Kenogu Labz

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

I want to re-pose a question I asked before that nobody answered, for those that are against YT monetization. Google ads are already almost dead. In a year let's say they are completely dead. Now imagine Patreon goes away, because maybe Patreon itself is shut down or gets purchased. Who knows? That kind of stuff happens every day in silicon valley.
How do you expect OCR to keep running in that scenario?
Now go a step further - imagine the trend continues of fewer and fewer people coming here and downloading MP3s, and more and more people going to YouTube. Imagine that the audience here shrinks to almost nothing while the YouTube channel becomes the #1 source of consuming the content. 
Again: How does OCR keep running in that scenario? 

1. The remixes have already been on YouTube for years. If anyone had a problem we would know by now. I have dealt with this stuff myself and if a publisher has a problem with your content they will claim it or takedown regardless of whether you are monetizing (I've seen & dealt with this multiple times, and it was always unmonetized content.) As I've been saying over and over, offering downloads is definitely worse.
2. Monetizing the content on YouTube does not do anything to increase its visibility.
3. If a company did have a problem, dealing with that problem on YouTube is FAR better for OCR than dealing with it outside. If a company has an issue with OCR MP3s they have no recourse other than directly reaching out from their legal team. That's very very bad for us. On the other hand, on YouTube, they can use existing systems like content ID/claims or takedowns. These don't require anyone to have legal counsel to deal with, and it allows OCR to defend its usage with Google as a mediator - no courts needed. Furthermore, on YouTube, we have the benefit of an MCN that has its own resources including connections at Google itself. 
Here is where I will (again) point out that people have been monetizing arrangements on YouTube for years and years, including big channels, unlicensed, with no issues, and those are people actually turning a profit and pocketing 100% of the money. 

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

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

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

tbh the intrusiveness argument is the only one with some ground.  They're not as easy to ignore as website ads, that's objectively true.  I for one dislike them very much specially the ones you can't skip.

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

Given how frequently OCR videos are likely embedded (analytics, anyone?), I'd expect this is actually one of the only effective ways to monetize these days.  Unless you really want to make them click through with a 'this video is not available to watch embedded' link.
Seriously, this entire conversation is like stepping through the looking glass.  The objections are simply baffling, based on emotional panic and not on any sort of concrete reason.  Good grief.

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.

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.

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

The primary recurring argument I've seen is that, "YouTube ads feel different than web ads."  No more, and no less.

Concerns about the legal ramifications should perhaps be discussed separately than everyone's subjective opinions on this. Like Dave said, in monetizing this small number of videos, OCR has also joined a network which provides substantial protection against takedowns and support for fair use. Generating revenue does not preclude fair use; profit (not revenue) is just one factor that can contribute to a fair use defense.
Everyone might think about their opinion like this:
* I'm ok with OCR monetizing YouTube videos to provide revenue for its operations, and I am not worried about the legal ramifications (copyright claims)
* I'm ok with the monetization, but worried about the legal stuff.
* I'm not ok with the monetization, even though I'm not worried about the legal angle.
* I'm not ok with the monetization, and I'm also worried about the legal stuff.