OCR monetizing mixes on YouTube

[Neifion]

16 minutes ago, Patrick Burns said:

If the terms were your main concern, you can disregard my responses. I mistakenly gathered that you were concerned about being unfairly involved in something new or risky, which were the concerns I was addressing.

Naw, that's why I asked (very rudely, and I apologize) if you had listened to what I said, because I had previously affirmed that what OCR is doing now is the same as what it has always done.

[Pavos]

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

[Ivan Hakštok]

Here's the main question that everyone's avoiding:

Why are you remixing video game music?

Honestly, the only valid answer to this should be: to honor great melodies, games and composers, and to make people who also like those melodies, games or composers a bit happier, while learning new things about making music in the process.

Sure, people may not always like what you're doing, but there are some people who will like it. And those few people who like it are what makes doing remixes worth it.

So, if somebody is making a little bit of money off my music, which is then used to help my music get to more people who may like it, I won't have any problem with that.

 

Nobody here except for ocremix itself should be concerned with any legal issues. Your songs won't disappear if ocremix gets shut down. Your songs are already on millions of computers all over the world. Drink some tea and stop bitching.

[Brandon Strader]

Hmm, that might be a fair question for staff to reflect on. Why have the remixers to date made their remixes? Was it because they love the music and making it, or because they someday wanted staff to go behind their back and decide to start making money from it without telling or asking anyone? Fair question Ivan. 

You say nobody but OCR should worry about legal issues, but the content policy clearly pushes liability onto the remixer. As such we have a duty to have this discussion, and you dismissing it as bitching is doing everyone, including yourself, a disservice. 

[Ivan Hakštok]

What legal liability is on the remixers? None.

 

Any money being made is used to promote the music. It's not going into anyone's pocket. And that's the key thing.

[Platonist]

11 hours ago, IForgotMyPassword said:

Every post I've seen by him in the past six months (or longer) has been him trying to stir up controversy.

He's always been like this, don't worry about it. It's not a recent development.  The first step to having a productive conversation on OCR is to ignore Brandon. 

[Brandon Strader]

I've not always been like this, OCR made me like this, and they know it. Also if your only contribution to the conversation is to insult me you can fuck right off. 

[Jorito]

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.

[Brandon Strader]

This really isn't about me in any way though, and anyone who claims to know me based on my interactions on OCR - for which my morale and good will is at an all time low - is absurd, unfair, and inflammatory. I don't have OCR problems in real life, because real life has never presented the issues OCR has over the years. To suggest I have some kind of problem outside of OCR is making an assumption based on basically nothing. If the criticism is that I'm always here to call OCR out whenever they do something unethical or borderline illegal, then I wear that as a badge of honor. The same now as I did for the first iteration of the attempted FF6 Kickstarter. 

At any rate, my opinion has been thoroughly shared and it'd be fair to get more perspectives on the issue. There's also a post in the OCR group where some people are sharing their views. Rather than fighting with people and derailing the thread, I'll step out so others can share their opinion, and I'd recommend the same  to anyone not contributing. 

[begoma]

I agree that this is a slippery slope. I understand that you need money to run a site, but in my experience (I'm an IT guy too) website operation costs are almost always overestimated (you admitted yourself that there is a surplus). I can tell you right off the bat that this makes me less likely to submit music in the future. 

I believe in being upfront with the people who produce the content, and this was not upfront at all. The fact that you have to justify your actions  (to me) means You should have let everyone know. That's my issue here. If your justification works now it should have worked in a more upfront manner. This was not an experiment. Everyone who has submitted content here feels like they have a little stake in the site. Pointing to a policy is something Microsoft would do. 

I know I haven't submitted much here, but I would like to see more openness about things like this. Otherwise I might as well just stick to my soundcloud channel when it comes to posting remixes.

Then again when it comes down to it djpretzel owns the site and can do whatever he wants. From the looks of the posts only recourse is to move on if I disagree.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I think along with Chimpazilla's suggestions, OCR should probably step on filing the 501c3 designation. I think in light of the discomfort of revenue streams it would make it crystal clear that it's non-profit in any potential legal-related scuffle.

[Hy Bound]

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). 

 

 

[Newt]

6 hours ago, Patrick Burns said:

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.

It's important to remember that OCR is not a 501(c)(3) organization. Staff has been talking about registering for years, but has not done so.

If they were, 501(c)(3) organizations are not exempt from compensating their staff. Nor do I think they should be. Nor do I think OCR should not compensate their staff if they were in a position to do so and doing so would further the site's (not the staff's) interests.

501(c)(3) organizations *are* required to open their books. I am unable to say unequivocally that OCR has not given staff money, but it is unlikely any sum proffered directly or nefariously is meaningful because total revenue is not large. Were OCR a 501(c)(3) organization this would be plainly obvious

 

I do not know if OCR is registered as a non-profit organization. I do know that many states will not give nonprofit status to LLC's of which OCR claims to be (eg, footer on main site). The only business I was quickly able to find was registered in Virginia but appears to no longer be a going concern.

[BardicKnowledge]

18 hours ago, Neblix said:

Whether or not this is ethical as far as OCR's relationship with the artists who have submitted this music, to me, is secondary to the concern that this is kind of damaging the good case we had for Fair Use as far as arranging copyrighted material and releasing it publicly unlicensed.

*snip*

Submission policy notwithstanding, I also feel artists should get appropriate portion of revenue. My music is creating money, why aren't I getting that money?

 

You argue that you're mostly concerned with fair use, and then talk about why you're not being paid -- two completely separate discussions that you yourself identified as such.

I'll get to fair use; as for payment, the Content Policy means that the site is never going to pay you by definition, because any revenue made is explicitly forbidden from anything that isn't "directly associated with the operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix."  See #1 and #5 under the Content Policy for the full text. 

16 hours ago, Neblix said:

 I think this is definitely a case where old wording is being exploited a bit too liberally, beyond the assumed intention of what people may have agreed to several years ago, before streaming and content monetization were a dominant force in the internet. The issue is not that the agreement doesn't cover the activity, the issue is that the agreement isn't fair because the climate has changed over the years, and it needs revision to either protect this new usage pronto, or stop using the music this way, or some kind of middle ground, not sure. If it does, though, as I said before, I'm concerned that this edges closer to OCR's activities no longer falling under Fair Use.

Fair use aside (wait for zircon's posts :p), I think this is the most valid point anyone has made.  While the Content Policy does allow OC ReMix to do this, it might be nice to explicitly make clear how that monetization occurs, and I understand why an artist might want that.  Updating the language here seems a fair request worthy of consideration.

 

13 hours ago, Newt said:

 

snip snip; i don't think i'm cutting context though...

You should avoid the non-profit thing, as it doesn't make the argument you're trying to get it to make. Non-profits generate tons of revenue each year, they simply can't account profit. Often the revenue goes directly to the board, or into a trust for their use. Non-profits are also not equivalent to charities. Even if they did, many charities have maintainers that line their pockets from their activities (I make no judgement of whether this is good/bad; I expect many earn their keep many times over).

Tom is absolutely correct here -- churches are non-profit but pay their pastors, secretaries, etc.  Charitable organizations can get to be quite large -- Lutheran World Relief has a hundred employees or so in the Twin Cities area alone.  Related: It is my contention that you could pay the site staff and STILL be well within the bounds of fair use; as anyone on staff can attest, there is a high time commitment to be a judge or core staff member here.  Because of how other people don't seem to understand or agree though, let me reiterate that currently, no staff member has ever been paid for their extraordinary volunteer efforts.

13 hours ago, zircon said:

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).

 

For anyone who wants to learn more about a fair use defense (and it IS a defense -- it is always going to go to court if the copyright holder wants to push on it), I highly recommend Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2 as your textbook.  It contains a the full court decisions for Luther R. Campbell AKA Luke Skywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and an analysis of it -- the case that established fair use in the music world (more colloquially, it's 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman.")

 

 

[Nabeel Ansari]

11 minutes ago, BardicKnowledge said:

You argue that you're mostly concerned with fair use, and then talk about why you're not being paid -- two completely separate discussions that you yourself identified as such.

The relationship (financial and otherwise) between OCR and the artists I said was secondary. It's still of high importance.

My concern is not the lack of being paid by itself, my post was pointing out the paradoxical nature of trying to pursue ethical behavior. OCR SHOULD be paying the artists, but it CAN'T (for tons of reasons, the content policy, the lack of infrastructure, copyright infringement, etc.), and I was using that as a reason why the behavior should stop OR some other solution be reached, like Chimp's suggestions.

I don't care about not making some bucks off the YouTube videos, I merely care about OCR and its staff pursuing as honest a form of operations as they can, and they want to, I am providing perspective on things that factor into that honesty, to help them make a decision based on more diversified communty member opinion.

[BardicKnowledge]

29 minutes ago, Neblix said:

My concern is not the lack of being paid by itself, my post was pointing out the paradoxical nature of trying to pursue ethical behavior. OCR SHOULD be paying the artists, but it CAN'T (for tons of reasons, the content policy, the lack of infrastructure, copyright infringement, etc.), and I was using that as a reason why the behavior should stop OR some other solution be reached, like Chimp's suggestions.

I don't care about not making some bucks off the YouTube videos, I merely care about OCR and its staff pursuing as honest a form of operations as they can, and they want to, I am providing perspective on things that factor into that honesty, to help them make a decision based on more diversified communty member opinion.

Define "SHOULD," please.  

Legally they are not bound to do so, as you license the music to them at no charge when you submit!  Similarly, paying artists does not directly support the site, which goes against the Content Policy.  And, as you have pointed out, it would hurt their case for a successful fair use defense if they were ever taken to court.

Ethically, if you don't think the site should be using the music without paying the artist, maybe don't submit music to them given the existance of their Content Policy?  It's there for you to peruse _before_ you submit, not the other way around.  It's my opinion that the music supports the mission, promoting video game music as an art form.  

[Nabeel Ansari]

45 minutes ago, BardicKnowledge said:

Ethically, if you don't think the site should be using the music without paying the artist, maybe don't submit music to them given the existance of their Content Policy?  It's there for you to peruse _before_ you submit, not the other way around.  It's my opinion that the music supports the mission, promoting video game music as an art form.  

I spent several whole posts detailing why the submission policy argument is dishonest. The submission policy is too old to assume good faith on; it needs to be updated to match the climate of what's going on right now. YouTube streaming was not a thing when it was written. Spotify was not a thing when it was written. The submission policy as it stands is prohibitive (not legally, but from a community relations standpoint) both to OCR and its artists to continue pursuing more avenues.

OCR wasn't making direct money off of the music back when I had submitted music using the submission policy. So you're absolutely correct; if the submission policy doesn't change, I likely won't continue to submit music to OCR under its content policy, in light of the fact that now there is direct monetization of my content on a major platform and they are doing so in a stealthy back-handed way rather than an upfront and honest way. I have no problem with it happening, I simply would have liked to agree to it. Not in a "well this counts as this section of the submission agreement you agreed to like 8 years ago". I would have like to agreed to it in a "we are going to pursue avenues of monetizing the music on different platforms and you are waiving the right to share in the revenue."

When I submit music according to a policy I want to know what the extent of that policy is. YouTube monetization didn't exist when I subbed my first remixes, and OCR was not monetizing still even up to my last Apex remix. The content policy allows them to do these things, but it doesn't do it in a way that makes it clear to the artist what's going on.

I keep seeing this argument that OCR is within their right to do this given the policy. That's not the point. Saying "but we can, you agreed to it when you hit the button" is not honest. It's legal. It's not honest.

The point is that these reactions by artists are genuine, and they feel it is dishonest. Making decisions on cut-throat legal language in the shadows is something a business does. It's not something a community does. A community is supposed to be transparent and make intentions clear beyond the letter of the law, so that everyone is comfortable, member retention is high, and the community and its activities can continue to expand without this ludicrous 200-reply thread controversy happening every single damn time something new is tried.

[Garde]

Forgive me if this has already been said, but how and where you get your money absolutely matters in terms of ethics. A licensed pharmacist cannot sell drugs from their home, a food truck, etc. They need to sell them through the proper channels.

While youtube ads might be functionally the same thing as website ads, they are distinct. You are changing the channels through which you are getting money and you really should evaluate whether it is ethical to be using someone else's work as a monetized commodity on a different platform. 

Youtube is divorced from the operating costs of this actual website, and I think that is something you need to examine closely. You are not paying for hosting costs on youtube.

[Patrick Burns]

10 minutes ago, Newt said:

It's important to remember that OCR is not a 501(c)(3) organization. Staff has been talking about registering for years, but has not done so.

If they were, 501(c)(3) organizations are not exempt from compensating their staff. Nor do I think they should be. Nor do I think OCR should not compensate their staff if they were in a position to do so and doing so would further the site's (not the staff's) interests.

501(c)(3) organizations *are* required to open their books. I am unable to say unequivocally that OCR has not given staff money, but it is unlikely any sum proffered directly or nefariously is meaningful because total revenue is not large. Were OCR a 501(c)(3) organization this would be plainly obvious

 

I do not know if OCR is registered as a non-profit organization. I do know that many states will not give nonprofit status to LLC's of which OCR claims to be (eg, footer on main site). The only business I was quickly able to find was registered in Virginia but appears to no longer be a going concern.

You're right that they aren't a 501c3 --- I am highlighting their interest in becoming one as at least one reason we should trust that they aren't squirreling our remix dollars away. Whether it ends up being practical or actually happens is another question.

It all comes back to trust. Legal constructs provide an easier avenue to trust in certain ways, but the staff still has to cultivate trust overall. OCR staff, from what I've seen over the years, have continually demonstrated the spirit behind legal constructions like non-profits: stating a greater good mission and bringing in revenue solely to support that. That's why fair use applies to OCR's activities, that's why we shouldn't be worried that ethics are being violated, and that's why I think that people's reaction to YouTube monetization should be more understanding.

Newt I gather that you and I don't disagree... but one of the reasons I wanted to post is because I feel that even positions such as "it's OK but you should have asked" or "they probably haven't taken a meaningful amount of money"--- while legalistically fair --- are very unfair to the non-remixing sweat put into this community over the years---work which is inherently less fun than remixing, and work which should have garnered the staff a large amount of trust capital up to this point. That work should have earned within all of us the understanding that there's nothing dishonest here, because the dishonesty in this case pre-requires some ultimate self-interest, of which there is obviously none.

[timaeus222]

3 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

Hmm, that might be a fair question for staff to reflect on. Why have the remixers to date made their remixes? Was it because they love the music and making it, or because they someday wanted staff to go behind their back and decide to start making money from it without telling or asking anyone? Fair question Ivan.

Dude, no one wanted that riight off-the-bat. Pretty much all of us contributed to OCR to make music. Stop making up stuff bro.

Anyways, djp already said he did that so he'd get honest reactions, and be able to survey genuine responses, and it seems like that's what he got. Maybe now he can make a more informed decision in response to our responses now that we've responded. Because responses.

[Patrick Burns]

14 minutes ago, Garde said:

Forgive me if this has already been said, but how and where you get your money absolutely matters in terms of ethics. A licensed pharmacist cannot sell drugs from their home, a food truck, etc. They need to sell them through the proper channels.

While youtube ads might be functionally the same thing as website ads, they are distinct. You are changing the channels through which you are getting money and you really should evaluate whether it is ethical to be using someone else's work as a monetized commodity on a different platform. 

Youtube is divorced from the operating costs of this actual website, and I think that is something you need to examine closely. You are not paying for hosting costs on youtube.

That's because drugs pose a societal threat outside those channels. Not only that, but the pharmacist is personally profiting from the endeavor. While I agree that not all channels are the same, I'm not sure of how that metaphor applies to the situation.

As far as YouTube being divorced from the operating costs of this website, you're making the very incorrect assumption that some are making here: that operating costs are the only benefit provided by OCR. The diversity of work that goes into this community is much more than operating costs of the website.That work includes of course maintaining a website and forum (and all the hosting, tagging, organization requirements therein), but it also includes maintaining standards of curation quality that upset the fewest number of remixers/listeners, maintaining sufficient standards of transformation/remix to help the fair-use argument fly, providing a social media platform that consistently and quickly brings visibility that our individual pages do not, serving as a sort of proxy to educate interested parties when there are copyright issues (like when the youtube channel was brought down or when the final fantasy project was questioned), cultivating good will with hundreds of individuals in the game development community, planning and organizing ways to help the endeavor grow despite being volunteers with 'real lives,' maintaining the restraint needed to prevent arguments from grinding things to a halt, the list goes on. All of those things and more contribute to the recognition/viability OCR has as a whole, including what it is able to accomplish on social media.

[Garde]

59 minutes ago, Patrick Burns said:

That's because drugs pose a societal threat outside those channels. Not only that, but the pharmacist is personally profiting from the endeavor. While I agree that not all channels are the same, I'm not sure of how that metaphor applies to the situation.

As far as YouTube being divorced from the operating costs of this website, you're making the very incorrect assumption that some are making here: that operating costs are the only benefit provided by OCR. The diversity of work that goes into this community is much more than operating costs of the website.That work includes of course maintaining a website and forum (and all the hosting, tagging, organization requirements therein), but it also includes maintaining standards of curation quality that upset the fewest number of remixers/listeners, maintaining sufficient standards of transformation/remix to help the fair-use argument fly, providing a social media platform that consistently and quickly brings visibility that our individual pages do not, serving as a sort of proxy to educate interested parties when there are copyright issues (like when the youtube channel was brought down or when the final fantasy project was questioned), cultivating good will with hundreds of individuals in the game development community, planning and organizing ways to help the endeavor grow despite being volunteers with 'real lives,' maintaining the restraint needed to prevent arguments from grinding things to a halt, the list goes on. All of those things and more contribute to the recognition/viability OCR has as a whole, including what it is able to accomplish on social media.

I was just providing an extreme example of why changing how and where you're acquiring income matters, even if the method or product is technically the same. In this case, OCR is still getting income from ads, but the means of delivering them has changed. And those things you bring up, almost none of those benefits are provided on youtube. Last I checked, the song write ups weren't even in the video descriptions or in the videos. As for that fair use thing, you can actually acquire the rights to cover/arrange almost any video game songs through a particular website now very easily at essentially no cost. I won't plug it because that's not the point of what I'm getting at.

As for those volunteers and the work/labor that goes into maintaining this site, if they aren't getting paid, then they are not a part of operation costs. Period. And if they're getting paid, can you really call them volunteers if they're being compensated for their work? So which is it? Are they getting paid or not? Because if they're not getting paid, then operation costs should be strictly limited to maintaining the site and any record label type services OCR allegedly provides its contributors.

[Kenogu Labz]

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.

[Nabeel Ansari]

"I disagree with you, therefore you are emotional and have no logic" is the only baffling recurrent thing being said in this thread.

Disagreeing with someone's logic does not make your logic correct and the opposing logic null.

[Kenogu Labz]

The primary recurring argument I've seen is that, "YouTube ads feel different than web ads."  No more, and no less.