The idea that you are making money off of other people's work rubs me the wrong way in some aspect. I feel generally agnostic about it, but I do have some conflicts.
You might say it's to support the site, but isn't that, what that 2200$ a month Patreon is for? (Which I have zero qualms with)
It doesn't paint the right image tbh especially when as far as I have recall. Historically OCR has specifically been against the profit of unlicensed fan made arrangements.
Weird Al usually also asks permission to make his parodies, even though legally he doesn't have to.
If you are going to be making money directly off of the hard work of someone else who did it out of love. They deserve their cut don't you think? Or is that where you draw the moral line in the proverbial sand of Fair Use? That doing so would actually be *real* profit and not money simply going to a supposed "Non-profit" that you don't actually need to hit the costs to run the site? And that they should be happy to get any kind of exposure? That it makes you more morally ethical than those that also release unlicensed derivative works in a way that generates revenue for themselves as an artist?
So what is the whole point of this endeavor?
Remove ads from the site? Why not remove ads all together from both if you clearly don't need the money to run the site from any kind of ads thanks to Patreon? Or seemingly additional revenue for whatever purpose?
Ads on the site are understandably a necessary evil over the course of many years to keep the site running. But they were never intrusive nor a necessary barrier to have to bypass or wait to run out an allotted time period to gain access to content from this platform. And one can argue that Ads were never specifically targeted on a per song basis and that you weren't really monetizing the individual content you were distributing, but rather the site as a whole. Where as the opposite can be argued is true for Youtube can it not? On Youtube either a user has to wait to be able to skip the ad to listen to music, or block ads entirely, skippable or not. It's intrusive. (Not that I really listen to music on youtube much). And it's done on a song by song basis.
And on the basis of business, any money made beyond covering cost is considered profit is it not? Or is that legally different for an NPO?
I mean that sort of feels like an oxymoron. An Non-Profit Organization is obtaining revenue beyond operating costs.
Of course, I am a layman who is ignorant on the real working innards of business, let alone an NPO.
So it costs money to become an NPO and money to keep that status per year? How much? Would you not have had a fair amount of surplus already from ;again; Patreon beyond what was needed for keeping the site up?(That would build up more and more over time?)
I really don't mind things helping cover cost of running the site, but unless there is some transparency on the number of dollars beyond what you need for cost, in order to maintain NPO status. Then it's understandable that people might be skeptical with undisclosed numbers.
To that spectrum of things, what is the point of becoming an NPO? To spread the good will and cheer of Video Game Music? To make the active practice of what OCR does more ethically acceptable? I'm sure this has been covered before, but it seems applicable to this situation.
Again on YT videos, would a system where people can actively consent when they submit a song whether they are ok with their song being monetized. (IE: They say no, so you release their song on youtube without ads. With if they say yes) be unacceptable?