djpretzel

This poll is being conducted to gauge current feedback on the second, revised draft of the OverClocked ReMix Content Policy. All votes are public. A thread discussing this draft is available at http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628. The final vote tally will be closed Thursday, 5/24/07, midnight EST. "Disagree" votes will only be counted if an explanation is provided. We will tally the number of explanations and reconcile this with the number of votes. The draft will not be edited until this poll has been closed. The draft may still be edited after this poll has concluded; we are primarily interested in feedback on the core issues, which will likely remain the same, but smaller issues may still need clarification. Currently, this draft reads: OverClocked ReMix Content Policy 2nd DRAFT Submission Agreement You retain ownership and copyright of all material submitted to OverClocked ReMix. By submitting material You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide right and license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed. This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement. This license explicitly prohibits OverClocked ReMix from distributing submitted materials for profit. All revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted materials will be used for costs directly associated with the operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix. Evaluation and acceptance or rejection of submitted materials is under the sole discretion of OverClocked ReMix. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies You from legal action on the part of copyright holders. You are free to distribute and/or license these materials elsewhere, so long as they are not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and such distribution or licensing does not conflict with the terms of this agreement. OverClocked ReMix maintains sole control of the distribution of materials under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix. This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations. Terms of Use OverClocked ReMix grants all parties a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use, redistribute, incorporate into other works, and publicly perform OverClocked ReMixes as long as the following criteria are met: A.) No profit is made from the exercise of this license. This includes but is not limited to incorporation of OverClocked ReMixes into commercial works, charging more than the cost of the delivery means for redistributing OverClocked ReMixes, or redistributing OverClocked ReMixes in the context of commercial advertisments. Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred. B.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, performed, or incorporated into other works, materials used must be clearly attributed both to the ReMixer(s) who created them and to OverClocked ReMix. This accreditation must be in the form of the ReMixer name(s) followed by "OverClocked ReMix (www.ocremix.org)". In applicable contexts where user interactivity is possible, such as websites, the site name and URL must be linked to http://www.ocremix.org. Accreditation must be presented as close to the utilized material as possible; if OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, accreditation must be prominently displayed in context with the utilized material. C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org. This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to terminate this license at any time. In such instances where OverClocked ReMixes have been incorporated into other works or are being redistributed or performed, the original artist may be contacted to obtain a separate license for the material in question, so long as all references and attribution to OverClocked ReMix are removed. OverClocked ReMix maintains sole control of the distribution of materials under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies those utilizing OverClocked ReMixes from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

Sorry Jeremy, not ignoring you, just put this on the back-burner. I understand and agree with your notion, but I really wanna cut out all the "good faith", and "should" stuff and stick with the "must" stuff for this document. I will have a separate preamble introducing these terms that covers good faith stuff but is not part of the actual agreement, and this will definitely be in there.

First off, your point about my role on the site is duly noted, but that's really a topic for a separate policy. We definitely intend to get to it, but this is more crucial. Beyond a will, in case I die, the logistics of defining terms of OCR being handed over are very complicated, and not something in my opinion that will necessitate the same type of public comment, discussion, and revision. As a sidenote, your choice of the verb "babysit" when referring to my role now or in the future is unfortunate and honestly rather offensive. I do far more than babysit, I can assure you, and intend to have a hands-on role for as long as I am capable. Your two solutions are well-meant, I'm sure, but it's not like we haven't thought of such things. I don't consider them viable; I'd vastly prefer not to be distributing OC ReMixes that weren't really OC ReMixes any more because someone's ego got dashed on our forums or something, and two such policies would potentially put us in that position. Keeping track of specific licensing options would be a maintenance nightmare, as realistically people would want to be able to change that stuff, new options/technologies would be created and we'd need to ask everyone all over again, etc. There's a reason the more common implementation is to have the license be very open in terms of usage; anything else can be a nightmare to manage. That's time better spent on posting mixes (something I need to get back to doing rather soon) and promoting the site. If we need to check whether X mixer allowed X usage for X mix, trust me, it'd be highly prohibitive. Thus neither of these solutions persuade me.

Compy, please stop replying. You're covering the same territory and saying the same things. Your intention to not submit anything is hardly surprising since that was your feeling before this policy even existed. I've already stated that I believe AD is incorrect, legally, and unlike him, I cited examples of the type of licensing agreement we are pursuing, which appears common enough. He has not yet responded. You've said your piece. I've asked you to be quiet and let others speak and you seem unable. Further comments made by you on this post will unfortunately have to be deleted, and your account re-banned if you continue to persist in making them.

Really excellent points. The second I'll look into, the first needs to be discussed internally amongst site staff first, I'd say, as we just flat out missed considering it.

While this policy cannot guarantee the professionalism of those submitting, obviously, what it can help protect is the professionalism of the site entire. We're presenting OCR as a canon, and while you're right that it's constantly being added to, removal is not the same. You're perfectly fine by me with bringing up BT; in that instance, the album had not yet been released. I would not have objected to a policy for BT which stated that, once released, pieces were not retractable. I still would have been pissed to have been intentionally kept in the dark on an issue that was important to me, but once the album is released... what can you do? That was, I believe, a violation of my trust. My recourse, had such a policy existed and I agreed to it, would be to not collaborate with those individuals again. So behaves the music industry. Additionally, in over six years I don't feel that OCR has ever violated trust in a comparable way to what happened with BT, and I endeavor to ensure that it never will. As an additional side note, I'm not as sure as I once was that the intentions of those behind the BT thing were "bad" - I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding that should have been preventable with foresight, but not an outright attempt to screw me over. You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements. We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim. One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, and if someone adamantly wanted their piece removed, we'd be out the $1000-$2000 it cost to do a large run of such items. From our perspective, we were trying to promote everyone's music in yet another way, but one person came along and made that impossible, and cost us thousands of dollars in the process, which was taken from ad revenue or donations. I don't think so... not on my watch. I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

It's no different from pulling your mix from a project album AFTER that album has been released. Doing so beforehand would be like withdrawing a submission, which is fine, but doing so afterwards is not only silly, because the album has already been widely distributed, but petty, and insulting towards the project coordinator and others who worked on it. We think of OCR as one big album, not just as a hosting service for files. Many sites take that approach, but we're not them. Everything we post involves substantial work on our part, that work is non-refundable, and when you submit you're in essence forming the same type of partnership that all musicians do when they collaborate on an album. You wouldn't see Run-D.M.C. trying to halt all distribution of their collaboration with Aerosmith because Steve Tyler hurt their feelings, and the Beatles didn't try to go back and edit Lennon out when he ditched them for Yoko, or attempt to stop distribution of their albums. We may not be at that level of musical recognition, but we aspire towards excellence, towards raising perception and awareness of game music, and we use OCR as one, big, cumulative album to do that. To succeed, I believe this concept needs the same type of trust those individuals had that they wouldn't want to somehow magically recall their music out of personal motivation. You're asking me what we gain, and I'm telling you we gain professionalism as well as protection from personal motivations, resulting in the ability to treat OCR as the evolving, cumulative, representative album of game arrangements we believe it to be. To achieve this end, we're asking for mixers to think of OCR as a physical album release - once it's out there, it's out there. This is consistent with our policy on replacing older versions with newer versions that are only somewhat improved: we won't do it unless it's a totally different mix that can stand on its own. There's no rewriting history, and (except maybe in extremely hypothetical scenarios) we don't want to be erasing it, either. We ask for nothing unusual relative to the terms of collaborating on a physical album release that involves multiple artists, and we offer in return free hosting, critique, and promotion of your music.

Compyfox, I was under the impression that you didn't intend to submit anything additional to OCR anyways, before this policy was even introduced or being discussed. I believe you've indicated this yourself on numerous occasions: that you would help others produce their own mixes, but not create or submit your own. Since this was your intention prior to the introduction of this policy draft, it's hard to take your objections very seriously. Is this not accurate?

I'm a bit concerned at the direction this is taking, because as of right now, with the policy as it stands, the only one raising serious objections and continuing to protest is Compyfox. I'm not sure where Luiza stands, given the revisions made, and I'm not sure besides these two if there's anyone else that has serious concerns. As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time. I really do appreciate Compyfox's continued interest in discussing it, but I'm also not sure if we're making any progress - for one, there appear to still be misinterpretation issues, and also the core things being objected to aren't things that I think we're going to change unless we see far more concern from others. Additionally, many seem to be fine with the current draft. So I'd like to suggest that anyone who agrees with Compyfox and has serious issues with the draft in its current state chime in, and that he remain quiet for a bit while we see if there are others who agree with him and can state his objections more clearly or add to them. We're still in the discussion/draft stage, but I'm much happier with the current draft. If we don't see a lot of new issues being raised in the next day or so, or new people echoing the same sentiments, then I intend to run a poll trying to gauge general opinion of the draft, and proceed from there based on that feedback.

Very important addition: "This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement. " This essentially makes the policy retroactive, but only if you submit something additional after it goes into effect. Also, I've renamed the two policies "Submission Agreement" and "Terms of Use" as these are more intuitive and official. In addition, I've reworded and reformatted the Terms of Use so that they are similar to the Submission Agreement. Essentially, submitting artists are granting us one license (which is sub-licensable), and then we're turning around and sub-licensing it to... pretty much everyone, as long as they meet the described criteria.

I agree. It's unfortunate. However, AD made some comments that prompted research on my part, and this is pretty much boiler-plate wording for what we're shooting for, employed by a lot of different sites/organizations. I know there have been suggestions to go for a more layman's language, informal approach, as the result of this legalese is that it makes us sound like we're going to steal your first-born children, but if we're going to have a policy at all, I'm shooting for one that would actually hold up, if it ever needed to. I honestly don't think it ever will, and I highly suspect that once this policy is in place and we've got something that most everyone can agree on, things will remain the same, and people will forget the contention surrounding certain aspects. I'm trying to please as many people as possible; we DEFINITELY put this out in draft format with the full intention of modifying it based on feedback, and have been doing so, with the changes to make mixer name mandatory when redistributing and to remove explicit for-profit usage exemptions for copyright owners. But not all changes proposed are going to be implemented. We can't please all the people all the time and end up with a policy that says hardly anything, so the legalese and ominous wording really has to stay.

No. In fact, the first reason I've already said I find insufficient, period. The second can't really be true; unless the contract was agreed to BEFORE the mix was submitted, the contract would be void if it required something that was not yet done to have effect. Now, let's say you were ABOUT to sign into a contract that would require removing the track. We'd need a good deal of information. For example, it couldn't be a contract between you and yourself that you've created simply to remove the track, and we'd probably want to talk directly to the third party writing the contract and try to persuade them that our offering the track was in their best interests. I'm not really sure too many people are interested in this aspect of the policy besides you; I've already sorta said that if you wish to use pieces for profit in the future, I'd recommend not making them available for free anywhere, including OCR. That being the case, if this hypothetical situation indeed came up, we'd want to see the contract and talk to those who drafted it to see if an exception could be made first. I have rewritten the artist policy and intend to rewrite the third-party usage policy as well. I believe the rewrite is a bit clearer, more legally sound, and organizes the different thoughts better:

Well, if there were truly no way we'd remove your mixes at all, we would just say "OverClocked ReMix will refuse all removal requests" instead of "reserves the right to", but as I've stated, I can't think of any good reasons. Compy's issue about commercial licensing is probably the best reason thus discussed, and even then it would depend on the circumstances, but not barring that sort of situation... I suppose, hypothetically, if I started putting swastikas everywhere on the site and donating all ad revenue to white supremacist groups, as a ReMixer I'd want my tracks removed as well. Hopefully there's a good bit of trust that that won't happen... This policy will not automatically be applied to previous mixes without the artists' consent. I intend to ask all mixers to grant such consent, but if they choose not to, their pieces will not be removed unless they so desire. Submission of any future material, however, would involve the policy not only being applied to that individual submission, but prior submissions as well. We'll keep track of who has or hasn't accepted the policy, our of necessity. I'd like to think that there's trust going both ways here that, after six years of hosting mixes for $0.00, spending hours upon hours working on the site, etc., that we're not actively out to screw anyone, much less the group of artists responsible for getting us where we are.

Alright, 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. I'll edit it and remove it now.

No one else has yet echoed this concern of releasing mixes commercially on a contract that clashed with OCR's policy. I've already stated that if you think at any time that you'll want to sell your mix for profit, it's better that you didn't submit it. You've already said that you wouldn't submit anything if this is the case. This site's about free music; I don't consider the point you've raised a major concern. I thank you for raising it, as it's interesting and wasn't addressed, but I don't feel the policy needs to account for it. It's not a "1:1 mix from Mitsuda", but it's also not a "1:1 mix" from the mixer. This is moot; the point I was making is that effort is involved to evaluate, post, and promote the mix, and on the part of listeners, to review it. None of the reasons for removal I listed counteract that, nor would your concern about commercial release. Whether we're the only game mix site out there or not is moot and off-topic. Most of this is off-topic and does not pertain directly to the policy. You've already been warned once about this. Your feedback about the policy is appreciated, but limit it to that topic please, or we will need to start moderating. The policy as written gives us the right to refuse removal requests, period. We will probably reword this into submitting artists granting us a "perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to distribute", etc., since that seems to be what other entities are using and what AD has not yet addressed re: legal feasibility. As for whether or not we would grant a removal request, I've said my piece about the rationale and criteria previously stated and what Compy's brought up. As written, the policy doesn't rule out a situation where a removal request would be fulfilled, but since I can't think of any that I find particularly compelling, modifying the policy to include hypotheticals seems moot. If Compy got an AMAZING album deal and we needed to remove his mix, would we? Maybe. But the policy as written won't spell this out, because these types of things are almost impossible to spell out.

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously. It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so. I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you. So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question. As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

I think that we're running up against the difference between a content policy / license and how the site will actually respond to such requests. How we answer such requests - whether it be a with a "no", a two-week cool off period, etc. - really shouldn't be baked into the policy, which is more attuned to legal terms than those sorts of specifics. AD made a post questioning the legal feasability refusing removal without obtaining full ownership, and I responded with information that I believe suggests it is legally feasible. You seem to be questioning whether it's a good idea, or the procedure surrounding it, as opposed to the legal enforceability of the clauses as written. Which is fine, by the way, but they really are two different topics. In the six plus years of running the site, we've had removal requests that more or less fall into the following categories: I don't like OverClocked ReMix anymore. Please remove my mixes. djpretzel, someone on the forums, or a member of the site staff has offended me. Remove all my mixes. I've found Jesus or had some other type of epiphany/revelation in my life, and no longer wish to make my music available online in any form, anywhere. Remove my mixes. I don't like one or more of my mixes any more, and believe it represents either my own abilities or OverClocked ReMix itself in a negative fashion. Remove my mix(es). ... and that's it. And, since some of us have decided to be more frank/hostile than others, I'd just like to say that I don't personally respect any of these motivations very much. The first is petty; usually someone doesn't like something we said or did and thinks they can punish us by removing their material, or make some sort of grand political statement. The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music. Music that you supposedly made with the site's mission statement in mind: to honor game music and game composers. Removing your mix because of personal motivations is just that - personal. To me, it represents selfishness. This was somebody's ELSE's music that you've arranged and made available for free, and suddenly you have the nerve to use it as a bartering mechanism, or to make some sort of statement? Reserve that type of action for your own music, that's 100% yours, 100% original. The second is worse than the first, as instead of any sort of ideological or procedural objection that could at least be seen as an issue of principle, we're instead talking about personal insults. Let me explain something: the tens of thousands of people that listen to and enjoy this music don't have any idea of the dramarama and politics that sometimes occur here, and don't want to. And they're the ones most directly affected by mix removal. And, again, if you wanna rebel against something... do it with original works. While I'm the first to acknowledge and appreciate that ReMixes involve a great deal of original material - we emphasize this all the time, in fact - they still represent arrangements of someone else's music. To try to "punish" OCR via mix removal is misguided in the first place; to do so with emo motivations doubly so. The third is interesting. I might tend to have the most sympathy with this sort of explanation. However, along with the first two motivations, it too is selfish: I personally dedicate a good deal of my time to preparing and posting each mix, as does the site staff in judging them and moderating review discussion, and listeners in reviewing them. There's numerous people who've invested time and effort to every single mix on the site, not just the submitting artist. Luiza has emphasized, among other things, that she does this for "fun". That's fine - so do we - but for the fun that each submitting mixer has in making the mix, there's still a lot of work involved, and this holds true on our end as well. We're all about the fun, but OCR chews up a lot of our time as well. If as an artist you don't give a shit about that and could care less about the site staff's time and the opinions of those who have reviewed your pieces to date... don't submit in the first place. The fourth I'm very sympathetic to because, quite honestly, I've got some pretty seriously shitty mixes on this site. Not god-awful, and (unfortunately) not in violation of standards to the extent that they could be removed on those grounds, but still... pretty bad. And yet I've still received compliments on some of them, even recently. Which is testament to the extreme subjectivity of opinion when it comes to music. With OCR, we are trying to build a representative collection of works - a canon, if you will - that best exemplifies what we've set down in our mission statement and submission standards. We can't do that if mixers are removing pieces because they simply don't like them anymore. Again, as with the third motivation, the mixer's wishes have to be weighed against the amount of work that went into judges evaluating the mix, my posting it, listeners taking the time to review it, and the entire staff's effort to promote it via torrent distribution and other channels. This is ultimately too subjective a motivation to entertain. That's it. There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled. We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Did you read my post re: irrevocable, non-exclusive licenses? Your comment doesn't address the points I raised... It's never happened, so I don't know. How we'd handle such a situation doesn't really need to be described in this specific policy, so it's a bit off-topic, but I certainly wouldn't go to the great lengths required to remove mixes unless someone compelled me to do so. It'd be a lot of work, for one, and as you say, the DMCA can be abused. It wouldn't be knee-jerk. Realistically, the submission standards aren't going to change drastically... ever. We've refined them down to pretty specific levels. This clause is largely to address situations where we post something that turns out to be, for example, a MIDI rip, that somehow we missed in the evaluation process, and need to remove afterwards. I do not believe it needs to be rewritten. Alright, everyone seems to be in favor of this. I'm trying to maintain a balance between making the requirement realistic and giving credit where credit is due. I think two pieces of information should be the minimum. remixer name www.ocremix.org That way, even if the artist name changes, the site URL still lets users look up the track by name or game and find out the new artist name. Credit is given to the artist, but in terms of referencing information about the track or finding similar music, people would be directed to OCR. This seems to be a big sticking point for some; I can't expect everyone to share my attitude that, when it comes to arrangements, it should be more about game & composer and less about achieving personal fame, I suppose. Would this combination of information be acceptable to those who've previously expressed concern?

I appreciate the legal acumen being granted pro-bono here, but would be a little more comfortable if it was accompanied by some sort of citation/caselaw, as opposed to our taking your word for it because you sound like you know what you're talking about, which you do. As a general point of interest to those reading this thread, I'd also recommend requiring citation any time you're receiving legal advice of any kind. This one's more interesting because of its "Except as limited under applicable law" caveat: My bottom line being that "irrevocable", "non-exclusive" licenses to use the intellectual property of others without conveying full ownership DO seem to exist. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'd really appreciate as much citation as possible, as I'm sure having gone through law school you'd be used to providing.I happen to be in an amazing position to find as conclusive an answer to this question as possible, as my girlfriend is starting work next week for Finnegan Henderson (http://www.finnegan.com/), and since they're one of the top IP firms in the world, I'd have to think someone there can provide a conclusive explanation. It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well. If royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable licenses were truly impossible, as AD claims, then how would sample libraries be licensed? How could I be able to utilize royalty-free clip-art? Are you saying that at any point East-West can terminate their license, break down my door, and take my Colossus and RA libraries back? Again, not being contentious... there's an answer out there, I'm sure. Again, let's not grant anyone the benefit of the doubt because they sound good; he may be wrong, he may be right, but thus far I'm not convinced that he's conclusively correct, especially given absence of citation. Again, I'd advise everyone, in any context, to not take things like this at face value, and to require ample corroborating material. As an interesting aside, in an email from 2002: Better late than never?

Covered that; modification for personal use is 100% groovy. Spruce away. Realistically, it's also cool if you share those files with friends, etc., but we'd prefer you point them to the torrents instead, and if you happen to have 100+ friends, we really wouldn't want the modified versions distributed en masse like that... I'm considering the issue of accreditation to both OCR and artist as being mandatory.

We're talking about the name/URL accredited when OC ReMixes are redistributed elsewhere. Filenames will remain the same.

Indeed. We're going into detail, and we're asking for feedback, at this stage. Not going into detail and dismissing the whole thing is an attitude I simply can't respect, and one I've never personally held in my entire life. If you object to something, state your objection. Otherwise... who are you? If you're the type of person that flatly objects to something but refuses to say why, at all, or explain yourself in any way... then yes, it's probably better that your music isn't here. As described, without alteration to the files themselves, and without making a profit, you're not only 100% groovy, but we appreciate your efforts.

Sounds good; I'll think about it some more and draft an extra clause sometime today.

No, that's not correct. There are plenty of agreements that are indefinite in nature; most online competitions fall into this purview. Once you've submitted something, they can use it wherever they want, whenever they want. We're not trying to be as open-ended as most of these are, but your understanding of the temporal, at-any-point voidable nature of submitting works under a EULA is inaccurate. Is the below not clear enough to cover this concern? It's the first bullet for a reason, as I (and apparently many mixers as well) consider it the most important: I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

Compy, if you want to discuss this further, please PM me. Your inability to behave and to comprehend relatively straightforward material makes it very embarrassing to further discuss this issue with you in public. Advising anyone to not submit is not what this thread is about; you can choose to do so yourself, but there's no need to talk about that here. We're discussing a policy. If you continue to disrupt the discussion with your outbursts, action will be taken. Everyone else seems to be able to communicate their concerns in a civil manner.