zircon

Really really short on time and there's so much to write, but again, addressing this quickly: Paying ReMixers across the board for all remixes on the site will never happen for so many reasons, but here are some big ones: 1. It would make what we do a for-profit endeavor which makes a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference to copyright holders, even if OCR itself is non-profit 2. It would require us to get licensing for every track, which in and of itself is impossible because it's only possible to compulsorily license music that has been released in the U.S. and not nearly everything has been 3. The logistics of paying all the ReMixers is also (virtually) impossible for an all-volunteer staff, to say nothing of the tax implications What we can/have done is licensing specific albums and selling them, i.e. on OC Records, but that's a different story entirely.

I have more to write and not a lot of time, but... "We" are not getting money, OCR (the organization) is. 100% of that money is spent on making remixes more visible. That's the entire purpose of the site. To say that not paying remixers is not showing "respect and class" strikes me as very bad faith. The staff of OCR, especially Dave, have collectively spent tens of thousands of hours on promoting video game music, remixes, and the site. That's an enormous sacrifice of time strictly spent for the benefit of art and other people. More often than not it's completely thankless - just ask any judge. And for a long time, we actually spent money out of pocket (our own personal pockets) to do things like go to conventions to promote OCR at panels, or print up albums to give away as prizes (again, to PROMOTE the music.) It's only relatively recently in the site's life that revenue has exceeded expenses, which Dave spoke to in an earlier post.

Why doesn't it matter? I think it matters more than anything. If literally nobody involved with OCR makes any money whatsoever, that is entirely different than if we did. Again maybe we just feel very different on this. Let's say two charities want to use your music. One charity is staffed by all volunteers. Every single cent they earn goes to operations. 0% to administration. The other charity spends 30% on administration, 70% on operations. To me that is two completely different things and I feel entirely different about each one.

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.

Well, let me rephrase. you asked: "Was it generated because someone visited the site? Or was it generated because someone wanted to listen to my remix?" What's the distinction between someone visiting the site to check up on new music (as opposed to any one song), then listening to a song and seeing an ad... versus visiting their YouTube home page, seeing a new track from OC ReMix, and listening to it? Is there a fine line there? As it is now (and as it has been for many years), user #1 is generating revenue for the site by visiting and clicking through to listen to a remix... Keeping in mind that some % of ad revenue as it is now DOES come from single-mix pages, where would that fine line be? The site staff, djp included, have not ever been paid... In a way it's even more "non-profit" than most non-profits. Here's a question for those who are not okay with this, to consider. Imagine Patreon folds tomorrow. As Dave mentioned, Google ad revenue is just about dead. Since so many people have moved to listening to music on YouTube and fewer people are visiting site proper, how would you propose OCR generates revenue for itself if it cannot monetize sources outside visits to its own site/domain? Think longer term. In 5 years, for all we know, visitorship will be down to 1/10 what it is now, but the YouTube channel is now huge (already, 100k+ subs is a pretty big channel.) In that case, Google ad revenue will be completely dead. What is the solution to bring in revenue, if not YouTube?

There's an argument to be made that on YouTube, they are only hearing the music *because* of OCR. Does that factor in to how you're looking at it? In other words, OCR has a pretty large audience of people who don't necessarily know artists by name, but they enjoy listening to a consistent stream of good music. So while OCR didn't create the music, it did curate and distribute it to a new audience. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, which is fine, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless. Because it's making money for a non-profit organization, one where all staff are volunteers, and because you agreed to it in the submission agreement. If that isn't compelling, why not? From a legal perspective, it makes a huge difference how and for what reason money is generated, and where that money goes. If a charity uses a track of mine to raise some money, I look at that very differently than if a for-profit corporation does. Or maybe the opposite. I might not be OK with some charities using my music, but I might be OK with some corporations using it. In any case, who/why is relevant to me. Why is it not relevant to you? On YouTube we can actually monitor that and determine how many people viewed a video because they searched for it, and how many saw it as part of a playlist or via their subscription. Is there a % you feel would be the tipping point? Like let's say 90% of views are coming from people who watched the video because it came from OCR (i.e. via subscriptions or embeds), and 10% were people searching for Neblix specifically. Is that OK? Is 50/50 OK? Legitimate question and definitely worth discussing.

@Neblix Would it change your mind if the only ads were display ads on YouTube? In other words, you wouldn't be presented with an ad before the video, they would just exist on the page. (And not on embedded players.) Then it wouldn't be tied to consumption.

What if there were no ads displayed before the video and it was just the display-ad style to the right of the video, and below? Would that make any difference?

@AngelCityOutlaw is the crux of your objection that the monetization is taking place through a third party, who have their "hands in the revenue stream"? How or why is it any different than ads through Google (who take a cut) or support through Patreon (who also takes a cut)?

Just about any channel focusing on VGM remixes/covers, of which there are quite a few... Gamechops and Smooth McGroove come to mind.

I have no issue with YouTube ads, even full skippable ones.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that I really like Spotify, and I think it could potentially be really cool to see some of our albums there. I think the submission agreement doesn't preclude that either. With regards to the licensing itself, I stumbled on some interesting info below: http://aristake.com/post/how-to-legally-release-cover-songs Most of this is (somewhat) common knowledge stuff, but the following jumped out to me: "Spotify ALREADY PAYS mechanical royalties directly to HFA (and then HFA pays publishers)... Spotify is paying a mechanical royalty rate at about $.0007 per stream. Not to be confused with the sound recording royalty rate (which is about $.006 per stream on Spotify)..." The licensing angle could indeed be covered, but as mentioned, only for certain games. The soundtrack had to have seen a public US release first. Ultimately it's up to Dave. I think that arguably Spotify monetization is less intrusive for end users than YouTube-inflicted ads, and it WOULD be a cool platform to see our remixes on. Not to mention the royalty payments to the original writer(s) and publisher(s) would be handled by Spotify itself. Just sayin'.

I think a defining characteristic of chiptune music - what people tend to think of when they hear the term - is the use of waveforms that are very much raw and unprocessed. Old video game consoles tended to not have advanced modulation and filtering features resulting in a very raw oscillator sound. Simple squares, saw, triangle, noise. Those old Moog synth records tended to use lots of processing... filters, LFOs, envelopes, etc. So that would be one difference IMO.

I'm not an expert on guitars but since this was released in 2005, I think it's somewhat unlikely an amp sim was used since that software was in its infancy...

OK - Have you contacted NI support directly? Please try that next and CC aaversa.isw@gmail.com. They are asking that I send individual people their way so they can figure out what's going on.

This is 100% an issue with NI service center. They released an update somewhat recently that severely broke registration, at random, for many users. Stay tuned.

Super Audio Cart v1.1 is now available! Pick it up and read more about the expansion here: https://impactsoundworks.com/product/super-audio-cart/

Yeah the upgrade would absolutely be flat $50, so you wouldn't lose anything by getting the Player version and upgrading later.

Update v1.1 is coming out tomorrow with a LOT of new stuff! Also, we want to hear from people who are interested in SAC but have not purchased it: Would you buy a 'Player' version for $99 that has all the same content, but does not allow editing of the sounds or making custom sounds? For example you could load up a 4-layer sequence patch and edit basic stuff like volume, pan, and pitch, but not edit filters, envelopes, FX, mod matrix, etc. Basically a ROMpler vs. the full synth version for $50 less.

You can set the MIDI channel in Kontakt Player too! See the camera icon to the right of the Super Audio Cart text? Click the button to the right of that, it will switch to a view that allows you to specify MIDI input channel.

Yes, I've extended the code a little longer!

I extended it just a little longer!

Thanks! And happy birthday to my bros as well!

Yes sir, works in the free Kontakt Player. Just check that v5.5.2 (latest) works on your computer. I believe they dropped compatibility for XP and some old OSX versions.

Thanks for the kind words on Super Audio Cart! Yes, the key to creating good SNES style samples is primarily focused around very tightly editing + looping one-note instrument samples. You must keep the size very small. But before you even render that sample, you need to make sure it is set to MONO with a max sample rate of 32khz. (Or if you want to keep the samplerate at 44khz for practical reasons, use a very sharp lowpass to cut off everything above 16khz.) If you are using a bass sample or similar you may want to go down even lower to 22 or 11khz. Once you have your downsampled audio, you will want to do authentic bit rate reduction (BRR). You can search on Google for various BRR encoding tools out there. Most require you to do some stuff in the Windows command line to actually encode the samples. Essentially you want to encode the samples to SNES loadable format and immediately decode back to WAV, which gives you properly compressed/filtered audio. Lastly, using a looping app like EndlessWAV (free) you can very tightly edit, trim, and loop the sample until the final result is - at most - 20 kilobytes or less.