Sir_NutS

I have to call this out.  What total bullshit this statement is.  You started this, which ultimately I think was a good thing because it got the ball rolling on some good things, but you set the angry and accusatory tone right from post #1 and maintained it for 14 pages of thread.  We are all getting too old for this.
 
Are you even serious?  Dave began providing solid, undeniable answers right from the start.  You continued screaming.
 
They are pissed at you because you made incredibly insulting and darn-near libel-worthy accusations claiming you had actual evidence.  You dragged OCR and Dave specifically through the mud, and not just here.
 
Whatever.  You need to clean up your act in a very big way.  You had Dave on the border of insanity yesterday and I'm REALLY not ok with that.  I'm sorry but this just needs to be said.

So even as you admit that you went overboard, you're still trying to shame djp for pointing it out? 
You're contradicting yourself in a single post here. Careless is clearly an understatement. I can't even...

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about:  non-profit organizations and "profit".  Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc.   They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc.  OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations.  Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission:  the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form.  

Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

The purpose of this thread is to give people a clear idea of how OCR operates, how revenue is generated (and where that revenue goes), and the relationship between OCR, its operations, and the people that contribute to it.

Is content on OCR licensed?

No. We do not license the ReMixes distributed on our site (and through channels like YouTube). (There is one exception, which is described below.)

Why aren't the remixes licensed?

It's simply impossible to do this for several reasons.

1. Mechanical licensing via the compulsory licensing permission (the one that does not require publisher permission) requires that the source material be published commercially in the United States prior to licensing. Many remixes on the site are of source material never released in soundtrack form in the US, therefore they cannot be licensed.

2. Even if the music could be licensed, since OCR is founded on the concept of distributing music for free, it would be impossible to support the massive licensing costs necessary for all remixes on the site. To use some napkin math: assume 3400 remixes are each downloaded 100 times per month, which is a gross under-estimate. At 9.1 cents per copy downloaded, this would require licensing fees of over $30,000 a month - for downloads alone.
3. No established license mechanism could cover free downloads of MP3s and ad-supported streaming. Compulsory mechanical licensing only covers downloadable copies; as a result, custom licensing agreements would need to be made with every publisher (which they could simply reject, unlike a compulsory license.)

For total emphasis, there is no conceivable way that the content on OCR could be licensed, and especially not while remaining compatible with the site goal of distributing free music.

Does that mean OCR is illegal or infringing copyright?

By default, any use of copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright holder is considered infringement. However, US copyright law makes provisions for "fair use" of copyrighted material as a defense to infringement in a court of law. Fair use is the legal principle that allows for things like educational usage, commentary, parody, and satire, among other uses. While fair use cannot be established except in a court of law, and there are no strict guidelines allowing anyone to decide whether a use is fair or not outside of the court system, it's possible to make an educated guess as to whether a use is fair or not.

This educated guess is based on an evaluation of the factors evaluated for determining fair use, and precedent. The biggest of these factors are whether a work is transformative, and whether it is 'commercial'. These are both loose and nebulous terms, but that being said, our strongly-held belief (reinforced by the belief of consulted legal counsel) is that OCR's distribution of fan-created arrangements for non-commercial educational purposes is fair use. This has been discussed at length in other posts but suffice it to say that when analyzing all these factors, we've made a very strong case for this if a court case were ever to happen.
Isn't it worse to upload music to YouTube, especially if it's monetized?
No. If fair use applies to OCR's activities, it would certainly extend to YouTube. If it doesn't apply, then the site's current activities (on and off YouTube) would be considered infringement, in which case it's a moot point.
YouTube is actually a better place to address issues of infringement than elsewhere, because Google provides content creators with several tools: the ability to claim a video (which grants the publisher/claimaint all further revenue from the video) or issue a takedown. Both of these would not entangle either party in the court system, as Google/YouTube mediates any disputes, avoiding a costly legal battle. In short, we'd much rather defend ourselves to YouTube, ON YouTube, with the assistance of YouTube specialists who have extensive experience in copyright disputes.
Also, keep in mind that on YouTube (and off), a creator can claim infringement regardless of whether someone is generating revenue from a work or not. My own personal experience with YouTube claims and takedowns has exclusively been with un-monetized videos. In short, if a publisher took issue with OCR, not running YouTube ads would not protect us in any way.
Does OCR generate revenue from its content?

Yes. Since the early 2000s, ocremix.org has run ads throughout the site. Other revenue is generated from sales of OCR merchandise (not music; music on the site is not sold commercially) such as t-shirts and hoodies. Within the last few years, OCR launched a Patreon page which also generates revenue. Ads were also enabled on <1% of videos on OCR's YouTube channel from June-August 2016 for testing purposes, which has also generated a small amount of revenue. Until OCR officially becomes a registered non-profit organization, and YouTube ads are discussed further with the community, YouTube ads will only be served on the videos of ReMixers who have given OCR their explicit permission.

Why does OCR need to generate revenue?

OCR as a website has technical costs, such as the cost of a dedicated server, mirrors, and bandwidth. These expenses are necessary for the basic operation of the site. Revenue is also needed to create promotional materials for the site: that includes merchandise like t-shirts and hoodies, as well as strictly-promotional physical copies of album projects. (These promotional physical albums are not sold, and the content on them is available for free on ocremix.org. They are given away at conventions). OCR has also been attending conventions such as Otakon, MAGFest, and PAX (among any others) to evangelize video game music, promote recent album releases, and give away free stuff. Expenses directly related to OCR panels at these conventions (such as technical equipment needed for panels) are sometimes covered by OCR as an organization.

There are also many plans for the organization that require revenue to achieve. For example, the OCR YouTube video template has not been updated in many years and looks dated. We're in the process of commissioning custom visualization software to produce better-looking videos strictly for the enjoyment of viewers and fans. Also, we're looking to obtain true non-profit organization status, which we believe will take a substantial amount of money to file and maintain properly.

Where does surplus revenue go?

For a long time, there was no surplus revenue. Expenses were often paid out of pocket by Dave and other staff. Now that revenue is exceeding expenses, the revenue... isn't going anywhere. It's staying in OCR's accounts until it is used for purposes like those described above. The aforementioned non-profit filing process will likely take most if not all saved money.

So is OCR a non-profit organization?
From our submission agreement: OCR legally cannot distribute submitted materials for for-profit endeavors. Furthermore, OCR is legally bound to spend any revenue on costs directly associated with operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix.
However, OCR as an entity does not have true non-profit status - 501(c)(3) - which is why achieving that official status is a major goal.
Are any ReMixers or site staff paid for their work?

No. Nobody has been paid for their work contributing to the site either as a remixer, staff member, or administrator, djp included.
(Fine print: OCR has released one commercial album, For Everlasting Peace: 25 Years of Mega Man, as an officially licensed release in partnership with Capcom, with Capcom retaining ownership of the music. ReMixers were paid for this release, which was licensed directly with the publisher. This music is not available on the site and was not submitted through the normal channels, so it's an outlier.)
Will ReMixers ever be paid?
Not for regular submissions to the site, which are distributed for free. Not only would the logistical overhead be unmanageable, but it would invalidate our fair use case, as it would be impossible to justify those payments as necessary to the direct operation of the site as a non-profit entity. However, we'll continue to explore separate licensed projects like MM25, or officially licensed commercial albums through our sister site OverClocked Records. We view these as separate from the core work that OCR does: distributing and evangelizing free music.
Will site staff ever be paid?
There is absolutely no plan to do this, nor has it been seriously discussed among site staff in all years of operation. It's conceivable that it could happen someday, after 501(c)(3) status is achieved and we're complying with all regulations for transparency, corporate bylaws, etc. djpretzel wants there to be a plan for the site should anything ever happen to him, and operating a 501(c)(3) will require more administrative duties for things like bookkeeping and accounting. Again, if it were to ever happen, it would be executed properly to the letter as per federal guidelines for non-profit organizations and in full compliance with our own legally binding submission agreement.
Is there anything to prevent revenue from being distributed as profit to staff now?!

Of course. Just because OCR is not a 501(c)(3) yet does not mean our submission agreement isn't legally binding: it is. And that agreement, which applies to OCR as an organization, strictly limits how revenue can be used. Again, site staff have never been paid nor are there any plans to do so.

I'll be holding you to this, djp. The first time I play an OCR Youtube video/playlist and see that goddamned 15 second auto insurance commercial about the "perfect record" pop up, I will stomp my feet and be very irked. And you wouldn't like me when I'm irked. I get all big, green and puffy.

FWIW, you can freely monetize remix videos for my mixes (though with my collaborations you may have less luck getting the a-ok).

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about:  non-profit organizations and "profit".  Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc.   They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc.  OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations.  Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission:  the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form.  

Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

I strongly doubt it'll gather much data but I don't mind having ads on remixes I wrote... which is only 1 right now haha.

I can't think of anyone more affected by this than random theshizz members.

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.

I think responding to Brandon at this point is not productive.  We're repeating the same things over and over, and he's unwilling to listen or thinks any explanation is not enough.  Fails to provide a list of point by point questions and is just ego ranting and trying to leverage his status as a prolific remixer and album director to get his views on what's right to be implemented regardless of reason or logic.
This:
Is something that has been stated as the next steps to be taking going forward.  As reiterated before, people who have a point of view in disagreement are welcomed to join the discussion and drop their two cents, as well as people providing ideas.  I don't like to dismiss people but I think the discussion with Brandon is turning out to be exhausting and pointless for everyone.

I don't see why they should be different.  All posted ReMixes should be handled the same.
No one likes youtube ads, it's clear.  Some people though have expressed that they don't mind too much, or at all.  I think we will know more when we have the non-profit filing process underway, and we have done some budgeting to see if youtube ads are even a viable income stream for the site when balanced against the repercussions, real or perceived.  I think we should brainstorm some other ideas for revenue too, hopefully we will come up with some ideas that are more lucrative than youtube ads with a whole lot lower pissing-people-off factor.

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about:  non-profit organizations and "profit".  Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc.   They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc.  OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations.  Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission:  the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form.  

Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

I also wanted to make a point about something people don't seem to have a clear idea about:  non-profit organizations and "profit".  Non-profit organizations get money which is a surplus to their operational costs all the time, via donations, fundraising activities, merchandise selling, etc.   They invest this money back into the organization (if they're not corrupt, that is) to have a broader reach to their mission, betterment of facilities, hiring more personnel, contracting work for the organization, etc.  OCR as a non-profit, doesn't generate profit, however having a surplus is beneficial to its operations.  Not only it provides a cushion for supporting its non-profits efforts (pursuing official non-profit status is a good example) but it helps making ocr better at its mission:  the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form.  

Again, having a surplus is not only normal for non-profit organizations, it is something they're ALWAYS working on to have.

No anger implied by it (but it's the internet, so there's no emotion to pick up from what I'm saying), but if your specific question isn't answered, just re-ask the question; there are a ton of posts being responded to. Also, if you have follow-ups, just keep on asking, that's all. Your bad faith aside, Dave has been working to answer all of the questions.

IIRC, you were asking how albums fall under the Content Policy, and it's the same exact policy, but I think the ethics conclusions you're drawing are over the top. I'm not a cheerleader for OCR in the sense that it can do no wrong and I'd unilaterally go along with anything at all, especially something that I felt was unethical. If something like that happened, and Dave was improving his house off OCR funds or anything non-related to OCR, I'd just quit the site and say it was a good run and be the first to publicize that Dave wasn't running things ethically.
That said, the Content Policy has bound OCR to not do shady things with ad revenue, donations, or any money given to the site, even before any talk of 501c3 non-profit status. Even then in 2007, it was simply meant to codify the way he already ran this place to begin with. Everything has been functioning as a non-profit entity would do it, i.e. there's no profit motive, and excess funds are reinvested in improving the website and organization. Staff have also remained unpaid volunteers. I don't know what people are envisioning would be done with Google Ad revenue from YouTube, or how much would be there, but anything beyond operating costs is going to be spent on unsexy things for site purposes, e.g. video software for José to help him make trailers more easily, hiring someone to create a new YouTube video template, buying a new server, getting new forum software. Even the cases where staff have gone to conventions to promote OC ReMix, half the expense would go to OCR, half would be paid personally out of pocket.

From what I understand, believing that what OCR does is a valid instance of Fair Use, we believe the ReMixes do not diminish the original work's value, and that the music is being presented for nonprofit educational purposes to advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new and transformative. That would be a scenario where, because of the Fair Use case, OCR 1) would not be required to seek licenses for the music, and 2) would not pay the artists because the derivative works would be created for profit rather than for nonprofit educational purposes. Everything about how djp has looked at this has been to continue the ReMixes as nonprofit fan works.
That said, there hasn't been any decision on YouTube advertising beyond enabling it on a handful of videos to see how it works and if it's disruptive to the listeners; AFAIK, djp hasn't mentioned it yet, but the embedded versions of the YouTubes on OCR are a small enough size where ads are automatically disabled; a lot of his thought has been how to make it unintrusive and non-disruptive, including ruling out unskippable ads, so there's not been any effort to maximize Google ad revenue at all costs. This hasn't been a case of trying to sneak anything past anyone. As far as trying to hide enabling ads on videos, that's silly because how would you enable ads on all the videos, say nothing, and believe no one would notice or have questions? Obviously, djp sees it as a shift of where the Google ad revenue comes from, and it would be treated the same as the Google ad revenue from the website.

Not to make anything personal about Brandon, but I don't believe there is any information or transparency that would alleviate his assumptions of bad faith. I don't think 501c3 status, an audit, an accountant on retainer, eliminating all advertising, or him joining the staff in some capacity would do that. There's a level of paranoia and bad faith that ends up negatively coloring everything, which is a shame because the way he insults people due to his political beliefs and his insistence on insulting the staff he doesn't like (DarkeSword and zircon) are the things that have caused him issues here, not any actual problem from the staff.
A few weeks ago, Brandon tweeted at me that I was in favor of babies being killed because he concluded that I like Hillary Clinton (I don't, for the record); again, it's hard to convey emotion, but I truly didn't take any offense because it's politics and that talk can get heated. But at the same time, was it REALLY necessary to get that level of incendiary and accusatory with people you disagree with? It wasn't that long ago when the conspiracy was that the judges would never, ever approve Brandon's music. 89 mixposts later, here we are with the same bad faith.
Anyway, it's not meant as any attack or an attempt to discredit or disarm Brandon & his concerns, because he's not the only one who's expressed them. But he is the only one that's expressed them with the belief that OCR's descended into a money grab, that staff are being paid -- maybe handsomely at that, that huge checks are being cashed from YouTube, that there would have been an effort to hide the mass enabling of ads on the YouTube channel (has anyone explained HOW would that be possible?), and that everything from djp has been about being slippery or dishonest. I don't understand why nearly everything has to be framed by Brandon that way.
For all the appeals to transparency, this thread and the Facebook artists discussion could have been shut down or erased to discourage this conversation, and all dissenting voices could be silenced easily; this community handles drama with a pretty warts-and-all approach.

Brandon, you're the one not reading, or not processing, the responses being provided. It is disingenuous of you to characterize the extensive conversation taking place as our "dancing around" your questions. Please provide a numbered list of the questions you have that you feel remain unanswered; we've responded to some of them, but you're not acknowledging the response. In other cases, we've asked you for clarifications because the questions themselves are unclear... instead of engaging, you are choosing to stonewall our responses and pretend like they either do not exist, or do not address your questions.
This latest post, above, is what I was afraid of - this is starting to feel more like an ego trip on your part and less like a genuine conversation about the topic at hand. You're using your position as an album director - which you've always done an excellent job of - as a threat/ultimatum for your voice to have more weight than the many other voices who have chimed in. Do you think that's right? Also, do you think of them as "my projects" - or are they community projects? Would you ask your participating artists to vote first, before making such a unilateral decision - the VERY type of decision you are accusing US of making? Would you at least talk it over with them - what they wanted - as we are attempting to do now? What does "pull everything down" even mean?
Do you feel, at this juncture, that there is a single other artist who agrees with your views in full, as you have been presenting them in this thread? Can you summon the artists you've talked to and who would agree with what you're writing, the threats you're making, your decision to ignore our responses, etc., and have them explain why they agree with these actions, and confirm that they indeed do?
This conversation is ongoing; if you're going to make it about you by threatening this type of thing, and you think that's appropriate, I'm very disappointed.

As has been established, website ads that are in individual mixes pages are fundamentally identical to YT ads.  They aren't any less or more illegal or ethical.  It would be ridiculous, to me, to expect to have someone get their song published, hosted and publicized, for free, but opt out of supporting the site back.  Ultimately this is up to djp but I would be strongly against such practice.

As has been established, website ads that are in individual mixes pages are fundamentally identical to YT ads.  They aren't any less or more illegal or ethical.  It would be ridiculous, to me, to expect to have someone get their song published, hosted and publicized, for free, but opt out of supporting the site back.  Ultimately this is up to djp but I would be strongly against such practice.

As has been established, website ads that are in individual mixes pages are fundamentally identical to YT ads.  They aren't any less or more illegal or ethical.  It would be ridiculous, to me, to expect to have someone get their song published, hosted and publicized, for free, but opt out of supporting the site back.  Ultimately this is up to djp but I would be strongly against such practice.

Don't speak for the Pretz Dont ask leading questions like your "suplus" question when we all know the money will be reinvested back in the OCR community. "Worst case scenario" questions are counterproductive How dare you.  DjPretzel will live forever. As a musician, I can say that this would noooot be enough, but if it was from Patreon *in addition* to gigs paying the bills, then yeah.  And, I mean, ANY amount of money from Patreon is nice, it just can't be counted on to pay the bills.  Also, Patreon exists for products, but a gigging, working musician is considered a member of the service industry, which pays more.  MY FIGURING HERE is that the service industry (and i mean skilled work - not minimum wage) is about $1.25/minute, where on Patreon, tracks might be 99c a piece or something.

I got sidetracked there, sorry.  All that being stated, I am going to go become a monthly patron of OCR now  because I just realized I haven't been doing my part.

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, I figured this would come up at some point, and I don't think many people are arguing the profit angle so much, but let me chime in with my experience:
First of all, as far as I know, I'm the one of the only people doing this "game arrangement community" type of thing anymore. Jake has his own business going on and doesn't have time to worry about game arrangements too much. Most other people got out, or handed off to me. Arguably I don't even do too much anymore, at least visibly. We're constantly working on things, but 2 things keep anything from moving forward at a decent pace: time and money.

Right now, my yearly operating costs, on the low end, are about $1,000. Between servers, web services, domains, etc, I spend about $1,000 per year. Like OCR those go through a sole proprietor LLC which comes out of my taxes. $1,000 a year isn't that much, but that's still a flat screen TV I put into, basically just hosting things, every year.
Obviously OCRs operating costs are way more than that, and yes, apparently they're making more money than it costs to run the site, but that, in no way, means they don't need more money.
Do you know what I would do if I had more money? I would put it back into the site, which is what Dave does. Advertising, event presence, etc. More importantly than that, I would outsource my job in a second, if I could afford it.
Every hour I have to work on any one of the sites, is an hour I can't spend doing something else. Whether it be working on a freelance project, or just actually not working on anything for sanity. If I made a huge surplus I would hire people, paid people, that would work on maintaining sites, updating sites, adding new features to sites, for me, as a job, so I could do my own job which is a thing I get paid to do separate of this that pays my bills.
Real scenario if I had to get control of OCR and Patreon and ads weren't a thing? It would close. Simple as that. I wouldn't be able to cover the operating costs, the government would desolve the LLC for not being a profitable company, and I would eventually drain my own bank accounts trying to keep everything afloat.
tl;dr: It's very easy as someone on the outside, or someone who hasn't managed a project like this, to say "Well it costs X so you should get paid X to keep it up", and sure that's true...if X is the only cost ever, and if absolutely no work or time goes into growing or maintaining it. At the moment it requirements more time or man power, then you are operating at a loss. That an opportunity cost. 
I have no comment on the legal issues because I don't know anything about fair use or copyright law.

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.

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.