Kenogu Labz   Members

If you're using the term perfection, subjectivity has to take a second seat to objectivity. If music is wholly subjective, perfection is undefined, as there is no standard by which perfection can be measured. Pick your terminology well in this discussion.

Distinguish, perhaps, between mistakes and imperfections. One is a failure of the performer, one is intrinsic to performed art or the medium by which it is conveyed.

A-OK with me.

It is productive insofar as it removes the need for this discussion to be carried on further if you ramble and rant and rave and refuse to discuss the topic with one iota of reason. Dredging up your inconsistencies and fallacies simply shows you are incapable of holding an argument that actually states anything of value. Pure and simple.

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

(Speaking purely from memory and not having done any personal study on this, so I apologize if there is misinformation here.) My understanding is as follows: Licenses aren't necessarily required if you are not profiting from the derivative works. The companies must choose to prosecute for violations, and DjP already has a Fair Use defense lined up and ready if that ever does occur (although the legal fees may still cause problems on OCR's side). They can also choose to preclude direct legal action by threatening a C&D, thus hoping to resolve the issue without hauling things into court. On YouTube, companies have a more direct form of action they can take to act on their copyright claim by simply leveraging DMCA to request the content by removed. YouTube then has its own system by which the content owner can make appeals, and have the video restored if proper proof of originality can be provided. YouTube's system is actually heavily balanced towards the companies of the original work, something that has caused a heavy ruckus in recent years, since even unrelated or clearly Fair Use videos can be repeatedly taken down with no consequence for those making the claims. Either way, in cases like this, the company must feel that it has need to pursue litigation for violating that copyright. OCR has operated on this premise both on its own site and on YouTube. To those companies, I do not believe they would see a fundamental difference in placing ads before the video and in leveraging banner ads around the video. I don't see why this would lead to any greater legal threat to OCR than we previously had.

I wouldn't recommend trying to speak to legality without first examining fair use law.

It feels to me like the entire tone of this conversation has been sour and combative from the start, and that has handicapped it extensively. I've been on the sidelines of OCR going nigh on 10 years now, if my guess is correct, and around 7 years of meager periodic participation. During that time, I've observed a lot of DjP: what motivates him, how he thinks, what he's concerned about and studied. I know he's spent a while learning about Fair Use and the morass of copyright law surrounding it, enough to hold some level of competence in discussions regarding it, especially where OCR's welfare is concerned. So, when this point of discussion comes up, my first thought is: "Hey, they're probably looking for more ways to support and expand the site." Because I know the motivations and inclinations of those involved, my sense of risk in this move is low. My presupposition - based on my prior knowledge of the people and circumstances - is positive. Then the change can be questioned and discussed gently and with the trust that best intentions are in mind on all sides. What concerns me more than anything in this conversation is that DjP is being marked out as a money-grubbing scammer, who's using the hard work of this site's musicians just to make a buck, which... doesn't fit with anything I've seen over the last several years. So why does that presumption underlie the entire conversation at hand?

Understood, and agreed. Was simply responding to Garde: They consented to exactly what is listed in the OCR submission agreement. Whether they now wish to re-evaluate the extent of that agreement is a different matter.

Legal agreement is binding 'consent' (good golly do I hate the modern misuse of that word).

I'd also be curious if some are simply arguing from a reason such as the following: This is a consumer motivation as opposed to a stakeholder motivation.

Not arguing that if the ReMixers could earn money from their arrangements, they should. But then this site probably wouldn't exist in its current form, and would be more of an enthusiast's board or something. However, when taken with current copyright law, such a thing is difficult to accomplish, at best. So we have instead the option to give the ReMixers opportunities to be better showcased within the context of the site. It's indirect compensation, at best, but it's all that can be provided.

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.

If showing ads on YouTube has a moral thread to it that's fundamentally different from displaying ads on the side of a web page, please explain the reasoning for that. I've seen no-one in this discussion say anything more than 'it feels like it's more personal on a video instead of a page.' Feelings do not govern law or morality.