Garde

This is a question of ethics, not just legality, and some people just aren't going to see eye to eye on this. Justifying your current actions with past behavior that you've gotten away with doesn't mean it's right, but it would help you build a case in court against the copyright trolls. It really comes down to what people consented to in the first place when they gave you that free music for distributing. I don't like that this was basically done without telling anyone. I know there was an explanation given after it was discovered, but it feels more like back pedaling. Even if this isn't the case, it seems like this was done simply to gain momentum and justify it with "it's already been like this for X months so we're not changing because it took you this long to notice," instead of being up front about it and getting the artists's permission. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission, right? How about artists get the choice to opt-in? Some people aren't comfortable with their work being monetized at all, regardless of the purpose. I'm done here.

They are monetizing a different component of the product, the portion that was provided to them free and rides under fair use (which suddenly, might not be fair use anymore). Ads on the site are fine because that has an operational cost and people that are using it are generating revenue for it. None of the benefits of the community are on youtube besides potential exposure, except the videos don't even link to the OCR/youtube profile of the artist. Each youtube description is just the same self-promotion for OCR, but doesn't contain the write up about the song or really promote the artists themselves. The only song-specific information it provides is the artist's name and a link back to the OCR page where the song is posted. And yes, you're right. I am going about this from an accounting perspective. In court, I don't think putting ads on youtube videos of this music would fly with the mess that copyright law is right now. I don't think record companies would care that the reason OCR has monetized music they haven't acquired licenses for was to ease the burden on their volunteers. As it stands, I think ads on youtube videos for OCR songs is straight up unethical. If you had licenses for the songs and were giving the artists some revenue, then I think that would be fair.

A couple consisting of a patient and their own therapist feels different than a normal couple. EDIT: Also, thank you zircon and Chimpazilla for clarifying that point. It was my understanding that all the staff of OCR were unpaid volunteers, and I didn't understand why someone would try to use that as an operational cost. I wasn't sure if things had changed recently.

I was just providing an extreme example of why changing how and where you're acquiring income matters, even if the method or product is technically the same. In this case, OCR is still getting income from ads, but the means of delivering them has changed. And those things you bring up, almost none of those benefits are provided on youtube. Last I checked, the song write ups weren't even in the video descriptions or in the videos. As for that fair use thing, you can actually acquire the rights to cover/arrange almost any video game songs through a particular website now very easily at essentially no cost. I won't plug it because that's not the point of what I'm getting at. As for those volunteers and the work/labor that goes into maintaining this site, if they aren't getting paid, then they are not a part of operation costs. Period. And if they're getting paid, can you really call them volunteers if they're being compensated for their work? So which is it? Are they getting paid or not? Because if they're not getting paid, then operation costs should be strictly limited to maintaining the site and any record label type services OCR allegedly provides its contributors.

Forgive me if this has already been said, but how and where you get your money absolutely matters in terms of ethics. A licensed pharmacist cannot sell drugs from their home, a food truck, etc. They need to sell them through the proper channels. While youtube ads might be functionally the same thing as website ads, they are distinct. You are changing the channels through which you are getting money and you really should evaluate whether it is ethical to be using someone else's work as a monetized commodity on a different platform. Youtube is divorced from the operating costs of this actual website, and I think that is something you need to examine closely. You are not paying for hosting costs on youtube.

That looks pretty easily escapable if someone DIs up and away... When Lucas gets released into the air, he didn't jump out, and the point at which you can jump out of grab releases usually is somewhere near the peak of their trajectory. Just because the character is in that release animation does not mean they are helpless, a lot of characters can interrupt it with attacks or jumping. Yes, the grab release gives Bowser frame advantage, but not enough so that he can infinite.

Slight derail, but the topic has been brought up several times about how artists should own the rights to their songs. However, that's not how record label agreements work. When artists sign a label agreement, they often times sell at least a portion of their copyright to the songs they write/perform. Most composers who write lyrics/music for singers in the industry don't even see their name appear in the credits for songs released on albums, as I believe they sell their entire copyright for the song over to the record label. I know that several of my friends who have written music for commercials, presentations, etc. have sold the rights to the song to the company that hired them. Obviously, well-known composers often are able to negotiate and keep the rights to the song, or at least partial rights, but small-time composers don't get that luxury, as they're just trying to make a living by selling their craft. Obviously, there are several people in this community that actually have first hand experience on producing music for companies, so they could probably explain much better than I, I just figured that I would enlighten the people that brought up the subject in the first place.

The four I've settled on since before the game was released in the US were Zero Suit Samus, Zelda, Link and Lucario. I tend to go through phases where I favor one more than the others, though Lucario has always been at the bottom of the four. I guess Link, Zelda, and Zero Suit are all my "mains," since I play them all about equally and my mood is really what decides who I play as. Lucario is my "for fun" character that I'm somewhat decent with.

I didn't know Samus was even in the Super Mario Bros. games.

I am maining Link once again, not that it matters.

Great job, Jam. PC Chris and Cort are pretty much 2 of the best in Brawl, so yeah. No shame in losing to them. I also agree that this game is very much like rock, paper, scissors except with stages that can shift the balance (where paper can beat scissors, etc.). Yoshi is not a horrible character in this game. They got rid of his DJC, but his boot and tail have tons of priority. Sure, he comes up short against some characters, but he does pretty well against a fair portion of the cast.

I got a TV tuner card when I bought a new computer, so I can record matches now. Here are some against a former student of mine... In order.

My copy of Brawl is severely lacking matches in the Brawl mode... Why must all the 1v1s I do be on someone else's copy or via WFC (which sucks balls)? I need to get my butt over to some tournaments or bi-weeklies or into a crew, because I'm going mad with my limited exposure to skilled players and am being left behind by crews like DBR.

Zombieforce, I just want to make sure you're using the right term. Sidestep dodges are where you step to the side (into the background or foreground) and do not move in terms of X or Y coordinates of the stages (which essentially are 2d planes for character movement). Rolls reposition your character to a new set of coordinates (based on terrain). From your post, I am almost positive you're talking about rolling because you were talking about getting behind your opponent. Rolling is a very situational tactic and I find that the better I get at this game, the less I roll. Rolls often have less invulnerability than sidestep dodges and are much easier to punish. The are useful, but in very specific situations. Ultimately, the only thing sidestep dodging is useful for is avoiding being grabbed, which perfect shielding cannot defend you from. Sidesteps dodging (also known as Spot Dodging) have a certain number of frames of vulnerability at the beginning and end of the dodge (usually between 0-10 frames on each end, it's specific to each character). Perfect Shielding (formerly known as Power Shielding) is where you shield the moment an attack strikes you (it's similar to Just Defends or Parries from SNK, 3S, or CvS2). If done properly, there are around 2 frames of animation before you can react. Sidestep dodges are usually around 30 frames in total, and often have about 10-15 frames of animation left before you can act after they throw out moves. On top of that, Perfect Shields block multiple hits and cannot be broken or poked out of. Shielding is safer than dodging because invulnerability only lasts a certain amount of time and certain characters (like G&W) have moves with long durations that dodges do not work against (because the invul on the dodge is shorter than the active hitbox on the attack).

I am quite aware that shield camping isn't just sitting in one spot shielding (just like shield grabbing, you use it the moment you have to otherwise opponents will get smart and react to your anticipated shielding). But I agree that the game is much more focused on defense than the previous two iterations. They made perfect shielding far easier, and the lack of LCing makes it very difficult for characters without auto canceling moves or quick/ranged attacks to beat shield campers. What they did to perfect shielding has made sidestep dodging pretty useless, though. Especially now that perfect shields last against multi hit moves, there's pretty much no point to sidestep dodge... I think there's more to the game than just how well people do from their shield or how well they can destroy it. When I play against people who destroy shields, I don't shield. I use spacing like crazy and some people have even said "Why do you play like such a bitch?" to me after matches where they could not get in on me. Shield camping is a valid tactic, but it has varying degrees of effectiveness spread across the entire cast. Against those that it is very effective, you'll see people trying extremely hard to get around it. Against those that it isn't effective, you won't see it as much. Shielding is one big feature of the game, that cannot be ignored. It's always been an important part of the game, whether it's a good idea to shield or not. As the Smash series has progressed, shielding has gradually become more powerful, especially due to less shield stun and more options have become valid as the series has progressed. In my humble opinion, I think it will find itself in the same position that shield grabbing found itself in Melee (important as a tool, but not what the game revolves around). The game is still quite young and we have yet to discover everything about the game's engine, or even all the little nuances for each character.