OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - 2nd Draft Poll, closes 5/24/07

[djpretzel]

• This poll is being conducted to gauge current feedback on the second, revised draft of the OverClocked ReMix Content Policy.
  
• All votes are public.
  
• A thread discussing this draft is available at http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9628.
  
• The final vote tally will be closed Thursday, 5/24/07, midnight EST.
  
• "Disagree" votes will only be counted if an explanation is provided. We will tally the number of explanations and reconcile this with the number of votes.
  
• The draft will not be edited until this poll has been closed.
  
• The draft may still be edited after this poll has concluded; we are primarily interested in feedback on the core issues, which will likely remain the same, but smaller issues may still need clarification.

Currently, this draft reads:

OverClocked ReMix Content Policy 2nd DRAFT

Submission Agreement

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

Terms of Use

OverClocked ReMix grants all parties a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use, redistribute, incorporate into other works, and publicly perform OverClocked ReMixes as long as the following criteria are met:

A.) No profit is made from the exercise of this license. This includes but is not limited to incorporation of OverClocked ReMixes into commercial works, charging more than the cost of the delivery means for redistributing OverClocked ReMixes, or redistributing OverClocked ReMixes in the context of commercial advertisments. Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred.

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.

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org. This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.

OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to terminate this license at any time. In such instances where OverClocked ReMixes have been incorporated into other works or are being redistributed or performed, the original artist may be contacted to obtain a separate license for the material in question, so long as all references and attribution to OverClocked ReMix are removed. 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. OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies those utilizing OverClocked ReMixes from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

[DragonFireKai]

Well, I guess I'll be the first voice of the loyal opposition here.

I applaud the effort taking place here, but I don't think the one sided termination rights in favor of the site are morally correct, or needed. It's close, but I can't in good conscience give it the go ahead with that clause attached.

[Mustin]

much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much better.

Kid Tested, Mustin Approved.™

[Fishy]

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not something I would personally have a problem with. A vg remix isn't exactly something that I would be bothered about someone else distributing, because its not as personal as an original composition or something like that.

[DragonFireKai]

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not something I would personally have a problem with. A vg remix isn't exactly something that I would be bothered about someone else distributing, because its not as personal as an original composition or something like that.

But someone else might, personally, I really don't have a whole lot at stake here. I don't have a lick of musical talent in my body, so I don't have to worry about other people distributing my songs, because no one would want to. But it's a moral point to me. I just don't think that it's right for one side to have all the power in this context. It's not something I'm going to quit the site over, but if the site staff is going to ask, I'm going to voice my reservations.

[Bahamut]

But someone else might, personally, I really don't have a whole lot at stake here. I don't have a lick of musical talent in my body, so I don't have to worry about other people distributing my songs, because no one would want to. But it's a moral point to me. I just don't think that it's right for one side to have all the power in this context. It's not something I'm going to quit the site over, but if the site staff is going to ask, I'm going to voice my reservations.

If there was little known about OCR as a commercial entity (if it was a random no-name organization), I would agree with your POV, but as OCR has defined itself as a non-profit organization in the draft, I see no reason why such a moral qualm would still hold.

[DragonFireKai]

If there was little known about OCR as a commercial entity (if it was a random no-name organization), I would agree with your POV, but as OCR has defined itself as a non-profit organization in the draft, I see no reason why such a moral qualm would still hold.

It's the fact that I don't expect people I don't know well to hold to good intentions. And to be honest, I don't know a single person on this website beyond what they present on the site. So when I look over an agreement I see being set up to be legaly binding, I hold them to the same standard as I hold everyone else I don't know. I tell all the members of my platoon to look over everything they sign, even if it's from the Army, because while I don't expect the Army to hose me, I really don't know who's sending what down the pipe, so a measure of caution is needed. In God I trust, all others I check.

[Bahamut]

It's the fact that I don't expect people I don't know well to hold to good intentions. And to be honest, I don't know a single person on this website beyond what they present on the site. So when I look over an agreement I see being set up to be legaly binding, I hold them to the same standard as I hold everyone else I don't know. I tell all the members of my platoon to look over everything they sign, even if it's from the Army, because while I don't expect the Army to hose me, I really don't know who's sending what down the pipe, so a measure of caution is needed. In God I trust, all others I check.

But what issue could possibly arise from a non-profit organization, especially when the gesture by the licensor granting the license is a gift of sorts to everyone? I'm probably one of the most meticulous people on this site when it comes to reading contracts & agreements, and I really don't see much of an issue at all possibly arising here.

[DragonFireKai]

But what issue could possibly arise from a non-profit organization, especially when the gesture by the licensor granting the license is a gift of sorts to everyone? I'm probably one of the most meticulous people on this site when it comes to reading contracts & agreements, and I really don't see much of an issue at all possibly arising here.

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.

[Bahamut]

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.

See draft discussion thread for response.

[Anorak]

Well, I'll be the next opposing vote then. Not that it will matter, since I have no mixes on the site and the poll is already heavily tilted in the other direction.

Personally I don't have any problem with drawing up a legal policy to protect Overclocked. It really is a good idea to expand the proceedings beyond a handshake agreement. But like Kai, I can't agree to the termination rights that favour OCRemix. Maybe it's my predisposed nature of assuming that everything will go wrong, but I can't help but imagine a scenario where mixes will be eternally trapped in a glass cage; their makers want them down, but because they once had an altercation with the site staff or their reasons are declared "too selfish", their request denied.

From here on out, god help you if you didn't read that other topic.

I'm guessing that this policy is being put into place because of the exodus, virt, etc.. If so, I can't help but feel that everyone who has ever (and ever will) submit a mix here is being punished for their actions. And consequently it feels like we are all being lumped into that group. Like you're all assuming that as soon as we tire of the site, we'll pull our mixes and be gone. Not all people are like that.

On Wikipedia (wait, I'm going somewhere with this) they have a policy called AGF. If you didn't bother to click the link, it stands for Assume Good Faith. Now, OCRemix and Wiki are completely different sites, with different content, rules, yada yada. But the rule is an interesting one. Summarized, it describes that when a good intentioned edit is made that is incorrect, one should NOT assume it is vandalism. You should assume they are trying to help the site.

The idea of a mix getting removed helping Overclocked is completely bizarre, of course. But take the rest of that policy into account. If I may rephrase it into terms which apply to our current situation:

"Not everyone who is requesting that their remixes be removed is trying to harm Overclocked Remix."

DJP went over a few reasons why someone would want their mixes removed in the other thread. In the same post, he said, concerning remix removal: "The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music." Then why is the one sided termination clause in the contract anyway?

To wrap up, and summarize this wordy mess, I just wish that the site would have some more good faith concerning its mixers. We all aren't plotting a mass exodus on a VBulletin Board somewhere. Having this clause in the agreement is going to keep a lot of remixes on the site, but it's going to drive a lot of mixers away too. I like this site a lot and I just hope there is some reconcilliation between those two numbers. But I'll have to be in the second group.

There, that's my reason. I know nothing about law, but you asked for it, and there it is. I hope you can forgive my emotionally vague, idiotic, embarrassing, and drawn-out ramblings. Now you know why I didn't post before.

P. S. When this passes, please place it where every remixer can see it - right before they submit a mix.

[Dhsu]

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.

I still hold that the second sentence is redundant.

I'm curious, though...does this mean that a situation could occur in which OCR wants to terminate the license, but the ReMixer doesn't? I don't see this EVER happening, as it's a rather silly scenario to be honest, but the implication here is that OCR would be stuck with the distribution rights (ohgnoes!).

[Tenucha]

I would agree to these terms.

They seem fair to me for both the artist and the site.

I have included a couple remixes in a video but gave credit to the artist and (OCReMix) in the credits (I'll get the video online for viewing purposes and then get the attetion of the YouTube group).

The idea of a mix getting removed helping Overclocked is completely bizarre, of course. But take the rest of that policy into account. If I may rephrase it into terms which apply to our current situation:

"Not everyone who is requesting that their remixes be removed is trying to harm Overclocked Remix."

On this note... if a remix is violating any form of applicable laws including copyright infrignment... then it would benefit OCR to remove the conent from the website.

It doesnt mean it will happen or not however this gives the site the right to remove it.

An instance would be if a submitted remix were to pass and get hosted here and, later on down the road, someone from the team or just a listenier realizes that there is too much original work being used (this is just for aguments sake... I know the Judges Panel wouldnt allow a remix thats so obvious like this haha) from the original source.

I dont think this constrans the artists or anything... I think it gives everyone a heads up.

This really is no different from any other "Dont cross our content policy" on any other website or community's Terms of Service.

[DragonFireKai]

I still hold that the second sentence is redundant.

I'm curious, though...does this mean that a situation could occur in which OCR wants to terminate the license, but the ReMixer doesn't? I don't see this EVER happening, as it's a rather silly scenario to be honest, but the implication here is that OCR would be stuck with the distribution rights (ohgnoes!).

It is redundant, and I'm fairly sure that some of the remixers who got their mixes ganked during the lockdowns would have prefered to keep them up.

[Dhsu]

Nowhere in the license does it imply that OCR is obliged to distribute the ReMixes. And removing a mix doesn't necessarily mean relinquishing the right to distribute it. So I really can't see a situation in which OCR would actually want to terminate the license.

[Broken]

I like the idea of a quasi-legal document that spells out some of the un-asked questions that I've had about this site for a while. I may or may not ever submit anything here (or I should say, I may or may not ever be accepted here,) but if I ever were to submit something I now have a better idea of what I'd be getting myself into.

And thank you for clarifying some of the more intricate details of this agreement. I'm sure there is still plenty of grey area left and other details that could be covered, but I know that I have no authority or experience with this area of music (ie. rights, legalities) so I'll just leave my opinions as stated.

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the idea here is this: If I submit a mix to OC ReMix, I am saying to Dave and the judges that I think this mix is good enough to be hosted as an OC ReMix. In turn, if this mix makes it past the judge's panel and onto the site, that mix is officially accepted as good enough material to bear the name of OC ReMix. That is an agreement entered into between the site and the mixer.

Therefore, if a mixer comes back later and simply says "I think my mix should be removed for this and such a reason," the mixer is basically telling Dave and the judges "I think, in retrospect, that it was a mistake on your part to allow this mix to be posted." But if Dave and the judges allow it to be posted, what the mixer personally comes to think of that work later is, to a great extent, irrelevant. Dave and the judges said it was good enough. It will remain so, even if your personal taste and/or musical skills have moved past the style or complexity of the mix.

They're not saying there will be a refusal to remove a mix if, for instance, a mixer wishes to update it with a version they feel is better. I think what they're trying to avoid here is a situation like JD Harding, who (in my understanding of the situation) had 7(?) mixes on the site and consistently requested removals of his own materials because of his personal taste.

As such, I endorse the new policy. Nice work.

[Kanthos]

The only thing I can see that might need changing is that the submission licence implies that mixes can be distributed by OC Remix without using the OC Remix name.

[Shael Riley]

Though I'm made uneasy by the irrevocableness of the agreement's terms, this second draft is, at a glance, seemingly comprehensive in its attention to preserving the safety, stability, quality, longevity and expandability of the Overclocked ReMix project; and well-written for clarity. Offsetting my fear, though, is my trust in Dave's, and, (to a slightly lesser extent) the Judges' and Judges-to-bes', intentions to not fuck up my shit, or the shit of others. Considering the afformentioned,

I approve.

[DCT]

Looks a lot better than the original draft. I can rock with this.

-DCT

[The Coop]

Having given the 2nd draft a read through, I still find...

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.

... the bolded part to be too one sided. You're saying you can deny a remixer's request to remove their mix(es), but you can remove it for various reasons that have nothing to do with the remixer. This, coupled with your admitted lack of respect given towards the removal request reasonings you posted earlier, comes off badly. I can see why this section makes people uncertain about having their remixes on here.

Now yes, I understand that removing even just one remix would mean plucking it from not just the site, but the mirrors and the torrents. I know that's potentially a lot of work. But, I refer you back to my comments here about a two week "cool off" period, and the "Once it's gone, it's gone" concept, and here regarding what I feel is a need to expand upon, in policy, how removal requests will be dealt with. How it's worded now is ambiguous, and leaves much open to interpretation. You know removal requests are going to happen, so why not formulate a way in which you can explain to the submitting remixers how you will deal with such requests?

I still firmly believe that simply telling someone "We're not removing it" is a very poor way to run things, but as you said, that's not necessarily a policy-centric concept. However, I'm quite convinced that not addressing in some way, in policy, how OCR will deal with removal requests is a bad idea.

Regarding the policy as a whole, that portion was the only area I personally have an issue with. If that small section could be worked on so it was more informative, I'd have no issues agreeing with it if I were still submitting remixes here. But as it is right now in this 2nd draft, knowing what's been said, I question whether I'd agree with it or not, as I'd really have to stop and think about the above section for a while.

[Tenucha]

The only thing I can see that might need changing is that the submission licence implies that mixes can be distributed by OC Remix without using the OC Remix name.

I thought they only ment that if you, the mixer, wanted to host the song say, MySpace, or on your own website... you can without the OCReMix name attached...

Otherwise if you get it from OCReMix then it IS an Overclocked ReMix and therefore you gotta keep all the tags and names assigned and so on.

Thats what I got out of that o_0

[DZComposer]

Ah, much better. It still has that removal request clause that I don't like, though.

I think I'll wait before voting.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Terms of Use

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.

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org. This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.

What does this mean with regards to allowing my girls to do floor routines to Remixes? This would seem to conflict with point B, as I can't really announce that it's from OCR and give the URL and the artist every time somebody practices a routine (ie every time the music plays during practice,) and the only way I can think of to do it at a meet would be to take out an ad in the program at every single meet; which I'm not sure would really qualify under the terms of use anyway.

It would conflict with point C, because I have to edit and cut the songs so they will be the right length for the girls to do routines to, and often I have to take chunks from different parts of the mixes instead of playing one contiguous chunk of the mix. Would this violate the clause against modifying it for redistribution?

In short, would I still be able to allow my girls to use OCRemixes as routine music, or would I have to go and get these mixes directly from the remixers, or from VGmix or R:TS (or wherever else I may be able to find them)?

[Shael Riley]

I think the idea here is this: If I submit a mix to OC ReMix, I am saying to Dave and the judges that I think this mix is good enough to be hosted as an OC ReMix. In turn, if this mix makes it past the judge's panel and onto the site, that mix is officially accepted as good enough material to bear the name of OC ReMix. That is an agreement entered into between the site and the mixer.

Therefore, if a mixer comes back later and simply says "I think my mix should be removed for this and such a reason," the mixer is basically telling Dave and the judges "I think, in retrospect, that it was a mistake on your part to allow this mix to be posted." But if Dave and the judges allow it to be posted, what the mixer personally comes to think of that work later is, to a great extent, irrelevant. Dave and the judges said it was good enough. It will remain so, even if your personal taste and/or musical skills have moved past the style or complexity of the mix.

They're not saying there will be a refusal to remove a mix if, for instance, a mixer wishes to update it with a version they feel is better. I think what they're trying to avoid here is a situation like JD Harding, who (in my understanding of the situation) had 7(?) mixes on the site and consistently requested removals of his own materials because of his personal taste.

As such, I endorse the new policy. Nice work.

I don't think anyone wants the document in question to facilitate a repeat of the mass exodus of 2002, or the the JD Harding situation; that's pretty clear. What you must consider, though, when examining the irrevocable nature of the contract you're going to be held to as a remixer, is that OCR is now given your legally irrevocable permission to distribute your work in as-of-yet unspecified ways; that is, they can do anything they want with your arrangement so long as it is legal and is not explicitly forbidden by the terms of use outlined in the content policy. What could they do with my mix to which I would object? I don't know. I haven't thought of anything yet, as I'm generally interested in disseminating my music--even my older music that might not be representative of my current level of ability--to as many people and through as many channels as possible. Nevertheless, knowing that my music could be disseminated against my will, through some channel I have not yet discovered and will not approve of, makes me uneasy. Not only that, but if, on the off chance, this channel would hold some potential for financial compensation to be given to me for use of my mix, assuming I could work out the details with the copyright holders of the original arrangement, an admittedly unlikely scenario, I would be barred from taking steps towards receiving the money to which I may be entitled. And the same could happen to you, if you are or plan on becoming a contributor. That's what you have to consider, not JD and the gang.

That said, this is merely me playing devil's advocate for the sake of facilitating discussion, for the sake of, in turn, banging out a policy agreement endowed with the fortitude to endure the arrows and slings of whining from the future.