Game Music Copyright

[NegimaSonic]

ah, I was just curious as to what ya'll did there. I figured it meant some exposure (more exposure = more acceptance). And yes, before Jack says it, no it doesn't add more protection...but it helps IMO >.>

[analoq]

JackKieser,

Could you please stop bringing facts and expertise into this discussion? The OCR community overwhelmingly prefers blissful ignorance on the subject of copyright law.

Thanks.

[eilios]

You don't really need to use so many italics and underlines and bolds and other such things, Kieser. Anyways, Sega calling us out on not having and Pico remixes basically cements the fact that game companies don't care at the very least. As long as we aren't copying the works piece by piece, it's not a breach of copyright law.

The best example I can think of this is Dies Irae. If you haven't looked it up, it's a rather popular hymn which has been dissected. Parts of it go throughout many symphonies and more modern works. It's highly possible that two completely different pieces/tracks/songs/whatever would have similar chord progressions(especially with 4 chord pop songs). That doesn't make them the same thing.

The idea of OCR is for artists to put their own spin on music. In fact, it even says in the rules that just copying the song's melody and adding a beat and/or changing the instruments is a no-no.

[JackKieser]

@analoq: Oh, my bad. Here: I'll make up for it with this picture of a kitten:

[analoq]

As long as we aren't copying the works piece by piece, it's not a breach of copyright law.

I'm wondering. What gives you the gall to speak authoritatively on a subject you, quite obviously, know nothing about? You can't possibly defend your conclusion as it's merely what you want to be true. Why not just give an honest opinion instead of looking like an idiot by entitling yourself to your own facts?

[Gario]

Gario, they won't. Why the facepalm?

Because I don't give a hoot, honestly. My post was 100% tongue-and-cheek, and the fact that more than one person took it seriously earned a facepalm, in my book.

[Nonamer]

Read this section of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

Translation: Congress is responsible for the enforcement of patents and copyrighted material. Therefore, it has the right and ability to create copyright law for all forms of entertainment. Of course, there is also the case of fair use, where individuals and non-profits use copyrighted material for producing other forms of creative art. Thus it is the discretion of both the legal system, the supposed "pirate" and the original artist to determine whether fair use was or was not abused.

Extra Credits said it best (at least for video games) when they said that if you have relatively easy access to the material, then you should not pirate, but if its absolutely impossible to buy or access the material legally, then it is somewhat acceptable to pirate.

And finally, keep in mind that technically OCR is a non-profit, thus as long as we do not publish works that border "copy-paste" material, that the game companies have confidence in and admiration for our work, and that we are (most likely) protected under fair use, OCR is almost immune from prospective lawsuits.

[Bahamut]

Music on OCR does not fall under fair use. No company deems it worthwhile to sue OCR as a practical consideration as it does not promote piracy and it is akin to a (relatively) professionally run fan site, although Capcom gave a wonderful gesture in signing a legal agreement allowing OCR to host derivative works of music from Capcom's games.

[SubNormal J3]

Wow. This conversation is starting to spiral out of control. Let's rein it in a little.

I think everyone has brought some interesting and informative points to the concept of the legality of OC

ReMixes. Some have mentioned that ReMixes are "more" legal because they are derivative works as opposed to original works. However, OCR also supplies completely original works in the form of chiptunes. So that brings to the forefront of the argument whether a large company would consider a chiptune the same way they consider complete ROMs.

Unfortunately, unless a qualified lawyer joins the forum thread, nothing will be certain regarding the legality of OCR, but I think this is still an enlightening conversation even if none of us are lawyers

[Nabeel Ansari]

It should be a given that OCR is legal.

Was there any doubt? I honestly think complaining about legalities of OCR is lame BECAUSE IT'S BEEN UP FOR TEN YEARS ALREADY AND NO ONE HAS HAD A BEEF YET.

[JackKieser]

There are larger implications, though. For instance, fan projects, like the ones Squeenix shuts down vigorously. For instance, Chronotorious or the OneUps Vol. 1 + 2, which are blatant pirate works and are totally illegal because they don't pay royalties. For instance, Super Mario Crossover, which should be totally legal, even for sale, since SMB was made before 1997... but isn't because Congress arbitrarily and at the behest of private interests extended and overbroadened copyright terms, effectively killing the public domain that Super Mario Bros. should belong in.

Whether OCR is legal or not is bound inextricably to whether other art forms and derivative works are legal or not, so to protect one is to protect all. At least one person in this thread has learned about how pants on head retarded it is that OCR isn't legal and can never be under current law. It's that kind of bottom-up education that moves people to write their representatives, to do research, to join advocacy groups.

OCR hasn't been sued in 10 years. That doesn't mean you should all leave the door open to be sued in the future.

[RoadiePC]

Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and pull out of lurker-mode for something, and I'm not claiming expertise on the whole legal front.

Frankly, Jack, I can see and understand your caution. What I think a lot of people here have trouble agreeing with is your tone. I've seen you make various claims(in this, and the other, locked thread), about various studies, work experience, etc, without respecting anyone else's knowledge or experiences. Zircon's been around the block, too, as well as DJP, Jimmy Hinson, and many others here.

I know that the personal, flame-laden attacks were more present on the other thread(probably why it got locked), but that doesn't change that you seem to be baiting others to argue with you. Finger-waggling and circular logic(I'm right because I say I am) will seldom get others to see your point of view.

What's tragic is that we ARE in a gray area regarding the legalities of derivative work. Capcom might have signed an agreement, Sega might have called us out on Twitter, and and even Jeremy Soule submitted a ReMix HIMSELF as a tribute to Uematsu, but none of that changes the fact that if, say, Nintendo wanted us brought down, it'd be over.

So, sure, caution can be useful, but blindly disagreeing will only add more dissent to an already murky situation.

So I'm appealing to you, personally, to perhaps respect others who have earned respect, so that this discussion, and hopefully many more, can be more 'solution' than 'problem'-oriented.

Honey versus vinegar, man. you DO raise valid points(such as the vulnerability of OCR). Nobody else needs to be 'taken down' to raise them.

/end rant

I'm sorry if my little speech was ill-timed. I just felt that had to be said. I'll resume lurking now.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Can't we just take the server somewhere overseas so it's not in U.S. Jurisdiction if it comes to that (getting sued)?

[Doulifée]

Can't we just take the server somewhere overseas so it's not in U.S. Jurisdiction if it comes to that (getting sued)?

the secret overclocked agency is planning a move to antartica.

[Esker]

My opinion is that people usually gave up on copyright and if they decided to publish, it is copyrighted.

[JackKieser]

Ok, I'm going to respond to this, but just once, and only because this was a respectful post. I won't take it off-topic again.

Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and pull out of lurker-mode for something, and I'm not claiming expertise on the whole legal front.

Frankly, Jack, I can see and understand your caution. What I think a lot of people here have trouble agreeing with is your tone.

My "tone" in this thread is completely different than my "tone" in any other OCR thread so far. I haven't been condescending, I haven't called names, I haven't done anything disrespectful. What I have been is passionate, and what's more important, is passionately correct; I'm not going to apologize for being intolerant towards incorrect notions.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. No one has the right to incorrect facts.

I've seen you make various claims(in this, and the other, locked thread), about various studies, work experience, etc, without respecting anyone else's knowledge or experiences. Zircon's been around the block, too, as well as DJP, Jimmy Hinson, and many others here.

Unlike other threads, I haven't made any direct attacks on anyone's knowledge. That was a mistake before; now, I don't care what your experience is, because experience is irrelevant to fact. This is something that gets brought up in religious debates a lot, too; people have a mistaken notion that personal anecdote is "proof" for anything. It's not. That's why, when I make a claim about someone not knowing copyright law, I back it up with a link, source, or quotation showing why they are wrong.

It's only disrespectful if it's ad hominem; "I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous ideas" is an apt quotation.

I know that the personal, flame-laden attacks were more present on the other thread(probably why it got locked), but that doesn't change that you seem to be baiting others to argue with you. Finger-waggling and circular logic(I'm right because I say I am) will seldom get others to see your point of view.

I've never used circular logic. I've posted links, referred to books, referenced law texts, but never used "I know this because I know it" as an argument. Quote me using circular logic, and I'll eat my words.

On baiting: it's a discussion. Of course I want people to keep discussing. I'm not trolling, though; if I "bait" anyone, it will always be with a compelling argument.

What's tragic is that we ARE in a gray area regarding the legalities of derivative work. Capcom might have signed an agreement, Sega might have called us out on Twitter, and and even Jeremy Soule submitted a ReMix HIMSELF as a tribute to Uematsu, but none of that changes the fact that if, say, Nintendo wanted us brought down, it'd be over.

So, sure, caution can be useful, but blindly disagreeing will only add more dissent to an already murky situation.

First of all: blindly? I doubt it's "blind" if the facts are on my side; Bahamut even said as such, and I've proven each of my assertions so far. Far from "blind faith". Second, there should be dissent. Dissent fosters different viewpoints, different data, and thus more healthy debate.

So I'm appealing to you, personally, to perhaps respect others who have earned respect, so that this discussion, and hopefully many more, can be more 'solution' than 'problem'-oriented.

Honey versus vinegar, man. you DO raise valid points(such as the vulnerability of OCR). Nobody else needs to be 'taken down' to raise them.

/end rant

I'm sorry if my little speech was ill-timed. I just felt that had to be said. I'll resume lurking now.

If what you're asking me is to be less passionate, than no. I won't. I won't stop being passionate about a subject just to make a few more people online feel more comfortable. Facts are facts, and I will treat them as such with the hope that someone will treat mine with equal vigor.

[anosou]

There are larger implications, though. For instance, fan projects, like the ones Squeenix shuts down vigorously. For instance, Chronotorious or the OneUps Vol. 1 + 2, which are blatant pirate works and are totally illegal because they don't pay royalties. For instance, Super Mario Crossover, which should be totally legal, even for sale, since SMB was made before 1997... but isn't because Congress arbitrarily and at the behest of private interests extended and overbroadened copyright terms, effectively killing the public domain that Super Mario Bros. should belong in.

Whether OCR is legal or not is bound inextricably to whether other art forms and derivative works are legal or not, so to protect one is to protect all. At least one person in this thread has learned about how pants on head retarded it is that OCR isn't legal and can never be under current law. It's that kind of bottom-up education that moves people to write their representatives, to do research, to join advocacy groups.

OCR hasn't been sued in 10 years. That doesn't mean you should all leave the door open to be sued in the future.

Razakin asked me to post this (he's forgotten his OCR account and password): http://www.oneupstudios.com/boards/showthread.php?6286-Legal-rights

[JackKieser]

Have a few minutes between classes. Compulsory licenses only apply if notice has been given on a song by song basis and if royalties are paid at a rate set by Congress.

[Antonio Pizza]

Apples are yummy.

[Gario]

You should post here more often.

[Ramaniscence]

Apples are yummy.

Deeeeeeeeeeeeelicious.

[Jodo Kast]

"The only law is the law that there is no law."

-John Wheeler (physicist)

[zircon]

Surprisingly what Jack has said here is largely accurate from the purely legal standpoint. But any speculation as to whether OCR would 'win' in court is really pointless. You can cherry-pick examples of fair use working or not working, but ultimately, there is a gigantic mound of case law out there and people earning six figures a year would be getting paid to sift through it and argue their case. Like Larry said, if you're not a lawyer, you can't speak with any authority on whether OCR would have a successful fair use defense or not. That includes you, Wes

My degree was "Music Industry" so this is a topic I care deeply about. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think there is an ethical problem with pirating out-of-print/unavailable soundtracks. Likewise, I have a problem with software developers who require internet authorization to use their product, then go out of business or stop supporting the product, rendering it useless. People should be allowed to crack that product (that they legally bought) in order to use it, and I do think copyright law needs some tweaking to accommodate cases like those.

The thing is though, it's VERY hard to make one-size-fits-all law. That's why fair use is so tricky - there are multiple factors used in determining whether or not a particular use is fair use, and it's always case-by-case. While I advocate changes like the above, we have to be careful not to penalize people who are doing their best to distribute their work, for example.

[SubNormal J3]

Well said.

[Doulifée]

he OneUps Vol. 1 + 2, which are blatant pirate works and are totally illegal because they don't pay royalties.

Someone can back me up on this but mustin pay royalties for his album,the sega album tracklist was modified because he couldn't have the right to use sonic 1 soundtrack.