Jump to content

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


djpretzel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am a horrible musician, and have little to no creative ability in any other field. It is very highly unlikely that i will submit any material, regardless of whether the policy stays, changes, or is erased completely, based solely on my inability to create something that would meet the standards of the site. On that point, you are not inaccurate.

However, you are innacurate in taking an evaluation of that clause as 'petty and silly' as an attack on your person or character. I believe that the wording as it exists now serves no purpose except to be contentious.

I am also confused as to how "the site's best interests and the interests of staff" etc etc. are served by denying removal.

I do not see the positive effect that it would have on the community. Conflicts that arise will still exist, and most likely be heightened if Remixer A is offended in some way, decides not to be affiliated with the site, requests measures to accomplish that, and is told flatly 'no'.

Nobody comes into a community expecting to leave unhappily, but it sometimes works out that way, and to impede people's leaving will, in my opinion, only damage the community over time.

As a side note, You seem to have a notion of what you think i feel and believe, and in the same way, other people (including myself) have notions of what they think you feel and believe. I would enjoy the chance to get these likely erroneous notions resolved, and i am constantly disappointed in myself that i did not take the opportunity at MAGFest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've read through as much of this as I can stomach and thought I would just chime in (damn you Dhsu for calling me out).

As far as remix removal is concerned, I have no problem with that. This is just the contract that you are going into by submitting remixes. If this changes your perspective on submitting remixes, then by all means, stay as far away as possible. At first glance, it seems that I am losing out on this prospect and that my personal work is being shackled in by this policy, but if I don't like it then I don't have to get my music distributed in such a public way. If I really think that I'm going to see as much traffic by putting up my own website with my music on it exclusively, then I will. But I seriously doubt that.

In submitting to OCR, I'm telling them that I appreciate the chance to get my music hosted and seen by a much larger audience on the internet than I could make happen myself, and in return I'm asking djp and the staff not to have to go through the ass-pain of someday having to remove my mix from their site, their mirrors, and their torrents. Can you even imagine how crappy it would be if someone decided to depart from OCR and all their music was removed from the torrents and re-setup only to have another dissatisfied remixer come along days later and do the same? These torrents would be screwed up all the time. Who the hell would know WHAT they were downloading, or hosting, or seeding? For this reason ALONE I think that the policy stands. Again, it's our decisions as musicians as to what we what done with our work. If OCR is a bad choice for you because of the policy, then make the right decision and don't submit.

As far as the public performance stuff goes, I don't imagine I'll be doing too much of that, but I think it's a little strenuous. I agree with Taucer's points in the other thread that actively yelling out "OCREMIX.ORG" for every time the music is played in any public venue is a little over the top. Especially considering that if you go to the remixer themselves and grab the original file before it became OCR submitted then you have no legal tape to worry about. In Taucer's case, I know that these type of shows/competitions never have anyone actually telling where the music came from. Maybe that's illegal on everyone's part but it's still over the top. It feels like being forced to advertise.

All that being said, the policy is fine with me. Back to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. I received two emails regarding this topic and have been reminded of its existence by (and prompted to participate in the discussion of) by several remembers of this board. I'm certain a reasonable agreement could be reached with or without my involvement, nevertheless, I will offer my thoughts on the subject in response to these promptings.

Relevant experience: I studied copyright law in college. I had planned to take other music related courses following my studies in copyright law, but was given, to borrow and old cliche, an offer I couldn't refuse. One of my former professors hired me into his record label, largely an artist development scheme, and thus began my career. Within a month, I was involved in my first legal dispute as a fellow employee (after being forcefully removed from the company) "commandeered" a piece of intellectual property of which I was the derivative source. My employers sued and the legal battle rages to this day. After this time, the head of A&R (artist research) had to go on hiatus in order to provide important witness testimony to another dispute with a band that had employed the production efforts of the company previous to my employment, and as such I was forced to assume an A&R role to cover for his absence. In this time, I became an artists' rights advocate and consultant. My largest success of this nature was aiding an artist in escaping an overreaching (legally enslaving) clause of a contract with a major record company for which the total value of the afformentioned written agreement had been in excess of 20 million dollars. In addition, I have maintained secondary employment as a work-for-hire (not to be confused with "work made for hire" which is a legal term and has a completely different meaning) freelancer, initiating my own negotiations, subcontracting work and conducting general licensing work with various clients.

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.

As luck would have it, he is dead wrong. This is why:

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

If you will notice in his example, the two parties in question (in regards to their relationship to the vehicle and use thereof) have not signed any legally binding agreement.

A licensing contract is a legally binding agreement. If you put into writing that one relevant party has a certain right in regards to something you own, then they have that right. After all, you signed a legally binding document granting the other party a specific right. I'm not sure how this could be confused. It seems like AD is suggesting that licensing agreements don't exist.

Revocation of a license is an absolute right of the licensor.

No, not really. When you sign a legally binding contract with another party, you are in essence dictating the rights that you and the other party have in regards to the relevant subject matter. This most certainly can include giving up the right to revoke permission. Incidentally, that's pretty much what a licensing agreement IS in practice.

Just curious, do you have a copy of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act handy? If you could please look up section 203, you will find the relevant portions of the law to this discussion. The most relevant portions are parts 4 and 5, which I will quote here:

(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing, signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title.

(A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.

(B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

The first bolded text tells us (when translated into plain English) that if you want to have conditions for termination to a licensing agreement, you have to put it into the initial contract (or other relevant legally binding document).

The second bolded text tells us that you can't terminate the agreement if you (or some other authority of ownership) give away that right in writing.

That's what a licensing agreement is in practice. You give another party legal permission to use something you own with fixed limitations (or no limitations in a master sync agreement). If you want to be able to rescind those powers, you have to do so in the initial agreement, NOT retroactively, as you've suggested can be done, and as part 5 of Section 203 of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17) in particular seems to completely contradict.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it, you can read the whole thing for yourself, here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

Moving on.

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.

If you're looking for something that'll "hold up", I can help. That's something I do for a living.

I'd be more than happy to do a professional-grade revision of the current document, and/or, provide basic counsel on the legal options and nature of this particular instance.

However, I'm a reasonably busy person and see no reason to act unless the staff of ocremix feels that my efforts are warranted. You've got Zircon on board, and as I understand it, is fully capable of performing the task of creating a basic licensing agreement. In addition, DJP mentioned possibly having access to top IP experts. Thus, I'm not certain my services would even be useful.

If I were to suggest changes in the document, and they were to be enacted, the effects would be sweeping. Just using the first sentence as an example:

You retain ownership and copyright of all material submitted to OverClocked ReMix.

If a third party were to sue on the premise of loss of profit due to the unauthorized use of their intellectual property in derivative and/or collaborative works, they would seize upon this phrase and beat the defense over the head with it. It could very easily be interpretted to mean that the submitter is the sole copyright holder of the submitted material.

At the bare minimum, it should say, "You retain ownership and copyright of all ORIGINAL material submitted to OverClocked ReMix."

I would then create a seperate clause to define the nature of "original" in the context of submitted work. When a person submits a work to OCR, they are indicating that they are owners of 100% of the SR (sound recording) and partial or non owner the arrangement in the form of collaborative work. I can speak at length with the OCR staff on the legal nature of derivative works if they are interested.

As for this document, I'm pretty confident that it'll turn out fine, regardless who pens it. Besides, DJP is putting forth a great "in good faith" effort by making it available for the community to discuss/debate. We should feel lucky that he's even nice enough to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, thanks for the clarification, Prophecy.

In other news, I think that talking with Scrobble (a friend of mine) and reading bladiator's input has helped solidify some of my feelings about the policy. I've decided to outline them below before I vote, on the off-chance that it'll help other people with their decision.

On one hand, as Scrobble mentioned, ReMixers are not going to agree to this policy EXPECTING to have their ReMixes removed in the future, and proceeding to tell them "NO" at a point when they're already emotional would likely aggravate an already-unpleasant situation.

On the other hand, it makes sense to ask them to agree to the license while they're still in a rational state of mind. Yes, they may regret agreeing to it at a later point, but it's even more likely that they would regret a decision made during a moment of illogical anger, such as removing a mix. (As a side note, having a personal opinion that none of the reasons for removal are "valid" is irrelevant, and should not affect the policy in any way.)

On the third hand (assuming I had one), OCR isn't just dealing with people's feelings here. There are other factors at stake, such as the time already invested into the mix by the judges, djp, and reviewers, not to mention the logistical nightmare of removing remixes, especially after they've been distributed across torrents and possibly various physical media. Allowing people to have their remixes removed in effect creates thousands of loose ends that would severely restrict OCR's prospects for promotion and expansion, as at any time someone could pull on their thread and unravel the whole thing. A lot of people objected to OCR "holding ReMixes hostage"...but what about ReMixers holding OCR hostage?

So for me, what the issue boils down to is deciding at what point the cost of removing remixes stops becoming reasonable and acceptable, and it becomes worth breaking a few fragile eggs to make the proverbial OCR omelette (with extra UNTS). And from the information I have so far, I agree with djp's decision in this regard. Asking people to explicitly agree with the policy will hopefully weed out the outright dissenters, and if after accepting the license a ReMixer feels trapped, well...at least he knows that he agreed to be trapped. And even then, the policy includes a loophole to allow for exceptions should the situation call for it.

Given the above reasoning, I would agree with the current policy as it stands. However, with that said, I feel that it would be a good idea to add some clarification within the policy itself, to make it less intimidating to new ReMixers and perhaps cause them to be more sympathetic to the reasoning behind the terms. For example, you might use something to the effect of "due to the nature of certain types of distribution (such as torrent packs, etc.), OverClocked ReMix cannot honor all removal requests and reserves the right to refuse license termination."

So with respect to the poll, I'm not entirely sure how to vote...I'd like to see the policy go through some minor cosmetic changes (so to speak) before I fully approve of it, but it's not like I would let the wording keep me from submitting a mix. I'll probably just pick "yes" though, unless someone informs me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If there is no case in which you would remove a mix, then for the sake of clarity, you should stop beating around the bush in what is supposed to be a concise legal document, and simply say "Once submitted, your remix cannot be removed at your request."

In response to JJT's "give us an a way in which DJP could screw us over", I was merely pointing out that while previously the idea of going on faith worked, that was because there was only the good faith to go on. Now that there's legally binding documents in place, DJP doesn't really have to worry about acting in good faith. I'm not saying he's going to turn into some sort of despot, but with the introduction of this document, he has the ability to act in a very different way.

Put simply - while DJP is saying a lot in this thread, what he says isn't what you're signing. His talk of good faith and retaining the current community values is talk - nothing more, nothing less.

I just want to stress a couple of things - firstly, I'm well aware of the fact that I am not a remixer, and that as such, I'm not important. Telling me I'm not important, or that my opinion is irrelevant or carries little-to-no weight, doesn't bother me. There's no need to remind me of this, whether as a believed legitimate reason, or simply as a point-scoring opportunity.

Secondly, in light of the first point - part of the reason why I decided to post was because I am the most detatched from this agreement. I am not a remixer, and this document doesn't directly affect me.

DJP can gain a lot from this document, but he can also lose out - there are already remixers who don't agree with this document, and this is despite them knowing DJP for a long time and having trust in him. There will be new remixers (there always are), and some of them won't submit work, because of the new contract.

Remixers are also standing to gain and lose from this document. They gain a lot of protection and some promotion from this, but in return they give up the right to ever have their mix/es removed from this site, for any reason.

I on the other hand, lose very little. We'll have some more people submitting, so I'll get a few more songs, if they are approved. We'll also see a few people stop submitting, so I might have to look at other websites. I don't have much to gain or lose from this, so I thought that my post might have the opportunity to provide some hopefully objective opinions that would be free of conflict-of-interest issues.

Finally, I would prefer not to be written off as a doomsdayer, or dissenter of OCRemix. I love the site in its current and previous forms, and have enjoyed this place since the very old days - black and blue design, under 500 mixes, etc. I've never been able to contribute much back to the community I've loved so long... but I was hoping this could be one way in which I could give back to the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is no case in which you would remove a mix, then for the sake of clarity, you should stop beating around the bush in what is supposed to be a concise legal document, and simply say "Once submitted, your remix cannot be removed at your request."

He said he can't think of any case. Perhaps there WOULD be a legitimate reason, that he simply is not thinking of. Hence why the provision is in there that mixes can be removed with the agreement of both parties. Thus, I don't think the crux of your argument makes any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope people will eventually understand that just because OCR can deny a removal request, that doesn't mean OCR will always deny a removal request. If an artist has a good reason for making a removal request (and not a stupid, petty one like Dave described), then that kind of thing can be entertained.

Don't forget that even though it's a policy and it's "set in stone," OCR is still made up of people, who can discuss issues when they arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said he can't think of any case. Perhaps there WOULD be a legitimate reason, that he simply is not thinking of. Hence why the provision is in there that mixes can be removed with the agreement of both parties. Thus, I don't think the crux of your argument makes any sense.

I'm not arguing that it should be changed. I see exactly why DJP wants it implemented, and I don't blame him for implementing it. I'm just saying that it is the clause most likely to dissuade someone from handing over their song, because it is the most likely to scare a contributor away.

Of course I am aware that a mix can be pulled down at DJP's will, or if the remixer has a reason and DJP agrees with it. But the fact is that the remixer's opinion is void in this situation. If DJP wants to remove it, it's removed. If he doesn't, it isn't.

Additionally, you say that there is provision for the remix to be removed if there is a legitimate reason - but that is not true. The legitimacy of the reason for a remixer wanting a mix pulled is completely irrelevant. The only deciding factor is whether or not DJP wants to remove it. Whether it's a legitimate cause or not, it's removed only at DJP's will. The concept of legitimacy only applies if there is implied good faith - and DJP has already said that he has no intention of assuming good faith in this clause.

Edit:

In response to DarkSworde's post: I think many people here already realise that - I certainly do. The concern here is that with the advent of this document, there is no obligation by OCR to remove a request, and no obligation to discuss such a request. If this was a website running on good faith, I'd have no concern - but as soon as legally binding documents come into being, my spidey sense tingles, and tells me to be very careful with what I sign and what I give up, because whatever the salesman says to me while I sign on the dotted line is irrelevant. Only the bit I'm signing has any weight behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not supplement the current removal clause and include a list of valid reasons for removal of a remix?

Hence a remixer can have their remix removed if their request meets one the following reasons:

A

B

C

If there are generic reasons OCR would always accept for a removal of a remix why not include them into to the license?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm here to say that I'm with bladiator 100%, and really appreciate that he managed to express my opinion before I had to bite a bullet and use up precious free time doing it myself. This issue - which probably affects a negligible amount of us artists who already risk violating the rights of others with our derivative works - should never have gotten this far. Dhsu followed up with reason that is also welcome. Time for me to go YES this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope people will eventually understand that just because OCR can deny a removal request, that doesn't mean OCR will always deny a removal request. If an artist has a good reason for making a removal request (and not a stupid, petty one like Dave described), then that kind of thing can be entertained.

Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights. That kind of attitude is arrogant and selfish, and gives OCR an extremely bad image. In that case you're not even protecting the site's "best interests," you're just forcing your opinion on somebody else. Even wasting the time of the staff, while inconsiderate and inconvenient, is a manageable cost and not sufficient reason in my opinion, considering the relatively low frequency of removal requests.

The ONLY reason I'm in favor of OCR claiming the right to reject removal is that, from my understanding, removal would cause severe inconsistencies and complications in the operations of the site that would be impossible or at the very least extremely impractical to reconcile or otherwise remedy. If my understanding is incorrect, and this is not the case, then my vote regarding this issue will be much easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights.

Wow, talk about overexaggeration and hyperbole. We're talking non-exclusive licenses here, people. Perspective. You haven't lost your distribution rights, you still have them, except you willingly gave OCR a non-exclusive license to them - that's hardly Dave "wresting control", so don't use such inflammatory language. FYI you license rights to people ALL THE TIME with music and creative works in general, whether you're sending it to a factory to get it pressed on CD, uploading it to someone else's webserver, putting it on MySpace, Soundclick, you name it. You license tons of your other rights too. That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

I mean, are you aware that the minute you distribute your work in the US, you actually lose your "exclusive" distribution rights? It's written right into our law. Once your song is out there, other people can perform, reproduce, and distribute it for an extremely small fee (9.1 cents per song, but typically much lower). And that's not to even TOUCH on fair use provisions which encompass a wide range of topics, again "wresting control" of your rights. Give me a break.

Sorry if I'm sounding impatient and frustrated here, but before immediately objecting here, many of you need to do some legal research into EULAs and license policies of other websites, as well as US and international copyright law in general. You don't have as many rights as you think, and you give them out to other people more often than you think (and often without your explicit consent). Lucky for remixers here, we're not a big, evil record label out to monopolize your music from you, hence the non-exclusive, limited license that is for non-profit use only and gives you more attention to begin with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking that a ReMixer has a "stupid, petty" reason should never, EVER be legitimate grounds for djp to wrest control of someone's exclusive distribution rights. That kind of attitude is arrogant and selfish, and gives OCR an extremely bad image.

Way to take it out of context? As zircon said, nobody's wresting any kind of exclusive rights from a remixer, ever.

And a few of the examples that Dave gave of reasons people want to remove their work are, in my non-site-staff opinion, stupid and petty, particularly the one about having a personal problem with a person on the site and using a removal request as a means of retaliation. That's petty, and to be honest, I don't think that something like that is ever a valid reason to remove one's music from the site.

But what do I know? I'm just a robot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, talk about overexaggeration and hyperbole. We're talking non-exclusive licenses here, people. Perspective. You haven't lost your distribution rights, you still have them, except you willingly gave OCR a non-exclusive license to them - that's hardly Dave "wresting control", so don't use such inflammatory language. FYI you license rights to people ALL THE TIME with music and creative works in general, whether you're sending it to a factory to get it pressed on CD, uploading it to someone else's webserver, putting it on MySpace, Soundclick, you name it. You license tons of your other rights too. That's why I can't fathom why people are having trouble with this policy; similar ones exist ALL over the internet, and hell, in real life in general and they're often much worse than this.

Funny you should mention Myspace and Soundclick.

I'm fairly sure Myspace music allows you to pull your Work too.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I think Soundclick is a lot closer to what OCR is than a physical record. Particularly if neither OCR nor the Remixer gain any profit in the exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really - Soundclick is more of a site to host your personal music for whatever reasons, while OCR's purpose is quite different. By their nature, a comparison is sort of silly. I think the record label analogy is far more fitting with that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my wording was off (I meant they lose exclusive rights as in they become non-exclusive), but my opinion stands: refusing to remove remixes from OCR is unacceptable unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. So okay, you might not have total control over how your work is distributed after it's out on the Internet, but what you should have control over is who you're associated with (for example, certain bad mens).

Yes, you do have to agree with the policy in the first place, and most people will, but people change their minds. The only thing this policy does is make it so they can't do anything about it. It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will. You can delete your work off a web server. You are allowed to take your songs down from your MySpace and Soundclick pages. And I feel OCR should offer that same courtesy if at all possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my wording was off, but my opinion stands: refusing to remove from OCR is unacceptable unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. So okay, you might not have total control over how your work is distributed after it's out on the Internet, but what you should have control over is who you're associated with (for example, certain bad mens).

But you don't have control regardless. Hundreds of thousands of people will have YOUR mix, with YOUR name directly attached to "OC ReMix". It will be in their MP3 tags and in the filenames. They'll remember where they got it and associate you.

It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will.

Yet the entire worldwide recording, publishing, and songwriting industry more or less operates under legally binding contracts just like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you don't have control regardless. Hundreds of thousands of people will have YOUR mix, with YOUR name directly attached to "OC ReMix". It will be in their MP3 tags and in the filenames. They'll remember where they got it and associate you.

Yes, but it'll eventually slow down. There are some people who still associate Virt with OCR, but not near as many as who associate, say, yourself with OCR.

Think of it as a sink with a drain, and OCR is the faucet. As long as your mix is on OCR, the faucet is running, filling the sink. You take your mix down, you shut off the faucet. Now, there's still some water left in the sink, but as people delete your songs due to space constraints, changing their library, or hard drive crashes, that backfill flows out. Eventually, your association with OCR will be minimal. But you have to shut off the faucet first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's not practical to ask people to rename and retag their MP3s, but it is practical to ask a site to take down your work, and prevent more people from making that association. And chances are if you *could* rename everyone's files, you would. Just because you can't do exactly what you want to do isn't an excuse to not try doing what you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it'll eventually slow down. There are some people who still associate Virt with OCR, but not near as many as who associate, say, yourself with OCR.

Think of it as a sink with a drain, and OCR is the faucet. As long as your mix is on OCR, the faucet is running, filling the sink. You take your mix down, you shut off the faucet. Now, there's still some water left in the sink, but as people delete your songs due to space constraints, changing their library, or hard drive crashes, that backfill flows out. Eventually, your association with OCR will be minimal. But you have to shut off the faucet first.

Correction: we have to shut the faucet off FOR you. And it's several faucets. And they're a pain in the ass to shut off. And we're not getting paid. And we probably wouldn't have gone to all the work to turn the faucets on for you in the first place if we'd known you were just gonna turn around and have us do all this work to shut them off.

See the difference?

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

Nice try, but the point stands, and it was a weak metaphor to begin with since it likened mix removal to the relatively simple act of turning off a faucet... I hate to put it like this, but you're dancing around some of the points that have already been made multiple times, by different people, and I'm not sure what that's going to accomplish...

Yes, you do have to agree with the policy in the first place, and most people will, but people change their minds. The only thing this policy does is make it so they can't do anything about it. It doesn't change the fact that it's ethically reprehensible to use the work of someone who no longer agrees with your goals, against their will.

I consider it ethically reprehensible to remove an arrangement of someone else's music from a free hosting service, which offered free evaluation, criticism, hosting, distribution, and community review, for almost any reason. Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal is one of the only potential exceptions. I think I've already made the point that there's "ethical reprehensibility" on either side of this equation.... multiple times... but heck, I'll do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction: we have to shut the faucet off FOR you. And it's several faucets. And they're a pain in the ass to shut off. And we're not getting paid.

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

Nice try, but the point stands, and it was a weak metaphor to begin with since it likened mix removal to the relatively simply act of turning off a faucet... I hate to put it like this, but you're dancing around some of the points that have already been made multiple times, by different people, and I'm not sure what that's going to accomplish...

But it's the only point I still disagree with, and I'll continue trying to figure out a way to convince people of that.

You bring up seepage, but that's a fact of life that all music hosting services create, Soundclick, MP3.com, Myspace, all of them. But that doesn't prevent them from extending this courtesy to their artists. The seepage from p2p distribution isn't close to what the distribution is from the source here. Most of the mixes that are removed from here, wind up being hosted at one of the OCRemoved sites, but they're known to be distinctly different from the real thing to be found at OCR.

And as Dhsu said, just because you can't do everything, doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it ethically reprehensible to remove an arrangement of someone else's music from a free hosting service, which offered free evaluation, criticism, hosting, distribution, and community review, for almost any reason. Compyfox's hypothetical amazing album deal is one of the only potential exceptions. I think I've already made the point that there's "ethical reprehensibility" on either side of this equation.... multiple times... but heck, I'll do it again.

And your point has been taken. In my eyes, it's a matter of which side of the equation contains more reprehensibility, as it were. My main argument is that the staff's perceived validity (or lack thereof) of the reason shouldn't even be part of that equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if we shut them all off, in reality, there's still gonna be seepage, because tens of thousands of people will have your mix, tagged with OCR, and will redistribute ad infinitum. Even with hard drive crashes, library changes, and all that other stuff, and especially if we've already distributed promotional DVD-ROMs en masse.

I get that you're trying to protect OCR's investment (money, time etc.) in submitted work, especially in the projected case of manufacturing DVDs, but the language of the removal clause still seems more favorable to OCR than to remixers. I think this could be rectified simply by being more explicit.

Why not reword it so that any actual monetary or otherwise tangible investment on OCR's behalf (aside from web hosting/traffic) is protected, while accepting that investments of time or other intangible resources are offered at a loss? Something like: "...requests for removal of a ReMix from OCReMix.org will be fully honored, but removal may or may not be granted at OCR's discretion in the case of ReMixes which have been reproduced by OCR at cost on physical media or other formats, such as DVD compilations..." etc.

While unfortunate, I don't think the loss of time/work spent in judging and writing up a particular ReMix (or even several, e.g. in Virt's case) that gets removed at the artist's request is sufficient to word the clause in favor of OCR, nor is the situation itself very common. You can protect yourself from the loss of these intangible investments in the future by refusing to deal with a submitter who imposes excessive requests for removal or otherwise excessive administrative duties on you (e.g. JD Harding).

It just doesn't seem like there needs to be a clause that favors the site more than the remixer, just because of a situation that happens VERY infrequently, and which MIGHT in the future interfere with plans for DVD comps etc. (Has anything as bad as JD Harding's case even happened again since?)

Using Compyfox's and Luiza's et al examples, if an artist requests removal of a song, it should be removed ASAP from the web site, while the artist accepts (per agreement to this contract) that it may not be removed from existing or in-production media such as DVD compilations. Per the contract, OCR may refuse to consider any future submissions from that artist.

I suggest that you give notice to existing remixers first, and permit a reasonable grace period before manufacturing DVDs or anything like that, so that anyone who wants to opt out has the opportunity.

Just my 2c. I don't think there's any malice on OCR's behalf here, but the removal language is just too vague and unfriendly towards remixers, IMO. Also, discussion of "stupid/petty reasons," or "reasons" period, has no place here. If OCR is going to evaluate each request for removal on an individual basis using various undisclosed criteria, that needs to be stipulated clearly in the contract. Otherwise, the staff has no place to judge anyone's request for removal, whatever their opinions on it, and must honor it without deliberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Compyfox's and Luiza's et al examples, if an artist requests removal of a song, it should be removed ASAP from the web site, while the artist accepts (per agreement to this contract) that it may not be removed from existing or in-production media such as DVD compilations. Per the contract, OCR may refuse to consider any future submissions from that artist.

But then you get into a situation in which you're distributing something that's not even an OCReMix anymore, which doesn't make sense and will confuse people.

Also, physical compilations aren't the only issue here...it would be impractical to modify the torrents as well every time someone removes a mix. Although it might be feasible to have a short quasi-"lockdown" period before a new torrent pack is created, to allow people to opt out like in your DVD scenario.

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...