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

[anosou]

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.

That's actually good enough for me.

I have another question. I'm not really good enough at english to understand if there's something about this in the policy draft. Can I, as an artist and the submitter, release my remixes that I released here on other locations under maybe the CreativeCommons License or can I release any of them on a compilation for commercial use? Can I do it if I remaster or do something to the remix that makes it unique from the version posted here? It's still my re-arrangement.

oh, but I guess I would need permission from the original composer to release it commercially though.. am I right(amIevil)?

[Steffan Andrews]

I've read most of this thread but forgive me if this was brought up already..

Formalized mix removal policy (extremely important to all submitting artists).

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

I'm wondering what your plans are for this exactly? I think it's important to clarify it before this agreement settles. What are the criteria, and what is the process for removing a mix? The agreement just says you retain the right to decide whether to honor removal requests or not. It does not say whether requests for removal are possible or will ever be honored. Even if this remains in the "grey area" I'd still be interested in knowing what your plans are.

[Kanthos]

That's actually good enough for me.

I have another question. I'm not really good enough at english to understand if there's something about this in the policy draft. Can I, as an artist and the submitter, release my remixes that I released here on other locations under maybe the CreativeCommons License or can I release any of them on a compilation for commercial use? Can I do it if I remaster or do something to the remix that makes it unique from the version posted here? It's still my re-arrangement.

oh, but I guess I would need permission from the original composer to release it commercially though.. am I right(amIevil)?

Between the policy draft and the comments in this thread, the intent of the policy is that you, as an artist and submitter, retain all rights to the song for its use outside of OCRemix, so releasing elsewhere and remastering and marketing your music would be fine, as long as you have appropriate licensing from the original composers.

[anosou]

Between the policy draft and the comments in this thread, the intent of the policy is that you, as an artist and submitter, retain all rights to the song for its use outside of OCRemix, so releasing elsewhere and remastering and marketing your music would be fine, as long as you have appropriate licensing from the original composers.

Good, then I'm pretty happy. If they don't missuse the ability to remove any remix. Like some mix was great before but now doesn't cut it, that's wrong. Or if someone with the power to remove remixes has a grudge against someone and removes it therefor.

Bad idea.

[Bahamut]

Good, then I'm pretty happy. If they don't missuse the ability to remove any remix. Like some mix was great before but now doesn't cut it, that's wrong. Or if someone with the power to remove remixes has a grudge against someone and removes it therefor.

Bad idea.

The staff isn't that petty .

[anosou]

The staff isn't that petty .

Naah, don't think so either but it would always be a possibility with like , a change of staff or someone behaving badly and pissing off the staff.

[The Coop]

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.

How is making both mandatory unrealistic? The remix isn't by OCRemix, it's by a given remixer. Seems to me, that if someone's going to be hosting the files outside of OCR, or playing them on a podcast/radio, the site name and the remixer name should be there. If the terms being set forth here are geared towards enforcing aspects (or "rights") of the OCR brand and name, then that name/brand should also be doing the same for its "clients".

Maybe it's just me, but to imply that the "OCRemix" tag is the most important part of a file made by someone else, and everything else is negotiable, just doesn't ring right.

[The Author]

I think that the issue with the "reserves the right to not remove a mix" aspect of the policy is due to the fact that we don't know when a remixed will be left despite the requests.

While I understand the tantrum prevention effect (some of my friends got hold of some of my WIPs and I hate to hear them on their playlists), I can understand the fact that the constant deletion based on a remixer's whims would be annoying.

However, should someone have a chance at using an improved version of the remix in an official compilation, he could well expose his case to the management and have it removed due to a logical reason. Quite frankly djp, I strongly doubt that you would deny that request should one remixer that started here end up on a professional, official compilation of a specific game. While you cannot expect everyone who downloaded the song to delete it, it could just be a sign of respect for an artist's wishes as he embarks on a professional career that is basically an extension of the OCR career.

But, getting back to a more rational argument, the "reserves the right" basically means that it will be done on a case by case basis, which on its own would require another policy.

[Lyrai]

I just have a small question, I have access to a university connection a few times a month, and occasionally I'll use it to download massive amounts of OC REmixes, toss them on a burned DVD, and mail them out to friends who are stuck with dial up, or no internet at all. I don't charge them for them, a few of them give me a handful of dollars to cover the DVD and postage, but that's it. Does this conflict with anything in there? Do I need to clearly mark on the DVD "OC Remixes"? It seems obvious what the answer is, but I've been burned in the past for assuming what I think is the obvious, and would prefer to have direct clarification.

[Bahamut]

What about prior submissions?

I'm wondering about this because if a remixer submitted his/her remix prior to the change (accepted or still in the queue), what would the legality be here?

[anosou]

I'm wondering about this because if a remixer submitted his/her remix prior to the change (accepted or still in the queue), what would the legality be here?

Yeah, this would be nice to know for people who will not agree to the new policy (if any)

[Dhsu]

Yeah, this would be nice to know for people who will not agree to the new policy (if any)

It was kinda buried in a different post, but I found it.

As for the very tricky subject of prior submissions, made before this policy is formalized and put into effect... I don't know yet. One possibility is that, when submitting any future works, that mixer would also be agreeing that previously submitted works would be subject to the same policy... but for artists that never submit anything ever again, their stuff might be "grandfathered" under more lenient guidelines. I don't know, our previous policy was really almost identical, except that we never flatly refused to remove mixes, because I felt doing so without a formalized policy in place would be unfair.

[LuIzA]

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.

[Dhsu]

You should, because there's a considerable chance that it's due to a misunderstanding, or is something that can be negotiated.

[djpretzel]

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.

You should, because there's a considerable chance that it's due to a misunderstanding, or is something that can be negotiated.

Indeed. We're going into detail, and we're asking for feedback, at this stage. Not going into detail and dismissing the whole thing is an attitude I simply can't respect, and one I've never personally held in my entire life. If you object to something, state your objection. Otherwise... who are you? If you're the type of person that flatly objects to something but refuses to say why, at all, or explain yourself in any way... then yes, it's probably better that your music isn't here.

I just have a small question, I have access to a university connection a few times a month, and occasionally I'll use it to download massive amounts of OC REmixes, toss them on a burned DVD, and mail them out to friends who are stuck with dial up, or no internet at all. I don't charge them for them, a few of them give me a handful of dollars to cover the DVD and postage, but that's it. Does this conflict with anything in there? Do I need to clearly mark on the DVD "OC Remixes"? It seems obvious what the answer is, but I've been burned in the past for assuming what I think is the obvious, and would prefer to have direct clarification.

As described, without alteration to the files themselves, and without making a profit, you're not only 100% groovy, but we appreciate your efforts.

[JJT]

quite frankly, if that policy is going to go in effect, then I don't want any of my songs hosted here anymore. I won't go into detail.

well played.

edit: honestly, there is no reason not to give at least a brief explanation, except for possibly spite. what's the deal?

[Antipode]

A question that I'm pretty sure hasn't already been answered:

You first say that "OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music under its name, as designated by...the 'OC_ReMix' file suffix" and follow up later with a note that, when anyone else redistributes them, they're not allowed to remove OC_ReMix from the MP3. Doesn't this imply that OCR is the only party allowed to redistribute ReMixes? I mean, I know you allow redistribution, and you say so, but those two parts seem to contradict each other.

EDIT: Just reread the thread and found the answer. Nevermind. I don't see any real problems with this - I think it could help to have some actual rules set down so there won't be any kind of a mushy area.

[big giant circles]

what is all the fuss about?

i'm still not certain why people love to draw up all these highly improbably "what if...?" scenerios?

let's keep this simple. OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc. so what's the deal? why the fuss?

honestly. i sincerely don't understand the paranoia.

[Bahamut]

Well, I can't speak for others, but my question was a legal question so that it could be worded better when it comes to technicalities.

[big giant circles]

Well, I can't speak for others, but my question was a legal question so that it could be worded better when it comes to technicalities.

right, and that's cool. offering advice/comment on how something is worded aight. i was just speaking of people who tend to draw up all these crazy "what if" instances, which (to me) is like asking "what if a grizzly bear was to come charging into my room as i type? what then, huh???"

sure, i suppose it'd be good to know what to do in that exact situation IF it ever happened, but really, who's going to worry about that?

[DragonFireKai]

what is all the fuss about?

i'm still not certain why people love to draw up all these highly improbably "what if...?" scenerios?

let's keep this simple. OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc. so what's the deal? why the fuss?

honestly. i sincerely don't understand the paranoia.

Well, it's the fact that the site is entering a transitional period. It's going from just another quirky website, to a legitimate organization. Things like this draft are going to go from vauge guidelines, to legally binding documents. Once discussions close on this draft, for all we know, it will be set in stone. So it's in the best interests of all involved, but especially remixers such as yourself, to foresee and account for any potential problems now, while this policy is still in it's formative stages, then when it's a legally binding policy that you can't really fight. I believe this is DJP's reasoning for even making this policy available to be reviewed. It allows people to prepare themselves for this change. Because in the end, a lot of people fear the fact that it's changing more than the change itself.

[The Author]

People ask the what if scenarios because a good policy would have to respond to those what ifs.

[big giant circles]

Well, it's the fact that the site is entering a transitional period. It's going from just another quirky website, to a legitimate organization. Things like this draft are going to go from vauge guidelines, to legally binding documents. Once discussions close on this draft, for all we know, it will be set in stone. So it's in the best interests of all involved, but especially remixers such as yourself, to foresee and account for any potential problems now, while this policy is still in it's formative stages, then when it's a legally binding policy that you can't really fight. I believe this is DJP's reasoning for even making this policy available to be reviewed. It allows people to prepare themselves for this change. Because in the end, a lot of people fear the fact that it's changing more than the change itself.

right, i mean, i get that; i summed it up with

OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc.

People ask the what if scenarios because a good policy would have to respond to those what ifs.

right, and fair enough, but i guess what i'm so puzzled by is how people tend to jump the gun and automatically "head for the hills" instead of just simply approaching the matter in a mature fashion. i'm all for moving the site forward. i just don't understand what makes people so worried that they feel the need to start throwing out all these scenarios (most of them unlikely or otherwise far-fetched) and spouting "A pox on thee, OCR-demon!"

i'm no lawyer myself, and wouldn't say i have any impressive knowledge of the subject, but from a common-folk-common-sense perspective, it's frustrating to comprehend the *real* motivation for people to panic, as it seems.

[Dhsu]

I think by "people" you mean "one person." Maybe two. Everybody else seems to have dealt with this pretty calmly.

[DragonFireKai]

right, i mean, i get that; i summed it up with

OCR is not about ripping off anyone's music. it's always been dedicated to paying homage to great music that has been heretofore under-appreciated. we're just trying to move things forward. get the site more recognition, and therefore remixers, and therefore original composers, games, etc.

To some people it's about other things too. People here have used OCR as a staging area for launching commercial music albums, some of them original content, some have been remixes, a few, as Compyfox pointed out, were remastered mixes that were earlier posted on OCR. These are people's personal hopes and ambitions that OCR is now instituting policy upon, and I would like to see it done in as fair a manner as possible. You said you didn't understand why people were bringing up all these "What If" scenarios, but most of the scenarios that were presented were fairly straightforward situations that either have specific examples, or happen on a regular basis in day to day interactions. A lot of them were simple misunderstandings, but some problems, like those that Project Majestic poses, still have some aspect that haven't been fully laid out. The assumption that everyone here is doing what they're doing simply out the of the desire for the greater glorification of Nobuo Uematsu is a dangerous one, because the closer and closer this community gets to the mainstream, the more exploitable it is as a means of making a profit. Human nature, when dealing with a situation where one can make a profit, acts entirely different then it does when it's a hobby. OCR is heading to the mainstream, and these problems are best addressed before they become significant.

right, and fair enough, but i guess what i'm so puzzled by is how people tend to jump the gun and automatically "head for the hills" instead of just simply approaching the matter in a mature fashion. i'm all for moving the site forward. i just don't understand what makes people so worried that they feel the need to start throwing out all these scenarios (most of them unlikely or otherwise far-fetched) and spouting "A pox on thee, OCR-demon!"

Through interaction and lurking, during several of the upheavals this community has gone through, I've come to the conclusion that, out of the thousands of members of this site, there's maybe 100 who can deal with such a discussion in a mature manner in the face of all the other irrational people here. Of those, only about 1/4 of them actually care enough to participate in discussions about those changes. Everyone else will either make a valid point in all caps, and piss everyone off, or make some snide remark that contributes nothing to the discusion, save more flames. The "Head for the Hills" group, is that group of everyone else.

i'm no lawyer myself, and wouldn't say i have any impressive knowledge of the subject, but from a common-folk-common-sense perspective, it's frustrating to comprehend the *real* motivation for people to panic, as it seems.

What's that old saying about the rarity of common sense?