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

[The Author]

The once its gone its gone policy is a good idea. However there is an issue with it. What about updated versions?

Should it be: "Once its gone, it cannot come back unless you worked on it" ?

[Sir_NutS]

The once its gone its gone policy is a good idea. However there is an issue with it. What about updated versions?

Should it be: "Once its gone, it cannot come back unless you worked on it" ?

People who send updates to their remixes never remove it beforehand, that's kinda pointless. Everybody who submits updated versions contacts the staff and then they evaluate the new version and decide if it's worth to substitute the old one for the updated version.

[herograw]

Just parroting others' agreement that the "once it's gone, it's gone" policy seems a lot more fair. It's dave's site but it's not his music (for the most part) so while he should be able to remove mixes for any or no reason at all, the opposite does not apply. I think we also need to actively search for whoever is providing the endless supply of sand that ends up in dave's vagina, because it makes him emotional.

The incident this rule is trying to protect the site from is isolated and almost never happens.

[Dhsu]

Haha, suddenly I feel like I'm at VGMix.

[Liontamer]

The once its gone its gone policy is a good idea. However there is an issue with it. What about updated versions?

Should it be: "Once its gone, it cannot come back unless you worked on it" ?

People who send updates to their remixes never remove it beforehand, that's kinda pointless. Everybody who submits updated versions contacts the staff and then they evaluate the new version and decide if it's worth to substitute the old one for the updated version.

http://ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions#Can_I_submit_a_revision_of_an_existing.2C_posted_ReMix.3F

Even if the track is no longer posted, my interpretation in this scenario would be that to "bring back" the track to the site it would still have to be different enough from the original arrangement (see: Zitwra's "Blue" vs. "Blue (Shooting Star Mix)", which was the situation that finally caused this policy to be put in writing). If the fixes were minor, it would probably not be allowed back on. But ultimately any choice of reposting a track would be up to the discretion of djpretzel. If djp could forsee scenarios where a mixer would be allowed to bring back material in good faith, he may not want a "gone is gone" policy.

The incident this [removal] rule is trying to protect the site from is isolated and almost never happens.

It's not frequent, but honestly, removal requests have happened often enough. Often enough where having a policy became important enough for discussion. The choice was made years ago to retain a policy of denying a removal request when the request seemed impulsive.

With the current policy in place now (i.e. NOT the content policy we're discussing in this thread), we'd rather talk to whoever's involved and decidedly make sure that they're set on removal for the long haul and that there's no misunderstanding. Only after a reasonable period of time, when it becomes clear there that removal is a choice that has been thought through without misunderstandings/misgivings, we'd go ahead and remove whatever material. We'd still like to retain this flexability even with a more formal policy, while keeping in mind that we don't mean to imply any ownership of the music.

[Tepid]

I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say ghkjgkjdffljgfkgfkhf.

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

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.

Haha, and to Shael, one day I hope to meet you and your majestic groin.

[Kanthos]

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).

There doesn't even *need* to be anything explicitly in the policy stating that the remixer could be banned from submitting new work should they abuse the removal policy, since there's nothing compelling djp and the panel to accept a mix in the first place.

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

The point of the policy is that it doesn't really *change* anything. It's just a formalization of the way things currently work so that no one has any excuse to do something like distribute someone else's mixes commercially and then claim they didn't know.

[LuIzA]

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.

thing is, I don`t want anyone else (e.g OCR/djp) having a say on that in the first place.

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

yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

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 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.

yes, I read the policy through before saying anything and I`m quite calm... I AM disagreeing with both the items I find limiting to me in the policy AND to the fact that there IS a policy.

first off, my music IS being distributed for free here and it has been that way for 5 years now. that being said, personally I don`t think you guys are in any position to put a policy now. the fact that I own my arrangements makes it up to me to stop people from something if I don`t like what they`re doing with my song, not ocr. and well, I don`t want it to be up to them. this site was meant to host songs, and I don`t think it should have more power over the music it hosts.

second off, whether I have a cd in the works or not, I still make music `just for fun` and that`s how it`ll stay, that means I don`t want my music subject to policies. I`m not even trying to `fight the power` as you say, ocr can do whatever they want just as long as it doesnt affect me. if that`s too much for you guys to understand, then at least just take my music down and get it over with.

[DragonFireKai]

Honestly I don't know what was wrong with OCR before the content policy issue came up. It seems like it's causing more trouble then it's worth. But hey, I respect and trust djp/OCR so I will leave you to decide what's best for the site. As long as your intentions are good I don't see any reason why it should cause any problems.

The goal here is to set up concrete policy, as opposed to making it up as you go along, or these "Unwritten Rules" that Arek refers to. The other bonus the community gets out of this is a well structured policy that can set the stage for a potential change of command when DJP decides he has better things to do than babysit the site. Think about what would happen if DJP decided to leave OCR, there's enough of how OCR works that he handles personally, that even if someone tried to pick up the torch, we'd at best get an OCR that's radically different than what we all know and love, at worst, OCR dissapears into the ether. By establishing a series of publicly known, concrete policies governing OCR, it creates the possibilty for a smooth change of leadership that could allow OCR to persist long after DJP's bones have turned to dust.

And it's better we have the complications now, while it's just a draft, then later, when it's a legally binding document. It'd be a real shame for this to get rushed through, and then have an incident occur and find out that the content policy is in violation of intellectual property laws. A pint of sweat here will save a gallon of blood when it counts.

There doesn't even *need* to be anything explicitly in the policy stating that the remixer could be banned from submitting new work should they abuse the removal policy, since there's nothing compelling djp and the panel to accept a mix in the first place.

Yes, there does, especially if removal requests are as prevalent as Liontamer would have us believe. By formalizing a policy beforehand, it prevents DJP and the panel as being painted as a megalomaniacal oligarchy that rules with an iron first that crushes prospective remixer's dreams.

The point of the policy is that it doesn't really *change* anything. It's just a formalization of the way things currently work so that no one has any excuse to do something like distribute someone else's mixes commercially and then claim they didn't know.

which is exactly why it is needed.

[DragonFireKai]

yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

It's not set in stone yet. As the policy currently stands, you can include Fire Cross on your CD, you just won't be able to title it as Fire Cross OcRemix. But this is why it's still a draft. What exactly do you want in the policy to assuage your fears? If it's a fairly reasonable request, it'll probably be implemented.

yes, I read the policy through before saying anything and I`m quite calm... I AM disagreeing with both the items I find limiting to me in the policy AND to the fact that there IS a policy.

first off, my music IS being distributed for free here and it has been that way for 5 years now. that being said, personally I don`t think you guys are in any position to put a policy now. the fact that I own my arrangements makes it up to me to stop people from something if I don`t like what they`re doing with my song, not ocr. and well, I don`t want it to be up to them. this site was meant to host songs, and I don`t think it should have more power over the music it hosts.

A policy needs to be implemented at some point to aid the growth of OCR. If you could give me a direct quote of the segment of the draft that's causing you uneasiness, I'd be happy to help you come up with a draft to present to the staff that you find more acceptable.

second off, whether I have a cd in the works or not, I still make music `just for fun` and that`s how it`ll stay, that means I don`t want my music subject to policies. I`m not even trying to `fight the power` as you say, ocr can do whatever they want just as long as it doesnt affect me. if that`s too much for you guys to understand, then at least just take my music down and get it over with.

If you want your music to be exposed anywhere, you'll need to submit to policies of some sort. When you submitted it to OCR, you already accepted certain policies that where in place at the time. Such as a potential review by the judges panel, and that it could be pulled in a future lockdown. Those were policies that you accepted, weather you knew it or not. But here, you have an opportunity to make your concerns heard before the new policy goes into effect. You're a valued member of this community, and your input is wanted.

[JJT]

yeah, well I got a full length vg cover cd here in the works which I AM going to include a track I have posted here. according to this policy it seems OCR has a say whether I can do it or not. and that is something I am not willing to accept.

As I understand it, the only thing the policy would limit for such a release is you using OCRemix in the track tag...which you wouldn't do anyway. So what's the problem?

[Dhsu]

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.

[JJT]

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.

lets keep this civil.

[DragonFireKai]

Apparently the fact that it's being written down.

There's the potential for a mistranslation. Don't forget, a lot of the posters here are running the site through babelfish, or other translation software.

Furthermore, a lot of the fears this policy is inspiring are precisely for the reason you said. It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

[DarkeSword]

There's the potential for a mistranslation. Don't forget, a lot of the posters here are running the site through babelfish, or other translation software.

Furthermore, a lot of the fears this policy is inspiring are precisely for the reason you said. It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

People can be fools.

For the record, I like the policy, particularly the part about "if you ask for a mix to be removed, you can't submit anymore."

[DZComposer]

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

This statement is scary, and the fear isn't relieved unless one reads the whole document. Of course someone should read the whole thing, but maybe rewording it so that "unless otherwise stated" means "when relating to the OCR name" wouldn't scare people off before they go further.

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

Hmm... I don't like this, but it isn't a huge deal to me. I don't foresee myself asking to have my stuff taken down.

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.

If OCR receives a DMCA Takedown Notice, how would this be handled? Would the offending song be pulled in a knee-jerk fashion, or will an attempt be made to determine the viability of the notice? The DMCA has been widely abused, and things that do not violate the DMCA are being removed by some sites based solely on the abusive notices. Knee-jerk reactions to DMCA notices can cause censorship.

I don't like the "violation of submission standards" clause, as it implies that accepted songs can be deleted later if it is decided that they no longer fit any new submission guidelines. I feel that once in, it should stay in unless the artist wishes it removed.

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"

Even though you later say "Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible," I think the artist's name should be in the 'minimum' as well. Most people will only do the minimum, it's humnan nature. I do not understand why the artists name isn't in the minimum to begin with. :/

The other stuff looks good to me. None of these concerns are "OMG! This is horrible!" but I do think they should be considered.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity for input.

[Dhsu]

lets keep this civil.

Sorry, irrationality irks me.

For the record, I like the policy, particularly the part about "if you ask for a mix to be removed, you can't submit anymore."

You mean the part that was taken out?

[DragonAvenger]

On the idea of people wanting to remove mixes on a whim, would it be possible to have a 'one month waiting period' or something before the mix is actually removed? Something similar to the 'waiting 3 days before you can get a gun so you can cool off' idea. That way the remixer still has control over whether a mix can be taken off, yet there is sufficient time for their actions to be thought out and carefully considered.

I'm not all that good with legal stuff, so I don't know how viable this actually is.

[Atomic Dog]

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

I'm not heading anywhere. I'm not a remixer. I could give a rats ass what ya'll decide. But, I'd like to think that I play an active role in our little community (even though I don't remix and haven't posted a review in months...), so I do what I can. I'm just letting you guys know what the difference between "ownership is retained by the artist" and "reserves the right to reject removal requests" is.

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.

A better example is, suppose I write a book. Suppose I lend you that book. You then copy that book word for word and give it a different title. You don't create a "new entity" - the substance of the work is exactly the same, you just made a copy and renamed it. That doesn't give you any propriety interests - it's still just a license. The license extends over the substance of the work. Copying and renaming it doesn't mean that you're not still using what the original owner gave you permission to use.

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

No, but the "OCR version" isn't something that OCR has rights to simply because they made a copy and renamed it. If the original owner/creator decides to revoke your permission to use the substance of his work, then OCR has to honor that - regardless of the reasons for revocation.

Unless, of course, they decide to take ownership of it - which Liontamer says they don't want to do.

=====

My personal point of view though is that we still need a policy in place to prevent artists from leaving specifically for fickle reasons.

But you can't do that - not if you plan to say that "ownership will be retained by the artist". The artist has every right to leave for fickle reasons. Yea, it may be a pain in the ass for you - but just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean you can hold his work hostage if he tells you he wants it removed.

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.

I suppose that's just the nature of the beast Lion. You can make incentives not to do that (the "once it's gone, it's gone" policy is one example), but you can't keep something of someone else's without their permission. It's that simple. The only way around that is to assert ownership rights.

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.

If it's really that important to him, then he needs to get them to transfer full or partial ownership. As it stands, regardless of how much work DJP puts into it, at the end of the day he has absolutely no rights whatsoever in the works of someone else - not even if slaps an OCR label on it. Just because the licensor (remixer) comes to HIM looking for approval and place to host their music, doesn't change the fact that the licensee (djp) only has it by the permission of the licensor. Like I said - it's convoluted, but just trust me on this.

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.

There isn't. Like I said, the core nature of a license is that it's revocable at will by the owner. All you can do is threaten to penalize the licensor by saying, "If at any time you choose to revoke your license, none of your Work will be welcome here ever again." Or something to that effect.

So the issue I'd pose to you, AD, is whether you feel (in a non-legally binding capacity of course), that those afforementioned wants, both 0%-ownership/not approving all removal requests) are actually mutually exclusive goals.

They really are Lion, much as I know you don't want to hear it. Like I said, those two concepts are fundamentally at odds. Possessory vs. non-possessory. You can't exert possessory control over something you want to have a non-possessory interest in. You can't say, "I don't want to own your car, but I still want to drive it even though you don't want me to."

And thanks for acknowledging the "non-legally binding capacity" thing. For those that don't know, that's a CYA thing for lawyers. I have to put that at the end of my writing anytime I'm giving legal information for a specific problem. We can instruct people on the nature law, but people have to understand that we're not providing them legal counsel when we do. I'm even required to bold/caps it - because we have to ensure that the disclaimer is conspicuous and readily apparant to a casual reader. You'll see it at the end of this post too, because it contains specific explanations of legal concepts that people might rely on.

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.

You can definitely do that. This is where it starts to get a little confusing, because there are effectively two licenses at play. The license the remixer gives to OCR to allow them to host their music, and the license OCR gives the remixer to allow them to use their name in association with the remix.

But that's a separate issue, and should be a separate clause for the T&Cs. If OCR decides they don't want anything to do with the remixer anymore, then the remixer has to honor that - the same way OCR has to honor the remixers request not to have anything to do with them anymore.

=====

It's being written down, etched in stone, carved in bronze, and any other metaphor for permanence you can think of. Once this is finalized, it's how it is going to be, and that scares some people.

Believe me when I say that it's always, always, always, always better to have a writing to rely on. Maybe this is just lawyer cynicism - but people who don't want to put their intentions to paper are people who one day plan to renege on the deal.

=====

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.

[Atomic Dog]

On the idea of people wanting to remove mixes on a whim, would it be possible to have a 'one month waiting period' or something before the mix is actually removed?

No. Revocation of a license is an absolute right of the licensor. The only way there might be an exception is if OCR suffered a material/economic harm. Example: If I grant you a license for a tool you need for a job that's due in a week, and I revoke the license 3 days before you're done, thus preventing you from completing the job - you might have a claim against me because you relied on me not revoking the license to your economic detriment. But that's not the case here, because OCR doesn't suffer any actual harm from a remixer revoking his license. At best, OCR is annoyed by it - nothing more.

Something similar to the 'waiting 3 days before you can get a gun so you can cool off' idea.

The two concepts aren't similar. You're comparing a waiting period before being able to purchase something, with a waiting period before you can revoke a license (which you can't do, save for the aforementioned exception.)

[DragonFireKai]

Believe me when I say that it's always, always, always, always better to have a writing to rely on. Maybe this is just lawyer cynicism - but people who don't want to put their intentions to paper are people who one day plan to renege on the deal.

I understand completely. I think that setting down the policy in writing is an important step for OCR. I was simply saying that I understand how some of the Remixers who have been here for longer than I have who might have some reservations about any changes that they might see as disrupting the way things have been run for years. Resistance to change is natural. Think of it as inertia of experience.

[LuIzA]

well, the main problem I had with the policy was clarified now. I however still have a problem with the fact that ocr can deny a remove request. sure its annoying when people just go and do it out of impulse, but isnt that still in their right? afterall, they are still the owner of the arrangement... I do agree with the fact that if you remove a song, you cant submit. but deny a remove request doesnt seem too right.

EDIT:and yes, the fact that things are being set into stone is rather scary for a `just for fun` musician such as myself.

[DragonFireKai]

well, the main problem I had with the policy was clarified now.

That's good.

I however still have a problem with the fact that ocr can deny a remove request. sure its annoying when people just go and do it out of impulse, but isnt that still in their right? afterall, they are still the owner of the arrangement... I do agree with the fact that if you remove a song, you cant submit. but deny a remove request doesnt seem too right.

There seem to be many remixers with reservations about that particular portion of the content policy draft. While the final say does remain with DJP on this, I do think that there's been enough questions raised about that issue for alternatives to such an invasive policy should be looked into.

EDIT:and yes, the fact that things are being set into stone is rather scary for a `just for fun` musician such as myself.

It's human nature. But keep in mind, DJP and the mod/judge clique tend to be on the fairly reasonable side of things, as long as you remain civil with them. It's obvious that you're passionate about your Works, and that's a good thing, but it's important to stop and take stock with what's really being said before taking such an aggressive stance. Things aren't set in stone yet, they can be changed.

[The Coop]

I understand completely. I think that setting down the policy in writing is an important step for OCR. I was simply saying that I understand how some of the Remixers who have been here for longer than I have who might have some reservations about any changes that they might see as disrupting the way things have been run for years. Resistance to change is natural. Think of it as inertia of experience.

I'm not so sure it's a resistance to change, as it is not not fully understanding what's being put forth based of how this policy's written. This draft is a WIP if you will, and right now people are trying to get a feel for where it's going. There are parts that don't mesh well to them, and clarification is needed... on both sides. As AD has shown, one section of the policy seems to be at odds with another section, and these things need to be ironed out, and the language cleaned up, before it's finalized. That's what we've got going on right now.

Most people know that when a remix is submitted to OCR, the OCR version can be used in just about anything officially authorized by the site admin. Podcasts, sanctioned radio shows, Internet streams, mirror sites, torrents... we all know the songs are going to be there, and we all know people are going to be using them outside of OCR. The issue is, some of the written policy language being used doesn't line up with what's being said by the site staff. I don't deny that people are a bit wary or nervous, because this policy is much like a contract (and as I mentioned to BGC reagrding anyone signing a contract, they want to know what everything means, and how it could be used both for and against them). But this thing becoming "official", as opposed to "assumed" like it was when it was unwritten, just doesn't seem to be the sticking point. The rules are basically the same, and OCR will still use the remixes in the same ways it always has.

So again, I'm not seeing a resistance to this going from unwritten to written. I'm seeing people expressing their concerns over this policy's wording, people trying to figure out how it's current wording is going to affect them, and site runners trying to get that wording right so that the policy says what they intend it to say.

[Bahamut]

There seem to be many remixers with reservations about that particular portion of the content policy draft. While the final say does remain with DJP on this, I do think that there's been enough questions raised about that issue for alternatives to such an invasive policy should be looked into.

Well, AD suggested viable alternatives to punish fickle requests, but I think maybe it should be toned down to if they want a remix removed for a reason, future cases will be judged judiciously according to the situation.

It's human nature. But keep in mind, DJP and the mod/judge clique tend to be on the fairly reasonable side of things, as long as you remain civil with them. It's obvious that you're passionate about your Works, and that's a good thing, but it's important to stop and take stock with what's really being said before taking such an aggressive stance. Things aren't set in stone yet, they can be changed.

Hey, we're pretty reasonable even in the face of unwarranted anger! Above all, none of us on the staff are out to screw anyone over for doing something that is their prerogative, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's, so it'd do well for anyone who feels they're in the right to communicate with us as best as they can.