AngelCityOutlaw

Answer to question from 1-11: "None of this matters" Like, I don't even know what point you're trying to prove here. You are just reaching for whatever you can to convince yourself that there is no issue with artists' work being monetized on YouTube without their knowledge. This whole issue shows why I've become increasingly cynical towards "non-profit" organizations in general, honestly. If there is money being made on fan work distributed for free, but OCR and/or the publisher are receiving ad-revenue directly from that work, then regardless of whether or not the money is being re-invested into the site, the artist is being screwed. Period.

Man, I like you, but I've become completely disenchanted with your posts about music & money as it's just excessive nihilism and pessimism rooted in a general defeatist attitude. Yes, any remix I've done or that I've contributed to has been not for profit and I am lead to believe that was OCR's mission. Despite Sir NutS' borderline insane insistence that OCR was already directly profiting off mixes because of website ads instead of directly embedded ads, which if it was really objectively so, I doubt OCR would've survived the whole FFVI Square Enix debacle because they could've argued the mixes were profitable due to ads on the mixposts. Yet, here I am faced with someone arguing that it should be no problem that if someone like Square, who had a legal issue with this site, were to receive payment from ad revenue via YouTube videos from OCR of remixes from their games, the remixer has no right to be pissed about it. It's a fan remix. There's no money involved. If there is going to be income to be made, it should be between the copyright holder and artist. People want to be paid for their work - shocking.

I wish I could like this post twice. and yeah, the bold text is essentially what I was trying to say, but you put it far more eloquently.

I stated that this is a subjective thing. I said why I don't like the YouTube videos being monetized. It was this place where you could just go to the channel and listen to the music without creating any ad revenue. You have just basically tried to tell me that this opinion is unjustified because of ads on the site that is not even necessary to visit to hear the music. You're fine with it and that's okay, but there is no right or wrong answer. You can only say how you feel about it and then DJP takes it all into consideration.

Whatever, NutS. If you can't see why some see an ethical difference between embedding ads in videos showcasing mixes on YouTube when they previously were not and the community wasn't made aware of the changes, versus ads that generate revenue from via their placement and persistence throughout the site, that's your problem. One is directly generating ad revenue via listening to the mix, the other does so without the requirement of actually clicking play. I've stated my thoughts on it, if you disagree, I don't care.

The website. Fewer people come to OCR than ever - this has been a topic of discussion earlier this year in a thread started by Willrock. The user base has dropped like a stone and I believe it was DJP himself or Darkesword that said they're finding social media and YouTube have taken over. You're conflating "thing that draws people to site" with "thing that is monetized". I got to Facebook to see what my friends ate for lunch or read a political rant. There are banner ads on the side - that doesn't thereby monetize your chicken sandwich or status about how much you hate Trump.

Yeah, the thing is it doesn't actually matter if any "argument" changes anyone's mind. Like I said, it's subjective and people who aren't okay with it will likely just stop contributing to the site or not do so in the first place. DJP is going to do whatever he wants anyway - it's his site. The remixes aren't monetized on the site - the site itself is monetized. On YouTube, the video containing the mix is monetized and you cannot get through the song without the ad, thereby monetizing the mix.

My bad, I neglected to address my thoughts on this in last post. At first, I would've been inclined to say that it's no different from the site itself. But that's not true, because like I said, the preview for the YouTube video is technically still on YouTube. I'm seeing the ads on the site without ever having to play the track. Again, I know that when I visit this site, there are ads and that's to be expected, but YouTube was this place where you could experience killer fan remixes and nobody made had to put in anything other than showing appreciation for the musicians' work and the organization's efforts to showcase that work - no monetary contributions involved. I feel that was a great thing that added something to the spirit of the community and I'm personally disheartened to see that it's changed.

@zircon The crux of my objection is that monetizing the YouTube videos is completely optional and the ads are ostensibly ingrained into the content rather than an off-side thing like they are with banner ads on the site and the community was deliberately not made aware of this change. For example, if I go to a mix here and scroll down, I see an ad for "Super Audio Cart" which is both relevant and I have to scroll to see it and when I click download, I don't get ads shoved in my face at all - it just lets me download it and when it plays, it doesn't give me a pop-up midway through. If I go to Patreon, I have to voluntarily pay you money. Now, if I go to YouTube as a listener and playthrough a video, you're making money just by virtue of me watching. The only way you're getting passed the ads on YouTube is if you don't look at it or have adblock. Ultimately, nothing I or anyone in opposition to this says is going to change anyone who's okay with it's minds. This is a subjective thing - some people will be okay with it, some won't be. For the ones who are, "it's to keep the site going" will always be justification enough for anything and anyone who disagrees is just a stick in the mud. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is that the policy needs to be updated to be absolutely clear about how your content is used with advertising and future changes to these policies involving user content the community should be made aware of. As it stands, by DJP's own admission, it's just this amorphous policy that allows OCR to use the fan content with advertising in the future in ways that may be unethical to some remixers. Remixers should be aware of all of these things and then decide for themselves if they are cool with it.

What I mean to say is that explanation only goes so far. Yes, then it probably should. Again, it stands to reason many of these people, especially posted mixers have adblock. Other listeners are not going to care about ads because they didn't make the track and might not even be looking at the screen when the ad shows up.

Despite Dave's explanation, I'm still not down with this. In fact, I think I feel worse about it now than I did when I was hoping it was out of OCR's hands. Allow me to explain, despite it being obvious to me, the difference between OCR site ads and YouTube ads: It all goes back to what I said earlier about voluntary contribution. Banner ads are something just about everyone is immediately aware of and here is the key: they exist separate of the fan content. They really do - they just sit there, off to the side. They're a part of the site, not of the music and when you go to a mix page, the video to preview it is off-site. However, youtube ads are directly embedded in the video itself. You're listening along and then BAM, ad in your face. When you submit a song to OCR, you knew that a banner ad shows up on the site - you didn't know your music was going to be monetized on YouTube and these mixers, post June 12th, didn't know either. The fact that it was flown in under the radar is a huge red flag. You say that people not noticing is a testament to how unobtrusive it is - no, it's a testament to the fact that most people on this forum have adblock. What people here failed to notice is irrelevant because the majority of your listeners, the majority of people on YouTube, aren't registered members. YouTube is where you get your plays and was a place people could go previously without seeing an ad anywhere because they didn't have to visit your site. YouTube was all about experiencing the content and for many, discovering OCR. From now on, when you submit a track to OCR, you are giving them a free pass to use your arrangement and original composition therein, as a means of directly generating revenue for the site via a third-party that was previously not monetized. You effectively are working for them, and possibly 3rd parties with their hands in the revenue stream as well, for free - the fact that OCR staff don't pocket the admittedly small amount of money is irrelevant. Every time a controversial subject involving money has come up, the same logic of "well, it's for the good of the site!" comes up. However, that has run its course and eventually you have to draw a line somewhere and I feel this is that line - second only to OCR actually profiting from the mixes.

Great, instead it goes to the publisher and probably some to YouTube - who can make money off a totally for fun fan arrangement I made - including people who bitched about those fan arrangements' existence. I'd rather they just strike it down to be honest. If there is going to be money involved in fan arrangements, I'd just not bother with OCR or YouTube and licence the tracks myself. Every remixer on here does this for fun and if it turns out their work winds up making someone else money, I suspect more will be hesitant to submit to OCR or post it on YouTube.

No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't look good when a site that has always been there to deliver free vgm mixes to peoples' ears, despite having had trouble in the past with Square-Enix and has a thread explaining why the mixes cannot be on Spotify due to licensing...it still has monetized mixes on YouTube. As was suggested, it could be that it auto-monetizes them, but that still doesn't make me feel better about it. If you want to put money into the site to keep online, it should be purely voluntary via buying a T-Shirt or straight-up donating.

I'm celebratin' by playing Prime again and @timaeus222 and I are working on a positively sick follow up to our 2013 Metroid ReMix.

Why are you so hell bent on getting OCR on Spotify, again?

My god, that guitar sounds terrible. Sounds like the Guitar Pro 5 "realistic" sound engine - not sure why you'd want to sound like it, honestly. I'm assuming you're asking so you can get a tone like that yourself? Anyway, It definitely sounds like something cheap - it really sounds like something you'd get with a low-watt solid state amp, crappy pickups and a distortion pedal like the boss metal-zone. You can also do this with a Line 6 Spider II, older POD, new POD with bad settings etc. It shouldn't be tough to get a sound like that. I'd dream bigger though, if you can. Here are some games and bands with guitar soundtracks similar in style you may want to consider if you're looking to find a new guitar sound. Now that, my friend, is how guitars should sound.

I can go back further -The theremin was invented in the 1920s. Probably the first electronic instrument ever. That's half a century before the Atari 2600

I don't know, honestly most video game worlds are pretty terrible places. Hell, even the mushroom kingdom has this monster going around kidnapping the monarchy.

Because he is the mirror of Batman. That's what the killing joke was always all about. Both Batman and Joker are totally insane to do what they do, it's just that where Batman found meaning in the tragedy that befell him, the Joker became a reflection of all life's random injustice. I also think it's because Joker has had possibly the most iconic and vastly different portrayals of any villain in film.

Definitely not as good as it should've been. Also, the ending Conroy laugh was absolutely cringe inducing.

Just got out of the theater. Overall, I enjoyed it and it was great hearing Hamill and Conroy in an animated Batman again, but I'm not sold that this animated adaptation truly does the classic graphic novel justice. Simply because I felt the visuals could be much better and more in line with the comic's aesthetic. They also cut some odd corners on the dialogue, at least in the theatrical release. The animation isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be from the trailer, but it is well below what they're capable of. I did like the expanded story with Batgirl - hate me for it. In the future, I'd be down with seeing a re-animated re-release that keeps all of the audio, but with better animation and art direction more like the graphic novel - Sorry, Bruce. Let me know what you thought

This looks good.

Also, if it's a total n00b developer who cares just enough to pay something for the music but nothing more than an amount that might buy you a sandwich, be prepared for this response as they change from a reasonable human being to: "Jesus Christ, man! Do you think I'm a millionaire!? I know HOOKERS who charge less than you. Good luck, dude. I'm gonna tell everyone how insane your prices are and ruin your career!" When the price you named was totally fair and they had the option of just politely looking elsewhere.

Basically, Devil May Cry gameplay meets Metroid Prime.

You guys are reading way too deep into an incredibly simplistic plot and characters that only serve to justify the events of the game. For me, if there were a sequel, I don't personally care about developing characters at all. Just give me an excuse to continue kicking ass through a well designed, gothic playground as Alucard/Maria/Richter with a bitchin' soundtrack to boot.