zircon

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

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.

As I've said many times, and explained pretty thoroughly, having the mixes monetized on YouTube would not make any material difference toward fair use. OCR has been distributing downloadable MP3s of remixes for many years, with ad support on the site. If THAT is fair use, then YouTube is. If that isn't fair use, then YouTube isn't. End of story.

I want to re-pose a question I asked before that nobody answered, for those that are against YT monetization. Google ads are already almost dead. In a year let's say they are completely dead. Now imagine Patreon goes away, because maybe Patreon itself is shut down or gets purchased. Who knows? That kind of stuff happens every day in silicon valley.
How do you expect OCR to keep running in that scenario?
Now go a step further - imagine the trend continues of fewer and fewer people coming here and downloading MP3s, and more and more people going to YouTube. Imagine that the audience here shrinks to almost nothing while the YouTube channel becomes the #1 source of consuming the content. 
Again: How does OCR keep running in that scenario? 

1. The remixes have already been on YouTube for years. If anyone had a problem we would know by now. I have dealt with this stuff myself and if a publisher has a problem with your content they will claim it or takedown regardless of whether you are monetizing (I've seen & dealt with this multiple times, and it was always unmonetized content.) As I've been saying over and over, offering downloads is definitely worse.
2. Monetizing the content on YouTube does not do anything to increase its visibility.
3. If a company did have a problem, dealing with that problem on YouTube is FAR better for OCR than dealing with it outside. If a company has an issue with OCR MP3s they have no recourse other than directly reaching out from their legal team. That's very very bad for us. On the other hand, on YouTube, they can use existing systems like content ID/claims or takedowns. These don't require anyone to have legal counsel to deal with, and it allows OCR to defend its usage with Google as a mediator - no courts needed. Furthermore, on YouTube, we have the benefit of an MCN that has its own resources including connections at Google itself. 
Here is where I will (again) point out that people have been monetizing arrangements on YouTube for years and years, including big channels, unlicensed, with no issues, and those are people actually turning a profit and pocketing 100% of the money. 

As I've said many times, and explained pretty thoroughly, having the mixes monetized on YouTube would not make any material difference toward fair use. OCR has been distributing downloadable MP3s of remixes for many years, with ad support on the site. If THAT is fair use, then YouTube is. If that isn't fair use, then YouTube isn't. End of story.

As I've said many times, and explained pretty thoroughly, having the mixes monetized on YouTube would not make any material difference toward fair use. OCR has been distributing downloadable MP3s of remixes for many years, with ad support on the site. If THAT is fair use, then YouTube is. If that isn't fair use, then YouTube isn't. End of story.

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

OCR staff are volunteers. None of us are, or have ever been, compensated for our work (including but not limited to judging, moderation, running projects, etc.) Site revenue goes to things like hosting costs (dedicated server + mirrors), merchandising (OCR shirts, hoodies), promotional albums (which are not sold, but given away as prizes at cons to help promote the music), and similar.

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.

@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 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.

@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)?

Re: legal stuff. A lot has been said on this. Here's a quick primer. Any and all use of copyrighted materials, by anyone for any reason other than licensees or copyright holders, is de facto infringement. Let's get that out of the way. If you make a fan remix and upload it on YouTube with no monetization, that is by default considered to be infringement. Let's make that 100% crystal clear. 
Fair Use is a legal concept that exists as a defense against claims of copyright infringement. So if Party A uses Party B's copyrighted material, and Party B says "Hey, I'm going to sue you", Party A can say "nuh-uh, it was fair use." Whether or not that defense is valid is determined on a case-by-case basis. There are no universal rules, just standards that are used to evaluate each case individually.
So if you want to take a hardline view, then OCR since day 1 (with or without ads) has been infringing copyright. But obviously that's not the whole story, since in all of OCR's lifetime and even after considerable publicity, it has never been sued, despite many major copyright holders being well-aware of the site's existence. That's because Dave has done his homework, consulted with lawyers, and come to the conclusion that OCR would likely fare well in court (if it came to that) with a Fair Use defense. And chances are those entities have taken no action because they believe OCR's use is in fact fair, and does not interfere with their own rights to commercialize their work.
My own view, as a music industry professional (though not a lawyer), is that having monetized videos on YouTube is not going to make any material difference in a court of law compared with advertising on the site itself. If a copyright holder believes that OCR's use of copyright is infringing, my own (educated) guess is that they are not going to say that site ads are OK, but YouTube ads aren't. Very unlikely, especially given the extreme proliferation of unlicensed covers on YouTube including some on major channels. 
Put simply: in my view, informed through my experience in the industry, if you think YouTube video monetization is illegal, or otherwise infringing/wrong, then everything OCR has ever done is illegal.
---
On the topic of YouTube and shielding from liability specifically, the advantage of YouTube in that department is that you can work with multi-channel networks (MCN) who have the resources and connections to take care of copyright issues. That's why so many major channels are part of networks, so that when a developer or publisher flags their Let's Play video (or whatever), they have a team that can deal with the claim and come to an arrangement. That was one big reason why Dave was considering this at all, because we'd be able to work with an MCN.
There's the conspiracy theory explanation, and then there's the explanation that Dave (the only person who has any actual authority related to the site, its financials, etc.) is married, with a full-time job, and two very young kids, on top of existing responsibilities running the site, that have taken up the majority of his time and he hasn't gotten around to having a deep conversation with Chimpazilla on this. I was talking to her today and I'm sure Dave would have chimed in, were he not en route to Otakon. 

Re: legal stuff. A lot has been said on this. Here's a quick primer. Any and all use of copyrighted materials, by anyone for any reason other than licensees or copyright holders, is de facto infringement. Let's get that out of the way. If you make a fan remix and upload it on YouTube with no monetization, that is by default considered to be infringement. Let's make that 100% crystal clear. 
Fair Use is a legal concept that exists as a defense against claims of copyright infringement. So if Party A uses Party B's copyrighted material, and Party B says "Hey, I'm going to sue you", Party A can say "nuh-uh, it was fair use." Whether or not that defense is valid is determined on a case-by-case basis. There are no universal rules, just standards that are used to evaluate each case individually.
So if you want to take a hardline view, then OCR since day 1 (with or without ads) has been infringing copyright. But obviously that's not the whole story, since in all of OCR's lifetime and even after considerable publicity, it has never been sued, despite many major copyright holders being well-aware of the site's existence. That's because Dave has done his homework, consulted with lawyers, and come to the conclusion that OCR would likely fare well in court (if it came to that) with a Fair Use defense. And chances are those entities have taken no action because they believe OCR's use is in fact fair, and does not interfere with their own rights to commercialize their work.
My own view, as a music industry professional (though not a lawyer), is that having monetized videos on YouTube is not going to make any material difference in a court of law compared with advertising on the site itself. If a copyright holder believes that OCR's use of copyright is infringing, my own (educated) guess is that they are not going to say that site ads are OK, but YouTube ads aren't. Very unlikely, especially given the extreme proliferation of unlicensed covers on YouTube including some on major channels. 
Put simply: in my view, informed through my experience in the industry, if you think YouTube video monetization is illegal, or otherwise infringing/wrong, then everything OCR has ever done is illegal.
---
On the topic of YouTube and shielding from liability specifically, the advantage of YouTube in that department is that you can work with multi-channel networks (MCN) who have the resources and connections to take care of copyright issues. That's why so many major channels are part of networks, so that when a developer or publisher flags their Let's Play video (or whatever), they have a team that can deal with the claim and come to an arrangement. That was one big reason why Dave was considering this at all, because we'd be able to work with an MCN.
There's the conspiracy theory explanation, and then there's the explanation that Dave (the only person who has any actual authority related to the site, its financials, etc.) is married, with a full-time job, and two very young kids, on top of existing responsibilities running the site, that have taken up the majority of his time and he hasn't gotten around to having a deep conversation with Chimpazilla on this. I was talking to her today and I'm sure Dave would have chimed in, were he not en route to Otakon. 

@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.

Nintendo is not going to sue for copyright infringement. There is no pattern of behavior on their part to support thinking that way. They do C&Ds and takedowns, as do basically all other publishers and developers. Nobody wants to go to court. Legal proceedings are costly, both in terms of time and money, for all parties. Again that's not to say publishers do nothing to protect their IP... But they do it using tools like cease & desist letters for fan projects, content ID on YouTube, or DMCA takedowns.
I'll reiterate also that YouTube in particular gives more tools to copyright holders to deal with infringement, by allowing them to automatically claim or take down videos through Google's system. It's actually very friendly to big companies with lots of IP for that very reason, and further reduces the chance that any legal action would happen. At the same time, YouTube also offers creators unique ways of defending and protection uses which might be fair. For OCR specifically, working with a MCN would give us even more shielding from liability.
All in all, it's far better for a copyright claim to happen on YouTube than off.

Again. OCR has been using monetized ads (on all pages, including remix pages) for.. I think 10 years now...? So it's not as if this would be pushing the line somehow further. Especially since offering downloadable MP3s has traditionally been viewed more harshly than non-downloadable streams.
There is absolutely no reason to think that YouTube would be any worse, or put OCR in a position of great liability. Again, let me go over this:
1. YouTube has tools for content creators to take down (or claim) infringing content via content ID/claiming and takedowns. These are always the first tools used and a copyright holder will use them as opposed to pursuing legal action outside of YouTube. Happens every day.
2. OCR itself is more shielded on YouTube by being part of a multi-channel network with greater resources and connections.
3. If what OCR does is infringing, then it is infringing with or without YouTube. There are tons of developers + publishers (not to mention composers) whose works have been arranged on OCR. Many of them have offered their explicit approval and endorsement, and nobody has taken any legal action in all this time.

Since Fair Use is a defense, it's true that the only way to be 100% certain is to be brought to court. But Dave has been doing this for a long time and not without legal counsel. He believes (and I agree) that if it EVER came to that, OCR would have a strong case for Fair Use. That case has not changed since day 1. The material is highly transformative, it's offered free of charge, it adds to the original works, etc. 

Will: Check out my response on the previous page. The available information and evidence suggests that YouTube ads aren't any worse than what we have now (web ads). Either way, it's online advertising. If I were a copyright holder, I would be much more concerned with downloadable MP3s than streams.
Actually, I would strongly argue that YouTube is a better platform to be shielded from liability, since it has multiple pre-existing systems in place for copyright holders to address infringement: content ID and takedowns. Any developer or publisher will use these tools instead of going to court, since even if they are sure to win, it's time, money & hassle for them to pursue it in the courts. Hence why it's extraordinarily rare to hear of anyone on YouTube being sued, but relatively common to hear about content ID and (to a lesser extent) takedowns.
Those extra shields from personal liability are made even stronger by MCNs, like I mentioned, which would help protect ALL remixers whose music is uploaded by OCR.

Well, let's go over the 4 factors for fair use that courts use to determine whether a use is infringing or fair, and how web ads vs. YouTube ads would make a difference.
1. Purpose and character of the use
This asks whether a use is of a commercial nature, or for nonprofit educational purposes. At the same time, it also favors transformative uses over non-transformative ones. Well, the transformative factor of the use (remix of copyrighted material) is no different whether it's viewed on our site or on YouTube, so that's a wash. That leaves commercial vs. non-commercial. We know that obviously selling something is commercial, but is showing ads alongside something commercial? There's no hard line rule on that, however...
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial
Creative Commons commissioned a professional market research study to determine people's views on this matter. What they found was that:
Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial. My take: Based on this, as far as OCR is concerned, it wouldn't make a difference whether the "online advertising" is on a website or on YouTube. 2. Nature of the copyrighted work
This is not relevant here to questions of OCR on its own site or YouTube as it has to do with the source work.
3. Amount and Substantiality
Same thing. The content of the remix is no different in both cases.
4. Effect upon work's value
Does an infringing work affect the copyright owner's ability to commercially exploit their original work? Once again, OC ReMixes being freely available for download already, I don't see how YouTube would change anything. In fact, if I were playing devil's advocate, I might say that offering downloads is a lot more harmful than non-downloadable streams (videos).
 

Re: legal stuff. A lot has been said on this. Here's a quick primer. Any and all use of copyrighted materials, by anyone for any reason other than licensees or copyright holders, is de facto infringement. Let's get that out of the way. If you make a fan remix and upload it on YouTube with no monetization, that is by default considered to be infringement. Let's make that 100% crystal clear. 
Fair Use is a legal concept that exists as a defense against claims of copyright infringement. So if Party A uses Party B's copyrighted material, and Party B says "Hey, I'm going to sue you", Party A can say "nuh-uh, it was fair use." Whether or not that defense is valid is determined on a case-by-case basis. There are no universal rules, just standards that are used to evaluate each case individually.
So if you want to take a hardline view, then OCR since day 1 (with or without ads) has been infringing copyright. But obviously that's not the whole story, since in all of OCR's lifetime and even after considerable publicity, it has never been sued, despite many major copyright holders being well-aware of the site's existence. That's because Dave has done his homework, consulted with lawyers, and come to the conclusion that OCR would likely fare well in court (if it came to that) with a Fair Use defense. And chances are those entities have taken no action because they believe OCR's use is in fact fair, and does not interfere with their own rights to commercialize their work.
My own view, as a music industry professional (though not a lawyer), is that having monetized videos on YouTube is not going to make any material difference in a court of law compared with advertising on the site itself. If a copyright holder believes that OCR's use of copyright is infringing, my own (educated) guess is that they are not going to say that site ads are OK, but YouTube ads aren't. Very unlikely, especially given the extreme proliferation of unlicensed covers on YouTube including some on major channels. 
Put simply: in my view, informed through my experience in the industry, if you think YouTube video monetization is illegal, or otherwise infringing/wrong, then everything OCR has ever done is illegal.
---
On the topic of YouTube and shielding from liability specifically, the advantage of YouTube in that department is that you can work with multi-channel networks (MCN) who have the resources and connections to take care of copyright issues. That's why so many major channels are part of networks, so that when a developer or publisher flags their Let's Play video (or whatever), they have a team that can deal with the claim and come to an arrangement. That was one big reason why Dave was considering this at all, because we'd be able to work with an MCN.
There's the conspiracy theory explanation, and then there's the explanation that Dave (the only person who has any actual authority related to the site, its financials, etc.) is married, with a full-time job, and two very young kids, on top of existing responsibilities running the site, that have taken up the majority of his time and he hasn't gotten around to having a deep conversation with Chimpazilla on this. I was talking to her today and I'm sure Dave would have chimed in, were he not en route to Otakon.