THAT is fair use, then YouTube is. If that isn't fair use, then YouTube isn't. End of story.

This is relevant because it is the driving force that is causing us to examine all the other issues. They DO feel different, they feel more personal and in-your-face. The bummer here is that this was done without any notification to the artists. Everyone here hates youtube ads! (I believe I speak for most of us with this) And now they are attached directly to our individual tracks. I think our personal disappointment, along with the intrusive nature of youtube ads, is what is driving the anger and the other issues being brought up here. The other issues (copyright issues being the biggest concern, as far as I can see) need to be addressed, though. I think somehow we need to be sure we can monetize the videos without being sued. I have no idea how we can find out for sure. Just hoping we can continue to fly under the radar seems reasonable, yet risky. Overall I feel like there just needs to be a greater level of transparency with changes in policy. The remix agreement DOES need to be updated to include specific language about ads. The world is changing very fast these days, so language gets outdated quickly. As Neblix said, when many remixers got their first remixes on the site, youtube streaming and spotify etc. weren't even a thing.

I think along with Chimpazilla's suggestions, OCR should probably step on filing the 501c3 designation. I think in light of the discomfort of revenue streams it would make it crystal clear that it's non-profit in any potential legal-related scuffle.

Not usually one to jump in on stuff like this, but nobody made you like this, apart from yourself. Your life, your choices. Blaming on others or situations or expecting them to change is very hard, changing how you look at and deal with things is easier to do. A lesson I constantly have to remind myself of. Glad I did so, because it makes things more enjoyable in the long run.

Here's the main question that everyone's avoiding: Why are you remixing video game music? Honestly, the only valid answer to this should be: to honor great melodies, games and composers, and to make people who also like those melodies, games or composers a bit happier, while learning new things about making music in the process. Sure, people may not always like what you're doing, but there are some people who will like it. And those few people who like it are what makes doing remixes worth it. So, if somebody is making a little bit of money off my music, which is then used to help my music get to more people who may like it, I won't have any problem with that. Nobody here except for ocremix itself should be concerned with any legal issues. Your songs won't disappear if ocremix gets shut down. Your songs are already on millions of computers all over the world. Drink some tea and stop bitching.

This is how I feel about the "situation": I was initially opposed to the idea of YouTube monetization, because, as Chimpazilla stated, it feels like specific mixes are making money for OCR instead of the community. It doesn't feel like OCR itself is generating the revenue (like they do with ads on their site), but rather that the artists are generating revenue for them. The other point I have/had is that these ads feel much more intrusive and lessen the experience of listening to mixes - which is a bad thing obviously. Zircon asked the question before if we thought ads on the side/bottom were any different that pre-play ads, and I think it would make a big difference. At least for me it would, because you can let people enjoy the mixes the same as before. However, if the last option isn't really viable then, after reading the discussion, I'm on board with OCR. We are always inherently against change, because we know and trust what was before. Even though it's pointed out that legally and ethically the YouTube plan isn't really different, it's new and different from what we know. But the situation is different as well: if OCR wants to be assured of having a stable and constant revenue stream, things like this are necessary now (since the forum ads don't cut it anymore, as has been stated). To go even further: I hope OCR is looking towards generating even more revenue, so it can grow even further. The bigger the site/network grows, the more it can show off our awesome mixes and visit events. I mean, the whole point of the Patron deal was to help OCR grow, so why are people opposites to the fact that the revenue is more than the costs now? As long as it's used to help grow OCR, I think it's great

As long as the money goes to the production of 3 more Vampire Variations albums, I'm fine. Nah really, I'm like @DusK, I don't care that much.

Much of this has been stated, but I thought it be helpful to have the ethics spoken to by another remixer who isn't on staff. Regarding whether remixers should trust the staff --- the fact that 501c3 status is being voluntarily pursued by the staff should be enough to inspire trust. If you didn't know, it would mean that OCR would have to report publicly a lot of financial information, including revenues, expenses, and information on whether/how it compensates staff. And it would be a federal offense to intentionally misreport that information. Regarding profit --- as has been pointed out, it appears that many of us here are unaware of what profit means. Both for-profit and non-profit companies would love to grow. Both would love to generate more money than they spend. The difference comes in what happens to that extra money. Both can chose to pour that extra money back into the company for it to grow (marketing, research and development, staffing, etc.), but only the for-profit has the option of distributing the profits to the owners/shareholders. That's the difference. Non-profits generate profit... they just have to pour that money back into the organization's stated purpose. And we have no reason to believe the OCR staff has done anything other than this, especially in light of them wanting to attain a certain legal status that requires them to publicly report exactly how they're doing this. Regarding paying remixers --- that is immediately a for-profit situation, as zircon stated, and that immediately endangers fair use issues. "But wait, why is it legally OK for OCR to do it for themselves but not OK for them to pay Patrick Burns?" Because OCR is an organization with a stated public/artistic mission, no shareholders who profit from dividends or the sale of the organization, and uses the money in a certain fashion (soon-to-be legally obligated to use that money in a certain fashion, as the staff voluntarily desires). Patrick Burns has no binding, stated purpose for the greater good, and can use the money however he pleases---most likely a burrito bowl that will contribute to his BMI and increase the public healthcare burden (but even if I used it for my kids, it's still for-profit). In other words, the money going to OCR is fair-use because that gathered money has no other outlet than the further promotion of OCR's fair-use mission. I, on the other hand, can take the money anywhere. Regarding testing the monetization quietly --- the entire idea "that someone should've asked us" is based on the unfounded assumption that OCR is doing something selfish. On the contrary, we have no reason to believe the money isn't going precisely back into the function which inspired every single remixer here to submit to OCR in the first place: visibility and community. (And soon we might have public documents to verify this, as the staff obviously desires.) Give me proof that anyone on staff is using the monetization for personal gain, and then I would agree that we should have been asked. My feelings: OCR provides a platform which isn't within my skill set---a platform which would not exist through my own self-promotion, nor through the collective, individual self promotion of all remixers here. Even if you assume that the homepage's value is minimal, social media buoyancy doesn't come easy. I have been given no reason to distrust the staff, and the staff seems proactive in making their non-profit status official, thus providing some transparency.

I'm sure this will get deleted, but I've just got to know why @Brandon Strader still visits the site if it's as bad as he's been complaining it is for MONTHS now. Literally everything done by OCR is leading to it's downfall according to this guy. Every post I've seen by him in the past six months (or longer) has been him trying to stir up controversy. If you don't like it, pull your mixes and leave, man. This place has been gracious enough host your mixes in a very prominent public setting at no cost to you. Many remixers have been given HUGE exposure in the field they might not otherwise have had if they weren't so active in this community. Would you be happier if they turned off ads and just required any submissions to be accompanied by a hosting and/or maintenance fee? A yearly "bandwidth" subscription to keep your mixes active? From the sound of it, though, you'd be much happier if they just disabled all ads completely and eventually collapsed under the weight of hosting fees. At least then, the big bad staff members who are OBVIOUSLY lining their own pockets off of YOUR work wouldn't be able to do that anymore.

Awesome album! My favourite song is Hylian Lemon's Paper Mario remix. Lovely use of chiptunes there! I wanted to be part of this album but I never managed to find time to do a track and I actually had an idea for one... Oh well, I can make it in the future I hope!

i'll likely go...

This looks like a good idea to me