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

[big giant circles]

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

you're probably right

summary: intelligent words

i appreciate your comments--for what it's worth, i suppose it helps put things in perspective for me, too. good to know there actually *are* mature people out there

[The Coop]

BGC- The thing with this policy draft (and things of a "legalese" manner in general), is that it's not just dealing with one person or place, but rather it's trying to deal with that place/person, and everyone who partakes in its/their activities. People are genuinely concerned about how this draft is going to affect them, this site, and the future of both. No one wants to be locked out of having a say regarding what they've put their time and effort into, or have their contributions lessened. This policy draft is a big step from "unspoken rules", to fully defined agreements. Such things make people nervous, or even upset, due to how final they seem. Both sides want to make sure they're not getting the short end of the stick, and having their desires and input brushed aside.

In a way, this policy is almost like a contract. You're agreeing to a lot of things now, and you have to expect some feathers to get a bit ruffled as it all gets hammered out... as we've seen. People are going to bring up what can seem like unlikely scenarios, and ask a lot of "What if" questions. But in truth, it's those scenarios that can make something like this policy draft tighter, and give more coverage to all parties involved. They can help with getting the wording right, so that eventual future happenstances can be better dealt with... regardless of how odd they may seem at first. I mean, we may as well make this thing as well rounded as we can, right?

So try not to let the potentially emotional side of this issue get to you

Now if I could just get someone to address what I brought up a page ago. I feel so left out

[Dhsu]

I think djp made a good point: ReMixers don't always stay with the same name (*cough* McVaffe *cough*), so the site URL is probably the safer bet.

[The Coop]

If you're talking about the URL bar in the ID3v2 tag, then yeah, the OCR URL makes sense. But when I read...

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.

... I wasn't entirely sure what he was talking about (still ain't really). Is djp talking about the ID3v2 tag URL bar, or the file names themselves (i.e. "Thunder_Force_4_Bio_Tech_OC_ReMix.mp3")? As I said, I can understand about the URL bar in the ID3v2. But for file labeling purposes, I feel the remixer's name should be featured there with the "OC_Remix". As I said, it's not a remix by OCR.

I might be addressing the wrong thing, but I'm not entirely sure what djp's talking about there. So I wanted to put my thoughts on it if he was talking about file names.

[djpretzel]

I might be addressing the wrong thing, but I'm not entirely sure what djp's talking about there. So I wanted to put my thoughts on it if he was talking about file names.

We're talking about the name/URL accredited when OC ReMixes are redistributed elsewhere. Filenames will remain the same.

[DragonFireKai]

I gotta agree with DJP as far as the filenames go. The artist's name is embedded in the tagging, so the filenames themselves really don't need to be changed. Plus, updating all the filenames, at all the mirrors, would be a pain in the ass. However, for accrediting a mix on another site, or Podcast, or college radio type deal, I don't think it's asking to much to have them cite both the OCR URL and the artist's name. I don't think the argument that some artists, (MCVAFFE!) change their name (constantly) holds too much water here. I mean, even aspects of the site itself still reference remixers by their old names, like this writeup of a lovely final fantasy remix by QuasiKaotic. However, the important aspects, the ID3 tagging, and the citation of the mix in the search engine, are all kept up to date. If a DJ cites that mix to QuasiKaotic, because he read the writeup, and ignored all the other fields that clearly say McVaffe, then maybe he shouldn't be a DJ.

On a somewhat related note, DJP, in my itunes library, I add a few tags to the OCR remixes, mainly I add the OCR Logo as Album art, so it looks all spruced up, like my other songs, add the lyric info on the vocal mixes, and add comments to each song based on my impressions as I listen to them. Do I have to delete all that? Cause I really don't want to.

[djpretzel]

On a somewhat related note, DJP, in my itunes library, I add a few tags to the OCR remixes, mainly I add the OCR Logo as Album art, so it looks all spruced up, like my other songs, add the lyric info on the vocal mixes, and add comments to each song based on my impressions as I listen to them. Do I have to delete all that? Cause I really don't want to.

Covered that; modification for personal use is 100% groovy. Spruce away. Realistically, it's also cool if you share those files with friends, etc., but we'd prefer you point them to the torrents instead, and if you happen to have 100+ friends, we really wouldn't want the modified versions distributed en masse like that...

I'm considering the issue of accreditation to both OCR and artist as being mandatory.

[Atomic Dog]

So I got this in my PM box:

DJPs trying to draw up a Content Policy, and the debate over some of the language is getting a little heated. The main sticking point seems to be these two lines.

Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.

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

TO and DJP keep stressing that they aren't lawyers, so it's bound to have some flaws. I figured that you are a lawyer, and might be able to help clear up some of the problems.

http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628

OK, first off, you should capitalize the word Work, because it's the "thing" these terms and conditions revolve around. So, from here on out, when you see the capitalized version of "Work", you'll know that I'm referring to "remixes submitted to the site".

So, onto the question at hand. These two clauses DO appear to be inconsistent with each other and here's why: they refer to the Work in two different ways: as possessory interest, and as a non-possessory interest.

In laymens terms, "possessory vs. non-possessory interest" is analogous to "ownership vs. permission".

In an instance of possessory interest like this, the owner (ie. the remixer) GIVES UP (some of) his rights to the Work and conveys them to a new owner (OCR) who can do with them what they please. (You see this a lot in record contracts. It's why when someone infringes on copyrights, the RECORD LABEL is a party to the suit, because they have an ownership interest in the music.) Usually this requires contract consideration of some form, but given the nature of OCR, it's more like a gift.

Conversely, in an instance of non-possessory interest like this, the owner (again, the remixer) PERMITS his Work to be used by a licensee (OCR) - and more importantly, since the owner is still in legal possession of the Work, he can A) dictate the terms of use; and revoke the license at will.

To illustrate "A", suppose I were a remixer. I could go to OCR and say, "I will let you post this on your site - but you have to put it at the top center of every page for download." It's perfectly legitimate for me to condition the terms by which OCR uses my work. Why? Because it's MY work, and if OCR wants it, they get it on my terms or not at all. Of course, if OCR doesn't like those terms, they can just as easily tell me and my remix to go pound sand.

To illustrate "B", again suppose I were a remixer. I go to OCR, submit my work, and they decide they would like to publish it on their site. As convoluted as it sounds, when you submit your work and OCR approves it, what OCR is effectively saying is, "OCR would like permission from you to use your Work on our website." Of course, based on my understanding of the submission process, this step is kind of skipped (which is OK) because OCR basically says, "By submitting your work, you're giving us permission (ie. granting us a license) to publish it if approve it."

But the key feature of a license is that it is revocable, at will, for any reason, at any time, by the owner. Why? Because OCR has no rights to the Work whatsoever - just permission from the owner to use it.

Looking back now at the above-quoted terms, the first clause "all Works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist" implies that they are going to have a license to use the Work. The second clause "OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests," however, implies an ownership interest. Why? Because the second clause expressly deprives the owner (ie. the remixer) of the right to revoke - therefore, it CAN'T be a license.

So, basically, OCR has to decide what kind of interest it wants to have in the Work - possessory or non-possessory. Do they want to be, effectively, a free online record company that takes an ownership interest in the Work they agree to publish under their name? If that's the case, then they'll be fully within their right to reject removal requests because the owners will have granted them ownership rights (and by the way, if you do that, you should probably get some kind of writing that memorializes the transfer of rights) in their remixes (the same way that a band who gets in a fight with their record label can't demand that the record label stop producing existing albums under the label's name). OR, do they want to simply give remixers a place to host music that meets their quality standard? If that's the case, then they're receiving revocable licenses from the remixers, and they MUST honor an owners decision to revoke the license at any time.

Also, since it was mentioned in the thread, I feel it's important to point out that OCR is not comparable to Youtube. The key difference being that Youtube (to my understanding) gives people the ability to personally control their submissions. Youtube members can add and remove content at their discretion. OCR doesn't do that. OCR has exclusive control over what gets added or not added to the site. If OCR wanted to be similar to Youtube, they'd have to create a member system that allows individual users to add/remove their content as they please.

Hope that clears up some questions/concerns.

DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. BY PUBLISHING THIS, I HAVE NOT AGREED, DO NOT INTEND, NOR HAVE I BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OR USERS OF OVERCLOCKED REMIX. IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AND RETAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL.

[LuIzA]

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 don't want my music there because it seems to me you guys want to have more power over my music than just hosting it, and having a comment system for it. Isn't that what this site is about? a vg community for who wants to listen? not for you having any exclusivity over what's mine. Sure the original music covered is legally owned by their respective companies, but my arrangements are legally mine, and mine alone. I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it, given all the legal crap, and that's that. So there, here's why I don't like your policy.

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.

[The Author]

I don't want my music there because it seems to me you guys want to have more power over my music than just hosting it, and having a comment system for it. Isn't that what this site is about? a vg community for who wants to listen? not for you having any exclusivity over what's mine. Sure the original music covered is legally owned by their respective companies, but my arrangements are legally mine, and mine alone. I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it, given all the legal crap, and that's that. So there, here's why I don't like your policy.

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.

First of all, take a deep breath.

The arrangement is, if I understand correctly, still yours. However, distribution of such work under the OC_remix "label" is OCR's propriety. I doubt that djp will react badly if you distribute your remix on your own, without the OCR label. I think you fail to see that djp is doing this to protect you and your music. Since OCR is a gray area, before the policy anyone could download a song, and use it commercially with you and OCR lacking any resources to stop him.

Now, through this agreement, distribution of the OCR labeled remix is subjected to DJP's rules (which means no one can just download it and make money off of it... TAKE THAT POLAND), and distribution of your original work is subject to your own decisions. Meaning that while it is available for free online through OCR, it won't be possible to use the fact that OCR is free to allow anyone to use your music without you OR djp agreeing.

[OverCoat]

hmm...

I'm getting the feeling that OCR is "losing its innocence" as a community. Not sure why I haven't thought that before, but this whole rights of ownership mumbo jumbo makes it seem like you're no longer doing this for fun, but for... Well, it can't be for making profit, can it? Maybe OCR is getting too political, or maybe "ethical" is the right word.

I'm fine with you distributing my song, but maybe out of fairness give other artists a chance to remove their song(s) before this policy gets formalized, if they don't agree with it [e.g. Luiza]. Zircon tells me over and over again that "these policies already existed" but I sure didn't know that! Go ahead with this plan, but my gut's telling me this site will lose something precious and important as it gains more business-like properties. Maybe it's just my own personal evolution, but it's like VG remixing is no longer just a fun hobby. I'd like to think this is just a small thing, but it's all part of a larger idea, right? I have an idea what goes on behind the scenes, and of your plans for the future, and I see this as a small stepping stone towards that future. Of course, some people are undoubtedly not going to follow you there. I think Luiza's frustration is well-founded, some people don't want their songs owned by anyone else at all, in any small or large part, and that's understandable. So I'm going to again recommend you give the artists who disagree a chance to uhh... have another exodus. Unless you have another more well-thought-out plan.

edit: HERE I AM BLATHERING ON AND ON and I hardly ever remix VG music anymore

[The Coop]

We're talking about the name/URL accredited when OC ReMixes are redistributed elsewhere. Filenames will remain the same.

Ooooooooooooooh. My bad. I misunderstood that part.

Well, then to adjust my comments, I feel that the accredited line should have the remixer's handle... or least, the remixer's handle when the mix was accepted by OCR. Both the URL to OCR, and the remixer's handle, are bits of info that belong together when these things are being redistributed. They're both rather important, and I honestly don't see the hardship in telling people both are required.

And just to make things easier on yourself for the future, maybe you could add something to the policy statement that covers this. Something like...

"When a remix is submitted and accepted, the remixer's handle at the time of that remix's submission will be permanently added to the ID3v2 tags, and to any accreditation tags for the remix's redistribution. Should the remixer decide at a later date to change their handle, the handle on their previous submission(s) will remain unchanged."

[Bahamut]

First of all, take a deep breath.

The arrangement is, if I understand correctly, still yours. However, distribution of such work under the OC_remix "label" is OCR's propriety. I doubt that djp will react badly if you distribute your remix on your own, without the OCR label. I think you fail to see that djp is doing this to protect you and your music. Since OCR is a gray area, before the policy anyone could download a song, and use it commercially with you and OCR lacking any resources to stop him.

Now, through this agreement, distribution of the OCR labeled remix is subjected to DJP's rules (which means no one can just download it and make money off of it... TAKE THAT POLAND), and distribution of your original work is subject to your own decisions. Meaning that while it is available for free online through OCR, it won't be possible to use the fact that OCR is free to allow anyone to use your music without you OR djp agreeing.

Actually, djp said earlier in the thread that any artist would be able to distribute their music however they like, just excepting the OC ReMix labeling & tagging. This protects OverClocked ReMix, and still maintains the artist(s)'s rights in all but the removal of the remix. Also mentioned earlier is that the intent is to not allow trivial matters cause people to sway back and forth between requesting to take down remixes or any other such decisions.

If people would like, a formalized policy to outline under what circumstances can OCR reject removal requests and such be drafted, so that they are 100% confident in exactly what the site does, but djp needs to know what exactly can be done to protect all of your rights that would not infringe on OCR's. The only clause I see a possible problem in an arranger's rights vs. OCR's rights issue is the absolute power to reject a request for removal, but that can be amended with clearer terms & elaboration.

And people, please refrain from unproductive remarks in this thread. If you disagree strongly with the current stated policy, that's fine, but try to help amend it if you can (which is the reason for this thread in the first place).

Keep all flaming & otherwise retroactive remarks out. Consider this a strong warning to all.

[JJT]

I want my music subject only to what I want to do with it

Fair enough, but what would you want to do with your music that this policy prevents?

[Dhsu]

and as for who I am? I'm the fucker you direct posted, and now the one who doesn't agree with your policy.

I'm pretty sure djp's question was rhetorical...

I think you're reacting more to the *idea* of a policy than the actual policy itself. Take a chill pill and actually go through it phrase by phrase, and if there's anything you disagree with, list it in this thread and explain why. djp is a reasonable person, things can be worked out.

If you actually are disagreeing with the actual concept of a policy...well, I guess you're free to opt out and feel good about randomly "fighting the power" for no reason if you want.

I'm getting the feeling that OCR is "losing its innocence" as a community. Not sure why I haven't thought that before, but this whole rights of ownership mumbo jumbo makes it seem like you're no longer doing this for fun, but for... Well, it can't be for making profit, can it? Maybe OCR is getting too political, or maybe "ethical" is the right word.

I think OCR started out that way, but quickly evolved into something different from the "just for fun" sites like VGMix quite a while ago. That's arguably what started the whole exodus in the first place.

P.S. I think AD wins hard. Frawress victoly.

[Atomic Dog]

Looking back at some of the debate over this alliterative "reserves the right to reject removal requests" clause, I noticed something that needs to be addressed:

That rule is pretty much there to prevent another remixer "exodus" from happening again. ie: If people insist on having all their remixes removed out of anger for the site or some similar train of thought, then Dave holds the right to refuse to allow them to ever submit again, or "come crawling back" in a more fitting description.

You can't do that with a license TO. If remixers want to exodus, for whatever reason, you have to let them. A licensee cannot dictate that the licensor continue granting his permission to use the object of the license. You can't hold their stuff hostage unless you actually have rights to it - and under a license, you don't. You only have permissions. Analogy: Suppose we're good friends and I tell you that you can have unlimited use of my car. You take the keys and enjoy many long months of driving it. Then you do something to piss me off and I say, "Give me back my keys bitch. You can't drive my car anymore." You HAVE to give me the keys - because I have revoked the license I gave you to drive my car. Keeping it would be an unjust deprivation of my property without adequate compensation.

The same goes with OCR. If the nature of the remixes are a non-possessory license, then OCR HAS to give them up if the owner revokes that license.

If you want to keep that "reserves the right to reject removal requests" clause, then you're going to have to remove that "ownership of the works is retained by the artist" bit - because it's not. By removing their right to revoke, you are changing the interest in the Work from non-possessory to a possessory, and you'll have to add something to the effect of, "By submitting your remix, you are hereby granting ownership of it to OCR."

Assuming, of course, that OCR wants to take ownership of submitted remixes. If not, then just get rid of that "reserves the right to reject removal requests" bit, stick with the non-possessory license and deal with the fact that if remixers want to exodus, they're within their right to.

DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OF YOUR OWN JURISDICTION. I AM NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. BY PUBLISHING THIS, I HAVE NOT AGREED, DO NOT INTEND, NOR HAVE I BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OR USERS OF OVERCLOCKED REMIX. IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AND RETAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL.

[Liontamer]

I'll post in more detail later today. But people are starting to banter out the idea of OCR wanting to own all of the ReMixes. LuIzA seems scared about it and OverCoat used the word "ownership".

I want to make it clear that OCR doesn't want to own any ReMixes. At all. In any way. We don't own them. We're not asking to own them.

The policy stuff does not mean arists can't have their tracks elsewhere, like VGMix or OneUp Studios, on a personal CD, or a homemade release like housethegrate's "Houseworks". That's all gonna continue as usual.

But it does mean that we ask not to distribute the files to make money with "OC_ReMix" in the name or "OC ReMix" in the MP3 tags. Once that stuff isn't in the filenames or tags, everything's fine if you're the artist that made the tracks.

OCR doesn't want to be attached to any ownership or profit-making that involves using the OC ReMix name by either OCR itself, the artists, or third parties, because we are a non-profit organization. That's all.

[Atomic Dog]

I want to make it clear that OCR doesn't want to own any ReMixes. At all. In any way. We don't own them. We're not asking to own them.

If you're expressly reserving the right to reject a remixer's desire to have his stuff removed, you are.

[The Author]

Well, AD, you are heading into one of the major issues of electronic authoring.

Imagine that by letting your friend use your car, it somehow created a second car, identical to the first with the exception of a vanity plate stating OCR for him to use. It would not in any way prevent you from using your car. And the only way for you to stop him from using the copy car is to destroy that car. (But there may be copies of that car made by other people who liked it, and you have no control over that.)

The way I see it, having a work posted on OCR creates a new entity. It creates the OCR version of the remix. That version, while created by the remixer, could be concidered the "propriety" of OCR.

The existence of the OCR version does not prevent the existence of an non-OCR version of the remix.

[Liontamer]

If you're expressly depriving the remixer of the right to remove his stuff, you are.

While not implying that I'm dumbing it down for you, but mainly to make it clear to everyone else, what you see before you is the discussion of how the policy is going to go. It's not finalized.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not even against your call that not honoring removal requests can legally seem like an ownership situation. But clearly, we do not want any express or implied ownership of the works and I'm confident that whatever we put into place will make that 100% clear. If that has to involve honoring any removal request without fail, even if the person changes their mind hours or days later, then I feel like we would compromise to that policy.

My personal point of view though is that we still need a policy in place to prevent artists from leaving specifically for fickle reasons. Some hate the site or the staff for whatever reason, but then change their mind. Some question their skills as a musician or how an older track holds up to the more recently posted material. While I don't agree with removing tracks, all are perfectly valid reasons to do so.

We've had several artists through the years ask to remove their mixes, only for them to a) either subsequently withdraw the removal request because the request was impulsive in the first place or ask for the removed material to be put up again after it was already taken down.

Because of the work djpretzel and the staff put into evaluating tracks, doing the writeups and providing free hosting, I understand why djp wants a system in place where removal requests can be turned down, if only because the overall track record has been that most people end up changing their minds and asking for the material to stay.

There should be some way to address these issues of not immediately honoring what come across as impulsive removal requests while also making clear that OCR does not own or want to imply ownership of the tracks. So the issue I'd pose to you, AD, is whether you feel (in a non-legally binding capacity of course), that those aforementioned wants, both 0%-ownership/not approving all removal requests) are actually mutually exclusive goals. If not, is there a way to draw up terms that properly establish both scenarios?

[Dhsu]

If it turns out the two goals can't be reconciled, I think it would be understandable to institute a "once it's gone, it's gone" policy, while at the same time not threatening to bar the ReMixer from submitting *new* work (unless perhaps it becomes a chronic problem with that particular ReMixer).

[Sir_NutS]

I just saw the email today, and here are my opinions:

I agree with most said in the draft, however:

"OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works."

this, as AD said, implies ownership over the remixes submitted by the artists, thus transfering the rights of distribution to OCRemix, which is not right imho. I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies. You can't deny distribution without ownership, and OCRemix is not in any way owner of our remixes.

Also, my congratulations to the staff for giving the chance to the community and people involved with OCRemix to voice the opinions BEFORE decisions are taken. I think it gives the whole thing more of a concensus feel, and a community sense, so kudos on that.

My objection stands though.

[Liontamer]

If it turns out the two goals can't be reconciled, I think it would be understandable to institute a "once it's gone, it's gone" policy, while at the same time not threatening to bar the ReMixer from submitting *new* work (unless perhaps it becomes a chronic problem with that particular ReMixer).

Absolutely. In all likelihood, I would think that's the policy we'd settle on, provided that we can't work out something better.

I agree with most said in the draft, however:

"OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works."

this, as AD said, implies ownership over the remixes submitted by the artists, thus transfering the rights of distribution to OCRemix, which is not right imho. I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies. You can't deny distribution without ownership, and OCRemix is not in any way owner of our remixes.

I agree. I think what we would need to do is revise the wording so that we can "deny continued usage of the OC ReMix NAME", rather than the tracks themselves. For the tracks themselves, we don't own them, but we definitely own the name of OCR and that's the main thing we're trying to protect from being used without permission, for profit, or in a fraudulent way.

[Dhsu]

I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies.

Correctamundo.

[Sir_NutS]

I agree. I think what we would need to do is revise the wording so that we can "deny continued usage of the OC ReMix NAME", rather than the tracks themselves. For the tracks themselves, we don't own them, but we definitely own the name of OCR and that's the main thing we're trying to protect from being used without permission, for profit, or in a fraudulent way.

Thanks for the aclaration, then it's just a change of words there to make the thing more clear.

I also agree with the "once it's gone, it's gone" position. The other alternatives are too conflictive and guess based.