Nabeel Ansari

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

As I've said like 4 times before on this thread, invoking back-handed legal tactics on your community members is the best way to kill member retention and damage your reputation. OCR is not just a business. It's a community; furthermore, its community is its business, and appeasing the desires of its community at least through compromise is a necessary factor in keeping the business running smoothly. Without a thriving community, there's no content being produced. It doesn't matter what objective facts you throw around; if people feel cheated, and there is no attempt to remedy that, either through solution or productive discussion, they will pack up and leave. This isn't directed at staff members, because they already know this. This is directed at people who think "sorry, but we're allowed, it's in the fine print" is a valid defense.
That's why this thread exists, to remedy those concerns. Not to make fun of them.

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.

This is an egregious reductionist oversimplification of all the nuanced discussion that's happened in this 9-page thread.

Re:  Who wants a policy that's out of date every time a new & relevant technology comes out? 
I don't know, actually, because you see policies from games in particular constantly updating and having to get you to agree to them again. I don't think regular policy revisions are actually that wild an idea, and like you said, not in substance/meaning, but in clarified language, with new up-to-date examples.
 
As for 501c3, I'm genuinely interested right now. Is it on the table? Is a specific amount of funds being waited for, or is there a hangup in terms of someone having to complete some necessary tasks? Curious as to the progress on this.

"I disagree with you, therefore you are emotional and have no logic" is the only baffling recurrent thing being said in this thread.
Disagreeing with someone's logic does not make your logic correct and the opposing logic null.

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

I actually agreed with this in the very first line I posted here.  Re-wording the Content Policy is worth a look -- not that my 2c needs to count for any of it, as I have absolute faith in the current staff.

Profit effectively precludes Fair Use. Supreme Court has said "every commercial use of copyrighted property is presumptively an unfair exploitation", "unfair" w.r.t Fair Use.
I'm not really convinced that direct revenue generation that rises over time isn't "profit" just because it goes to an organization and not the pockets of a specific person.
I think there's a revenue that doesn't count as "profit", and it's called donations. Whether or not OCR has already effectively monetized the music in the past is irrelevant; in light of the new information and perspectives from people, it's important to evaluate if OCR should stop, or if it should continue at the same level, or continue and go beyond, and recognize the potential legal problems that can arise, as well as those from the community members themselves.

Not exactly, Brandon.
Funds used for compensating staff would be for expanding the functional capabilities of the site, not the content hosted within site.  There is a fundamental difference, there, one that a 501c3 is probably required to account for.  Those are two orthogonal aspects of OCR - the media itself, and the construct it sits within.

The biggest blunder I could commit is trying to enter a discussion with someone who is comfortable painting pages of a complex multi-faceted discussion as a single sentence worded in such a way to intentionally make it seem absurd. The second biggest would be to respond to your claim that feelings do not govern law or morality, which is a utilitarian philosophy, only one of many philosophies that exist, and trying to argue within the confines of your philosophy principles of other philosophy is a waste of time if you're already convinced of your own (a common pattern with utilitarianism, because it has a disproportionate self-perception of objectivity packaged with it, and in this particular thread, self-righteousness as well).
So I'm not going to. Read up on the thread, and I'm not going to answer your posts until you become current with what people are actually saying. If you can respond to an argument without rewording it and cutting it down to 100th of its size, it's a sign you're actually listening and not responding just to push your own opinion out.

This is an egregious reductionist oversimplification of all the nuanced discussion that's happened in this 9-page thread.

"I disagree with you, therefore you are emotional and have no logic" is the only baffling recurrent thing being said in this thread.
Disagreeing with someone's logic does not make your logic correct and the opposing logic null.

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.

I believe Neblix's point was to simply assume there was enough income to compensate the staff, and play around with that idea. 
Personally, I think it'd be a completely justifiable course of action and pave the way for an expanded infrastructure&community. If only it were that simple in practice...

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