Leaderboard

The purpose of this thread is to give people a clear idea of how OCR operates, how revenue is generated (and where that revenue goes), and the relationship between OCR, its operations, and the people that contribute to it. Is content on OCR licensed? No. We do not license the ReMixes distributed on our site (and through channels like YouTube). (There is one exception, which is described below.) Why aren't the remixes licensed? It's simply impossible to do this for several reasons. 1. Mechanical licensing via the compulsory licensing permission (the one that does not require publisher permission) requires that the source material be published commercially in the United States prior to licensing. Many remixes on the site are of source material never released in soundtrack form in the US, therefore they cannot be licensed. 2. Even if the music could be licensed, since OCR is founded on the concept of distributing music for free, it would be impossible to support the massive licensing costs necessary for all remixes on the site. To use some napkin math: assume 3400 remixes are each downloaded 100 times per month, which is a gross under-estimate. At 9.1 cents per copy downloaded, this would require licensing fees of over $30,000 a month - for downloads alone. 3. No established license mechanism could cover free downloads of MP3s and ad-supported streaming. Compulsory mechanical licensing only covers downloadable copies; as a result, custom licensing agreements would need to be made with every publisher (which they could simply reject, unlike a compulsory license.) For total emphasis, there is no conceivable way that the content on OCR could be licensed, and especially not while remaining compatible with the site goal of distributing free music. Does that mean OCR is illegal or infringing copyright? By default, any use of copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright holder is considered infringement. However, US copyright law makes provisions for "fair use" of copyrighted material as a defense to infringement in a court of law. Fair use is the legal principle that allows for things like educational usage, commentary, parody, and satire, among other uses. While fair use cannot be established except in a court of law, and there are no strict guidelines allowing anyone to decide whether a use is fair or not outside of the court system, it's possible to make an educated guess as to whether a use is fair or not. This educated guess is based on an evaluation of the factors evaluated for determining fair use, and precedent. The biggest of these factors are whether a work is transformative, and whether it is 'commercial'. These are both loose and nebulous terms, but that being said, our strongly-held belief (reinforced by the belief of consulted legal counsel) is that OCR's distribution of fan-created arrangements for non-commercial educational purposes is fair use. This has been discussed at length in other posts but suffice it to say that when analyzing all these factors, we've made a very strong case for this if a court case were ever to happen. Isn't it worse to upload music to YouTube, especially if it's monetized? No. If fair use applies to OCR's activities, it would certainly extend to YouTube. If it doesn't apply, then the site's current activities (on and off YouTube) would be considered infringement, in which case it's a moot point. YouTube is actually a better place to address issues of infringement than elsewhere, because Google provides content creators with several tools: the ability to claim a video (which grants the publisher/claimaint all further revenue from the video) or issue a takedown. Both of these would not entangle either party in the court system, as Google/YouTube mediates any disputes, avoiding a costly legal battle. In short, we'd much rather defend ourselves to YouTube, ON YouTube, with the assistance of YouTube specialists who have extensive experience in copyright disputes. Also, keep in mind that on YouTube (and off), a creator can claim infringement regardless of whether someone is generating revenue from a work or not. My own personal experience with YouTube claims and takedowns has exclusively been with un-monetized videos. In short, if a publisher took issue with OCR, not running YouTube ads would not protect us in any way. Does OCR generate revenue from its content? Yes. Since the early 2000s, ocremix.org has run ads throughout the site. Other revenue is generated from sales of OCR merchandise (not music; music on the site is not sold commercially) such as t-shirts and hoodies. Within the last few years, OCR launched a Patreon page which also generates revenue. Ads were also enabled on <1% of videos on OCR's YouTube channel from June-August 2016 for testing purposes, which has also generated a small amount of revenue. Until OCR officially becomes a registered non-profit organization, and YouTube ads are discussed further with the community, YouTube ads will only be served on the videos of ReMixers who have given OCR their explicit permission. Why does OCR need to generate revenue? OCR as a website has technical costs, such as the cost of a dedicated server, mirrors, and bandwidth. These expenses are necessary for the basic operation of the site. Revenue is also needed to create promotional materials for the site: that includes merchandise like t-shirts and hoodies, as well as strictly-promotional physical copies of album projects. (These promotional physical albums are not sold, and the content on them is available for free on ocremix.org. They are given away at conventions). OCR has also been attending conventions such as Otakon, MAGFest, and PAX (among any others) to evangelize video game music, promote recent album releases, and give away free stuff. Expenses directly related to OCR panels at these conventions (such as technical equipment needed for panels) are sometimes covered by OCR as an organization. There are also many plans for the organization that require revenue to achieve. For example, the OCR YouTube video template has not been updated in many years and looks dated. We're in the process of commissioning custom visualization software to produce better-looking videos strictly for the enjoyment of viewers and fans. Also, we're looking to obtain true non-profit organization status, which we believe will take a substantial amount of money to file and maintain properly. Where does surplus revenue go? For a long time, there was no surplus revenue. Expenses were often paid out of pocket by Dave and other staff. Now that revenue is exceeding expenses, the revenue... isn't going anywhere. It's staying in OCR's accounts until it is used for purposes like those described above. The aforementioned non-profit filing process will likely take most if not all saved money. So is OCR a non-profit organization? From our submission agreement: OCR legally cannot distribute submitted materials for for-profit endeavors. Furthermore, OCR is legally bound to spend any revenue on costs directly associated with operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix. However, OCR as an entity does not have true non-profit status - 501(c)(3) - which is why achieving that official status is a major goal. Are any ReMixers or site staff paid for their work? No. Nobody has been paid for their work contributing to the site either as a remixer, staff member, or administrator, djp included. (Fine print: OCR has released one commercial album, For Everlasting Peace: 25 Years of Mega Man, as an officially licensed release in partnership with Capcom, with Capcom retaining ownership of the music. ReMixers were paid for this release, which was licensed directly with the publisher. This music is not available on the site and was not submitted through the normal channels, so it's an outlier.) Will ReMixers ever be paid? Not for regular submissions to the site, which are distributed for free. Not only would the logistical overhead be unmanageable, but it would invalidate our fair use case, as it would be impossible to justify those payments as necessary to the direct operation of the site as a non-profit entity. However, we'll continue to explore separate licensed projects like MM25, or officially licensed commercial albums through our sister site OverClocked Records. We view these as separate from the core work that OCR does: distributing and evangelizing free music. Will site staff ever be paid? There is absolutely no plan to do this, nor has it been seriously discussed among site staff in all years of operation. It's conceivable that it could happen someday, after 501(c)(3) status is achieved and we're complying with all regulations for transparency, corporate bylaws, etc. djpretzel wants there to be a plan for the site should anything ever happen to him, and operating a 501(c)(3) will require more administrative duties for things like bookkeeping and accounting. Again, if it were to ever happen, it would be executed properly to the letter as per federal guidelines for non-profit organizations and in full compliance with our own legally binding submission agreement. Is there anything to prevent revenue from being distributed as profit to staff now?! Of course. Just because OCR is not a 501(c)(3) yet does not mean our submission agreement isn't legally binding: it is. And that agreement, which applies to OCR as an organization, strictly limits how revenue can be used. Again, site staff have never been paid nor are there any plans to do so.

I have to call this out. What total bullshit this statement is. You started this, which ultimately I think was a good thing because it got the ball rolling on some good things, but you set the angry and accusatory tone right from post #1 and maintained it for 14 pages of thread. We are all getting too old for this. Are you even serious? Dave began providing solid, undeniable answers right from the start. You continued screaming. They are pissed at you because you made incredibly insulting and darn-near libel-worthy accusations claiming you had actual evidence. You dragged OCR and Dave specifically through the mud, and not just here. Whatever. You need to clean up your act in a very big way. You had Dave on the border of insanity yesterday and I'm REALLY not ok with that. I'm sorry but this just needs to be said.

First things first, I'd like to thank everyone who's come forward with their support for the site & staff, in spite of the toxic way this has been introduced by non-staff and the accusations that have accompanied it. It means a lot. As the father of two amazing daughters, the only way I can justify spending time on OCR and not with them is when I'm doing work that speaks to me, releasing kick-ass mixes & albums, and making the site & community stronger behind the scenes. This isn't that... this is dealing with a small contingent spreading bad faith accusations, paranoia, misunderstandings, and in some cases belligerence. As an adult, I realize that leadership DOES involve dealing with those types of things as well, but as a father of young children it is VERY hard to use my limited free time for this... If you've been reading closely, you'll recall that our limited "trial run" of video ads was an experiment to see how intrusive the ads were and whether they would noticeably impact the user experience. We have indicated that our intention was to contact artists and hash this out once we had gotten the ball rolling on 501c3 status, and now it also seems like a revision to the content policy makes sense as well. It's been a long, unnecessarily stressful conversation, but ultimately tomorrow we're going to post a mix & continue operations... So what will that look like? Our experiment is now effectively ended as we can no longer observe the impact of ads in a neutral setting. We will not be enabling ads on additional videos UNTIL we can: Submit a filing for 501c3 status AND obtain this status, or reorganize into something more appropriate than a sole-proprietorship LLC. Modify the content policy with agreeably clear language. Present this change to artists and solicit feedback in a more civil setting, without toxic misinformation and accusations disrupting that dialogue. We will proceed with removing ads from videos posted since June 13th. Exceptions will include any videos from artists who explicitly indicate they're cool with the ads staying, even prior to the above steps being taken. We would like to continue gathering analytics/metrics and seeing how everything works as we proceed with 501c3, etc., so this WILL be helpful to us. This removal will take a bit because to our knowledge, there's no batch mechanism for changing these settings, it has to be done one-by-one. Not awful, just a little monotonous. (UPDATED: Done!!) If you wanna help us get some more data in the meantime & have ads enabled on your videos, please let us know... as I said, we could use the additional insight. So yes, this is still a thing & it's still happening - assuming the three steps outlined above can be completed and that artist feedback points us in this direction - but for now, thank goodness, we can take a break and wait until our ducks are in a row, we've made an historic step towards 501c3 status, we've updated the content policy to make things clearer, and we've had a more informed & productive conversation.

- Fact: I'm on staff and I'm not getting paid for any of this crap. - I'm completely okay with OCR making a bit of a return on the great service they provide to me as an artist. If that shows up in the form of a slight financial benefit from ads run on or near my submitted material, no matter what form those ads take, that sounds great to me. Viva OCR!

I'm going to close this thread up. A spirited discussion to be sure, but @djpretzel indicated what the next steps are going to be for OCR with regards to shifting ads over to YouTube. I don't think it's healthy for us to sit around and do a post-mortem of the arguments/discussion. Let's get back to talking about video games, music, and video game music.

So even as you admit that you went overboard, you're still trying to shame djp for pointing it out? You're contradicting yourself in a single post here. Careless is clearly an understatement. I can't even...

The only thing embarrassing was how you handled yourself here. You have a historical pattern of this, and I am personally done with it.

After reading this thread, I would like to formally put my name forward as someone who actively supports -- and would like to encourage, actually -- the notion of monetizing OCR's YouTube uploads to contribute to site upkeep. Please do, OCR.

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'll be holding you to this, djp. The first time I play an OCR Youtube video/playlist and see that goddamned 15 second auto insurance commercial about the "perfect record" pop up, I will stomp my feet and be very irked. And you wouldn't like me when I'm irked. I get all big, green and puffy.

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.

Will also add that if you still have questions about ad revenue or other concerns that you don't feel were answered fully, zircon wrote up an FAQ that we've reviewed detailing everything to the best of his ability. Feel free to ask questions and continue the discussion there.

Most of what I have to say has been said already. I was initially against monetizing YT vids, but after reading @djpretzel's pretty well thought out explanations and responses I'm on board with what's happening. I think filing for the 501c3 is going to be great for OCR. I still think ads in the videos is kind of intrusive in the same way that popup ads are, but I am not fundamentally or ethically opposed to them (would prefer ads on the video page). I'm all for OCR generating more than just the bare revenue it needs to maintain itself. More revenue funneling back into OCR would mean more growth which I think is a good thing. More promotion, more resources for album projects, eventually a better website with more features, being able to pay for the 501c3 stuff, having "oh shit" money just in case something bad happens (something unexpected will happen down the line, and as someone who has also led various organizations in the past I can say that having backup funds is a tremendous help), I can name countless reasons why making more money than just the basic operating/hosting costs of the website is a good thing. It seems to me that DJP and the staff put a shitload of personal unpaid time into OCR so there's no reason for me to believe that they'd be doing shady things to pocket the 190ish dollars that have been made from YT revenue so far. Hell, most non profits even pay their employees. I wouldn't give a shit if the staff had a small paycheck for the amount of time they put in. Honestly I don't give a shit about any of that stuff unless a lot of money is being generated. But I don't see video game remixes making enough money for me to even care about shady stuff. DJP can pay for his trip to MAGFest on OCR's dime for the sake of promotion and buy himself some Nando's and that's fine with me. When it comes to theshizz, they are definitely an unruly and polarizingly opinionated bunch, but they are awesome people. For the most part, it's an amazing community and some of my best friends are shizzies. Hell, a ton of OCR folks post on there like @zykO. Most of them are rad and a ton of good comes from that community, like DoD and all of the kick ass bands who post on there. I think a good few of the old school shizzies have fundamental philosophical differences with OCR when it comes to VGM stuff, but who gives a shit? That doesn't matter. There were some anti-OCR posts in general on that shizz thread, but I think most of the people who weighed in on this topic really don't care what OCR does with monetizing YT vids, myself included honestly. I'm fine with ads or no ads. Do what you need to do to run the site and I trust the staff's judgment for the most part. I will say though that YouTube is the main way I consume content from OCR and that if certain artists who disagree with the content policy were to take their remixes off of YT, I would probably forget to ever download and listen to them in the first place. So I hope that doesn't happen Seems like some compromising has been made in the last pages of posts though. @Brandon Strader said some pretty out there things a few pages ago, but I think it's really good for the community at large that he brought this discussion up. Seems like a lot came out of it when all is said and done (at least one somewhat direct result of it being that there now seems to be an urgency for filing the 501c3 stuff). Judging by his posts, it seems like he'll always have a disagreement with what is going on with the YT advertisement stuff. However hyperbolic some of his responses were, I hope he comes around and doesn't leave OCR entirely so he can continue to be a positive force in the community with all the kick ass work he's been doing on album projects (and regular remixes). Oh and to his credit, whenever I saw him link to this thread outside of here, he seemed to present it in a reasonable way (he shared his more opinionated views on the topic not in the same posts as linking to the thread). Also if OCR ever enables un-skippable ads I will cause a god damn scene.

Absolutely fantastic read. @Brandon Strader you'd be interested in this as well.

FWIW, you can freely monetize remix videos for my mixes (though with my collaborations you may have less luck getting the a-ok).

I strongly doubt it'll gather much data but I don't mind having ads on remixes I wrote... which is only 1 right now haha.

Oh trust me, I've noticed. Oh have I noticed. Anyway, I'm not going to contribute further to this thread. I will just say that as long as these ads encourage OCR's survival and growth as an organization and support its mission, I am on board with using YouTube as an alternate advertisement revenue source. I know there will still be dissidence, but you can't satisfy everything, and bygones will be bygones. Are there legal ramifications? Well, yes, OCR has always been vulnerable to legal blowback by its very nature. We'll see what happens, but from a legal standpoint we were never quite in the right to begin with. Are there moral ramifications? Well, duh, but since when does morality count for anything when it comes to Copyright or business proceedings in the US? That last one is sarcasm and does not warrant a response.

I don't remember if I actually said that, did I? Cause if I did that way crosses any line, by no means would I compare OCR or its staff to Crooked Hillary And no I've had this sig for ... a while This also very much satisfies me, and if monetization occurred while these steps were planned to be taken then I should be fine with it too. If anyone's right now saying "I support this" to spite me, maybe my intentions weren't expressed properly, but hopefully nobody's actually doing that.

If people want to have their voices heard, they need to make them heard; otherwise it's just noise from the void. If these people aren't going to back up anything they say, or inform themselves of what's actually going on outside of what Brandon Strader is framing it to be, their concerns are moot.

I'm sorry, i apologize, especially for statements I made based on personal feelings that are probably not true. I DID say it wasn't fair to do that, so I shouldn't have tried to use that as any kind of statement, on previous days.

Brandon, I think it's great that you started this thread, you brought up some legitimate issues and got a good discussion going. But this has gone so very, VERY far south. Now it appears that you are simply the leader of a massive witchhunt. This discussion is so far past being constructive that it's stupid. Frankly, what you're doing appears to me VERY childish, regardless of your initial intentions. You are making unwarranted accusations and slinging mud and whipping people up into a frenzy. Are you actually happy with that? If you want to hang onto any remaining shred of goodwill that you have here, you might want to stop posting on this topic, immediately. Not a threat, I have no authority to make a threat... just my $0.02.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The People's Remix Competition 329 PRCv13-17 Hello everyone and Welcome to the People's Remix Competition! Trism claimed victory, he was the only one who submitted a song last time. He selected the source for this round. Source: Croc: Legend of the Gobbo's (PS1) - Itsy the Ice Demon MIDI Source Information ThaSauce link: Click here to submit To submit a song at the compo page a ThaSauce account is required. If anyone has problems with registering or uploading the song to ThaSauce, please upload the song somewhere else and post a download link in the thread. I recommend Soundcloud, don't forget to allow downloads to enable me to upload the song at ThaSauce. To register and submit, do the following. Click the ThaSauce Link. Click the 'You are not logged in' button in the upper right. Click on 'register' (at the bottom). Read the terms and click 'I agree to these terms'. If you don't agree with them, upload the song somewhere else and post a download link as mentioned above (by doing that, you allow me to upload the song at ThaSauce. Continue the process by filling in your information. You will get a question to confirm that you're not a robot. Here are some possible answers: Name a compo: PRC Who organizes One Hour Compo: Starla Name a ThaSauce subdomain: compo.thasauce.net Who created Mega Mans: Capcom A confirmation mail will be send. There might be some issues with it (meaning that you don't get it), if that is the case, upload the song somewhere else as described above. Once registered, login with your username and password, go to the mentioned page and submit the song. If you want submit two or more songs you can create multiple ThaSauce accounts or upload the song somewhere else and post the download link. PRC instructions Limitations at ThaSauce require your entry to be 20 MB or less in size. Length for length's sake and MIDI rips are not allowed (only as Bonus Mixes). Entries must be posted in the by Wednesday August 24th 2016 at 10:59 am ThaSauce time (18:00 UTC, 19:00 GMT), check the ThaSauce page for the exact time left. You may enter as many mixes as you like and work with as many people as you like on each mix. You are free to create a second ThaSauce account for that, it's needed to be able to upload a second remix. You can also upload it somewhere else and put a download link in this thread Do not make qualitative comments on an entry until the results of the vote have been posted in this thread. Mixers cannot vote for themselves but if they vote they recieve a free first place vote added onto their score. The winner of this round may select the source for PRC330. The winner of PRC328, Trism, can only take part by submitting a bonus mix. You can find the full rules list at this page as well. GOOD LUCK! PRC ThaSauce Home Page!

Awww hehehe, well I meant when I said it was still a decent addition to the album. I did read what you had to say in the directors notes, so I understand where you're coming from.

YESSSSS! - SO glad to hear someone is pursuing the storyline of Demon Castle War, regardless of what final form it takes. I sure hope some rogue developer tried to build something with it ... I really like how there are hints of previous themes mixed in with original compositions. I especially like the feel behind Sanguine Moonblossom; like a long pensive look at Alucard, bringing past to present. 'Ecclesiae Strigam' is a really interesting name. 'Call of the Ecclesia' or 'Holy Shout' or something like that? Foreshadowing of some sort, no doubt... I will be keeping an eye on this. Great work so far!

The teams do matter a bit, of course, if you have one source that you'd like to try multiple approaches with. If you're Team Robots, for example, you'll get your one Mega Man source three times, and three Shovel Knight sources one time each.

Man, clearly It's been too long since I was last here lurking. How'd things get so personal? I'd like to reiterate that I'm cool with my mixes being monetized for the site. Thanks for the patience and responses, djp. Thanks for bringing it up on Facebook, Brandon. Although I do wish you had kept the even tone you presented the matter with on Facebook. We're all coming at this for the love of the craft so I guess tempers/emotions are bound to flare.

LLC ownership cert things cost a bit extra and don't really do much other than give you something to hang on a wall.. They don't make an org more or less legitimate.

Sounds like a cool project. In the first two tracks I thought the piano was pretty loud. On laptop speakers I thought I even heard the piano's reverb separately, as if the reverb itself was too loud. The piano (lead) could also use more humanization, each note was being hammered down which doesn't leave a lot of room for expression and takes away the power the loudest notes in the lead could have. Sanguine Moonblossom has a cool atmosphere, and the harpsichord in the bed of strings & choir worked for me (I don't think I've heard something exactly like that before). A Soldier With A Grudge had a super cool groove as well, I really liked the brass melody jumping around, "jumpy" intervals don't often work so well in melodies but I think these were good, especially since the riff beneath it has an usually large interval. Or something, like I knew what I was talking about with theory and stuff, but in any case, it was really cool. I also liked that the arrangement and mix was relatively sparse, everything had a good place and nice room to operate.

Dude, your track isn't mastered for the album. If its levels, frequency balance or other things about it aren't in line with all the other tracks, and/or if there's too little/too much silence at the end of the tracks in regards to the following track on the album, then it needs to be mastered. I don't think you seriously think mastering equals loudening, nor that loudening is the only thing mastering is about, so why suggest that? Also, we had a thing in the first post about not sharing your tracks. Not cool, 2011 Brandon.

What about not enabling ads on additional videos until after you've achieved 501c3 status? Submitting doesn't seem to mean anything. Until it's actually approved, you're still not 501c3. The books aren't open for the public to see. We're still not 100% sure that the money is going where you say it's going. Not trying to antagonize or anything, just a legitimate question. Submitting for filing seems to show that you're taking steps to assure non-believers, but it doesn't actually mean anything until you've got it and we can see it.

*Shrug* It's a fun arrangement. I say it doesn't need to be all that interpretive to be enjoyable.

I can't think of anyone more affected by this than random theshizz members.

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

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'll cause a scene if you don't go

So once again I'm the only one that has anything to say about the Apex albums? That's too much pressure, guys. The Apex albums are good! They need more comments than just my own! *Ahem* 1. Garrett Williamson, Yungtown - Main Theme of Apex 2016 - Super Smash Bros. "APEX" Source: "Character Select" Original Composer: Hirokazu Ando This track raises the bar for how competition events, let alone albums inspired by competition events should start. The introduction was flawless, and the rest of the track puts you in the mood where you oughta be for competition events. 2. Neblix - Street Fighter V "The Path of Heaven" Sources: Street Fighter II - "Ryu (Japan)," Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - "Ryu Stage ~ Kobu" Original Composers: Yoko Shimomura, Hideki Okugawa Very fun homage to the Street Fighter series. Reading the director’s notes, everything that Neblix mentioned, I felt and agree with 100%. 3. WillRock - Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 "Have a Nice Death" Source: "Ghost Rider" Original Composer: Hideyuki Fukasawa Damn, for only being produced in two days, this is pretty impressive. 4. timaeus222 - Pokkén Tournament "Iron-Headed Pursuit" Source: "Ferrum Stadium" Original Composer: Shota Kageyama Doesn’t seem as ambitious as what I’m used to from timaeus222, but it’s still a decent track. 5. Chernabogue, Tuberz McGee, Furilas - Super Smash Bros. Brawl "You Only Live to Smash" Source: "Super Smash Bros. Brawl Main Theme" Original Composer: Nobuo Uematsu The quality of this track seems a little muffled compared to the previous tracks. The rock organ work here is excellent though, regardless of the quality. 6. Sir_NutS - Killer Instinct "Werewolf Transformation" Source: Killer Instinct (SNES) - "Tooth & Claw (Sabrewulf)" Original Composer: Robin Beanland Not really a fan of the vocal inserts. Aside from that, the EDM attempt at Saberwulf’s theme was pretty good. It manages to be EDM, while retaining what made the original Saberwulf theme so good. 7. DJ RoboRob - Mortal Kombat "Technical Disorder" Source: Mortal Kombat (Sega CD) - "Techno Syndrome" Original Composer: Oliver Adams It’s the second coming of Techno Syndrome! As a 90s child, I totally approve of this. 8. ladyWildfire - Super Smash Bros. Melee "SMASHDANCE" Source: "Menu 1" Original Composer: Hirokazu Ando This is pretty good “waiting lobby” music, if that waiting lobby allowed participants to dance and rave instead of just sitting there like lumps waiting for their turn. 9. DjjD - Super Smash Bros. for Wii U "Incognito" Source: Super Smash Bros. for Wii U - "Menu" Original Composer: Junichi Nakatsuru And this is the waiting lobby music without the glitz and glamor from the previous track. But I still love it, as after all the excitement from the rest of the album, it needed to end on a nice “chill out” track. --- ....aw, it's over already? That's the one disadvantage I can give to these albums, they're just way too short. I like them, but there's just not enough to enjoy. Ah well, great work once again.

Haha. Brandon called me close-minded. The irony! On Topic: While I don't think that OCR's money should go to anything besides the site itself, even in surplus, if Staff would be payed, it should be for the things I mentioned above.

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.

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.

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

I propose we get sponsorship from EA. We can have a twenty second EA ad inserted at the beginning of each remix (even the old ones!) to help with the cost. And then another one at the end of each remix. Fuck it, put one in the middle as well. That's three times the EA in every remix! Three times the income! Of course, as true to the EA business model as possible, we'll have to double, if not quadruple, the amount of work the staff does, but since there's no overtime pay, we'll save a fortune. (please don't do this, I'm joking. Oh god, someone's going to seriously consider it, aren't they?)

I spent several whole posts detailing why the submission policy argument is dishonest. The submission policy is too old to assume good faith on; it needs to be updated to match the climate of what's going on right now. YouTube streaming was not a thing when it was written. Spotify was not a thing when it was written. The submission policy as it stands is prohibitive (not legally, but from a community relations standpoint) both to OCR and its artists to continue pursuing more avenues. OCR wasn't making direct money off of the music back when I had submitted music using the submission policy. So you're absolutely correct; if the submission policy doesn't change, I likely won't continue to submit music to OCR under its content policy, in light of the fact that now there is direct monetization of my content on a major platform and they are doing so in a stealthy back-handed way rather than an upfront and honest way. I have no problem with it happening, I simply would have liked to agree to it. Not in a "well this counts as this section of the submission agreement you agreed to like 8 years ago". I would have like to agreed to it in a "we are going to pursue avenues of monetizing the music on different platforms and you are waiving the right to share in the revenue." When I submit music according to a policy I want to know what the extent of that policy is. YouTube monetization didn't exist when I subbed my first remixes, and OCR was not monetizing still even up to my last Apex remix. The content policy allows them to do these things, but it doesn't do it in a way that makes it clear to the artist what's going on. I keep seeing this argument that OCR is within their right to do this given the policy. That's not the point. Saying "but we can, you agreed to it when you hit the button" is not honest. It's legal. It's not honest. The point is that these reactions by artists are genuine, and they feel it is dishonest. Making decisions on cut-throat legal language in the shadows is something a business does. It's not something a community does. A community is supposed to be transparent and make intentions clear beyond the letter of the law, so that everyone is comfortable, member retention is high, and the community and its activities can continue to expand without this ludicrous 200-reply thread controversy happening every single damn time something new is tried.

You argue that you're mostly concerned with fair use, and then talk about why you're not being paid -- two completely separate discussions that you yourself identified as such. I'll get to fair use; as for payment, the Content Policy means that the site is never going to pay you by definition, because any revenue made is explicitly forbidden from anything that isn't "directly associated with the operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix." See #1 and #5 under the Content Policy for the full text. Fair use aside (wait for zircon's posts :p), I think this is the most valid point anyone has made. While the Content Policy does allow OC ReMix to do this, it might be nice to explicitly make clear how that monetization occurs, and I understand why an artist might want that. Updating the language here seems a fair request worthy of consideration. Tom is absolutely correct here -- churches are non-profit but pay their pastors, secretaries, etc. Charitable organizations can get to be quite large -- Lutheran World Relief has a hundred employees or so in the Twin Cities area alone. Related: It is my contention that you could pay the site staff and STILL be well within the bounds of fair use; as anyone on staff can attest, there is a high time commitment to be a judge or core staff member here. Because of how other people don't seem to understand or agree though, let me reiterate that currently, no staff member has ever been paid for their extraordinary volunteer efforts. For anyone who wants to learn more about a fair use defense (and it IS a defense -- it is always going to go to court if the copyright holder wants to push on it), I highly recommend Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2 as your textbook. It contains a the full court decisions for Luther R. Campbell AKA Luke Skywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and an analysis of it -- the case that established fair use in the music world (more colloquially, it's 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman.")

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.

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.

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).