Sign in to follow this  
djpretzel

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

Recommended Posts

I guess as longtime mixer/engineer who's hanging out in several communities, I have to comment on some stuff for sure. Don't get me wrong, but some stuff is negating each other and this definitely reminds me of Cafepress where they cut off the total rights of the original artist and sold the stuff as "their work".

While this might clear some things, this whole text does indeed sound like a "big label", not a friendly community anymore as it used to be. Of course you can complain about it, but well... we mixers were asked to comment (and in a pretty short time too if I may add), and I take my right to do so.

[*]OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix.

This is bugging me a bit. Okay it clearly states where a remix is coming from (example: Sharing communities), but this sounds to me like that this track is "only" available on OC Remix. But what about if the mixer submitted it to a different page at the same time, or earlier, or after it was submitted on OCR but cleaned up a tad?

[*]OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to redistribute submitted works through outlets other than http://www.ocremix.org, including but not limited to streaming radio stations, physical media, and mirror sites.

I personally do not accept that to be honest. Mirrors are okay to help keep the bandwidth low, but I have something against it giving my mix away - for example to people like Last-FM (which is bugging me anyway, why am I listed there anyway?) or other community pages who "port" the material from example from OC Remix and redistribute them. (worst case scenario - doesn't mean that it's happening right now, but what if they'll do in the future?)

As mixer I'd loose control over my track, and I'd loose track over the comments from my songs. While putting this into one place, everything's collected.

[*]Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

I object to that, due to several reasons:

1) What if I want to withdraw that track, remix it (as in form of in-depth mixing, mastering, maybe even enhnancing it), and then sell it on a CD compilation that's also paying royalty fees to the firms who whold the copyrights?

If the stuff is still on a remixing community page, the firms would be screwed, so are those who paid for the CD or the file distribution (internet download), not to mention the artist who shelled out the money for the distribution, and the fees involved to be allowed to do so.

2) What if the artist wants to move away from OCR, like happened with Mustin, Virt, etc and distribute that stuff somewhere else, or on the own page from the creators. Is that forbidden now as in "you submitted to OCR, this is OUR mix now and we can do whatever we want - even change the name"? Clearly, I won't accept that as creative participant who's helping you, the president of OCR, to keep the page interesting and running.

[*]OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted and accepted works at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.

This is what was bugging me back in the day a couple of times with the "lockdowns". Some opinions were obviously biased, some mixers weren't informed and the "delete" button was faster pressed than you could say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". The only comments from sides of those who deleted that material were "this was a violation, and he/she was long enough on OCR anyway".

This is what's bugging me a bit. First of all you say "if you come to us, we will present your skill" as in terms of "we're a professional distributing platform", and then later you say "this is just a drumloop with a melody in it - violation of our standards, delete - sorry buddy". It's as if you'd wipe out the history of this page, and kick those in the face who helped you become big.

Personally I think the invoved artist should have all rights to say "I accept your decision" or "I won't accept that, that track stays on OCR" rather than a supreme court who's like "our standards changed, we now erase all tracks that don't fit them anymore", as it happened twice already. At the moment it sounds a bit like "you're allowed to help us, pimp us out, remix, participate, help us grow" but as soon as the stuff is submitted, you'll loose all rights on your material.

In terms of "standards", I have a lot more to say, but you know how I think about it - and some stuff is really ridiculus, but this is not the point here.

[*]OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).

This conflicts with the point of "reserves the right to reject removal requests". As stated a bit further up, if the artist wants to sell his remix in some sort of compilation or even an official CD, the upper point states "you can't do that", and this point states "as long as it's the official remixer, it's allowed".

Two edged sword. Especially if the remixer is a member of the RIAA or German GEMA. Because those people are usually NOT allowed to submit anything for free - every track has to be cleared to collect royalty fees, etc. Overall OCR is a greyzone anyway, as all remixes submitted are NOT cleared with the copyright holders, and that'd be the original musicians, or the firms who still distribute the videogames.

[*]OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given.

Somebody tell that G4-TV, Gametrailers.com, random TV stations, etc (who're financed by fees to use the page, or PayTV fees). They used tracks from OCR/VGMix/KWED already and never gave credit, not even on their page. Maybe it's because they think "this remixing scene is a greyzone anyway, so it's okay that we go into the greyzone too"

[*]If OverClocked ReMixes are being made publically available in redistributable form as audio files, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org . This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use, such as burning mix CDs or reformatting for other devices, is acceptable.

Okay I had to read this a couple of times to fully understand it. Else I would have asked "but what about if that mix is also submitted to VGMix/ThaSauce/KWED?". But we're talking about "made available on", and in this case, if the track is loaded from OCR, it's an "OC Remix".

[*]OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.

And this page will terminate in 5 seconds... *cough*

Once again, tell that the Game TV stations, or those who illegally sell OC Remix compilation packs. That's a two edged sword again. First you say "you have permission if credited", and then you're "if you use OCRemixes over and over, we deny that we gave permission/that this track is coming from us" or even "we deny the permission to use the files". In ths case, I think the involved musician should have the last word.

It's funny how a page covering a "grey zone" is acting as a major label now - complete with adhesion contract, and with the same breath denies all actions involved if a lawsuit shall clash down. Makes me really think whether or not I should submit a remix to OCR or not from now on. Sorry to say that, but you wanted an honest opinion, so... here it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The draft looks cool at first couple glances, and many of my main concerns have already been asked by other members. I'm probably gonna have to go through it again when I have my faculties about me (it's wayyyyyyy too early for me), before I have something more constructive to add to this thread.

-DCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see cause for concern with several aspects of this proposed content policy. Consider the following:

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

Why would you reserve that right? Do you have the legal authority to do so? Where does this authority come from if the rights to a submitted arrangement remain legally in the hands of the arranger (the rights to the original piece that has been arranged, which remain with the appropriate company, not being of relevance to this issue).

OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).

This implies legal ownership of an unauthorized arrangement on the part of the copyright holder of a piece, which isn't the case with OverClocked Remixes or any other unauthorized arrangement. When a composer, or, more likely for our purposes, a company, owns the rights to an original piece of music, that does not guarantee them the rights to an arrangement of said piece. If I were to cover Crazy, by Gnarls Barkley, and the company that owned the rights to that song, their record label, were to license the use of my cover in a film score, I would be able to sue the makers of the film and/or the record label in question, because, while they hold the rights to the song, they do not hold the rights to my arrangement. Likewise, I would not be able to license my cover to a filmmaker, because, though I own the rights to my arrangement, I don't own the rights to the song in its strictest sense. The aforementioned begs the question: When I submit to Overclocked Remix, am I entering into a legal agreement in which I give certain usage rights to an arrangement I've made to the copyright holders of the piece that I've arranged? Furthermore, is Overclocked ReMix vested with the legal authority to hold me to such an agreement, and, if so, under what penalty?

Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred.

Does this mean that if I put on a live show at which I perform Music of my Groin, and there's a cover charge to get into said concert, I'm violating policy? I've slipped Blood on the Asphalt and Music of my Groin into my setlist on several occasions, and I have no plans to refrain from doing so in the future. While I'd like to put on all of my shows for free, playing venues with a good sound system, in an accessible part of New York City often necessitates going through an agent who will charge a non-negotiable cover.

I'm willing to give up certain rights to the arrangements I make for the sake of facilitating a stable, sustainable, quality-controled archive, but I'm made uneasy by the seemingly dubious legality of the aforementioned clauses, even though they comprise mostly instances in which I will very likely have no personal cause for concern. There is, though, one clause for which I do have personal cause for concern: the clause addressing live performance in a for-profit environment. I need to know that my rights to perform my own arrangements live, at a venue people have paid to gain access to, are not being challenged, because unlike the other aspects of the policy I've brought under scrutiny, this one is pertinent to me, and will continue to be as I resume playing live shows, at which I may very well open with Music of My Groin--always a crowd-pleaser--during sound check, during the Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you reserve that right? Do you have the legal authority to do so?

Yes. That's the point of the policy draft. It's a disclaimer. Once people submit their remixes to OCR, they're subject to the points in that list, legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist.

Do you have the legal authority to do that?

Yes. That's the point of the policy draft. It's a disclaimer. Once people submit their remixes to OCR, they're subject to the points in that list, legally.

OK. Say someone submits a removal request that you deny, and then sues OCR on the grounds that they own the rights to the arrangement in question and OCR is distributing it without their permission, indeed, in the explicit absence of their permission. How does that play out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a caveat that isn't at all intended to criticize anyone's mastery of the English language, we do intend to translate this into other languages once it is finalized. Obviously, however, for the point of providing feedback, we're stuck with the English version for better or worse.

This is bugging me a bit. Okay it clearly states where a remix is coming from (example: Sharing communities), but this sounds to me like that this track is "only" available on OC Remix. But what about if the mixer submitted it to a different page at the same time, or earlier, or after it was submitted on OCR but cleaned up a tad?

The point is that the mix is only available on OCR as an OC ReMix; it can be freely distributed elsewhere without "OC ReMix" labels of any kind, given the artist's permission.

I personally do not accept that to be honest. Mirrors are okay to help keep the bandwidth low, but I have something against it giving my mix away - for example to people like Last-FM (which is bugging me anyway, why am I listed there anyway?) or other community pages who "port" the material from example from OC Remix and redistribute them. (worst case scenario - doesn't mean that it's happening right now, but what if they'll do in the future?)

As mixer I'd loose control over my track, and I'd loose track over the comments from my songs. While putting this into one place, everything's collected.

Well, I agree that OC ReMix is the one place I'd go to for video game mixes, and that the convenience of having everything together is beneficial. However, it's a large Internet, and trying to prevent distribution elsewhere would be, in my estimation, futile. Therefore, we're just trying to be honest about it, and also encourage that the site and artists be properly credited.

As a side note, you'd be listed on last.fm regardless of whether or not we made songs available there; your artist profile was automatically created by virtue of being present in ID3 tags, which last.fm's database is built off of. We just made the music listenable and downloadable by registering as a label; the information regarding the tracks was already there.

I object to that, due to several reasons:

1) What if I want to withdraw that track, remix it (as in form of in-depth mixing, mastering, maybe even enhnancing it), and then sell it on a CD compilation that's also paying royalty fees to the firms who whold the copyrights?

If the stuff is still on a remixing community page, the firms would be screwed, so are those who paid for the CD or the file distribution (internet download), not to mention the artist who shelled out the money for the distribution, and the fees involved to be allowed to do so.

If the mix is your own, and you're mastering it & enhancing it, I don't see the problem - the "superior" version would still only be available on your licensed CD. If you wanted to start selling a piece of music you'd previously made available for free... good luck. We won't remove the track for that reason now, and we never would have, even before this policy was created. When you submit something here, you're making it freely available, period. If you can get a license and then sell the piece as well, that's fine, but it'll remain freely available here as well. Tens of thousands of people have already downloaded every single song on the site... it's out there, and trying to recall it would be, again, futile.

2) What if the artist wants to move away from OCR, like happened with Mustin, Virt, etc and distribute that stuff somewhere else, or on the own page from the creators. Is that forbidden now as in "you submitted to OCR, this is OUR mix now and we can do whatever we want - even change the name"? Clearly, I won't accept that as creative participant who's helping you, the president of OCR, to keep the page interesting and running.

First above all, ReMixers who submit their music because they think they're helping me personally should reevaluate their reasons for making music in the first place. This should be about honoring game composers and creating music for everyone, not just me. Secondly, we don't rename tracks on a whim. I admit that we used to, before people understood the concept of an original mix title and named their piece things like "Stage 1 Techno" all the time, but our submission standards spell this out, and once posted, we don't just decide we like a different name. I don't know where that's coming from, but it doesn't seem grounded in reality. Lastly, everyone's free to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit... such distribution is not mutually exclusive with OC ReMix continuing to distribute their music as well. This honestly seems like a misunderstanding on your part....

This is what was bugging me back in the day a couple of times with the "lockdowns". Some opinions were obviously biased, some mixers weren't informed and the "delete" button was faster pressed than you could say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". The only comments from sides of those who deleted that material were "this was a violation, and he/she was long enough on OCR anyway".

This is what's bugging me a bit. First of all you say "if you come to us, we will present your skill" as in terms of "we're a professional distributing platform", and then later you say "this is just a drumloop with a melody in it - violation of our standards, delete - sorry buddy". It's as if you'd wipe out the history of this page, and kick those in the face who helped you become big.

Well, the lockdowns were problematic and potentially offensive in a number of ways. I really don't think we'll ever need to do anything remotely similar ever again. I can assure you that we didn't start quickly deleting pieces on a whim - on the contrary, the process was very long, drawn out, and involved revoting on a number of pieces and serious discussions on policy.

That being said, lockdowns aren't explicitly part of this policy. We do reserve the right to remove pieces for a number of reasons, but the actuality is that we're not going to start randomly taking stuff down, as there'd be no reason to, when both the mixer and site staff expended a good deal of effort in making it available in the first place.

Personally I think the invoved artist should have all rights to say "I accept your decision" or "I won't accept that, that track stays on OCR" rather than a supreme court who's like "our standards changed, we now erase all tracks that don't fit them anymore", as it happened twice already. At the moment it sounds a bit like "you're allowed to help us, pimp us out, remix, participate, help us grow" but as soon as the stuff is submitted, you'll loose all rights on your material.

Again, lockdowns are not part of the site's normal operating procedure, were done to correct mistakes almost entirely made by yours truly, and should never need to occur again. I don't rule out the possibility only because I hate having my words used against me, but I'd be very, very, very, very surprised if we ever had to do another lockdown. Ever.

This conflicts with the point of "reserves the right to reject removal requests". As stated a bit further up, if the artist wants to sell his remix in some sort of compilation or even an official CD, the upper point states "you can't do that", and this point states "as long as it's the official remixer, it's allowed".

Two edged sword. Especially if the remixer is a member of the RIAA or German GEMA. Because those people are usually NOT allowed to submit anything for free - every track has to be cleared to collect royalty fees, etc. Overall OCR is a greyzone anyway, as all remixes submitted are NOT cleared with the copyright holders, and that'd be the original musicians, or the firms who still distribute the videogames.

See my previous answer; nothing is prohibiting commercial sale of a previously posted mix, assuming the artist has obtained licensing permission, the piece is not being presented as an OC ReMix, and the label understands that a version of the track will continue to be distributed freely as an OC ReMix.

However, if you really, really, really wanna rule out the possibility of being prevented from making money off your ReMix... don't submit it. We make music freely available. This is directly contrary to any intention to one day charge for it...

Somebody tell that G4-TV, Gametrailers.com, random TV stations, etc (who're financed by fees to use the page, or PayTV fees). They used tracks from OCR/VGMix/KWED already and never gave credit, not even on their page. Maybe it's because they think "this remixing scene is a greyzone anyway, so it's okay that we go into the greyzone too"

That's partly why we're formalizing this policy. Even so, policing the entire Internet looking for artists being miscredited or ripped off is not within our power; if you want to spend the rest of your natural life tracking down such injustices, we're not stopping you.

And this page will terminate in 5 seconds... *cough*

Once again, tell that the Game TV stations, or those who illegally sell OC Remix compilation packs. That's a two edged sword again. First you say "you have permission if credited", and then you're "if you use OCRemixes over and over, we deny that we gave permission/that this track is coming from us" or even "we deny the permission to use the files". In ths case, I think the involved musician should have the last word.

OC ReMix can deny that third parties continue to use mixes accredited to OC ReMix; if the submitting artist wishes that they continue using their work, they can personally allow the music to continue to be used, so long as references to OC ReMix are removed. I honestly don't see this coming up too often, but the musician has the last word.

It's funny how a page covering a "grey zone" is acting as a major label now - complete with adhesion contract, and with the same breath denies all actions involved if a lawsuit shall clash down. Makes me really think whether or not I should submit a remix to OCR or not from now on. Sorry to say that, but you wanted an honest opinion, so... here it is.

That's fair enough, and it's your call. Most seem okay with it, and most of the policy itself was already in effect, just not written down anywhere. You haven't raised any specific points that I would see as resulting in modifications to the document; you seem generally opposed to the notion of having any such policy whatsoever. We've already decided that a policy is needed, so the discussion of whether or not to have one isn't relevant. I think there's some minor misinterpretation, and I think your concerns about being able to sell your mixes after the fact are misguided. This site's about free music, always has been, and always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. Say someone submits a removal request that you deny, and then sues OCR on the grounds that they own the rights to the arrangement in question and OCR is distributing it without their permission, indeed, in the explicit absence of their permission. How does that play out?

You're agreeing to the content policy (once in effect) when you make the submission.

Your ownership of the material is moot; you could be submitting an arrangement or an original that you owned 100% of the rights to. You're agreeing to let us distribute the piece as an OC ReMix, period. The only people who could sue would be the owner of the original, copyrighted material, e.g. Nintendo, since they never agreed to the policy in the first place. If Nintendo for some bizarre reason transferred full ownership of the original material to you as a ReMixer, you still couldn't sue, because you knowingly agreed to the policy. Or, rather, you could sue, and lose. So litigious! Do you really see it coming to this, anyways?

Most of the points in your previous post center around legality, which is indeed slippery when we're talking about music that involves arrangement of copyrighted material. The important distinction is that we're focusing on the piece being presented as an OC ReMix more than anything else; you're free to distribute your music however you like, to whomever you like, so long as it's not presented as an OC ReMix. Once submitted to us, with acceptance of the content policy, we're the only ones who can really control where the mix is specifically presented as an OC ReMix. Realistically, that's laughable, as we're not going to police the entire Internet looking for hoodlums claiming their music is an OC ReMix and presenting it as such. But 100% enforceability is not necessarily the target; we're looking for a policy that protects mixers, protects the site, and doesn't focus as much on the content of the mixes (and their precarious copyright situation) as how the mixes are presented, i.e. as OC ReMixes, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the confusion here seems to be over the fact that it's implied, but never stated, that OC Remix only has the rights to distribute music for free under the OC Remix name. Perhaps one more clause or an overall rider should be added to clarify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of the confusion here seems to be over the fact that it's implied, but never stated, that OC Remix only has the rights to distribute music for free under the OC Remix name. Perhaps one more clause or an overall rider should be added to clarify this.
OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix.

Is that not good enough? Maybe it should be moved to a general section, as you suggest, since it applies equally to submitting artists and third parties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not quite the same. Your clause states that OC Remix will distribute using the OC Remix label; it doesn't state that OC Remix *won't* distribute using *any other* label.

Just a suggestion anyway; I'm hardly a legal type :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your ownership of the material is moot; you could be submitting an arrangement or an original that you owned 100% of the rights to. You're agreeing to let us distribute the piece as an OC ReMix, period.

I noticed you changed your policy on mix removal requests after getting some feedback. Has the new policy been looked over by the same lawyers who gave the OK to the old one? I ask because my inclination--albeit my inclination as a layperson--would be to say that you're unable to wrest from a copyright holder the rights to control how their intellectual property is distributed, even after they've entered into an agreement with an online distribution platform; that is, to create an agreement in which the owner of the material to be distributed cannot renig, I think ink and paper at the very least, if not licensing under formal contract, would have to be involved.

And yes, I'm suing you. My lawyers are on the phone. And by "the phone" I mean the AIM. And by "my lawyers" I mean JesustheDarkLord. And by "suing you" I mean speaking of you with stern disapproval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ink and paper at the very least, if not licensing under formal contract, would have to be involved.

Well, there's this:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

Which takes far more control from the end user, and requires no ink and paper, nor licensing under formal contract. Of course, they're in legal trouble right now :-D I think if you look around at the EULAs for online competitions or free hosting services like YouTube, though, you'll see plenty of comparable, inkless, paperless agreements of this ilk. So, no. Also, you're bald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm hairy. FRISBEE CAPITOL OF THE WO

So anyways, I'm thinking so long as it's still cool to post crap wherever (so long as it's not labeled as an OC ReMIx) it's all good. I also dig the idea of the original copyright holders being able to use the songs in whatever arrangement albums or compilations they throw together. Even if we don't make money off it, the recognition is always good.

Also, :sleepdepriv:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given. At a minimum, credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix as well as contextual presentation of the full site URL, "http://www.ocremix.org". This information should be presented as close to the utilized material as reasonably possible; if the OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, it should be prominently displayed in context with the utilized works. Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible.

Does this mean anyone can use the remix in anything non-profit and not even mention the remixer? I think that is a bit un-cool :) That's how I understood it, but English is my second language :( It seems like the "credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix" means that the attribution is only the site..

I think they should mention the remixer and the homepage at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there's this:

Which takes far more control from the end user, and requires no ink and paper, nor licensing under formal contract. Of course, they're in legal trouble right now :-D I think if you look around at the EULAs for online competitions or free hosting services like YouTube, though, you'll see plenty of comparable, inkless, paperless agreements of this ilk. So, no. Also, you're bald.

I know there's that. EULA's can be very binding, but you can, if I'm not very sorely mistaken, opt out of a EULA at any time, forcing them to stop distributing your work; the EULA just makes it so you can't hold the party you entered into the EULA with (hereafter referred to as "them") accountable for what they did with it during the time you'd given them permission to distribute it. In other words, a EULA protects how, but not for how long a work can be distributed.

I'm proposing that, though a submitter is agreeing to the content policy, there's nothing within the policy that could prevent them from discontinuing and retracting their agreement at any point, thus freeing them to demand a work be taken down. Y'know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a caveat that isn't at all intended to criticize anyone's mastery of the English language, we do intend to translate this into other languages once it is finalized. Obviously, however, for the point of providing feedback, we're stuck with the English version for better or worse.

I'm honored that it seems that I understood at least some of that jibba-jabba. *cough*

Well, I agree that OC ReMix is the one place I'd go to for video game mixes, and that the convenience of having everything together is beneficial. However, it's a large Internet, and trying to prevent distribution elsewhere would be, in my estimation, futile. Therefore, we're just trying to be honest about it, and also encourage that the site and artists be properly credited.

It's not about distributing the material on a random fan page (for example the Turrican Central in Germany). It's about giving my song "away" without asking me first. And to that I count Last-FM as contrary. I don't want to be involved with them, neither do I give you permission for the future, if I should ever submit a remix, to give the tracks to them for "listing" or even "releasing".

Whoever started that crap, and thought it's great, should be shot in my opinion. No offense, but it's enough that I'm listed on that musicmap thing along with Dr. Alban!

If the mix is your own, and you're mastering it & enhancing it, I don't see the problem - the "superior" version would still only be available on your licensed CD. If you wanted to start selling a piece of music you'd previously made available for free... good luck. We won't remove the track for that reason now, and we never would have, even before this policy was created.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. For example the Final Fantasy track that's featured on Project Majestic Mix by Jan Van valbourg (if I can remember correctly that was Anxious Heart) or was it that "Underneath the Rotting Pizza" remix (which also vanished from OCR all of a sudden a couple of weeks after it was released). Both tracks were removed one or the other way because the tracks were later sold on CD.

Steven Kennedy still permits to re-re-release (no typo!) any of those tracks (Zeratul and I wanted to release his Magus remix as remastered version once, but it wasn't possible as the CD is "still sold" and we didn't get permission, even if it was his creative property). So if a firm makes a contract with me, says "your remix is great, redo it please/mix it up, we put it into our next game/on our next compilation CD", or even I decide to release that track as official single internationally, you refuse to remove that track, even if it was online for like 1 year because you insist on "this is OCR, we release our stuff for free, if you want to sell it - screw it!"?

Now that's seriously messed up and arrogant. Would you even continue to stick to that if the lawyers of the original/momentary copyright holders start to sue your page? I guess not. VGMix offered the possibility to remove tracks by the artist, if somebody at KWED would do the same, they say "no problem". What you do here, is setting up a adhesion contract for both musicians and live performers. As if you own the right, even if that is not the case. This is why people went haywire with Cafepress.

Tens of thousands of people have already downloaded every single song on the site... it's out there, and trying to recall it would be, again, futile.

Not if the track is:

a) uncompressed on CD (Stereo)/ DVD-A/SACD (Surround)

B) enhanced in terms of sound and/or arrangement

Then again, so what? Even if there was once a freeware version, the new version is different, an official release - and if I say "take it down", you have to give in. According to the "rules" setup by you and your lawers, paragraph one, we still remain the rights to our track, which you negate with the very same paragraph we're discussing here.

First above all, ReMixers who submit their music because they think they're helping me personally should reevaluate their reasons for making music in the first place. This should be about honoring game composers and creating music for everyone, not just me.

Sorry, then you should STOP INSTANTLY with what you do and posing with your page on anime conventions. Even if it's a fact that most cames come out of Japan and that topic "games" is spread at conventions, it is no point of having a pannel to pimp your popularity.

It is a fact, that you got that popular thanks to us remixers. WE devoted our time to suit your needs and standards, WE present(ed) your page in radio shows, live gigs, podcasts and conventions, WE wear your swag. In short - WE help you personally. If you think we shouldn't do that, or shouldn't have done that, then think about why OCR is so popular. Sure not because you started it as offspring of that Overclocked webcomic, or as platform to present your remixes.

Nobody is getting popular without any form of help.

Lastly, everyone's free to distribute their music elsewhere as they see fit... such distribution is not mutually exclusive with OC ReMix continuing to distribute their music as well. This honestly seems like a misunderstanding on your part....

Must be either my language barrier - or due to the rules you setup in your first post that I get the impression that something's fishy going on here.

Well, the lockdowns were problematic and potentially offensive in a number of ways. I really don't think we'll ever need to do anything remotely similar ever again. I can assure you that we didn't start quickly deleting pieces on a whim - on the contrary, the process was very long, drawn out, and involved revoting on a number of pieces and serious discussions on policy.

With most of the involved mixers EXCLUDED. Especially with the second lockdown.

That being said, lockdowns aren't explicitly part of this policy. We do reserve the right to remove pieces for a number of reasons, but the actuality is that we're not going to start randomly taking stuff down, as there'd be no reason to, when both the mixer and site staff expended a good deal of effort in making it available in the first place.

This is the problem... The Lockdowns started because somebody decided that the quality standards needed to be pulled through and that certain mixes don't fit OCR anymore, because they're just "not good enough for what OCR is all about".

What if you change the standards in the future, then randomly decide "this mix is off balance, the mixing could be better - we will remove it" or "this mix is not true to the original" or even "this mix is too true to the original, this is no remix", then you remove the remix out of reason because you think this track is not good enough for OCR anymore? This counts to me as censoring at it's worst pace, erasing some of OCR's history, saying that mixer A "was not good enough - so we took him down after two years - he got his share, he should be happy". In other words as with Mission Impossible "we deny that we know you and work for our institution".

This is, in my opinion, just another excuse of powerabuse and negates all rights of a remixer that is submitting to OCRemix.

Again, lockdowns are not part of the site's normal operating procedure, were done to correct mistakes almost entirely made by yours truly, and should never need to occur again. I don't rule out the possibility only because I hate having my words used against me, but I'd be very, very, very, very surprised if we ever had to do another lockdown. Ever.

Wasn't there a third one planned, as soon as you hit 2grand? Or was it 1,5grand? I still remember that from before I was banned. Will you really stick to that?

See my previous answer; nothing is prohibiting commercial sale of a previously posted mix, assuming the artist has obtained licensing permission, the piece is not being presented as an OC ReMix, and the label understands that a version of the track will continue to be distributed freely as an OC ReMix.

No, the label will say "put it down", and you have to give in - period. It's their right to do so, as they hold the only rights for the distribution now. I on the other hand had to remove it from all places where it was "once available" to fulfill that contract.

Please read some books about it (in German it's GEMA, GVL & KSK - very informative), or ask your befriended lawers. It was always like that, always will be.

However, if you really, really, really wanna rule out the possibility of being prevented from making money off your ReMix... don't submit it. We make music freely available. This is directly contrary to any intention to one day charge for it...

Clearly an adhesion contract. You can't write "all rights remain to the original artist" and in the same time you prevent us musicians to do with the track what we want to at a later page. From releasing it commercially, to performing it live (Shael Riley for example), to use it in a video or whatever comes to mind at that point.

If you'd hold the rights to all the tunes that were remixed, and would present them as the label who holds those rights in the first place, I'd understand that. BUT... your page is presenting fanmaterial that is, blatantly said, illegaly distributed. It is accepted because it's a "fanproduction" (like fanart), but if we're looking at it as if it's all "legal and stuff", you clearly pull off an illegal thing, try make it look like legal, and steal yourself out of the responsibility, should something ever happen like a lawsuit for example.

This is not okay - and I highly object as remixer and longtime member of OC Remix, like it was asked to do so by you in the first place (via eMail).

That's partly why we're formalizing this policy. Even so, policing the entire Internet looking for artists being miscredited or ripped off is not within our power; if you want to spend the rest of your natural life tracking down such injustices, we're not stopping you.

Then this whole draft is useless, as you try to enforce our rights, yet you say "it's not within our power". I'm sorry, but why even try to pull off these rules then?

OC ReMix can deny that third parties continue to use mixes accredited to OC ReMix; if the submitting artist wishes that they continue using their work, they can personally allow the music to continue to be used, so long as references to OC ReMix are removed. I honestly don't see this coming up too often, but the musician has the last word.

If they ask the mixer directly, why even bother? Only if somebody is pointing fingers and is like "this and that dude used a mix from OCR", will you go off and say "did he use that with permission from us? No, he's not allowed to do so."

IMO a totally useless point in your draft that looks to me like just another add-on to look good in the end.

That's fair enough, and it's your call. Most seem okay with it, and most of the policy itself was already in effect, just not written down anywhere. You haven't raised any specific points that I would see as resulting in modifications to the document; you seem generally opposed to the notion of having any such policy whatsoever. We've already decided that a policy is needed, so the discussion of whether or not to have one isn't relevant.

Wait wait wait wait... Is it not my right to comment on it? Do we start this kind of crap again as it happened with the sitedesign (and the resulting random bans)? Then why was I informed to participate in the discussion if comments and objections are, I wouldn't say not being allowed, but being ignored right from the start?

What's the use in this thread then anyway?

I think there's some minor misinterpretation, and I think your concerns about being able to sell your mixes after the fact are misguided. This site's about free music, always has been, and always will be.

Excuse me but this is your interpretation. I just wrote about "selling mixing" because it's a thing to discuss, same as with performing music live. It's a possibility that can occour and I commented on that.

To me your whole draft sounds like a box filled with hot steam, but nothing else in it. The set up rules are either ridiculus and/or cut off the rights of the participating artist, even if stated in the first post that this won't be the case. It's as with disclaimers warez and ROM pages "you can test that stuff for 24hours, then you have to delete it", or even better "if you have the original cart, you're allowed to have the ROM" - but it is still illegal. You just want to be on the save side somehow.

Seriously now, if you really insist on those rules...

...then I highly advice that nobody should ever submit any remixes to OCR anymore!

*the very same as you told me earlier too, btw. this really reminds me of Cafepress, only a bit more sweetened up*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compy, if you want to discuss this further, please PM me.

Your inability to behave and to comprehend relatively straightforward material makes it very embarrassing to further discuss this issue with you in public. Advising anyone to not submit is not what this thread is about; you can choose to do so yourself, but there's no need to talk about that here. We're discussing a policy. If you continue to disrupt the discussion with your outbursts, action will be taken. Everyone else seems to be able to communicate their concerns in a civil manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another ReMixer opinion:

Personally, I don't have any problem with OCR being able to keep my mix even if I wanted it taken down or was planning on selling it. I actually plan on one day remastering a lot of my most popular works on vgmix and making a CD available for "donations only." However, I certainly didn't plan on taking the old ones down.

However, I think part of the problem is the actual legality and how real record labels would feel about it, not just me. On that point, I am unsure and therefore do not feel equipped to comment.

But I would say I think a clause needs to be added that in the end, the original remixers holds all rights outside of OC ReMix to their work. Like Shael Riley, he can perform it live, or I can sell my works on a CD if I feel like, etc. That might have been in there but it seems you've been clarifying it a lot just now. Just the outside OC ReMix part anyway.

There's my 2 cents, thanks for informing us via e-mail.

-Corran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er... there we have it again:

outburts, disruptive behaviour - "watch it boy". *sigh - I give up*

The only outburst I did was my last comment, and it's true I shouldn't have written it down, then again so shouldn't have you. I'm discussing this new... policy as I see it in my opinion, you asked us remixers to state our points, so I did in a calm way which obviously seems to either be misunderstood, or not wanted. Once again it is layed out for me as if I'm only causing trouble.

Okay... fine with me, note taken. Please feel free to continue on discussing this topic - I guess I stated my point and there's nothing more to say from my point of view. Unless of course, you want to David - my PM folder is open.

- Roland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Compyfox for providing the Devil's advocate side of the policy draft. It is necessary that we look at all points of the draft with as much critical integrity as we can. After all, it's better that we iron out all the details here in this thread now than being surprised down the track with possible lawsuits and such.

I'd only ask that you, Compyfox, try not to take such a hostile tone with the site and with Dave in particular. Understand that we're not perfect. We're not lawyers, and this site stands on very shaky grounds as we attempt to find the balance between free art and law. It's fine to argue all aspects of the draft. But attacking the very idea of the policy that we're trying to put forward goes against the direction of the site that we're attempting to take, and is simply hostile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, a EULA protects how, but not for how long a work can be distributed.

I'm proposing that, though a submitter is agreeing to the content policy, there's nothing within the policy that could prevent them from discontinuing and retracting their agreement at any point, thus freeing them to demand a work be taken down. Y'know?

No, that's not correct. There are plenty of agreements that are indefinite in nature; most online competitions fall into this purview. Once you've submitted something, they can use it wherever they want, whenever they want. We're not trying to be as open-ended as most of these are, but your understanding of the temporal, at-any-point voidable nature of submitting works under a EULA is inaccurate.

But I would say I think a clause needs to be added that in the end, the original remixers holds all rights outside of OC ReMix to their work. Like Shael Riley, he can perform it live, or I can sell my works on a CD if I feel like, etc

-Corran

Is the below not clear enough to cover this concern? It's the first bullet for a reason, as I (and apparently many mixers as well) consider it the most important:

Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.
It seems like the "credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix" means that the attribution is only the site.. I think they should mention the remixer and the homepage at least.

I think it should mention both as well, but for the purposes of specifically redistributing OC ReMixes, mentioning the site is mandatory, mentioning the artist is highly encouraged, and anything after that is... appreciated. Not all mixers have homepages, not all mixers maintain the same name, and OC ReMix is the best source for finding those things out and more, so given the option between making one or the other mandatory (I feel making both would be unrealistic), I'm going with the site/URL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Compy just took my sticking point and ran with it. Here's my two cents, I think that this could be solved by having OCR retain all rights to the mixes, save redistribution for profit. This wouldn't sit to well with some of the remixers, but I think that it would fly on a legal level. I don't think that's exactly fair though. I have no problem with the Grudge Clause of the previous version, I just think that to be fair, the remixer should have the right to control where their work is posted, especially when they're doing it for free.

Understand that we're not perfect. We're not lawyers, and this site stands on very shaky grounds as we attempt to find the balance between free art and law.

On that note, have you considered having AD take a look at this? Because he is, you know, a lawyer. It might not be his specialty, but he might be able to help here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the below not clear enough to cover this concern? It's the first bullet for a reason, as I (and apparently many mixers as well) consider it the most important:

Well that's fine, except for the "otherwise stated" part. I think you've made it clear that we own our work regardless of what OCR wants, except for when it is directly related to the site. I think another sentence clarifying that we can do anything we want with our work as long as OCR is kept out of it, be it profit or not. The "otherwise stated" clause is what's getting people, I think.

I guess it should be obvious but again Shael is asking if this policy affects his live performance, which clearly it should not. Basically I think everyone wants to have a clause that assures them that submitting things here does not completely strip them of their privileges to use the work themselves anymore! Which could be the case if you wanted. I've entered several music composition contests in which their legal statement said the work was theirs to do what they wanted with, be it selling or otherwise. That's what I think needs to be defined. Specifically, that OCR is not going to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it should be obvious but again Shael is asking if this policy affects his live performance, which clearly it should not. Basically I think everyone wants to have a clause that assures them that submitting things here does not completely strip them of their privileges to use the work themselves anymore! Which could be the case if you wanted. I've entered several music composition contests in which their legal statement said the work was theirs to do what they wanted with, be it selling or otherwise. That's what I think needs to be defined. Specifically, that OCR is not going to do that.

Sounds good; I'll think about it some more and draft an extra clause sometime today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this