Jump to content

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


djpretzel
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I think that's the point of this policy. You're giving OCR a "non-exclusive" and "permanent" license to distribute your work.

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".

Maybe I'm just not understanding you, but...what does this have to do with the topic? djp isn't worried that there won't be enough material for a DVD...the problem is that if he prints out hundreds of CDs, but suddenly somebody says "I want my ReMixes removed and don't allow you to distribute them anymore," then he's now lost thousands of dollars because of that. He needs to make sure people won't be revoking their licenses left and right before he can even try to doing cool stuff like this.

Again, don't overreact before you're clear about the meaning of a person's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be nice if we could add something to the terms of use requiring that somebody make a good faith effort to contact the remixer and ask or at least inform them before performing it in a commercial place.

Sorry Jeremy, not ignoring you, just put this on the back-burner. I understand and agree with your notion, but I really wanna cut out all the "good faith", and "should" stuff and stick with the "must" stuff for this document.

I will have a separate preamble introducing these terms that covers good faith stuff but is not part of the actual agreement, and this will definitely be in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I apologize for any insult I caused with my poor choice of language. Not my intention. I didn't specificaly mean in the event of your death, or even the event of you leaving the site, I simply meant the process that you've already engaged in, of empowering other individuals in the communities to excercise authority on your behalf. The more degrees of seperation you put between yourself and the work itself, the less control you have over how things are going. You can say pretty much anything you want, but you still rely on the chain of command to carry it out, and that can get garbled on the way down. By having documented, publicly-viewable standards on how you want aspects of the site to work, you minimize creep throughout the site, and it does give a sense of security to the general masses on the site.

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.

I think you could probably crank it all into an excel spreadsheet pretty easily, depending on how specific one wants to get in terms of distribution catagories, and at that point, a canned E-mail could provide a checklist that the remixers simply fills out and returns during the submissions process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty comfortable with the revised draft and have started a poll to gauge current sentiment towards it, as previously mentioned. We can continue to discuss it here but no modifications will be made until the poll has closed. If only minor additional points have been introduced, beyond already stated concerns, and the poll indicates that a sufficient majority are OK with it, then we'll proceed with finalizing it. Otherwise, we'll extend the 5/27 deadline for feedback and continue discussing the major concerns.

I don't have an exact figure for how the poll would have to breakdown in order for us to proceed; I'd hope for at least an 80/20 split, more like 90/10, but the nature of the explanations being made for each "disagree" vote will also factor in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that'd be more red tape than most people wanna deal with...

This whole set up is more red tape than some people want to deal with. But as I've stressed earlier, it's important to get it as right as possible while it's still in draft phase.

I've got another idea, set what's essentially a term limit on the content policy, say, six months. Spend six months with the policy, see how it works, then in six months open up a new discussion with the community to see what they think is working, and what they think is ate up. Then fix the points that are causing problems and keep what's working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the poll thread:

The way the current draft is structured, the site can sieze a mix that a remixer no longer wishes to have posted on the site. I'm a firm believer in the right to exit, and that's being taken away here. So if something comes up that a remixer doesn't want to be associated with as the site evolves, they're trapped.

If there is a change in policy or such, then that change does not apply to them. Maybe a clause can be added that if there is a change in policy, then a ReMixer can opt to terminate their license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the poll thread:

If there is a change in policy or such, then that change does not apply to them. Maybe a clause can be added that if there is a change in policy, then a ReMixer can opt to terminate their license.

I could accept that. I'd like unrestricted right to exit, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Giving an out in the event of policy changes is an acceptable compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could accept that. I'd like unrestricted right to exit, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Giving an out in the event of policy changes is an acceptable compromise.

Well, it's not really necessary - we won't and can't just go changing the policy willy-nilly after you agree to it, anyways. What you agree to when you submit will be the current version of the policy, always. If you're talking about some OTHER aspect of the site's functionality, it's a legit concern, but the Submission Agreement and Terms of Use are covered by the nature of agreements - we can't modify them after the fact without asking you all over again if you agree.

We will store the policy in our Wiki and all edits will be tracked so that mixers and staff alike can see what the policy looked like at any specific point in time. So if you agreed to the policy, submitted a mix, and afterwards we changed the policy to require that you donate your spleen along with every submission, you'd be cool. As long as you didn't submit anything after this modification was made. Any major edits would be accompanied by announcements, but you could always see what's been modified on the Wiki, once it's there.

Yes, this means that every time you submit, you might want to verify that the policy hasn't changed markedly, but we'll embed that reminder into the submission standards themselves to help remind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's not really necessary - we won't and can't just go changing the policy willy-nilly after you agree to it, anyways. What you agree to when you submit will be the current version of the policy, always.

We will store the policy in our Wiki and all edits will be tracked so that mixers and staff alike can see what the policy looked like at any specific point in time. So if you agreed to the policy, submitted a mix, and afterwards we changed the policy to require that you donate your spleen along with every submission, you'd be cool. As long as you didn't submit anything after this modification was made. Any major edits would be accompanied by announcements, but you could always see what's been modified on the Wiki, once it's there.

Yes, this means that every time you submit, you might want to verify that the policy hasn't changed markedly, but we'll embed that reminder into the submission standards themselves to help remind you.

Well, DJP, you have absolute power over this site, you can change the policy whenever you want, to whatever you want. Weather or not you use that power, and in what manner you use it, remains to be seen.

But your comment about the wiki is a good step here. I'd like the grandfather clause put into the draft.

Other than that, I've already laid out what I do and don't like about the draft extensively, and laid out my suggestions for changes, so I won't repeat them here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response to Anorak:

Well, from everything I've seen, just about every license agreement favors the licensee in termination...unless someone can point out otherwise why it should ever be the other way, I can't say I share that sentiment. Anything that does not favor the licensee in termination is unfair on the licensee because it allows the licensor to hold the licensee hostage, and in this case as far as I see it, it applies even more because as a non-profit organization, the site's intentions is to help the ReMixers, and allowing particular ReMixers to hold the site hostage for petty/selfish reasons is one of the worst things you can ask for to happen for a well-intentioned site (by site purpose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you've addressed my main issue, the one about specifically saying that the ReMixers holds all ownership. While I was at work there's been a lot of replies, which I don't have time to read honestly, but wasn't the "right to reject removal requests" established as something you couldn't legally do? That's what it sounded like, anyway. Regardless, I can see honestly no reason that I'd ever want my ReMix(es?) to one day be pulled, so it doesn't bother me, but I'd still rather not see another mass exodus because of the stubborn inclusion of that clause.

Other than that:

But your comment about the wiki is a good step here. I'd like the grandfather clause put into the draft.
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.
I have tracks on both released and unreleased projects, and would like to know about this as well.
B.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, performed, or incorporated into other works, materials used must be clearly attributed both to the ReMixer(s) who created them and to OverClocked ReMix. This accreditation must be in the form of the ReMixer name(s) followed by "OverClocked ReMix (www.ocremix.org)". In applicable contexts where user interactivity is possible, such as websites, the site name and URL must be linked to http://www.ocremix.org. Accreditation must be presented as close to the utilized material as possible; if OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, accreditation must be prominently displayed in context with the utilized material.
If one was to play an OC ReMix on a radio station, what would be the proper way of crediting the site? Simply naming the artist and the url?

One more small question: when the policy is enacted, if someone violates the terms of use (say, someone uses a remix in a television commercial without giving proper credit), what would be the site's course of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...despite overcoming my personal distaste of spooky legal words such as "perpetual" and "irrevocable", I cannot comfortably give my support to a plan that would potentially deny the artist control over their works (or "Works"). I know and have seen people have their mixes requested taken down for reasons 1,2, and 4 as highlighted by djpretzel (though I don't personally know of anyone finding Jesus being a cause for a request, yet I do know that JAXX's faith was instrumental in him deleting his pirate music program and samples years back, but I digress...).

And while I realize that it is for protection of the staff who works longer, harder, and more thanklessly than ever before (I speak from experience), I personally don't feel comfortable greenlighting something so concrete that I'm not 100% satisfied with. Granted, you probably deny yourself more rights just by using Yahoo! Mail, but give a trickle of probablity for just and due proper credit and/or monetary compensation and that's when we really bust out the bifocals and start reading the fine print (but now I'm delving into a PPR thing, and quite poorly at that).

Enough rambling. The point is that I wouldn't feel comfortable unless the issue of removal was revised. I do recognize and respect that this is unlikely and that you, David Lloyd, are pulling your hair trying to satisfy hundreds of artists, thousands in the community, and millions around the globe. No one is going to be satisfied 100% and I understand that and appreciate the fact that you are at least trying as best you can, which is all that can be asked. I just wanted to be on record as saying I do not agree with the draft policy as is, as of now. Then again, I argued against created PPR in the beginning as well.

The thing I got out of all of this as most critical was this:

I happen to be in an amazing position to find as conclusive an answer to this question as possible, as my girlfriend is starting work next week for Finnegan Henderson (http://www.finnegan.com/), and since they're one of the top IP firms in the world, I'd have to think someone there can provide a conclusive explanation. It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well.

>>Insert Tim Allen confusion grunt here<<

*wipes tear from eye*

I've watched you grow. You're finally becoming a man. I'm so proud of you.

tntpogbamtfbwy

-ap

P.S. Atomic Dog, though you did not offer what can be constituted as legal advice, I believe I do speak on behalf of others when I say thank you for using your legal expertise in a non-legally binding way to make clear the Lawyerspeak™ to the average Joe and below-average Moe ("Antonio Pizza") so that it could be understood, to paraphrase Denzel Washington in "Philadelphia", by a six-year-old. Yes, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Jeremy, not ignoring you, just put this on the back-burner. I understand and agree with your notion, but I really wanna cut out all the "good faith", and "should" stuff and stick with the "must" stuff for this document.

I will have a separate preamble introducing these terms that covers good faith stuff but is not part of the actual agreement, and this will definitely be in there.

This first (long segment) is largely directed towards DJP - any reference to "you" is basically DJP", any reference to "us/we/me/our" is a member of the OCR community - predominantly current, former and possible future contributors.

Unfortunately I believe that it is the very fact that you have not displayed the "good faith stuff" that is causing so many problems. Think of the "good faith stuff" as a clause in this contract (the term contract is a legally applicable one, as entering a contract is about the only legal way one can enforce a specific right such as the "removal refusal" while remaining merely a licensor in other aspects of the agreement). By displaying this contract without the Good Faith clause, you are asking people to sign off on a set of rules without allowing them opportunity to view all the rules to which they are agreeing.

There is also a certain contradictory nature to some of this policy. You are laying out a policy so that rules are available to be viewed and acknowledged by all, so that previous unwritten rules, common sense and good faith are no longer relied upon - and yet at the same time you are incorporating new good faith rules into the policy that are, as yet, unwritten. If the intention of the policy is to remove ambiguous, easily misinterpreted rules of good faith and common sense, then it seems futiles to embed new rules of good faith within the document. Instead, it would be suggested by the nature of this policy's design - to create and commit concrete rules, rights and responsibilities - that anything written in this section is devoid of ambiguity which may allow for subjective interpretation of the agreement.

Put simply, if you wish to make sure that everything in this policy is clearly stated and free from confusion or "good faith" concerns, then make that clear. A few times, when in defense of a certain clause or wording, you've said words to the effect of "Guys, trust me, I'm not going to screw you over." That's reassuring, but ultimately doesn't mean a lot, because it's not in the policy. If one day you did decide to screw us over, there's nothing we could do, because the contract we signed gave you permission to do that.

I think one concern shared by some here is to do with that. If there is no need for you to have certain rights and powers, and if you would never exercise those rights and powers anyway, why do you want those rights and powers?

Phew. Ok, this is just for general thread continuation.

As for the "right to remove" being able to be in this agreement - it's doable. Most anything legal can be waived in a contract - which is what this agreement is. It is quite feasible for DJP to ask remixers to give him the specific right to refuse removal of submitted works for any reason, as long as it doesn't interfere with other "higher" laws. Being a contract, the remixer has 2 options - sign the contract or not sign it. Individual remixers can of course try to negotiate with DJP for a different contract, with that clause altered or removed, but he's under no obligation to remove it, just as the remixer is under no obligation to sign the contract.

As for retroactive application of this contract, again, that's allowed as long as the remixer agrees to it. The remixer could choose to agree and have all earlier works fall under the new contract, or he could disagree, at which point the remixer and DJP could negotiate an alternate contractual arrangement.

However, as I am sure DJP is quite aware, this contract cannot be enforced on remixers or remixes already on www.ocremix.org until he has spoken to said remixer of said remixes. In fact, until a remixer specifically agrees to the new policy, his or her works are by default under the old "unwritten" policy. So someone that doesn't like this new policy has nothing to fear - these rules aren't being forced upon them. DJP has talked of a grandfathering system being in place - it is already in place.

The most important things to keep in mind within this entire debate are the following:

1. These rules are being put down not with the primary intention of controlling anyone, but with the primary intention of making the rules clear and acceessible, to make the system transparent, and to protect all parties,

2. These rules cannot be enforced upon existing remixers or existing works against their will, as such a thing is simply impossible, legally, and finally

3. both DJP and a remixer can prevent any future works from being encapsuled by this new policy by not submitting/accepting a remix. Put simply, you're not forced to agree to these terms, but DJP is not forced to accept yours either. If you can't reach a middle ground, then the song simply won't be hosted.

Bleh. I typed far too much. My apologies to anyone who is teased at school/work tomorrow for having keyboard imprints in their forehead as a result of falling asleep reading what I've written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few times, when in defense of a certain clause or wording, you've said words to the effect of "Guys, trust me, I'm not going to screw you over." That's reassuring, but ultimately doesn't mean a lot, because it's not in the policy. If one day you did decide to screw us over, there's nothing we could do, because the contract we signed gave you permission to do that.

If you could provide a concrete example of exactly how Dave would screw us over, that would help your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important things to keep in mind within this entire debate are the following:

1. These rules are being put down not with the primary intention of controlling anyone, but with the primary intention of making the rules clear and acceessible, to make the system transparent, and to protect all parties,

2. These rules cannot be enforced upon existing remixers or existing works against their will, as such a thing is simply impossible, legally, and finally

3. both DJP and a remixer can prevent any future works from being encapsuled by this new policy by not submitting/accepting a remix. Put simply, you're not forced to agree to these terms, but DJP is not forced to accept yours either. If you can't reach a middle ground, then the song simply won't be hosted.

Yes, that sounds about right. Regarding your previous comments about good faith - since I can't think of legitimate causes for removal, I don't know what we would be specifying good faith regarding.

As for existing mixers/mixes, once finalized, in addition to requiring the policy for new submissions, I plan on actively asking existing mixers to agree to it for all of their works. If they decline, their works do not fall under the policy unless they submit something new, and remain on the site. However, there will be distribution/promotional opportunities that those mixers/mixes will not be a part of unless they sign the policy; for example, having mixes played before and after the Video Games Live event, having mixes distributed on free DVD-ROMs to members of the press, etc. So there's incentive for agreeing, even if you're never going to submit anything ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say there needs to be a subsection included for distribution on CD/DVD Media, like most online labels do for "promotion material". As the stuff will be heard by the press, maybe even highend mixers looking for new talents, but a mixer might not be interested in that kind of stuff, he should be able to decline that "offer" for the particular track submitted (also working retroactive).

If we go more into deeper administation stuff, I think this wouldn't be much more work either.

Though... I guess I already know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said, stop shredding my posts to pieces, dammit! You're a worse troll than I ever was - seriously now.

I still say that it's definitely not okay to post stuff on physical media without our total agreement. You (OCR) are still only licensing our material. Then again, if the track is catching attention and the involved mixer is getting a contract to use "that" particular track in an official release, we have another interest conflict in terms of "removing tracks".

Another possible "situation", what'll most "unlikely happen" - but I felt like mentioning it. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said, stop shredding my posts to pieces, dammit! You're a worse troll than I ever was - seriously now.

...do you even know what a troll is? I'm trying to help here.

I still say that it's definitely not okay to post stuff on physical media without our total agreement.

Okay, maybe I just don't understand what the problem is. Aren't you giving your "total agreement" when you give the license in the first place? And when you agree to the license, which says that it's okay to "use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed," doesn't that include physical media? Why does there have to be a separate section for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...do you even know what a troll is? I'm trying to help here.

I should know, I was banned because of that. Then again, who says that I'm so bad in english, that I need "help"? Mind your own business please.

Okay, maybe I just don't understand what the problem is. Aren't you giving your "total agreement" when you give the license in the first place? And when you agree to the license, which says that it's okay to "use, distribute, perform, and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed," doesn't that include physical media? Why does there have to be a separate section for that?

I just stated another possibility, which reverts to one of my infamous "what if" theories. Don't worry my friend, there doesn't need to be an extra point for that, but my concerns still remain - like it or not.

And with that said, I take my right to get some beauty sleep, or do I need to get a license for that first? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a person who has been around since the early days of OCR (though with 'animefreak', a horribly generic, useless nick) i am going to share my thoughts.

disclaimer (to djp mostly, but also to anyone else): Yes, i know you've already gone over this. Yes, i know you're very happy with it and unlikely to change your mind. Yes, i am aware that you don't agree with many things people have done, and the ways they have done them, over the site's history.

That being said, i still think that the 'may refuse to honor removal requests' or however you might have worded it is petty, silly, and will only continue the animosity of some, and breed animosity in others.

I'm sure it's a pain in the ass, and you hate doing it, but the 'high road', as it were, on the issue of removal is to just do it. If you feel like refusing every submission afterwards from people who've had works removed, especially in the case of repeated requests, that is entirely understandable. Nobody likes feeling like their work is wasted, as it must feel when you've committed time and effort to the upkeep and promotion of the site and to the evaluation of remixes, and suddenly a person or people want to bail because of whatever reason.

People have always been emotional and prone to changing their minds for any reason and for no reason. It may be silly, it may be stupid. They may be doing it completely out of spite. You may have absolutely no respect for them or their reasons.

Matching spite with spite by stubbornly refusing removal, as you have stated is the very likely chance, does nothing for you.

edited to add: If there is anything i have overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted, i welcome clarification. This is only how it appeared to be, to me, after reading the entire thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a person who has been around since the early days of OCR (though with 'animefreak', a horribly generic, useless nick) i am going to share my thoughts.

disclaimer (to djp mostly, but also to anyone else): Yes, i know you've already gone over this.

That being said, i still think that the 'may refuse to honor removal requests' or however you might have worded it is petty, silly, and will only continue the animosity of some, and breed animosity in others.

...

People have always been emotional and prone to changing their minds for any reason and for no reason. It may be silly, it may be stupid. They may be doing it completely out of spite. You may have absolutely no respect for them or their reasons.

Matching spite with spite by stubbornly refusing removal, as you have stated is the very likely chance, does nothing for you.

We wouldn't be matching spite with spite, we'd be matching spite with a calm response that protected the site's best interests and the interests of staff, other ReMixers, and listeners, all of whom contribute to the site and could potentially be affected by mix removal in one way or another.

Your calling us "silly" and "petty" only confirms my impression that you're one of the individuals that already have spite towards us, are influenced by this attitude in your evaluation of this policy, and would be unlikely to submit additional material whether or not this policy was even being discussed. Is that wholly inaccurate?

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...