Sir_NutS

So let me get this straight, if I have a bunch of unlicensed music, put it in a page, which is by the way the only way to download the song, and fill the page with ads which surround the unlicensed music in question, I am not profiting off of the song and it's ethical.  But if I remove the ads, and put the ad before people click play, even though people are STILL watching ads because of the song, now this is unethical?   This is absurd.

So let me get this straight, if I have a bunch of unlicensed music, put it in a page, which is by the way the only way to download the song, and fill the page with ads which surround the unlicensed music in question, I am not profiting off of the song and it's ethical.  But if I remove the ads, and put the ad before people click play, even though people are STILL watching ads because of the song, now this is unethical?   This is absurd.

tbh the intrusiveness argument is the only one with some ground.  They're not as easy to ignore as website ads, that's objectively true.  I for one dislike them very much specially the ones you can't skip.

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.

Given how frequently OCR videos are likely embedded (analytics, anyone?), I'd expect this is actually one of the only effective ways to monetize these days.  Unless you really want to make them click through with a 'this video is not available to watch embedded' link.
Seriously, this entire conversation is like stepping through the looking glass.  The objections are simply baffling, based on emotional panic and not on any sort of concrete reason.  Good grief.

I would like to chime in and say I'm surprised at the reaction to this. Many of the people who have expressed concern over the monetization on YouTube have been given a lot of opportunity through OCRemix to receive funding themselves. I want to say I think it may be a "slippery slope" as the possibility that the thousands of videos getting even a modest number of views/subscribers could lead to a large payout which makes it a little weird to have all of that go to one source. However, considering the entirely free nature of music downloads/exposure/community and the not at all free nature of running a site with hosted files, I'm ok with it; I don't see a difference between this and ads on the website. They're both pretty equally obtrusive.
 
I also just wanted to say while I'm here (as I don't get much of a chance any more) I sincerely appreciate all you guys have done with creating this wonderful site. I have been thinking lately that I wouldn't be where I am now, music-career aside, if it weren't for OCR. The community, the formative musical years perusing the site for new and completely different music, the nostalgia of finding the perfect arrangement of a favorite song... Believe it or not, that isn't even a brown-nosing attempt at receiving any YouTube money! (unless it worked). 
 
 

Not usually one to jump in on stuff like this, but nobody made you like this, apart from yourself. Your life, your choices. Blaming on others or situations or expecting them to change is very hard, changing how you look at and deal with things is easier to do.
A lesson I constantly have to remind myself of. Glad I did so, because it makes things more enjoyable in the long run.

This is how I feel about the "situation":
I was initially opposed to the idea of YouTube monetization, because, as Chimpazilla stated, it feels like specific mixes are making money for OCR instead of the community. It doesn't feel like OCR itself is generating the revenue (like they do with ads on their site), but rather that the artists are generating revenue for them. 
The other point I have/had is that these ads feel much more intrusive and lessen the experience of listening to mixes - which is a bad thing obviously. Zircon asked the question before if we thought ads on the side/bottom were any different that pre-play ads, and I think it would make a big difference. At least for me it would, because you can let people enjoy the mixes the same as before.
However, if the last option isn't really viable then, after reading the discussion, I'm on board with OCR. We are always inherently against change, because we know and trust what was before. Even though it's pointed out that legally and ethically the YouTube plan isn't really different, it's new and different from what we know. But the situation is different as well: if OCR wants to be assured of having a stable and constant revenue stream, things like this are necessary now (since the forum ads don't cut it anymore, as has been stated). 
To go even further: I hope OCR is looking towards generating even more revenue, so it can grow even further. The bigger the site/network grows, the more it can show off our awesome mixes and visit events. I mean, the whole point of the Patron deal was to help OCR grow, so why are people opposites to the fact that the revenue is more than the costs now? As long as it's used to help grow OCR, I think it's great

We don't seem to be on the same page. I'm not asserting that YouTube monetization is OK because its in the terms, so there's no need to keep referencing the terms (the terms were never really of much concern to me, personally). I'm saying that YouTube monetization is OK because its functionally, legally, and ethically indistinguishable from what the site has always done. So when you say "inform people when you do things with their work" then I agree. It's just that I don't anything "has been done" with our work that's at all different from before, and that's why I think a few people are getting upset unnecessarily.

Much of this has been stated, but I thought it be helpful to have the ethics spoken to by another remixer who isn't on staff.
Regarding whether remixers should trust the staff --- the fact that 501c3 status is being voluntarily pursued by the staff should be enough to inspire trust. If you didn't know, it would mean that OCR would have to report publicly a lot of financial information, including revenues, expenses, and information on whether/how it compensates staff. And it would be a federal offense to intentionally misreport that information. 
Regarding profit --- as has been pointed out, it appears that many of us here are unaware of what profit means. Both for-profit and non-profit companies would love to grow. Both would love to generate more money than they spend. The difference comes in what happens to that extra money. Both can chose to pour that extra money back into the company for it to grow (marketing, research and development, staffing, etc.), but only the for-profit has the option of distributing the profits to the owners/shareholders. That's the difference. Non-profits generate profit... they just have to pour that money back into the organization's stated purpose. And we have no reason to believe the OCR staff has done anything other than this, especially in light of them wanting to attain a certain legal status that requires them to publicly report exactly how they're doing this.
Regarding paying remixers --- that is immediately a for-profit situation, as zircon stated, and that immediately endangers fair use issues. "But wait, why is it legally OK for OCR to do it for themselves but not OK for them to pay Patrick Burns?" Because OCR is an organization with a stated public/artistic mission, no shareholders who profit from dividends or the sale of the organization, and uses the money in a certain fashion (soon-to-be legally obligated to use that money in a certain fashion, as the staff voluntarily desires). Patrick Burns has no binding, stated purpose for the greater good, and can use the money however he pleases---most likely a burrito bowl that will contribute to his BMI and increase the public healthcare burden (but even if I used it for my kids, it's still for-profit). In other words, the money going to OCR is fair-use because that gathered money has no other outlet than the further promotion of OCR's fair-use mission. I, on the other hand, can take the money anywhere.
Regarding testing the monetization quietly --- the entire idea "that someone should've asked us" is based on the unfounded assumption that OCR is doing something selfish. On the contrary, we have no reason to believe the money isn't going precisely back into the function which inspired every single remixer here to submit to OCR in the first place: visibility and community. (And soon we might have public documents to verify this, as the staff obviously desires.) Give me proof that anyone on staff is using the monetization for personal gain, and then I would agree that we should have been asked.
My feelings: OCR provides a platform which isn't within my skill set---a platform which would not exist through my own self-promotion, nor through the collective, individual self promotion of all remixers here. Even if you assume that the homepage's value is minimal, social media buoyancy doesn't come easy. I have been given no reason to distrust the staff, and the staff seems proactive in making their non-profit status official, thus providing some transparency.

So you chose to ignore reality in favor of a feeling to make decisions, well, I certainly don't do that;  you're entitled to do it on your own decisions.  Anyone can feel that a decision is wrong even if it goes against reason, but that doesn't mean it's the reality of it.  I for one do not care about decisions based on groundless or illogical arguments appealing to feelings as those are subjective and everyone has their own.  The fair thing is to look at things objectively and see that Remixes have provided ocr with traffic during all its tenure and are the main source of income as very few people visit the site just for the forums and that number is decreasing as is also decreasing in most communities, vg related or otherwise.

Well, we're supposed to have a discussion, but since you don't care about people who disagree with you or their ideas, then I have no clue about what you're actually doing here.  I could say what someone who only enters a conversation to spew their rhetoric and purposefully ignore other arguments actually is, but that'd be considered inflamatory in what has otherwise been a civil discussion on both parts.  Good day, sir.
 

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed.  This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more.

Facebook is monetizing people and their information.  Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself.  OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads.  If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook.  CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news.  That's what they monetize with ads.  It's their product.  Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc.  If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

What are we monetizing with the website ads?  People come to ocr because of... the forums?  Our wonderful, 2005 web design?

Perception != Reality.

I'm sorry but I fail to see any of these arguments holding ground, with the exception of intrusiveness in youtube ads vs website ads, which is a point in favor of having the website ads instead of youtube ads.  Other than that, nothing has changed in where the money goes, which is, back to ocr, and what is actually being monetized, which are the remixes. I'm willing to bet money that less than 1% of the people who visit ocr do it for other reasons than to listen/download the remixes, thus ocr's product has always been the remixes and that's what we monetize.

If youtube ads are illegal then our page ads on the mix pages are also illegal.  They are virtually the same, companies know the same, yet ocr has been getting ad revenue directly from individual remixes pages for years and nobody complains.  How is this playing with fire since this is virtually the same by fair use statures and just by common sense?  The only difference is the intrusive nature of youtube ads.  Nobody can download a mix without visiting the mix page(unless torrents, irrelevant), same as when nobody can listen to a remix without visiting the specific youtube video.  There's no more "far" we can go when both are the same thing.

There's also a thing to be considered about "profit", whatever is made extra of just website sustaining, is put back on making ocr better.  Do you want ocr to stay as is, and never expand or change, not promote vgm music more, that the staff keeps investing their time which most of them don't have, and money into promoting ocr everywhere they can?  Improvements not only take time, which the staff provides for free and without asking anything in return, but it also requires money.  Money for extra development, extra promotion, etc.  Not only giving all this "profit" back to the artists generates more problems than it solves, it also stagnates OCR's mission.

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. 

I'm sorry but I fail to see any of these arguments holding ground, with the exception of intrusiveness in youtube ads vs website ads, which is a point in favor of having the website ads instead of youtube ads.  Other than that, nothing has changed in where the money goes, which is, back to ocr, and what is actually being monetized, which are the remixes. I'm willing to bet money that less than 1% of the people who visit ocr do it for other reasons than to listen/download the remixes, thus ocr's product has always been the remixes and that's what we monetize.

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed.  This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more.

Facebook is monetizing people and their information.  Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself.  OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads.  If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook.  CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news.  That's what they monetize with ads.  It's their product.  Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc.  If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed.  This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more.

Facebook is monetizing people and their information.  Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself.  OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads.  If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook.  CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news.  That's what they monetize with ads.  It's their product.  Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc.  If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed.  This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more.

Facebook is monetizing people and their information.  Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself.  OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads.  If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook.  CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news.  That's what they monetize with ads.  It's their product.  Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc.  If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

Good question & points.
At this point in time we have a "budget surplus", but we do anticipate that filing for the 501c3 could be costly - I spoke with Nick from MAGFest, and they had actual counsel, and it took a good long while & cost five figures. I'm hoping we can do something faster & more streamlined and thus (hopefully much!) cheaper, but it's those types of things that are "operational" but only come up once in awhile. Beyond keeping the site functional, we really want to improve it AND the videos themselves, and we've been working on both, so our definition of "operational" includes improvements & striving towards goals, not JUST keeping the wheels turning.
The ads on the website ARE attached to the music in the sense that Google has the power to personalize them based on page content, which is exactly what they do with videos as well, but I hear you... it's a subjective thing, I don't think it's inherent, I think it's perceptual, but I see where you're coming from. This might be the biggest problem - the perception that YouTube ads are somehow functionally different in terms of how the revenue would be utilized. I don't know... it's not accurate, but I agree that this perception might exist.