Compyfox

I should know, I was banned because of that. Then again, who says that I'm so bad in english, that I need "help"? Mind your own business please. I just stated another possibility, which reverts to one of my infamous "what if" theories. Don't worry my friend, there doesn't need to be an extra point for that, but my concerns still remain - like it or not. And with that said, I take my right to get some beauty sleep, or do I need to get a license for that first?

I said, stop shredding my posts to pieces, dammit! You're a worse troll than I ever was - seriously now. I still say that it's definitely not okay to post stuff on physical media without our total agreement. You (OCR) are still only licensing our material. Then again, if the track is catching attention and the involved mixer is getting a contract to use "that" particular track in an official release, we have another interest conflict in terms of "removing tracks". Another possible "situation", what'll most "unlikely happen" - but I felt like mentioning it. Thanks.

Didn't Dave just post in the other thread, that some stuff will be "forced" in some kind of way? Sorry, but this is getting more and more strange. And would you please stop shredding every bits of my posts to pieces and tell me that I'm wrong on all ends? Thank you!

I still say there needs to be a subsection included for distribution on CD/DVD Media, like most online labels do for "promotion material". As the stuff will be heard by the press, maybe even highend mixers looking for new talents, but a mixer might not be interested in that kind of stuff, he should be able to decline that "offer" for the particular track submitted (also working retroactive). If we go more into deeper administation stuff, I think this wouldn't be much more work either. Though... I guess I already know the answer.

I stated a couple of possible reasons, where you commented "that's no reason for me" or "that'll most likely not happen". Now if someone doesn't agree with the draft now, and/or the draft works retroactive, wouldn't it be a valid and excellent reason to say "sorry - I do not agree with your (future) policy, please take my mixes down"? Or do you say, that is is no valid reason for a removal, too? Yes I'm beating the dead horse, sorry about that, but your opinion is just close-minded, while you expect us to be open-minded to your draft.

There goes another one for oposing vote. The reasons are stated in the other thread, and are still ignored with the words "it's unlikely that this will ever happen". Furthermore I miss the part with GEMA and ASCAP members. Additional to that: "You retain ownership and copyright" definitely doesn't swing with "You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable...license" - with emphasis on "perpetual" and "irrevocable". In other words, you give your track to OCR, and you loose all futher rights. Which makes that following sentence abundant. Especially with the following part. On one hand, the track still belongs to us, but on the other you can do whatever you feel like doing with it. Including releasing on a physical medium, while we're left out and can not decide if we're even agree to that (I personally don't). In short, we loose all rights to OCR's benefit - and I don't agree to that. Sorry - a clear no on my end.

Sorry but I HAVE TO comment... In that case, you should also be fair to contact a mixer, if you decide to take a mix down due to reasons unknown. The mixer should have influence and the final words. The participant AGREE's to your rules, you're just the licensee (as stated). Unless the participating mixer gives you the full right of a mix, he can do with it what he wants. From asking you to remove it, to asking you not to remove it. The same as AD said. Hold it right there! You can't simply do that off hand. You'd still have to ask the mixers "are you cool with that?". One example would be Novatunes and mp3.de. The time you sign up and submit a song, you're asked to whether or not you agree that this song may be featured on a compilatio/demo CD with some sort of payment for you, or the chance to win a complete paid CD release for you. If you take this into consideration, the people are allowed to do what they want with their tracks. After all, Novatunes is a netlabel that signs you for 2 years, and mp3.de is an open community like OCR. You have 1578 tracks on OCR at the moment. All of them exceed 5,75GB, a normal DVD-5 has 4,7GB (though in reality more like 4,2GB). That alone would make 2DVDs. Now if people say "sorry, but I don't agree that you will put my track on DVD and share it on a printed media" (which is their right to do so), you don't have any problems at all if they should ever dedice that their stuff might go commercial, or they want to reject it. And even then you STILL have enough material to present to the masses, and you can write on the disk "wanna hear more? Come to our page". Seriously, the more I hear in defense from your side, Dave, the more I really don't want to submit anything at all anymore. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Rules good and fine, but this is slowly growing ridiculus if you ask me.

EDIT: Answer to DJPs post... Still we can't predict the future if something like I mentioned earlier is really happening, and it is a delicate issue. Removing mixes due to the fact that it's not good enough for the participant anymore is a different issue. I mean, even worldwide known actors need to live with a certain release, so it kinda is understandable to reject the request (unless it has a very deeper background involved, like... MIDI Rip for example, or a very, very bad mixing, which shouldn't be the issue anymore due to the song standards - whoever wondered why I put my track down, this was the reason and I barely wrote anything since then). But everything else, even if it's a "extremely hypothetical what-if scenario" needs a certain solution. From the chat with you just a minute ago, I know that you'll look into it, and some other things we discussed. I just have the feeling that we still are a bit restricted in our rights as people participating to this... giant "album". EDIT2: And thanks to DragonFireKai. You share my concerns in a different light, but with the same outcome. Much appreciated.

That doesn't mean that I stopped mixing and not consider releasing stuff. It is indeed correct that I stopped submitting out of my own will, and also due to the fact that I barely have any material to submit which would suit the "current standards". It is also correct that I still help mixers/musicians to enhance their material from time to time (on a free and commercial basis). Then again, this is kinda off-topic and doesn't have anything to do with the draft. No matter if I decide to submit or not is out of the question at that moment - I wrote my comments in general. Like I said, I may be the only one voicing those concerns, but it can hit anyone out there who's going the way of a more professional musician, or is on "the edge" rather than being a hobby musician only. As someone who had to do with the law in terms of "copyright issues" already, I can relate and know a thing or two. This is why I raised my voice.

EDIT: THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BEFORE DJP COMMENTED ON BAHAMUTS LAST POST! So if something sounds like an outburst of some sort, I'm sorry about that and my chosen words. Furthermore, this is a direct answer to Bahamut's post, not DJP's. I'm slowly giving up now. You obviously don't want to understand what's the problem here. Fine... whatever. I CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! Period. I can not say at this moment of day "oh... this track I'm working on will be featured on a CD". I can however try to get it on a CD, though if it doesn't work, I can think about the option going to OCR (even if I'm not allowed to one way or another - the "fanmaterial" thing again). Then again I can't predict the future of what might happen so that I need to take down the track one way or another. According to Dave's words, some issues are a strict no-no situation and he'd reject the request (one of them being "put them down due to quality reflection of the creative mind"), and others need to clearly discussed, considered and accepted first, before there is a "yes - we will remove your track(s) but you're not allowed to mix for us anymore in the future". Same as with remixing projects for example. It's not a rare issue that people presented their remixes "before" their tracks were featured on the project (happened with all OCR projects except "Relics of the Chozo", as it was made with barely no attention). Now if I, as founder and leader of this project say "you're not allowed to submit anything before the proper release, and may it take years", but you go ahead and do it anyway, the track is getting submitted, released, I see that and I write the page founder "sorry, one of my mixers ignored one of the rules for this remixing project to be created - please put down the track" - can you still say "no, as this track is a free release, it'll be on the project anyway - see it as promotion"? This doesn't work this way. And this is what's clearly glaring at me! Maybe you misinterpret things, or don't understand it - or it is my language barrier, but I can't be that off. This is not a thing to decide, isn't it? And so what if it's really the same song? If the firm wants it that way, and it'll be put into (for example) the next Tony Hawk 1:1 to what it was available for free over here, then so be it. You still have to put it down according to the contract, because now there're different forms of royalty payments involved. And even if you can't change the factor "fan downloads" anymore, you can change the factor "page/internet releases". Or do you call Machinae Supremacy greedy because they released half of their current albums for free on their own page (though lately snippets only rather than full tracks like they used to be)? Or what about Linkin Park? Popular OCR mixer examples would be SGX, Haroon Piracha and zircon, too. A contract is a contract - am I writing all this in vain? Did they make contracts with the original copyright holders? Were they asked to be featured on a official CD? Is their music so popular that they play in high ranks or is it more "urban" and nobody really cares "what" is on the CD or whether or not they pay proper royalty fees? These are all essential things to consider to wheter something is adjusted or not. But okay, from all answers I got to my posts, I clearly get the wink "forget it, never happened, never will be, you're screwed - go somewhere else or don't submit it". And due to that, I draw the shortest straw and give in. If this issue is discussed on a close minded basis only, I really don't want to be a part of OCR as remixing participant in the future, as I won't agree with the points made in the draft and therefore rather reserve my rights to post my (upcoming) remixes at another place. Sorry about that.

*sigh* Sorry to cause a big rukus on this, but this is really bugging me. Maybe others too, but it's just that I'll play the black sheep and play that till the end. You still can't do that. The material is still the property of the creative mind. It's not how you personally think about this issue, you set up rules here, and there're no "personal opinions" allowed, but only objective judgement. Furthermore, once more a "what if" but these are all possibilities that can happen, and happened already... What if the track was submitted already, and due to the fact that "this" particular track was submitted, a certain firm came to you and said "wow this track is awesome - we want to feature it, please put it down, we write you a contract with further rules and info of how you'd getting paid". This is the same as you said, but it's happening AFTER it was released (or even submitted and/or in the judging process) on OCR. It's a reversed contractract in this case and you have your written confirmation why you have to put it down. No further check needed, or a discussion "but can we keep it?". Or can you see into the future and know "this track will be put on CD someday"? I sure can't! Same as with all other removal request. Virt said he didn't want it on your page anymore, because you didn't have some sort of rules layed down what to happen with his tracks. If I can remember, JDHarding put them down due to quarrels, others asked for putting their stuff down because they had re-mixed (as in form of newly engineered) material at hand, or they were like "sorry, doesn't reflect my style anymore" (which is still their right to do so). And if we look at it from another point of view, that stuff is still "spread" on OCRemoved, even though most of those stuff listed there, is posted without our permission(!) - for example that "Mission of Mana" mix of mine, and it's also having the OCRemix tag(!), where you in the draft say "we can deny the usage of "OCRemix". Were talking about something that you try, to my impression, forbid as if it's happening every other day. Of course it's some sort of extra effort, but it is still the Work of it's original creator. And due to the fact that you wrote on your new draft enhancement, that you're only a licensee, the mixer providing his material still has the final word on it, hasn't he? Like I said, I may be the only one expressing it, but it is a delicate situation and it needs to be discussed. The problem is, you can of course go to a firm and say "I have a mix, am I allowed to distribute it commercially" before you consider going "public domain", but usually they're like "who the heck are you?" and reject that request. Unless however, you're already known in the scene (example: OCR, or to the remixed artist) and/or you're really good, then they're more friendly and be like "nice tracks you got there, want to be featured maybe?". In this case, all that's coming next is kinda rolling backwards, and chances are, if you mixed for three different games, one of them being the game in question for the compilation, that these tracks will be needed to be removed. And you have to agree. In reality, we're not even allowed to submit anything online the one way or another. This counts to Soundclick, MySpace, mp3.com, KWED, thSauce, VGMix, AnimeMix, AmigaMix and OCR. We're doing the illegal thing but tag it as "fanwork" - it's accepted, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do so. We just do it. To get back on topic - the new draft enhancement is still kinda preventing that. For example you say Which means you will post it on your behalf as presentation platform, but the track still belongs to the mixer. However a couple of sentences later: Well from my side, I "have to" agree the termination (even if it's only partially, meaning only one of the games I mixed - again as example with the contract), but in the same time it still sounds to me "only if we see a reason in it", while negating that with the request to speak to the contract holder to be "really sure" and ignoring requests from people who say "sorry - doesn't reflect my work anymore". This is contradictorily and doesn't really work IMO. The whole last passage doesn't really work to be honest. First you refuse to remove the material, second you can remove it anytime if you think it's a violation of the rules. I know I'm picky, I stand to that point, but to me it's still as if it's a adhesion contract. While we still have all "rights", we loose them at the same time with that small paragraph. Why not simply remove it completely? This makes all "what if's" possible and rather write "we give you a two week grace period if you decided out of anger to remove your stuff - should you after two weeks still want to remove your stuff, we will do so but ban further submissions". Everything else is a more or less rare exception and shouldn't be "backward-punished", as written in this sentence: Don't you think so, too? In the end, you saying "removing that part" didn't happen after all. We're still kinda running in circles - and there's no "fun" involved anymore either. Sorry about that...

Sorry for double asking, but just to be sure because my english is just in "buffer overload mode" in terms of translation. I mean... what other circumstances need there to be? If a mixer says "this track doesn't reflect my current standards anymore, so I want to remove it please", or "I'm bound to a contract which makes it impossible to offer this track for free anymore"... isn't that enough information? Maybe I just understood it wrong (like I said, buffer overflow, same as with the sentence "there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed" - even after translating it for the 5th time with a dictionary I still don't really get it), but at the moment it still sounds to me "we accept your opinion, thank you - but unfortunately we have to reject your request". Also, I still see that "reserves the right to" part in the draft on page one... hm... DUH! Head-asplode... can't that be a bit simpler and not that much like lawyer english? I'm not that bad at english, but in this case, I definitely lost track of what-the-hell-is-going-on.

Well, partially - I just analysed the files and both the dry and "reverbed" ones hit the 0dB range (sometimes even go over), the processed ones even exceed K-12's 0-point and go as hot as +5dB in this system. So indeed the "mastering" is a bit prominent. With only normalizing, you won't get as hot though. Anyway, in direct comparision it's okay. Still I'm not convinced in terms of price. Futhermore, how is the "physical" CD made? Just a simple CD/DVD (how big is the content anyway?) with a printed/sticker label or really professional looking with pressed DVDs, imprints, box, etc?

That some of that material from other libraries isn't really playable is a sad fact unfortunately, and I'd have loved to if that G-Town stuff would have been without recorded reverb already (the anvils are massive indeed!). Or if there'd be one "ultimate" pack of percussion types (including more traditional japanese instruments and not only Taikos with medium size till ultra large). I like the idea with round robin and different pitches (lefthand hit/righthand hit - if this is what's possible with your pack). But it's also a fact that those upper mentioned samplepacks only cost a fraction more in some cases, especially if there're deals available again and feature three times as much material. This is bugging me a bit though - and if I look on my always limited budget, it is a point to hesitate for me. Also what's wondering me is the audiodemo material. Of course it is intentional to let it sound as loud and good as possible, but this really stinged my eye. 48kHz MP3 demos with the same loudness as most popsongs on the radio. To me it looks like you added additional mastering to your material. While this certainly no critism or anything, it's just that due to that I bought a couple of samplepacks already, and later I had to feel the negative sideeffect on it, that my productions sounded only partially better, but not as advertised unless I compressed the hell out of it. Anyway, like I said... I keep an eye on Impact:Steel. It really is tempting and sometimes what I'm looking for (especially for a project I'm planning for years now), though I could only get it if I had more money at my disposal at the moment, or if there'd be some sort of introductionary price.

I think it does indeed need to be accounted - especially if the certain mix involved was already released (let's say) half a year ago, and was also the reason the firm contacted you. In this case, there needs to be a certain solution found. *sigh* You sure are picky. I just commented on your post, and in this case, you went OT first. It's not like I hijack this thread and talk about the difference of an african or european swallow or something like that.

But in other words that still means "whoever wants to remove his songs, no matter what reason, we`re not going to do that" - unless I get that wrong. Especially if it's a legitime reason like "I'm sorry, but I was chosen for a CD compliation/I want to release my remixes with proper permission and contract, but this contract asks me to remove all sources of possible releases, may it be free or planned to be sold in any other way"? Of course it's dissapointing that people want to part with OCR for you. But it's their decision, their creative work and not just a 1:1 remix from (let's say) Mitsuda alone, as demanded in the quality guidelines from OCR anyway (else it wouldn't have been submitted). So they can indeed do with their material as they please. And this is what it's all about, this whole discussion, and that's what AD commented on, too. Is it really that difficult and troublesome? Nothing against you, Dave. But OCR is really not the only (videogame) remix related community out there. Then why not doing the other way? Get a bit more lenient on rules, be more open minded. Does every track really have to be uber-produced to be suitable for this page? Do new mixers really need a massive quality check if they can get feedback and help from established mixers? Does every track need to be reviewed by the page founder and leader individually (if he's on a timer anyway)? It worked with all those remixing projects out there, didn't it? And I guess this is what other communities made so popular. They work on a more musician focused basis, rather than on a quality forced and bottle-necked system. Fun vs. Uber-Professional Machinery - one is not the other. Please don't see everything as mega difficult and highly professional. This is no record company that's talking about millions in terms of money income per year, but a "hobby community". Lighten up a little.

I SO want a badge for that!

I'm sure as hell no lawyer, but having experience with "the law" in certain ways, I can at least give some comments. I leave the rest to those who really know their thing. Most royalty free samples and art is released on some sort of "common ground". Those people are happy to share their material, try to gain popularity and at a later place maybe get known on a commercial base, but can still release their stuff for free as "demo" or better said "appetizer". Most of that stuff is still released with some form of copyright information (who did that stuff), then an additional info how you're allowed to use them (for samples it's "Creative Commons", with possible restrictions and conditions) and whether or not you're allowed to share that material, and if so in which form. While you indeed try something similar here, I have to mention however that the samples, the music material, art, written form or whatever comes to mind is still not your creative property. In other words, you only have a "license" to use the material in a certain form, but you don't "own" it in any way, and have no rights to change that or interfere with the interest of the original creative mind. While they're of course not allowed to go on a rampage, they can indeed deny you the use of their licenses (especially with Call/Response systems) if you violate against their rules. For example, if there's written: "These samples are licensed, not sold, to the purchaser and remain the property of Wilbert Roget, II. Redistributing, duplicating, reselling, electronically transmitting, uploading, sharing, or renting these samples is prohibited by law" ...it does indeed mean, if you want to use it in two studios, even if one's your home studio, and the other one a studio you have with your partner - that's not allowed. You'd duplicate and share the samples, use "two licenses" even if sold for one - which would make that action illegal (though in reality, most users ignore that). Same as if a client would come over, and ask you to mix his track with "his samples" and you work on your own. Collaborating is a different thing, as most samples are used in a musical context then (exchanging rendered files), still it has to be cleared in some sort of way. If you violate against one of those rules, the firm you bought the samples from can indeed exclude you from future purchases and sue you. This'd be the form of "kick my door in and get back their samples". Though the negative side on it - first they have to get to know whether or not you're abusing against their rules. With Call/Response it's easy, but not with normal sample CDs that don't need keys or dongles. I'm kinda happy that the issue with "ignoring removal requests due to selling the material" is being discussed and considered to be changed in some sort of way (though it's not done yet, and it's uncertain if that ever will be), along with other issues I adressed. But like LuIzA, I also rather won't submit my material anymore but rather go to another place with "less restrictions", or a more "open system", towards the participating person, as this is indeed not aimed for a "fun community" anymore. Unless the rules are laid out in a understandable and fair way for all participants. This is in no way a disruptive behaviour or an outburst due to misunderstandings, it's just my personal opinion on this issue. Best wishes and a nice evening.

Not to complain or anything, but 89USD for a CD version (10bucks off for download) sure is a bit much if I look at what's available out there. For free there's the G-Town orchestra project, then you can get Rare Instruments (if you're still lucky) for dirt cheap. Then we can go up in price to get Banchetto Musicale, Flying Handpercussion, Silk Road, Project SAM TrueStrike, Stormdrum 1, not to mention Stylus RMX's internal soundfactory, Nucleus Soundlab Ambient Drums (for Wusik and SF2), Ambience and Drones (Zero-G or was it EWQL, discontinued however). All of them kinda feature more, and are better in terms of price/effort deals. It does sound nice however. That introductionary demo sure gave me the chills and sounded very good. Didn't like the Clang Ensemble though (as if it's flanged). I'm sure Bear McCreary would love this stuff, if he didn't have access to real players already for the Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. It's tempting. Call me a cheapstake, but I'd like to see a bit more in it for that price to be honest. I will keep an eye on it however. Thanks for the scoop.

That sure are a lot of keyboards, would have the room for it, still not as much as the picture I remember from the old cribs thread - DUDE that was loaded. And wait a minute... where's your digital mixer? And did you sell some rack stuff?

You don't know how MY workspace looked like before I cleaned it up, or the rest of the room (like it still does, were my consoles and games reside, etc). Then again.. LESS TALKIE, MORE PICTURES, yo!

Oh come on, it screamed for a comment! XD Anyway - less talkie, more pictures!

The place where Jill is sitting is... well... o_O *if this doesn't start some serious questioning, I don't know what it does* And since when do you play guitar?

I was invited to participate with the latest CRiBS thread, so here I am. A lot of stuff happened in my studio, though I'm still not happy with one or another thing, or some stuff is missing (not on the picture, ot not aquired yet), but this is my momentarily status, and I guess that won't change in a major way within the next half year or so. Not to see on this pic is my Zoom MultiFX device, and a spare double tape deck that I've got lent by a friend for recovering his old tape recordings (lower right, behind the chair), and my microphones. Hard to see: Yamaha MU-15 (top of the rack), Yamaha RY-30 (between the sampler and the EMU Virtuoso, usually not in use), Phillips CD Walkman (for final-checking CD cuts, above the M-Audio/midiman midisport 4x4 in the back), Behringer Tube Ultragain 200 (behind the Line6 GuitarPort). The rest should pretty much speak for itself: Hard to see on this one: Upper left - Quantum Leap Brass, Zero-G EZ-Rollers, Eest West Total Piano, Zero-G Total REX, Various Magazine Bundle Deals, Halion 3. Upper Middle - Vengeance Essential Club Vol2, Vengeance FX, Quantum Leap Rare Instruments, Steinberg Sounds and Cycle Collection (Chemical Big Beats, Chemical Fusion Technology, the Electro Age). Not on the picture: purchased online plugins/VSTi/Samples/Impulses (momentarily stored on 3 coverless DVD's) Pictures from: Today, 17th May 2007 On a sidenote: I would have also posted a more close-up picture from my rack, but only 4 images are allowed per message. Oh well. Planned stuff for the future: getting new monitor speakers (at least 2.1), building a DIY mbSID (rack), abusing my WiiMote as MIDI controller (not only as remote for MPC and Winamp), abusing my Nintendo DSLite as KAOS Pad (DSMIDIwifi)

Er... there we have it again: outburts, disruptive behaviour - "watch it boy". *sigh - I give up* The only outburst I did was my last comment, and it's true I shouldn't have written it down, then again so shouldn't have you. I'm discussing this new... policy as I see it in my opinion, you asked us remixers to state our points, so I did in a calm way which obviously seems to either be misunderstood, or not wanted. Once again it is layed out for me as if I'm only causing trouble. Okay... fine with me, note taken. Please feel free to continue on discussing this topic - I guess I stated my point and there's nothing more to say from my point of view. Unless of course, you want to David - my PM folder is open. - Roland