OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - Final Enacted 6/12/2007

[Rambo]

I know I'm a nobody on these forums, but I thought I'd share that I personally find my interests conflicting when I see agreements like that. I've wanted to submit some art pieces on certain sites in the past but have opted not to because of similar contract details. I've been fiddling around with music programs and have wanted to join the remixing community, but that agreement threw me off a little. I'm a bit of a perfectionist.. and should I feel in a year that my first, or any contribution SUCKED and wasn't a good representation of my work, I wouldn't want it displayed as such.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting what to do, because I'm sure a lot of work goes into integrating new additions onto the site (and removing), not to mention time on evaluation, but I wanted to let you know that it can certainly be a turn off.

I like the idea that should the person abuse it (not have a good reason) that DJP should have the right to reject future submissions.

[zircon]

Worth noting.. at this point, no "bad" subs make it on to the site. Our standards are high enough that anything you do, even if YOU think it's crappy, will probably be quite good - and definitely enjoyable by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Like I said before I don't think it's really fair to the general public to want to rescind your stuff just because you don't like it, when so many people would enjoy it.

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed. How do you think the average person would feel if (what they considered to be) a great mix was removed on the whim of a remixer who just didn't want to share it anymore because he has better stuff? Nearly every remixer on this site has grown by leaps and bounds and we all have stuff up that doesn't represent our best work, but we keep it up anyway. This would probably not be a very interesting site if people removed their stuff that was over a year old. I doubt we'd have more than a few hundred remixes.

Just my opinion.

[Sir_NutS]

I consider it ethically reprehensible to remove an arrangement of someone else's music from a free hosting service, which offered free evaluation, criticism, hosting, distribution, and community review, for almost any reason. Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal is one of the only potential exceptions. I think I've already made the point that there's "ethical reprehensibility" on either side of this equation.... multiple times... but heck, I'll do it again.

yes, and since there's ethical reprehensibility on both sides, what gives your side special treatment, or complete control over the decision? you did a lot of work to judge and post the song, and the artist did a lot of work as well in making his song to support this website that he considers worth of supporting. Nobody is earning money out of it here, so neither of the sides will get hurt on that. So why the closed-mindedness and the obvious bias towards the site?

I think that in this situations both sides need to get a part of the damage, and in the case presented, OCR protects itself agaisnt all damage, leaving the artist without any weapon to justify or defend himself. I will sound repetitive but I find this anti-ethical, and even more seeing as there isn't any intention of proposing a better solution from the staff's side at the moment. All I see is "you're wrong, I'm completely right"

Both sides, the artists and the website, are working together to fulfill the goals of this venture, which are clearly stated in the front page and I won't copy them again. In the case of a break between the parts, OCR is obviously going out of it clean, while the artist will just have to suck it up. If they are working together to fulfill the goal, and both get their own benefits from it, why the only one damaged when the deal is broken is the artist? could you please at least consider this, and think about an scenario where there is a conciliation (sp?) between the parts in the case of a breakup? That would make this document more "welcoming". Right now it makes OCR look like an entity that will "eat" your songs away instead of a welcoming community that will work together with you to fulfill its mission.

[Compyfox]

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed. How do you think the average person would feel if (what they considered to be) a great mix was removed on the whim of a remixer who just didn't want to share it anymore because he has better stuff?

Then again, Andrew, there's still OCReMoved hosted by Doulifé where even my mix is still on there, also Virts long lost material (still love that Toejam&Earl track). If we take a closer look, we weren't asked either whether or not we agree that these tracks are still publised, they just are. And if we talk about that, VGMix also has/had some kind of mirror of OCR mixes, too. So the tracks are not really "that" lost in certain ways to those who want to really get it. And like mentioned over and over, people still "have" the song somewhere (or loaded already), not to mention that P2P systems are crowded with OCRemixes - so yeah, we'd still have no influence of the "fan side", but on the "page side" - the officual ways.

Anyway, this came up in the other thread, and I think it's a good alternative to discuss. Actually Dhsu came up with the idea, but let me quote from my other post:

Perhaps one such middle ground would be initiating lockdown periods before events such as torrent or DVD releases, and including a clause in the policy stating that remixes cannot be removed after they have been locked down. During the lockdown period, ReMixers would be given one last chance to opt out, and if they don't, their ReMixes default to being locked.

Two reasons why this would/could not work:

1) There will be no further lockdown according to DJP himself (chat)

2) How do you contact all remixers? And if you can't reach them within the time the lockdown runs out (for example in stormy area's), what then? Is it still valid?

I'd agree with this option however. This is indeed a more fair deal than just giving the tracks away and then you're stuck with an infinite and irrevocable release, or releases on physical medium. So if this'd be pulled off, I'd consider a vote change.

Though there's still the thing with my "uber-hypothetical what-if scenario" (/quote DJP), but this is something completely different, and while it's still a valid reason for a removal IMO, it's a special exception and needs to be discussed seperately.

This idea actually found some positive response in the "closed poll" already by Sir_Nuts and Radical Dreamer. If such a system could be implemented, it would mean a bit more work indeed, but it's making this whole "rules thing" a bit more interesting, not to mention more relaxed and open-minded, for all participants.

Though we still can't predict the future (my "hypothetical scenario" again), but it's a start. Maybe a thing to consider?

[djpretzel]

We'll be extending the discussion with the goal of revising into a final policy on or before June 2nd.

[DragonFireKai]

It'd be nice if you could give us an honest appraisal of the draft, in terms of what sections are pretty much set, and which sections are still up for debate, for the sake of streamlining the discussion.

[Liontamer]

It'd be nice if you could give us an honest appraisal of the draft, in terms of what sections are pretty much set, and which sections are still up for debate, for the sake of streamlining the discussion.

He may show up later, but it's Memorial Day weekend, so AFAIK he's out for now.

[DragonFireKai]

He may show up later, but it's Memorial Day weekend, so AFAIK he's out for now.

Well, apparently we have until June 2nd now, so there's time. I don't need it immediately. I just think it'd be helpful for streamlining future discussion.

[Bahamut]

So...any other concerns with the draft?

So far, my appraisal is that BrainCells brings a legitimate point of concern, although I do believe the community has grown to the point that if there is ever an exchange of authority from djp to someone else, that the transition would be seamless. It is still something to watch for as it is something that cannot be predicted nor prevented. I cannot say I agree with the mandated pulling of a track to put it on a commercial album though, for the reason djp already stated - I don't see that as right at all.

[Dhsu]

I think we're mostly waiting for feedback on the mini-lockdown proposal, or perhaps some other alternative.

[The Pezman]

I've been wondering this for a while...

I imagine some of you are aware of the concept of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/). It's a special type of licensing which encourages collaboration, reuse and remixing; an extension of the concept of open-source, except applied to digital production other than code. Not ALL rights are released, just some of them.

Has the idea of applying such a license to albums (if not individual songs) come up before? If not, I would enocurage it; doing so would create an official tie between OCRemix and Creative Commons, and people who were not previously aware of the concept would be brought into the fold. And if, by contrast, you already use CC licenses on your songs (and thus make most of this post totally irrelevant) I would request that you make it more public (perhaps a link to the CC website).

[herograw]

Apologies for the belated post. Had I been able to I would have made it sooner. there might be some repetition in here from my post in the poll thread.

As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time.

I'm relatively certain the policy would please nearly everyone if you allowed remixers to take down their mixes by request. A lot of people in agreement aren't especially hung up on the issue we've been discussing and they would probably still agree with the draft if it were changed to allow removal. Perhaps you should do a poll for this and see which policy turns out more popular, instead of going all-or-none like you are.

That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

Yet the entire worldwide recording, publishing, and songwriting industry more or less operates under legally binding contracts just like this.

We aren't them and I don't want us to be (referring to other sites, such as soundclick).

We don't have a say in those other policies. Are you (zircon) trying to say that we should have as bad a policy as others? As dave stated, we don't want to be like another site. As we have been given the choice to look over the policy and suggest changes, that's exactly what we're doing. Dave wouldn't want us to look over it if he didn't expect modifications and disagreements.

And a few of the examples that Dave gave of reasons people want to remove their work are, in my non-site-staff opinion, stupid and petty, particularly the one about having a personal problem with a person on the site and using a removal request as a means of retaliation. That's petty, and to be honest, I don't think that something like that is ever a valid reason to remove one's music from the site.

Straw-man? lemme see.... ahh, wikipedia is always there for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. I have to mention right now that I don't believe it is relevant what reason the mixer has for wanting his mix removed. Why should we have to mention why? Dave doesn't. remixes can be removed by djp for any or no reason at all but the actual remixer is supposed to give a good reason to get his or her own mix removed?

Also consider the public outcry against the lockdowns by many people who had their favorite remixes removed.

These lockdowns were generally done by the judges and not the actual mixers. I think fans would understand better if the mix's actual creator wanted it removed.

This would probably not be a very interesting site if people removed their stuff that was over a year old.

Can someone who actually knows give us an idea of how often this sort of thing happens? because it appears that those arguing for the contract (generalized) believe people will want their mixes taken down all the time, and those against believe it happens scarcely.

random notes:

Those of us on the 'against' side have not only offered our reasons but offered several alternatives. dave and others offer no compromise whatsoever. They stubbornly stick to the original. Why is this? It's obvious that a significant portion of the community (and SURPRISE, this includes remixers) take issue with this part of the policy. Why not seek alternatives?

I said this in the poll thread, but it's worth restating. Those in agreement with the site at a particular time who submit mixes might want nothing to do with the site at a later date, due to whatever changes might occur. Now, if I want nothing to do with a group i've formerly been involved with I really mean "nothing." Having my mix on a site I no longer want anything to do with associates me unfairly. Fine, people downloaded the song thousands of time. There's a difference between being "previously" associated to a site and "currently" associated.

Just because you can't scurry around and change the ID3 tags on every downloaded file doesn't mean you can't do anything about it. Keeping the song on the site is analogous to continuing to use freon because it has done so much damage already. Yeah, it's a pain that we can no longer use freon. But we don't use it, do we?

As far as protecting the listeners by keeping songs on the site, you guys aren't protecting listeners by scaring away new and old talent with this policy. It's a trend that remixers tend to get better with experience. I'd rather get better new stuff than cling on to less impressive old stuff.

I could probably keep babbling but this should be enough.

-rob

[djpretzel]

I haven't heard any further mention of whether the policy/contract applies to project albums / tracks that are already done but are on unreleased project albums.

The policy will apply to projects. In order to become an official OCR site project, the policy must be agreed to by every contributing artist. We will attempt to attain policy agreements from past projects, to whatever extent that is possible. The policy itself won't spell out anything specific to projects; since it refers to "materials", this is broad enough already. The project guidelines at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Album_Project_Guidelines will be modified once the policy has been finalized to refer to them as part of the process.

I've been wondering this for a while...

I imagine some of you are aware of the concept of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/). It's a special type of licensing which encourages collaboration, reuse and remixing; an extension of the concept of open-source, except applied to digital production other than code. Not ALL rights are released, just some of them.

Has the idea of applying such a license to albums (if not individual songs) come up before? If not, I would enocurage it; doing so would create an official tie between OCRemix and Creative Commons, and people who were not previously aware of the concept would be brought into the fold. And if, by contrast, you already use CC licenses on your songs (and thus make most of this post totally irrelevant) I would request that you make it more public (perhaps a link to the CC website).

Actually, I asked Lawrence Lessig himself about that, and got this response:

CC licenses require the licensor have the rights to the content he licenses. So an arranger would need permission to arrange any copyrighted work.

Pretty much. Even if it were possible, CC isn't *exactly* what we're looking for. Sure, we could build on it, but it appears Lessig himself rules CC out, and he probably knows it better than us, I'd hope

I have to mention right now that I don't believe it is relevant what reason the mixer has for wanting his mix removed. Why should we have to mention why? Dave doesn't. remixes can be removed by djp for any or no reason at all but the actual remixer is supposed to give a good reason to get his or her own mix removed?

...

Those of us on the 'against' side have not only offered our reasons but offered several alternatives. dave and others offer no compromise whatsoever. They stubbornly stick to the original. Why is this? It's obvious that a significant portion of the community (and SURPRISE, this includes remixers) take issue with this part of the policy. Why not seek alternatives?

I said this in the poll thread, but it's worth restating. Those in agreement with the site at a particular time who submit mixes might want nothing to do with the site at a later date, due to whatever changes might occur. Now, if I want nothing to do with a group i've formerly been involved with I really mean "nothing." Having my mix on a site I no longer want anything to do with associates me unfairly. Fine, people downloaded the song thousands of time. There's a difference between being "previously" associated to a site and "currently" associated.

A few things:

• As far as your first point, as to removal reasons, I'd agree that the policy is one-sided in that it allows mix removal for pretty much ANY reason. I intend to rewrite that to be more limited. A third draft is on the way. It will limit removal reasons on our part to requests by the copyright owner or violations of the submission policy. Note that the submission policy changes, however, and is not carved in stone... this is unfortunate, but at the very least it would mean that we couldn't just remove mixes willy nilly unless there was SOMETHING in the submission policy that indicated as such.
  
• As far as a significant portion of the community objecting, that's subjective. In a certain sense, even ONE person objecting is "significant"... in another sense, coming up with a policy that would please everyone and their grandma is probably impossible. Some of the "significant" objectors are people that have other beefs with us in the first place... I might add that, if you're trying to make an argument based on reason, your own behavior on our forums with regards to moderators seriously damages your credibility in my book. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?
  
• As far as being "associated" with something... that's just weak. We're doing a substantial amount of work to evaluate and post each mix. If you don't wanna be "associated" with something... guess what: don't release any of your music, anywhere. If you think OCR is some sort of service that it is your RIGHT to submit music to and revoke at your whim, this policy is flatly stating otherwise; some people seem to not only understand, but support, that notion. Perhaps the modification to the policy that we can't just remove mixes for any reason we like will address your major concerns and that'll describe you as well. That's one compromise that's been proposed and which I think makes sense. But if you want to sit around waiting until we've made every compromise possible, and you can submit a piece, remove it, submit again under a different name, etc. and otherwise take advantage of the work that myself and the site staff and everyone else puts in... don't hold your breath.

To everyone else, my apologies for not resurrecting this sooner; it's June 2nd, and I've been AWOL in terms of discussing the proposed compromises.

Let me state my general frame of mind:

I'm prepared, as stated above, to make it harder for OCR to remove an artist's mixes. I agree that the policy as written is lopsided in giving arbitrary removal to one side and almost none to the other. Seeing as I hate removing mixes, and only wish to do so if the submission standards have clearly been violated, this isn't a big "sacrifice", but it does address a certain unfairness in the current draft.

I'm still not persuaded to formalize any sort of "cooling off" period or intermittent policy freeze periods where artists would reaffirm their mixes existence on the site. My reasons are as follows:

• It's more work. Sorry, just being frank.... devote seven years of your youth to a website and then see where you stand on issues like these
  
• It sacrifices/dilutes the positive aspects of the policy that will benefit many for the reassurance of the few.
  
• There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.

Prophecy has kindly provided a legal analysis of some of the wording that I need to look over; I don't think it will affect the substance of the policy, but it may.

As it stands now, the following changes will be made in the third draft, which hopefully will be final:

• OCR won't be able to remove mixes for any old reason; copyright owner requests and submission standards violations will be the only two reasons.
  
  
• Accreditation exceptions for live performances will be clarified.
  
  
• General legal rewording and clarification.

The 2nd draft has been moved to http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy so we can track changes using Wiki functionality. This will be its permanent resting place, but it is still in draft form. I will be working on the wording and should have a third draft out sometime this weekend. Afterwards, we can discuss any remaining issues, but if the removal aspect is still the focus and the compromise regarding limiting OCR's removal options does not satisfy some, we will probably have to move ahead and finalize regardless.

[herograw]

I might add that, if you're trying to make an argument based on reason, your own behavior on our forums with regards to moderators seriously damages your credibility in my book. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?

I like to take others seriously when in serious situations, such as this. When I make an argument based on reason I expect only my reason to be criticized, and not my character in other, unrelated situations.

While I still think we're not seeing on the same level on some points, I believe this disparity of opinion occurs at a deeper level, and further explanation isn't going to give my point the equivalent further clarity.

As for your other points about restricting removal rights granted to ocr, that sounds much better and overall more fair to me than previous discussion. If such actions are taken as reflect your current line of thinking I would wholeheartedly give my support. Not that you need by support, but it would be there nevertheless.

Thank you for responding civilly, regardless of whatever opinions you might have about my character.

-rob

P.S.

There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.

Perhaps you could give a reason for the remixer needing a reason

[DragonFireKai]

Are we going to have an opportunity to look over this upcoming 3rd draft and give our input before it's made into law?

[djpretzel]

Are we going to have an opportunity to look over this upcoming 3rd draft and give our input before it's made into law?

Absolutely. I do sorta want to avoid rehashing issues that have already been raised, but there wouldn't be much point to calling it a draft if it wasn't going to be revised, and the same group that's been revising it (indirectly - and doing a great job) should continue to be involved. That's everybody.

[Bahamut]

I like to take others seriously when in serious situations, such as this. When I make an argument based on reason I expect only my reason to be criticized, and not my character in other, unrelated situations.

So far, a good portion of dissent with the policy has been demonstrated to be with those of questionable character with questionable skews. For the nature of the only valid point of contention (Braincell's dissent), character plays an important role here, and from what has been seen from a moderator perspective (as well as your tangential rant), you fall into this category for not taking moderators seriously. In addition, a large portion of your complaints use twisted, or even no justification, as has been addressed previously (i.e. the significant comment, and abuse of submission).

And an important reminder to all commenting on the policy: Do not use this thread or the poll thread as a platform to go on hate rants - this thread is for productive discussion to put together a feasible policy that is amenable to as many people as possible as well as the site. If you wish to make another thread on the (supposed) vices of OCR, you may in this forum, but only if it's kept civil.

[DragonFireKai]

So far, a good portion of dissent with the policy has been demonstrated to be with those of questionable character with questionable skews. For the nature of the only valid point of contention (Braincell's dissent), character plays an important role here, and from what has been seen from a moderator perspective (as well as your tangential rant), you fall into this category for not taking moderators seriously. In addition, a large portion of your complaints use twisted, or even no justification, as has been addressed previously (i.e. the significant comment, and abuse of submission).

How do I have questionable character? Or Coop, or Dhsu, or AP? I think we've all raised valid points, and it's kinda insulting to get painted with a broad brush due to the past actions of a few people who share our views on this particular topic. Please don't write us off like that.

[Bahamut]

How do I have questionable character? Or Coop, or Dhsu, or AP? I think we've all raised valid points, and it's kinda insulting to get painted with a broad brush due to the past actions of a few people who share our views on this particular topic. Please don't write us off like that.

Nah, not you guys or S|r Nuts, although I have to wonder about Dhsu at times. You guys are being candid and we appreciate that. Those others I reference there know who they are though.

[Dhsu]

Some of the "significant" objectors are people that have other beefs with us in the first place...

And many aren't.

I might add that, if you're trying to make an argument based on reason, your own behavior on our forums with regards to moderators seriously damages your credibility in my book. If you want to be taken seriously, take others seriously... golden rule, you know?

Actually, I fail to see how the past behavior of a person affects the reason of his argument. If Einstein had killed your parents, it wouldn't have make his theories any less valid. Not to mention there are some troublemakers in the assenting side as well, and I don't see you criticizing their character.

As far as being "associated" with something... that's just weak. We're doing a substantial amount of work to evaluate and post each mix. If you don't wanna be "associated" with something... guess what: don't release any of your music, anywhere.

Sorry, but with regard to being "weak", I have to say your rebuttal ranks pretty high unfortunately. Your "don't release your music anywhere" comment is specious at best; that'd be like asking people to never marry if they ever want the possible option of divorce.

If you think OCR is some sort of service that it is your RIGHT to submit music to and revoke at your whim, this policy is flatly stating otherwise; some people seem to not only understand, but support, that notion.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, removal isn't a right, but it would be a much-appreciated courtesy. And how much trouble would it *really* cause you to provide such a courtesy, considering how un-often it's requested? Perhaps if you actually gave us an idea of how many removal requests you've had since, say, the last lockdown...it'd give us a better perspective on the matter. That's just a suggestion, by the way...I know I don't have a RIGHT to that information.

But if you want to sit around waiting until we've made every compromise possible, and you can submit a piece, remove it, submit again under a different name, etc. and otherwise take advantage of the work that myself and the site staff and everyone else puts in... don't hold your breath.

Okay, there's no way you seriously expect someone to actually submit anything with the actual intention of "taking advantage" of the system. For someone so skeptical of other people's hypothetical scenarios, you definitely come up with some odd ones yourself. In any case, the "gone is gone" policy would very easily take care of the "submitting again" scenario. We're not asking for "every compromise possible" here...just one which for some reason you happen to be particularly unwilling to give.

It's more work. Sorry, just being frank.... devote seven years of your youth to a website and then see where you stand on issues like these

Fair enough.

It sacrifices/dilutes the positive aspects of the policy that will benefit many for the reassurance of the few.

I'm not clear on what positive aspects the requested changes would sacrifice/dilute. Mind clarifying?

There still have been no concrete examples of 100% persuasive removal reasons. herograw can say that we shouldn't need a reason all he wants, but frankly... we do. Period.

This is where I disagree. I can understand instituting this policy because of practical reasons (e.g. too much work), but evaluating someone's personal reasons is not a practice I find appropriate. People don't have to answer to you because quite simply you're not the boss of them, to use an age-old argument. When it comes to judging, OCR should keep its jurisdiction to music, not motives.

Edit: I just now realized how hypocritical the above post may seem, considering I'm criticizing your reasons. But the difference here is I'm not demanding a "100% persuasive" explanation for how your run your site...just asking for a small concession.

[Bahamut]

Okay, there's no way you seriously expect someone to actually submit anything with the actual intention of "taking advantage" of the system. For someone so skeptical of other people's hypothetical scenarios, you definitely come up with some odd ones yourself. In any case, the "gone is gone" policy would very easily take care of the "submitting again" scenario. We're not asking for "every compromise possible" here...just one which for some reason you happen to be particularly unwilling to give.

I think Protricity would be a perfect example of someone who might go to that extreme.

This is where I disagree. I can understand instituting this policy because of practical reasons (e.g. too much work), but evaluating someone's personal reasons is not a practice I find appropriate. People don't have to answer to you because quite simply you're not the boss of them, to use an age-old argument. OCR should keep its jurisdiction to music, not motives.

I think a reason should be appropriate though - as the removals aren't to be just by request, there should be a substantial reason for OCR to remove a track by request. If anything, this helps the artist & maintains OCR's protection from malicious motives. I can see where disagreement may come here, so is there any other potential solution that'd be amenable to the remixers & OCR?

[Dhsu]

I think Protricity would be a perfect example of someone who might go to that extreme.

Ha, perhaps. Then maybe in that particular case, keeping Prot's remixes is punishment enough.

I think a reason should be appropriate though - as the removals aren't to be just by request, there should be a substantial reason for OCR to remove a track by request. If anything, this helps the artist & maintains OCR's protection from malicious motives.

I guess I can see that, but the real problem here might not be the need to provide a reason...plenty of people have already posted situations in which they think a removal would be warranted. The problem is that it's entirely up to djp to decide whether the reasons are "good enough." What if he gets a request saying "If you don't remove my mix I'll kill myself and my whole family" but then decides it's not "good enough"?

I can see where disagreement may come here, so is there any other potential solution that'd be amenable to the remixers & OCR?

Well, personally, I don't see a problem with just doing the request system and trusting the remixers not to abuse it for now...until they do, there's no reason to overreact and put everything on lockdown.

Speaking of which, as much as I've spoken against it, I'm actually not strictly opposed to a permanent lockdown status. I think my main beef was that djp seemed to be justifying it by saying "I haven't seen a good enough reason not to do it." Don't gives us that. If you're gonna do it, just do it.

As for a middle ground...I'm really not sure. I mean, I guess you could try to persuade a ReMixer not to remove his mix. Or if it's already in a torrent or other compilation, you can explain why you can't remove it. And there's the previous "gone is gone" suggestion. I dunno though, to me it just seems like it has to be either "okay, no questions asked" or "sorry, no exceptions." Maybe somebody else can come up with something though.

On a side note, assuming djp isn't changing his mind and is set on the second option, putting an explanation in the policy would be nice (but not necessary, of course).

[Compyfox]

As it stands now, the following changes will be made in the third draft, which hopefully will be final:

• OCR won't be able to remove mixes for any old reason; copyright owner requests and submission standards violations will be the only two reasons.
  
  
• Accreditation exceptions for live performances will be clarified.
  
  
• General legal rewording and clarification.

The 2nd draft has been moved to http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy so we can track changes using Wiki functionality. This will be its permanent resting place, but it is still in draft form. I will be working on the wording and should have a third draft out sometime this weekend. Afterwards, we can discuss any remaining issues, but if the removal aspect is still the focus and the compromise regarding limiting OCR's removal options does not satisfy some, we will probably have to move ahead and finalize regardless.

I had a long phonecall with Larry the other day, where we discussed some things, and he said he will forward my/our ideas as soon as he catches you (he's out for the weekend).

Did he do that already? If not, please wait till early next week. I'm fairly sure the stuff we discussed can be adressed a bit better from his point of view, and with a way more fluent english than I would.

Thanks.

There's one concern with the remix projects though. I mean, the only "tag" the projects hold (all of them) is in the album name that's stating where it's coming from (and in this case, the subpage for example chrono.ocremix.org, or chozo.ocremix.org). While this is not necessarily a problem per se, it's more like a question. I tried to clear this with Larry and he was like "I don't see a problem with that", but your recent post actually makes a problem out of it.

As you know, I still hold all rights for releasing the (long awaited) Special Edition of Chrono Symphonic. I can't say when it'll happen, but I plan to release it one way or another. The thing is... the original project was released already via "OCRemix" (the subpage, featured on the front page with a couple of tracks) and Studio Compyfox (my torrent tracker), where the SE will be released later, too. The Special Edition would be a massive sound enhanced version, with a bonus CD of about 10 tracks - as mentioned a couple of times in the original project thread.

The thing is... how will this be handled? It's actually an "add-on", no official "initial release". Not to mention that the projects were all released "independend" from OCR (as there're tracks on them, that're not on the OCR main page, but exclusive to the project - so it'd theoretically not make it an OCRemix project only with the exception that it was "presented" on OCRemix with an own subdomain - and who said that a project that "spawned" on OCR is an official OCR Project in the end? Or are the Remix Competitions "OCR bound", too?).

It's a bit tricky, and I'm sure Larry will adress that, too. But I'd love to get a clearance via PM to this if possible.

[djpretzel]

Actually, I fail to see how the past behavior of a person affects the reason of his argument. If Einstein had killed your parents, it wouldn't have make his theories any less valid. Not to mention there are some troublemakers in the assenting side as well, and I don't see you criticizing their character.

I can't see potentially questionable motivations for supporting the policy if you're a troublemaker, whereas the opposite seems not only possible but probable. As for your first point, we're unfortunately not dealing with issues of pure scientific reason here... there's a human element to it... if Einstein had killed my parents, to use one of a couple of analogies in your post that are kind of problematic to begin with, his theories would still be as sound, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him on matters of policy, which revolved to some extent around personal beliefs.

Sorry, but with regard to being "weak", I have to say your rebuttal ranks pretty high unfortunately. Your "don't release your music anywhere" comment is specious at best; that'd be like asking people to never marry if they ever want the possible option of divorce.

Another problematic analogy; why do we need to come up with bogus, far-detached analogies when I've already said I view posting mixes as analogous to physical album releases? Releasing a physical album is a lot closer to posting a ReMix than getting married is, and yes, if you want the ad-hoc ability to disassociate your music with anything, at any time, doing a physical album release would be a bad idea. So it's not "specious at best" - rather, your marriage analogy is, in addition to being unnecessary in light of previous discussion.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, removal isn't a right, but it would be a much-appreciated courtesy. And how much trouble would it *really* cause you to provide such a courtesy, considering how un-often it's requested? Perhaps if you actually gave us an idea of how many removal requests you've had since, say, the last lockdown...it'd give us a better perspective on the matter. That's just a suggestion, by the way...I know I don't have a RIGHT to that information.

It's not a courtesy to facilitate discourtesy to others. Removing a mix affects a number of people, not just little old me. We've covered this... the amount of work put in by a number of people to evaluate and promote mixes is increasing, not decreasing, and listeners as well spend a good amount of time quite often critiquing mixes. It's not courtesy to put one individual's interests against the interests of a group, especially when that individual is saying they shouldn't even need a reason. We've covered this.

Again, I really hate to be blunt here, but: we've covered this.

We're not asking for "every compromise possible" here...just one which for some reason you happen to be particularly unwilling to give.

For reasons previously stated and reiterated and danced around by those saying we're so "unwilling" to compromise, even as we've been changing substantive portions of the document to better reflect mixers' wishes.

I'm not clear on what positive aspects the requested changes would sacrifice/dilute. Mind clarifying?

A policy that is more restrictive on ad-hoc removal lets us pursue outlets like last.fm or physical media distribution without the fear of a workload associated with having to undo/modify aspects of that distribution after the fact. Dead horse: we've covered this.

This is where I disagree. I can understand instituting this policy because of practical reasons (e.g. too much work), but evaluating someone's personal reasons is not a practice I find appropriate. People don't have to answer to you because quite simply you're not the boss of them, to use an age-old argument. When it comes to judging, OCR should keep its jurisdiction to music, not motives.

When someone removes something they gave to the community, which judges evaluated with the assumption it'd become part of the site forever, listeners reviewed assuming their reviews would be part of their contribution to the site forever, and site staff pursued distribution and promotional opportunities assuming said music would again be part of the site for as long as applicable, and they suddenly want to remove that music.... it's both personal and practical. Period. There's no avoiding it. To not question the motives of an action that moots hours of work and affects many would simply be stupid. We're not the "boss" of "them": under the revised policy, we won't be able to remove their music for any old reason, they're allowed to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit, they don't need to visit the site ever again, etc.... but at the same time, they're not the "boss" of "us": we won't remove mixes, along with all the work that went into their evaluation, posting, promotion, distribution, and reviewing, because they don't like the shade of orange we're using on our hyperlinks. Nevermind that it's really less of an "us" and "them" thing to begin with, and that most of the site staff are mixers themselves, and some mixers will at some point likely become site staff...

One more time, with conviction: we've covered this.

[DragonFireKai]

One more question, in the third draft, has that Grandfather clause we discussed been included?