Jump to content

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


djpretzel
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, if there were truly no way we'd remove your mixes at all, we would just say "OverClocked ReMix will refuse all removal requests" instead of "reserves the right to", but as I've stated, I can't think of any good reasons. Compy's issue about commercial licensing is probably the best reason thus discussed, and even then it would depend on the circumstances, but not barring that sort of situation...

Sorry for double asking, but just to be sure because my english is just in "buffer overload mode" in terms of translation.

I mean... what other circumstances need there to be? If a mixer says "this track doesn't reflect my current standards anymore, so I want to remove it please", or "I'm bound to a contract which makes it impossible to offer this track for free anymore"... isn't that enough information?

Maybe I just understood it wrong (like I said, buffer overflow, same as with the sentence "there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed" - even after translating it for the 5th time with a dictionary I still don't really get it), but at the moment it still sounds to me "we accept your opinion, thank you - but unfortunately we have to reject your request".

Also, I still see that "reserves the right to" part in the draft on page one... hm...

DUH! Head-asplode... can't that be a bit simpler and not that much like lawyer english? I'm not that bad at english, but in this case, I definitely lost track of what-the-hell-is-going-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean... what other circumstances need there to be? If a mixer says "this track doesn't reflect my current standards anymore, so I want to remove it please", or "I'm bound to a contract which makes it impossible to offer this track for free anymore"... isn't that enough information?

No. In fact, the first reason I've already said I find insufficient, period. The second can't really be true; unless the contract was agreed to BEFORE the mix was submitted, the contract would be void if it required something that was not yet done to have effect.

Now, let's say you were ABOUT to sign into a contract that would require removing the track. We'd need a good deal of information. For example, it couldn't be a contract between you and yourself that you've created simply to remove the track, and we'd probably want to talk directly to the third party writing the contract and try to persuade them that our offering the track was in their best interests.

I'm not really sure too many people are interested in this aspect of the policy besides you; I've already sorta said that if you wish to use pieces for profit in the future, I'd recommend not making them available for free anywhere, including OCR. That being the case, if this hypothetical situation indeed came up, we'd want to see the contract and talk to those who drafted it to see if an exception could be made first.

I have rewritten the artist policy and intend to rewrite the third-party usage policy as well. I believe the rewrite is a bit clearer, more legally sound, and organizes the different thoughts better:

You retain ownership and copyright of all material submitted to OverClocked ReMix. By submitting material You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide right and license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed. This license explicitly prohibits OverClocked ReMix from distributing submitted materials for profit. All revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted materials will be used for costs directly associated with the operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix. Evaluation and acceptance or rejection of submitted materials is under the sole discretion of OverClocked ReMix. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies You from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

You are free to distribute and/or license these materials elsewhere, so long as they are not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and such distribution or licensing does not conflict with the terms of this agreement. OverClocked ReMix maintains sole control of the distribution of materials 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 license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, "perpetual" and "irrevocable" sound really ominous, even in the "non-exclusive" context. I'm not really suggesting a change of wording...just stating an observation.

I agree. It's unfortunate. However, AD made some comments that prompted research on my part, and this is pretty much boiler-plate wording for what we're shooting for, employed by a lot of different sites/organizations. I know there have been suggestions to go for a more layman's language, informal approach, as the result of this legalese is that it makes us sound like we're going to steal your first-born children, but if we're going to have a policy at all, I'm shooting for one that would actually hold up, if it ever needed to. I honestly don't think it ever will, and I highly suspect that once this policy is in place and we've got something that most everyone can agree on, things will remain the same, and people will forget the contention surrounding certain aspects.

I'm trying to please as many people as possible; we DEFINITELY put this out in draft format with the full intention of modifying it based on feedback, and have been doing so, with the changes to make mixer name mandatory when redistributing and to remove explicit for-profit usage exemptions for copyright owners. But not all changes proposed are going to be implemented. We can't please all the people all the time and end up with a policy that says hardly anything, so the legalese and ominous wording really has to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very important addition:

"This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement. "

This essentially makes the policy retroactive, but only if you submit something additional after it goes into effect.

Also, I've renamed the two policies "Submission Agreement" and "Terms of Use" as these are more intuitive and official. In addition, I've reworded and reformatted the Terms of Use so that they are similar to the Submission Agreement. Essentially, submitting artists are granting us one license (which is sub-licensable), and then we're turning around and sub-licensing it to... pretty much everyone, as long as they meet the described criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* Sorry to cause a big rukus on this, but this is really bugging me. Maybe others too, but it's just that I'll play the black sheep and play that till the end.

No. In fact, the first reason I've already said I find insufficient, period. The second can't really be true; unless the contract was agreed to BEFORE the mix was submitted, the contract would be void if it required something that was not yet done to have effect.

You still can't do that. The material is still the property of the creative mind. It's not how you personally think about this issue, you set up rules here, and there're no "personal opinions" allowed, but only objective judgement.

Furthermore, once more a "what if" but these are all possibilities that can happen, and happened already... What if the track was submitted already, and due to the fact that "this" particular track was submitted, a certain firm came to you and said "wow this track is awesome - we want to feature it, please put it down, we write you a contract with further rules and info of how you'd getting paid". This is the same as you said, but it's happening AFTER it was released (or even submitted and/or in the judging process) on OCR. It's a reversed contractract in this case and you have your written confirmation why you have to put it down. No further check needed, or a discussion "but can we keep it?".

Or can you see into the future and know "this track will be put on CD someday"? I sure can't!

Same as with all other removal request. Virt said he didn't want it on your page anymore, because you didn't have some sort of rules layed down what to happen with his tracks. If I can remember, JDHarding put them down due to quarrels, others asked for putting their stuff down because they had re-mixed (as in form of newly engineered) material at hand, or they were like "sorry, doesn't reflect my style anymore" (which is still their right to do so). And if we look at it from another point of view, that stuff is still "spread" on OCRemoved, even though most of those stuff listed there, is posted without our permission(!) - for example that "Mission of Mana" mix of mine, and it's also having the OCRemix tag(!), where you in the draft say "we can deny the usage of "OCRemix".

Were talking about something that you try, to my impression, forbid as if it's happening every other day. Of course it's some sort of extra effort, but it is still the Work of it's original creator. And due to the fact that you wrote on your new draft enhancement, that you're only a licensee, the mixer providing his material still has the final word on it, hasn't he?

I'm not really sure too many people are interested in this aspect of the policy besides you; I've already sorta said that if you wish to use pieces for profit in the future, I'd recommend not making them available for free anywhere, including OCR. That being the case, if this hypothetical situation indeed came up, we'd want to see the contract and talk to those who drafted it to see if an exception could be made first.

Like I said, I may be the only one expressing it, but it is a delicate situation and it needs to be discussed. The problem is, you can of course go to a firm and say "I have a mix, am I allowed to distribute it commercially" before you consider going "public domain", but usually they're like "who the heck are you?" and reject that request. Unless however, you're already known in the scene (example: OCR, or to the remixed artist) and/or you're really good, then they're more friendly and be like "nice tracks you got there, want to be featured maybe?". In this case, all that's coming next is kinda rolling backwards, and chances are, if you mixed for three different games, one of them being the game in question for the compilation, that these tracks will be needed to be removed. And you have to agree.

In reality, we're not even allowed to submit anything online the one way or another. This counts to Soundclick, MySpace, mp3.com, KWED, thSauce, VGMix, AnimeMix, AmigaMix and OCR. We're doing the illegal thing but tag it as "fanwork" - it's accepted, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do so. We just do it.

To get back on topic - the new draft enhancement is still kinda preventing that. For example you say

By submitting material You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide right and license to use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed.

Which means you will post it on your behalf as presentation platform, but the track still belongs to the mixer. However a couple of sentences later:

This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination.

Well from my side, I "have to" agree the termination (even if it's only partially, meaning only one of the games I mixed - again as example with the contract), but in the same time it still sounds to me "only if we see a reason in it", while negating that with the request to speak to the contract holder to be "really sure" and ignoring requests from people who say "sorry - doesn't reflect my work anymore". This is contradictorily and doesn't really work IMO. The whole last passage doesn't really work to be honest. First you refuse to remove the material, second you can remove it anytime if you think it's a violation of the rules.

I know I'm picky, I stand to that point, but to me it's still as if it's a adhesion contract. While we still have all "rights", we loose them at the same time with that small paragraph. Why not simply remove it completely? This makes all "what if's" possible and rather write "we give you a two week grace period if you decided out of anger to remove your stuff - should you after two weeks still want to remove your stuff, we will do so but ban further submissions". Everything else is a more or less rare exception and shouldn't be "backward-punished", as written in this sentence:

This license applies to any material you may have submitted prior to the effect of this agreement.

Don't you think so, too?

In the end, you saying "removing that part" didn't happen after all. We're still kinda running in circles - and there's no "fun" involved anymore either. Sorry about that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Formalizing something is never fun, but there's always necessity for it - if not, you open up the road for plenty of exploits, which users have seen over the years in the community (fraudulent claims, selling OC ReMixes, etc.). To say that there is no fun at all is vapid and completely missing the point. To be honest, a formalized policy should always be drawn when making even a website for fun when it involves several people. I have to do the same soon enough as well, as people have shown that they will abuse privileges on the Internet if allowed to.

While we still have all "rights", we loose them at the same time with that small paragraph. Why not simply remove it completely? This makes all "what if's" possible and rather write "we give you a two week grace period if you decided out of anger to remove your stuff - should you after two weeks still want to remove your stuff, we will do so but ban further submissions". Everything else is a more or less rare exception and shouldn't be "backward-punished", as written in this sentence:

You do not lose most of them by such a paragraph at all - perhaps you're misinterpreting it. You do not lose the right to distribute the song of question by other means. You do not lose the right to license the song out to another. You don't even lose the ownership of the song. The paragraph just assigns certain cases in which you can seek for a license termination. As the draft asserts OCR as a non-profit organization, OCR cannot use the songs for profit, promotion, or anything commercially related, so there are well-stated bounds on what OCR can do. So I ask, what rights do you lose? It appears to be nothing lost but what is strictly agreed to by the licensor & the licensee.

Also, keep in mind that the site's purpose has always been to honor video game music. If someone wants to release a commercial album, and there's an issue about using a currently available track on OCR and the desire of the person to use it in his/her album, it would be incredibly narrowminded to try to force OCR to take down the track instead of writing another one, as it would be an example of someone exerting greed for what he/she once gave freely and without limit, and contrary to the site's stated purpose. Would you consider it worth it to exert pressure for what you once gave freely for greed? I don't see how anyone can justify exerting pressure via the composer/company owning the original composition with the site's purpose in mind without being one of the most petty & ruinous people out there.

I don't even see why record companies would refuse allowing OCR to remain hosting the song in question, as there is already a couple of examples of songs here that are similar or exactly the same as songs sold on an album - the most striking example is the Estradasphere OC ReMix "Super Buck Jazz". This song is on their commercial album as "Super Buck II", and there has been no issues to this date as far as I'm aware, as it IS free advertisement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit concerned at the direction this is taking, because as of right now, with the policy as it stands, the only one raising serious objections and continuing to protest is Compyfox. I'm not sure where Luiza stands, given the revisions made, and I'm not sure besides these two if there's anyone else that has serious concerns.

As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time. I really do appreciate Compyfox's continued interest in discussing it, but I'm also not sure if we're making any progress - for one, there appear to still be misinterpretation issues, and also the core things being objected to aren't things that I think we're going to change unless we see far more concern from others. Additionally, many seem to be fine with the current draft.

So I'd like to suggest that anyone who agrees with Compyfox and has serious issues with the draft in its current state chime in, and that he remain quiet for a bit while we see if there are others who agree with him and can state his objections more clearly or add to them.

We're still in the discussion/draft stage, but I'm much happier with the current draft. If we don't see a lot of new issues being raised in the next day or so, or new people echoing the same sentiments, then I intend to run a poll trying to gauge general opinion of the draft, and proceed from there based on that feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT:

THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BEFORE DJP COMMENTED ON BAHAMUTS LAST POST! So if something sounds like an outburst of some sort, I'm sorry about that and my chosen words. Furthermore, this is a direct answer to Bahamut's post, not DJP's.

I'm slowly giving up now. You obviously don't want to understand what's the problem here. Fine... whatever.

You do not lose most of them by such a paragraph at all - perhaps you're misinterpreting it. You do not lose the right to distribute the song of question by other means. You do not lose the right to license the song out to another. You don't even lose the ownership of the song. The paragraph just assigns certain cases in which you can seek for a license termination. As the draft asserts OCR as a non-profit organization, OCR cannot use the songs for profit, promotion, or anything commercially related, so there are well-stated bounds on what OCR can do. So I ask, what rights do you lose? It appears to be nothing lost but what is strictly agreed to by the licensor & the licensee.

I CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! Period. I can not say at this moment of day "oh... this track I'm working on will be featured on a CD". I can however try to get it on a CD, though if it doesn't work, I can think about the option going to OCR (even if I'm not allowed to one way or another - the "fanmaterial" thing again). Then again I can't predict the future of what might happen so that I need to take down the track one way or another.

According to Dave's words, some issues are a strict no-no situation and he'd reject the request (one of them being "put them down due to quality reflection of the creative mind"), and others need to clearly discussed, considered and accepted first, before there is a "yes - we will remove your track(s) but you're not allowed to mix for us anymore in the future".

Same as with remixing projects for example. It's not a rare issue that people presented their remixes "before" their tracks were featured on the project (happened with all OCR projects except "Relics of the Chozo", as it was made with barely no attention). Now if I, as founder and leader of this project say "you're not allowed to submit anything before the proper release, and may it take years", but you go ahead and do it anyway, the track is getting submitted, released, I see that and I write the page founder "sorry, one of my mixers ignored one of the rules for this remixing project to be created - please put down the track" - can you still say "no, as this track is a free release, it'll be on the project anyway - see it as promotion"?

This doesn't work this way. And this is what's clearly glaring at me! Maybe you misinterpret things, or don't understand it - or it is my language barrier, but I can't be that off.

Also, keep in mind that the site's purpose has always been to honor video game music. If someone wants to release a commercial album, and there's an issue about using a currently available track on OCR and the desire of the person to use it in his/her album, it would be incredibly narrowminded to try to force OCR to take down the track instead of writing another one, as it would be an example of someone exerting greed for what he/she once gave freely and without limit, and contrary to the site's stated purpose. Would you consider it worth it to exert pressure for what you once gave freely for greed? I don't see how anyone can justify exerting pressure via the composer/company owning the original composition with the site's purpose in mind without being one of the most petty & ruinous people out there.

This is not a thing to decide, isn't it? And so what if it's really the same song? If the firm wants it that way, and it'll be put into (for example) the next Tony Hawk 1:1 to what it was available for free over here, then so be it. You still have to put it down according to the contract, because now there're different forms of royalty payments involved. And even if you can't change the factor "fan downloads" anymore, you can change the factor "page/internet releases".

Or do you call Machinae Supremacy greedy because they released half of their current albums for free on their own page (though lately snippets only rather than full tracks like they used to be)? Or what about Linkin Park? Popular OCR mixer examples would be SGX, Haroon Piracha and zircon, too.

A contract is a contract - am I writing all this in vain?

I don't even see why record companies would refuse allowing OCR to remain hosting the song in question, as there is already a couple of examples of songs here that are similar or exactly the same as songs sold on an album - the most striking example is the Estradasphere OC ReMix "Super Buck Jazz". This song is on their commercial album as "Super Buck II", and there has been no issues to this date as far as I'm aware, as it IS free advertisement.

Did they make contracts with the original copyright holders? Were they asked to be featured on a official CD? Is their music so popular that they play in high ranks or is it more "urban" and nobody really cares "what" is on the CD or whether or not they pay proper royalty fees?

These are all essential things to consider to wheter something is adjusted or not. But okay, from all answers I got to my posts, I clearly get the wink "forget it, never happened, never will be, you're screwed - go somewhere else or don't submit it".

And due to that, I draw the shortest straw and give in. If this issue is discussed on a close minded basis only, I really don't want to be a part of OCR as remixing participant in the future, as I won't agree with the points made in the draft and therefore rather reserve my rights to post my (upcoming) remixes at another place.

Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compyfox, I was under the impression that you didn't intend to submit anything additional to OCR anyways, before this policy was even introduced or being discussed. I believe you've indicated this yourself on numerous occasions: that you would help others produce their own mixes, but not create or submit your own. Since this was your intention prior to the introduction of this policy draft, it's hard to take your objections very seriously. Is this not accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean that I stopped mixing and not consider releasing stuff. It is indeed correct that I stopped submitting out of my own will, and also due to the fact that I barely have any material to submit which would suit the "current standards". It is also correct that I still help mixers/musicians to enhance their material from time to time (on a free and commercial basis).

Then again, this is kinda off-topic and doesn't have anything to do with the draft. No matter if I decide to submit or not is out of the question at that moment - I wrote my comments in general. Like I said, I may be the only one voicing those concerns, but it can hit anyone out there who's going the way of a more professional musician, or is on "the edge" rather than being a hobby musician only.

As someone who had to do with the law in terms of "copyright issues" already, I can relate and know a thing or two. This is why I raised my voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit concerned at the direction this is taking, because as of right now, with the policy as it stands, the only one raising serious objections and continuing to protest is Compyfox. I'm not sure where Luiza stands, given the revisions made, and I'm not sure besides these two if there's anyone else that has serious concerns.

As I said before, this policy can't please all the people all the time. I really do appreciate Compyfox's continued interest in discussing it, but I'm also not sure if we're making any progress - for one, there appear to still be misinterpretation issues, and also the core things being objected to aren't things that I think we're going to change unless we see far more concern from others. Additionally, many seem to be fine with the current draft.

So I'd like to suggest that anyone who agrees with Compyfox and has serious issues with the draft in its current state chime in, and that he remain quiet for a bit while we see if there are others who agree with him and can state his objections more clearly or add to them.

We're still in the discussion/draft stage, but I'm much happier with the current draft. If we don't see a lot of new issues being raised in the next day or so, or new people echoing the same sentiments, then I intend to run a poll trying to gauge general opinion of the draft, and proceed from there based on that feedback.

Argh, just got back from drill.

Anyhow, I think the new wording of the draft is more sound on a legal basis, but it still seems unfair to me. I just think that creative control of the work should remain with the person who made it. I understand asking for a cool down period, or barring further submissions as a for of "look before you leap", but I think that people should be allowed to control who and what gets to display their Work, especially when they're doing it for free.

And here's the one thing I don't understand yet. What does this site gain from siezing control of the mixes? DJP has already stated that he doesn't respect the reasons for asking for a remix to be removed, but I don't think that the motives behind the request should really come into the picture.

From where I stand, asking for your mix to be removed from OCR is no different than, say, pulling your mix from a project album. People may not like it, you might be doing for spiteful reasons, like not wanting to associate with someone who's working on the project, but in the end, it's the same thing, and I think it should be your right to do so. I just don't understand why rejecting removal requests help the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From where I stand, asking for your mix to be removed from OCR is no different than, say, pulling your mix from a project album. People may not like it, you might be doing for spiteful reasons, like not wanting to associate with someone who's working on the project, but in the end, it's the same thing, and I think it should be your right to do so. I just don't understand why rejecting removal requests help the site.

It's no different from pulling your mix from a project album AFTER that album has been released. Doing so beforehand would be like withdrawing a submission, which is fine, but doing so afterwards is not only silly, because the album has already been widely distributed, but petty, and insulting towards the project coordinator and others who worked on it.

We think of OCR as one big album, not just as a hosting service for files.

Many sites take that approach, but we're not them. Everything we post involves substantial work on our part, that work is non-refundable, and when you submit you're in essence forming the same type of partnership that all musicians do when they collaborate on an album. You wouldn't see Run-D.M.C. trying to halt all distribution of their collaboration with Aerosmith because Steve Tyler hurt their feelings, and the Beatles didn't try to go back and edit Lennon out when he ditched them for Yoko, or attempt to stop distribution of their albums.

We may not be at that level of musical recognition, but we aspire towards excellence, towards raising perception and awareness of game music, and we use OCR as one, big, cumulative album to do that. To succeed, I believe this concept needs the same type of trust those individuals had that they wouldn't want to somehow magically recall their music out of personal motivation.

You're asking me what we gain, and I'm telling you we gain professionalism as well as protection from personal motivations, resulting in the ability to treat OCR as the evolving, cumulative, representative album of game arrangements we believe it to be.

To achieve this end, we're asking for mixers to think of OCR as a physical album release - once it's out there, it's out there. This is consistent with our policy on replacing older versions with newer versions that are only somewhat improved: we won't do it unless it's a totally different mix that can stand on its own. There's no rewriting history, and (except maybe in extremely hypothetical scenarios) we don't want to be erasing it, either.

We ask for nothing unusual relative to the terms of collaborating on a physical album release that involves multiple artists, and we offer in return free hosting, critique, and promotion of your music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asking me what we gain, and I'm telling you we gain professionalism as well as protection from personal motivations, resulting in the ability to treat OCR as the evolving, cumulative, representative album of game arrangements we believe it to be.

To achieve this end, we're asking for mixers to think of OCR as a physical album release - once it's out there, it's out there. This is consistent with our policy on replacing older versions with newer versions that are only somewhat improved: we won't do it unless it's a totally different mix that can stand on its own. There's no rewriting history, and (except maybe in extremely hypothetical scenarios) we don't want to be erasing it, either.

We ask for nothing unusual relative to the terms of collaborating on a physical album release that involves multiple artists, and we offer in return free hosting, critique, and promotion of your music.

But that's the thing, you don't gain professionalism, you gain possesion. Professionalism cannot be secured by any legal contract, it's a manner of behavior. When JDHarding had his spat and bailed, it was very unprofessional. Do you really think this clause would have made him act in a more professional manner? No. But he took his mixes and left. I think that by keeping the mixes, it forces a link to remain between the remixer and the site, and just drags it out farther. Case in point, Protricity. Very unprofessional in his actions, and he became a reccuring problem that lasted for over a year.

The analogy I think of is kids playing catch. Kid gets pissy, takes his ball, and goes home. It's petty, but it's his right, and it'll end there. If the other kids decide to keep his ball, then things get much uglier, the kid might start a fight, or get higher powers involved. All for another half hour of playing catch? Is it worth it?

You want to treat OCR like a physical album, but it's not. It's not even close. It's constantly evolving and changing. A physical album is a one and done affair, it gets released, then it does not change after that. OCR, on the other hand, is a constant work in process, it's constantly changing. It's a project that never gets finalized.

I'm going to go back to Bound Together here, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just trying to convey my mode of thought here to you, and I think that going over the motivations of a similar situation might help me figure out where you're getting this from. When you bailed on BT, it was because something changed. On this occasion, it was because Virt was unveiled as part of the lineup, and for whatever reason, you didn't want your work in the same lineup as his. I see this as the same situation, the community and lineup here at OCR is constantly changing. If something changes, and it rubs a remixer the wrong way, they'll find themselves in a situation very similar to how you did on Bound Together. You'll find yourself in the same situation as Joe Cam was in. You'll have someone who doesn't like a change you allowed to take place, and wants out. I personally, am a firm believer of the right to exit, the right to take your ball and go home, if you want to. I don't believe that the motivations that drive you to exit are important, it's nice to explain them to the people who will have to deal with it, but in the end, you can go. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a right to enter, or re-enter.

I look at OCR as a club, and DJP and the Judges panel are the owners. As the controller of this fine establishment, you can allow people in, or bar them from entering, you can kick them out once they're in, however, you can't keep them there against their will. That's just my thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Answer to DJPs post...

Still we can't predict the future if something like I mentioned earlier is really happening, and it is a delicate issue.

Removing mixes due to the fact that it's not good enough for the participant anymore is a different issue. I mean, even worldwide known actors need to live with a certain release, so it kinda is understandable to reject the request (unless it has a very deeper background involved, like... MIDI Rip for example, or a very, very bad mixing, which shouldn't be the issue anymore due to the song standards - whoever wondered why I put my track down, this was the reason and I barely wrote anything since then). But everything else, even if it's a "extremely hypothetical what-if scenario" needs a certain solution.

From the chat with you just a minute ago, I know that you'll look into it, and some other things we discussed. I just have the feeling that we still are a bit restricted in our rights as people participating to this... giant "album".

EDIT2:

And thanks to DragonFireKai. You share my concerns in a different light, but with the same outcome. Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go back to Bound Together here, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just trying to convey my mode of thought here to you, and I think that going over the motivations of a similar situation might help me figure out where you're getting this from. When you bailed on BT, it was because something changed.

....

I look at OCR as a club, and DJP and the Judges panel are the owners. As the controller of this fine establishment, you can allow people in, or bar them from entering, you can kick them out once they're in, however, you can't keep them there against their will. That's just my thoughts on this.

While this policy cannot guarantee the professionalism of those submitting, obviously, what it can help protect is the professionalism of the site entire. We're presenting OCR as a canon, and while you're right that it's constantly being added to, removal is not the same.

You're perfectly fine by me with bringing up BT; in that instance, the album had not yet been released. I would not have objected to a policy for BT which stated that, once released, pieces were not retractable. I still would have been pissed to have been intentionally kept in the dark on an issue that was important to me, but once the album is released... what can you do? That was, I believe, a violation of my trust. My recourse, had such a policy existed and I agreed to it, would be to not collaborate with those individuals again. So behaves the music industry. Additionally, in over six years I don't feel that OCR has ever violated trust in a comparable way to what happened with BT, and I endeavor to ensure that it never will. As an additional side note, I'm not as sure as I once was that the intentions of those behind the BT thing were "bad" - I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding that should have been preventable with foresight, but not an outright attempt to screw me over.

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, and if someone adamantly wanted their piece removed, we'd be out the $1000-$2000 it cost to do a large run of such items. From our perspective, we were trying to promote everyone's music in yet another way, but one person came along and made that impossible, and cost us thousands of dollars in the process, which was taken from ad revenue or donations. I don't think so... not on my watch. I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will project albums be subject to this? I have mixes that I completed years ago that are on unreleased project albums.

Also I'd imagine that age should be a required detail for submissions as "a minor has the right to rescind contracts because a minor lacks competence to make them."

Really excellent points. The second I'll look into, the first needs to be discussed internally amongst site staff first, I'd say, as we just flat out missed considering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I HAVE TO comment...

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

In that case, you should also be fair to contact a mixer, if you decide to take a mix down due to reasons unknown. The mixer should have influence and the final words. The participant AGREE's to your rules, you're just the licensee (as stated). Unless the participating mixer gives you the full right of a mix, he can do with it what he wants. From asking you to remove it, to asking you not to remove it. The same as AD said.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, [...snip...] I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

Hold it right there! You can't simply do that off hand. You'd still have to ask the mixers "are you cool with that?". One example would be Novatunes and mp3.de. The time you sign up and submit a song, you're asked to whether or not you agree that this song may be featured on a compilatio/demo CD with some sort of payment for you, or the chance to win a complete paid CD release for you.

If you take this into consideration, the people are allowed to do what they want with their tracks. After all, Novatunes is a netlabel that signs you for 2 years, and mp3.de is an open community like OCR. You have 1578 tracks on OCR at the moment. All of them exceed 5,75GB, a normal DVD-5 has 4,7GB (though in reality more like 4,2GB). That alone would make 2DVDs. Now if people say "sorry, but I don't agree that you will put my track on DVD and share it on a printed media" (which is their right to do so), you don't have any problems at all if they should ever dedice that their stuff might go commercial, or they want to reject it. And even then you STILL have enough material to present to the masses, and you can write on the disk "wanna hear more? Come to our page".

Seriously, the more I hear in defense from your side, Dave, the more I really don't want to submit anything at all anymore. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Rules good and fine, but this is slowly growing ridiculus if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compy, please stop replying. You're covering the same territory and saying the same things. Your intention to not submit anything is hardly surprising since that was your feeling before this policy even existed. I've already stated that I believe AD is incorrect, legally, and unlike him, I cited examples of the type of licensing agreement we are pursuing, which appears common enough. He has not yet responded.

You've said your piece. I've asked you to be quiet and let others speak and you seem unable. Further comments made by you on this post will unfortunately have to be deleted, and your account re-banned if you continue to persist in making them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that most of Compyfox's scenarios are unlikely, but so are some of the other situations that were addressed in the policy such as "what if there's another exodus" and "what if a composer wants to commandeer my arrangement." So it's worth talking about stuff like "what if a company wants to use and take down a remix that was posted before this license." Then you can't really use the argument, "Well if you wanted to sell it, you shouldn't have submitted it in the first place."

Anyway, I think I'll take a shot at answering some of these questions (at least the ones I understand)...

Furthermore, once more a "what if" but these are all possibilities that can happen, and happened already... What if the track was submitted already, and due to the fact that "this" particular track was submitted, a certain firm came to you and said "wow this track is awesome - we want to feature it, please put it down, we write you a contract with further rules and info of how you'd getting paid". This is the same as you said, but it's happening AFTER it was released (or even submitted and/or in the judging process) on OCR. It's a reversed contractract in this case and you have your written confirmation why you have to put it down. No further check needed, or a discussion "but can we keep it?".

I think what djp was saying is that he'd have to actually *see* this "written confirmation" and make sure it wasn't written by yourself or something. And even in this case, I think it could still sometimes be negotiated with the company to let OCR keep the track on the site.

Were talking about something that you try, to my impression, forbid as if it's happening every other day. Of course it's some sort of extra effort, but it is still the Work of it's original creator. And due to the fact that you wrote on your new draft enhancement, that you're only a licensee, the mixer providing his material still has the final word on it, hasn't he?

If you agree to the license, you're giving up your final word on removing remixes.

Like I said, I may be the only one expressing it, but it is a delicate situation and it needs to be discussed. The problem is, you can of course go to a firm and say "I have a mix, am I allowed to distribute it commercially" before you consider going "public domain", but usually they're like "who the heck are you?" and reject that request. Unless however, you're already known in the scene (example: OCR, or to the remixed artist) and/or you're really good, then they're more friendly and be like "nice tracks you got there, want to be featured maybe?".

I'm not even sure what you're saying here...can you clarify the situation you're describing?

In this case, all that's coming next is kinda rolling backwards, and chances are, if you mixed for three different games, one of them being the game in question for the compilation, that these tracks will be needed to be removed. And you have to agree.

So you're saying that if an artist did three different ReMixes from three different games, and a company wanted to use one of them, all three tracks would need to be removed? I don't see what right they would have to do that.

Well from my side, I "have to" agree the termination (even if it's only partially, meaning only one of the games I mixed - again as example with the contract), but in the same time it still sounds to me "only if we see a reason in it", while negating that with the request to speak to the contract holder to be "really sure" and ignoring requests from people who say "sorry - doesn't reflect my work anymore". This is contradictorily and doesn't really work IMO.

What do you mean you "have to" agree to a termination? The license says the it's only terminated if BOTH parties agree to it. Although, now that I think of it, that makes the "OCR has a right to refuse termination" part kind of redundant...

The whole last passage doesn't really work to be honest. First you refuse to remove the material, second you can remove it anytime if you think it's a violation of the rules.

The first rule is to preserve site history, and the second is to make sure it's correct in the first place.

I CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! Period. I can not say at this moment of day "oh... this track I'm working on will be featured on a CD". I can however try to get it on a CD, though if it doesn't work, I can think about the option going to OCR (even if I'm not allowed to one way or another - the "fanmaterial" thing again). Then again I can't predict the future of what might happen so that I need to take down the track one way or another.

So your objection is that the policy is too inflexible to accommodate unexpected situations in the future? Well, of course, it's impossible to forsee all possible outcomes, but the policy isn't talking about those. It's just talking about stuff that we know might come up and how to respond to it. If something comes up that wasn't addressed, it can be dealt with then.

Same as with remixing projects for example. It's not a rare issue that people presented their remixes "before" their tracks were featured on the project (happened with all OCR projects except "Relics of the Chozo", as it was made with barely no attention). Now if I, as founder and leader of this project say "you're not allowed to submit anything before the proper release, and may it take years", but you go ahead and do it anyway, the track is getting submitted, released, I see that and I write the page founder "sorry, one of my mixers ignored one of the rules for this remixing project to be created - please put down the track" - can you still say "no, as this track is a free release, it'll be on the project anyway - see it as promotion"?

Actually, that's never happened before. All project tracks posted before the project release were because of explicit agreement between the project coordinator and the site, for promotional reasons like you mentioned (in fact djp had to beg KyleJCrb to post his ToP track :P ). But if a track did happen to slip through at some point in the future, the track would be taken off of the project, not the site.

This is not a thing to decide, isn't it? And so what if it's really the same song? If the firm wants it that way, and it'll be put into (for example) the next Tony Hawk 1:1 to what it was available for free over here, then so be it. You still have to put it down according to the contract, because now there're different forms of royalty payments involved. And even if you can't change the factor "fan downloads" anymore, you can change the factor "page/internet releases".

You keep making it sound that OCR wouldn't comply under any circumstance. While they'd prefer not to take down a song, I think if a reputable company asked nicely, they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this policy cannot guarantee the professionalism of those submitting, obviously, what it can help protect is the professionalism of the site entire. We're presenting OCR as a canon, and while you're right that it's constantly being added to, removal is not the same.

You're perfectly fine by me with bringing up BT; in that instance, the album had not yet been released. I would not have objected to a policy for BT which stated that, once released, pieces were not retractable. I still would have been pissed to have been intentionally kept in the dark on an issue that was important to me, but once the album is released... what can you do? That was, I believe, a violation of my trust. My recourse, had such a policy existed and I agreed to it, would be to not collaborate with those individuals again. So behaves the music industry. Additionally, in over six years I don't feel that OCR has ever violated trust in a comparable way to what happened with BT, and I endeavor to ensure that it never will. As an additional side note, I'm not as sure as I once was that the intentions of those behind the BT thing were "bad" - I think it was an unfortunate misunderstanding that should have been preventable with foresight, but not an outright attempt to screw me over.

You can endevour, but you cannot guarantee. These are situations that need to be accounted for, because I have a feeling that you might want to do other things with your life, rather than simply babysit the site for all eternity. As you delegate more and more power to other individuals within the community, your ability to carry through with you endevour becomes more and more limited, and the site's policies need to be able to account for that. These policies are going to become SOP, something that affects all people participating in the site, and by your own wording, permanently. If there are sections of it that depend completely on the assumption of the good intentions of the man in charge, then we're at the whims of the man in charge, for good or ill.

You can view OCR as a club, but I'm flatly stating as the site's creator that my vision is different. OCR is two things: a kickass community, and a representative collection of unofficial game music arrangements.

We aren't keeping people here against their will; they can distribute their music anywhere else, they never have to visit the site, and no further interaction is required from them. If, by submitting music to this site, an artist felt like he or she was being "kept" here in some way simply by virtue of their piece(s) being here, as it would be with any collaboration album with various artists, then they should not submit. I'm comfortable saying that because I believe the policy is fair, and that the combination of hosting, promotion, distribution and other related services that OCR provides shouldn't be disposable at a whim.

One example of many: we'd like to do a mass printing of DVD-ROMs that can be distributed with as many mixes as possible on them, with decent packaging, for free as promotional offerings or as prizes at VGL or other events. Removing mixes from such mass-produced items would be impossible, and if someone adamantly wanted their piece removed, we'd be out the $1000-$2000 it cost to do a large run of such items. From our perspective, we were trying to promote everyone's music in yet another way, but one person came along and made that impossible, and cost us thousands of dollars in the process, which was taken from ad revenue or donations. I don't think so... not on my watch. I want to be able to do cool shit like this because I think it can help take OCR further, but we can't do it without some assurances. Please don't respond specifically to this one hypothetical situation - even though it's very real, and something I want to do, there are numerous similar possibilities that would be ruled out without an adequate policy to support them.

I understand a situation like that. One solution would be to create two distinct policies, one that allows for removal from the site proper, and all future physical releases, and another which explains that any physical releases given away at conventions or radio shows or whatever cannot be withdrawn, not as a matter of refusal, but simply as a matter of the impossibility of the logistics. Another would be to set up a listing of situations that you would release the music in, like radio, podcast, at conventions, so on and so forth, and then have the remixer tell you if he has any objections to any of the situations during the submissions process, so that you have prior consent that doesn't require hunting down remixers each time you want to release something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are situations that need to be accounted for, because I have a feeling that you might want to do other things with your life, rather than simply babysit the site for all eternity.

...

These policies are going to become SOP, something that affects all people participating in the site, and by your own wording, permanently. If there are sections of it that depend completely on the assumption of the good intentions of the man in charge, then we're at the whims of the man in charge, for good or ill.

...

I understand a situation like that. One solution would be to create two distinct policies, one that allows for removal from the site proper, and all future physical releases, and another which explains that any physical releases given away at conventions or radio shows or whatever cannot be withdrawn, not as a matter of refusal, but simply as a matter of the impossibility of the logistics. Another would be to set up a listing of situations that you would release the music in, like radio, podcast, at conventions, so on and so forth, and then have the remixer tell you if he has any objections to any of the situations during the submissions process, so that you have prior consent that doesn't require hunting down remixers each time you want to release something.

First off, your point about my role on the site is duly noted, but that's really a topic for a separate policy. We definitely intend to get to it, but this is more crucial. Beyond a will, in case I die, the logistics of defining terms of OCR being handed over are very complicated, and not something in my opinion that will necessitate the same type of public comment, discussion, and revision. As a sidenote, your choice of the verb "babysit" when referring to my role now or in the future is unfortunate and honestly rather offensive. I do far more than babysit, I can assure you, and intend to have a hands-on role for as long as I am capable.

Your two solutions are well-meant, I'm sure, but it's not like we haven't thought of such things. I don't consider them viable; I'd vastly prefer not to be distributing OC ReMixes that weren't really OC ReMixes any more because someone's ego got dashed on our forums or something, and two such policies would potentially put us in that position. Keeping track of specific licensing options would be a maintenance nightmare, as realistically people would want to be able to change that stuff, new options/technologies would be created and we'd need to ask everyone all over again, etc. There's a reason the more common implementation is to have the license be very open in terms of usage; anything else can be a nightmare to manage. That's time better spent on posting mixes (something I need to get back to doing rather soon) and promoting the site. If we need to check whether X mixer allowed X usage for X mix, trust me, it'd be highly prohibitive. Thus neither of these solutions persuade me.

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...