Tenucha Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 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)? Its a good point. Because of my position at local anime conventions... the DJ ended up hearing some of my OCReMixs and ended up playing a few of the more heavy rave tracks from this site (Which I was not present for... I think there was a Tetris and Mario theme... perhaps Star Fox's Metrorave and maybe a Final Fantasy as well) during atleast one (that I'm aware of) rave/ dance over the conventions weekend. Obviously he didnt get on a PA to announce it as an OCReMix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 Note that my intention was to still have most of the discussion take place back on the other thread, and that this thread was for voting and explaining "disagree" votes... but what the heck: Regarding playback at Otakon or for a gymnastics class, the policy should be rewritten to specifically require accreditation for public performances. I don't think either would qualify as a public space, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll look into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Taucer Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Sorry, would have made that post in the other topic, but this could definitely effect whether I agree or dissagree with the draft. If the answer is that it's ok for me to continue using remixes as routine music, I have no objections to anything else in the policy, and would vote in favor of it. If I can't, I don't know. Most likely I'd either abstain from voting or vote against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenucha Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Note that my intention was to still have most of the discussion take place back on the other thread, and that this thread was for voting and explaining "disagree" votes... but what the heck:Regarding playback at Otakon or for a gymnastics class, the policy should be rewritten to specifically require accreditation for public performances. I don't think either would qualify as a public space, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll look into this. This was at AniZona's 3rd year this past Easter Weekend which is a very little Arizona baised con. It might be public space depending on location... the dance room was bascelly one of the conference rooms with all the chairs stacked along the walls haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomer Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Is this where I put my vote explanation? Well, I voted 'disagree' for now. Like many folks I do not like the lack of unrestricted ability to remove a mix. The best workaround I've seen discussed in the forums was The Coop's 'Cooloff period + 'once it's gone it's gone'' ideas. I'd like to suggest something else but I can't really think of anything. Not that I've gone out of my way to do so Btw, some context - I've 1 remix on here, and visit very occasionally, so I'm in no way a major user of or contributor to OC. I know nothing of the exodus of 2002 I've seen mentioned. However the principle of retaining control of distribution of one's work at the broadest official level is important to me and I believe in protecting it for all folks, especially in this not-for-profit context. Caveats are ok, so long as that initial path for me to say 'ok, I wanna remove this song' and know it will be acted on if I don't swerve is in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compyfox Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 There goes another one for oposing vote. The reasons are stated in the other thread, and are still ignored with the words "it's unlikely that this will ever happen". Furthermore I miss the part with GEMA and ASCAP members. Additional to that: 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. "You retain ownership and copyright" definitely doesn't swing with "You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable...license" - with emphasis on "perpetual" and "irrevocable". In other words, you give your track to OCR, and you loose all futher rights. Which makes that following sentence abundant. This license may be terminated at any time if both You and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. Especially with the following part. OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to refuse license termination. On one hand, the track still belongs to us, but on the other you can do whatever you feel like doing with it. Including releasing on a physical medium, while we're left out and can not decide if we're even agree to that (I personally don't). In short, we loose all rights to OCR's benefit - and I don't agree to that. Sorry - a clear no on my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 It sounds great, thansk for listening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 Sorry, would have made that post in the other topic, but this could definitely effect whether I agree or dissagree with the draft.If the answer is that it's ok for me to continue using remixes as routine music, I have no objections to anything else in the policy, and would vote in favor of it. If I can't, I don't know. Most likely I'd either abstain from voting or vote against it. As written, it's vague, but that'll definitely be added. The sticking point for most seems to be mix removal. We're interested in ReMixes being played in MORE locations/contexts, not less, so if this issue is your primary sticking point, please vote in favor. The only reason I'm not modifying the draft right now is because there's a moratorium while voting takes place; afterwards language will be added that clearly allows accreditation exceptions for certain types of performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Least100Seraphs Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Explanation of my no vote: as others have mentioned, the idea that an artist has to give up distribution rights for an indefinite period of time with no recourse to have it removed unless OCR's staff allows it is simply something I couldn't accept. And yes, I am aware that I am not a remixer with works hosted on OCR. I will say, however, that if this Content Policy was put in place, I would most likely not submit any works to OCR. As for the non-profit angle - it is precisely because OCR has no financial constraints regarding profit or revenue, that this "removal refusal" clause is so out of place (and IMO, out of the question). OCR is not a business with large amounts of money tied up in lucrative record labels, sponsorship and merchandising deals, or stockholders that require their quarterly dividends. OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so they've no need to retain distribution rights, as it is, by definition, without value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 OCR is not a business with large amounts of money tied up in lucrative record labels, sponsorship and merchandising deals, or stockholders that require their quarterly dividends. OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so they've no need to retain distribution rights, as it is, by definition, without value. I'd counter that that argument can be used in the other direction - OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so there are no compelling arguments to remove it, since no fiscal loss is being incurred. Our non-economic desire to retain distribution rights has been covered in the discussion thread, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Explanation of my no vote: as others have mentioned, the idea that an artist has to give up distribution rights for an indefinite period of time with no recourse to have it removed unless OCR's staff allows it is simply something I couldn't accept. I think you (or perhaps me, someone correct me if I am wrong) are misunderstanding that you are giving up distribution rights. You can still do whatever you want with your mix, it just can't distribute the mix with the OCR tag on it. Say I created the awesome "Linkin Schala" mix, and it made it onto OCR. Basically now, there would be 2 versions of the mix, the "Linkin Schala", and "Linkin Schala OcRemix". They sound exactly the same, and I can do whatever the hell I wanted with the "Linkin Schala" mix as far as distribution. The OCR version, stays with them and has become part of the OCR history, and they can distribute it as they see fit, as long as it is not-for-profit, but I can't distribute it or anything. Basically I am entrusting a copy of the mix to OCR. I think the system in place is good, and I appreciate the effort being made to involve the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Least100Seraphs Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 To the two above - I do understand the nature of the agreement. However, the removal refusal clause does affect the remixer's distribution rights, and he does give up distribution rights by agreeing to that clause - specifically he gives up the right to decide how his material is distributed by OCR, and for what time period. Now, it is true that this is somewhat of non-issue, because the policy clearly lays out answers to both question of how, and for how long. I'm certainly not saying such a clause cannot or should not be in the policy (I have gone into more detail regarding this in the discussion thread). I'm simply answering the question the poll asks. It asks "Would you submit a mix if these were the rules?" My answer is "No". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 "You retain ownership and copyright" definitely doesn't swing with "You are granting OverClocked ReMix a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable...license" - with emphasis on "perpetual" and "irrevocable". In other words, you give your track to OCR, and you loose all futher rights. The emphasis should be on "non-exclusive." That means OCR doesn't become the *only* party that can distribute your work. That's why you still retain your rights. On one hand, the track still belongs to us, but on the other you can do whatever you feel like doing with it. Including releasing on a physical medium, while we're left out and can not decide if we're even agree to that (I personally don't). No, you're not being left out. You're being asked RIGHT NOW by this license to decide if you agree to have your track released "in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed." If you don't agree to that, fine, then don't and be done with it. But don't accuse the license of leaving out something that you just missed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for my vote...I'm abstaining for the moment. While I personally don't have any problems with the remix removal policy and its implications, reading other people's posts and argument has made me realize that the principle of the matter is also important, as distributing something against a person's will (no matter how petty or silly the reason) is not something that seems morally or ethically sound. I think that if Atomic Dog or another lawyer had the time and interest to weigh in on this again, it's likely he would be able to provide citations and other evidence that it's illegal to do what you want to do with only a license. But I also think something could be worked out that's both legal and not as threatening to the ReMixer. So, I'm going to hold out for possible changes to the policy before agreeing to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 As for my vote...I'm abstaining for the moment. While I personally don't have any problems with the remix removal policy and its implications, reading other people's posts and argument has made me realize that the principle of the matter is also important, as distributing something against a person's will (no matter how petty or silly the reason) is not something that seems morally or ethically sound. I think that if Atomic Dog or another lawyer had the time and interest to weigh in on this again, it's likely he would be able to provide citations and other evidence that it's illegal to do what you want to do with only a license. But I also think something could be worked out that's both legal and not as threatening to the ReMixer. So, I'm going to hold out for possible changes to the policy before agreeing to it. Abstaining is fine, and I understand your rationale, but we do want as much feedback as possible before the poll closes, so hopefully you'll still chime in with a vote before the cutoff. Your help in clarifying the policy as written to date has been very valuable, by the way - thanks. I honestly don't believe what we're trying to do is "illegal" in any way, shape, or form. The citations of the specific wording that we're now using involving "non-exclusive, irrevocable, sub-licensable" etc. is pretty boiler plate and appears to be in common usage on various sites, including all of Disney's sites. Not that we want to aspire to the same levels of Draconian legalese that Disney tends to, you understand, just that I'd imagine they have ample lawyers advising them and wouldn't attempt themselves to implement an illegal policy, or one which wouldn't stand up in court. That's another point that needs to be made: the policy itself really can't be "illegal" until: We enact it Someone agrees to it That person objects to it after the fact Their objection is not reconcilable with us They initiate legal action against us Said legal action goes to court, and last but not least... A judge finds our license unenforceable and thus null and void... ... after which the policy itself would still not be "illegal", but enforcing it would be... Now, raise your hands if you think any of that is *actually* going to happen in the first place... Yeah, I didn't think so. Your point about principle is taken to heart, but again, I feel it's a matter of principle to keep to your word and to contribute free music, in this case arrangements of someone else's music, without too many strings attached. Yes, this policy is trying to cut some of those strings forceably instead of taking things on faith, but in a situation where a mixer wants something removed and we've spent hours evaluating it, posting it, promoting it, and others have spent time reviewing it, there's no way to get any of that back. There's principle involved on either end of the equation, but since we're the ones writing a policy and not the other way around, and since "principle" doesn't translate to this type of document that well (at all), we're taking this step. I feel pretty strongly on this issue, and many seem cool with it, but like you I'm interested in seeing objections. The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avaris Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Pertaining to the last paragraph: Remixer A creates some kick ass rhythms for an OC Remix they submitted when they were 18+. Then the remixer uses the rhythms verbatim in an original commercial song with no reference to OverClocked Remix. My impression of this policy is that said actions would not violate the policy. Also a general note: If this is retroactive to include all OC Remixes the license/policy would not hold up to a remix someone submitted when they were under 18. An example in law classes relating to contracts. A 16 year old buys a car from you. He/she goes and crashes it. Then he/she returns the car to you and receives all of the $ back. Why the contract was never valid in the first place. Also since we are all from different countries how will the policy hold up internationally? In the US you have to be over 18 to enter into an abiding contract. What about other countries? I think the concerns of international validity and the 18+ rule are the biggest things OCR might want to consider before putting the policy into affect. As is besides the 18+ dilemma it’s fine for merican remixers. Also for remixers who submitted songs before the policy comes into affect, they never agreed to any contract. There is no legal standing to hold them to a contract either. My impression is that the policy would not be enforceable for those remixes. My experience with law only relates to business and it's very basic. So correct me if I'm wrong or if there are loopholes in anything I'm saying. IMO it's pretty damn hard to make an iron clad contract/policy. To make sure someone agrees with the policy won't the submission standards need to change. Hence the remixer(s) will need to include a generic statement stating they agree to the policy/contract located at "X". Or they could just paste the contract into the submission. Since the web address for the page the contract is listed on will prob change in a few years. I haven’t voted yet. Although, I will still submit remixes if the said policy is put into effect. As a 21 year old american I think it’s fine. If I voted yes it would show my support for the policy. Frankly I wouldn’t want to support a policy that could cause a lot of friction down the road for OCR and it’s artists due to international law and the 18+ law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compyfox Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something... I stated a couple of possible reasons, where you commented "that's no reason for me" or "that'll most likely not happen". Now if someone doesn't agree with the draft now, and/or the draft works retroactive, wouldn't it be a valid and excellent reason to say "sorry - I do not agree with your (future) policy, please take my mixes down"? Or do you say, that is is no valid reason for a removal, too? Yes I'm beating the dead horse, sorry about that, but your opinion is just close-minded, while you expect us to be open-minded to your draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 If a person doesn't agree with the new policy, then they don't have to submit new mixes. My understanding is that all their old mixes will still be under the old policy, and they can still ask for them to be removed. But since the new policy doesn't even affect them, there isn't really a point to doing that, unless you just wanna annoy djp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compyfox Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Didn't Dave just post in the other thread, that some stuff will be "forced" in some kind of way? Sorry, but this is getting more and more strange. And would you please stop shredding every bits of my posts to pieces and tell me that I'm wrong on all ends? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Coop Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I feel pretty strongly on this issue, and many seem cool with it, but like you I'm interested in seeing objections. The issue of mix removal seems to be the biggest sticking point, but still no one's persuaded me that there are excellent, legitimate reasons to want to remove a mix. Even if there were, I'm not sure they'd persuade me, seeing as we're still leaving the door open to removal, we're just saying the decision is ours, but since there aren't (for me at least), I'm waiting for someone to come up with something... Let's give this a whirl... - Several years ago, I submitted three remixes that were eventually accepted onto your site. While I was most grateful for the hosting and the visibility your site have provided, I have begun a new chapter in my remixing life. I'm currently working on making a website for both my remixes, and various other works that I've made over the years. I have the intension of making my website the only place sanctioned by myself to provide my remixes for download, and it'll be going live in a couple of days. As such, I request that you remove all three of my remixes from your site. Thank you for what you've done, and I wish you the best for your site and its future. - Several years ago, I submitted "X" and "Y" to your website. They were accepted, and posted. Since that time, as an active member of the OCR community, I've been watching this place grow and change. However, in the past year, I feel a number of the actions you and your staff have taken were ill informed, childish, and abusive towards both contributing members of the community, and the community overall. The events surrounding the sidebar and UnMod deletion were bad enough, but when you showed up drunk and began randomly deleting threads and banning users, and then had to gall to make that pathetic excuse for an apology... well, that was the final straw. I have become thoroughly disgusted with how this site is being run, and by those running it. As such, I request that both of my remixes be removed from your database, as I no longer wish to be a part of OCR in any way, shape, or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Didn't Dave just post in the other thread, that some stuff will be "forced" in some kind of way? The only thing I can of that you might be talking about is his mentioning that he'll be asking all current ReMixers to agree to the policy. The ones that don't or can't agree will not be bound by the new policy unless they submit new ReMixes. As for the off-topic part of your post, check your PM box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Legendary Zoltan Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well, I didn't read ALL of the posts, but I'll throw in my two cents. Like many others, I just wish that the refusal of termination line would be cut out. If a remixer doesn't want his or his remix on the site any more than so be it. They should be able to have it removed. Having said that, I don't really see why we need to worry about this whole contract thing in the first place. It seems like the simplest way would be to say that by submitting a remix to OCR, you are giving OCR the right to post it only on Overclocked Remix and do nothing more with it there after. Then whenever someone asks to remove a remix from the site, they remove it for us. And whenever OCR guys wanna do something more with the remix, they ask the remixer. If they can't get in touch with the remixer, they don't use it. Anyway, it probably going to be criticized as being "way too simple for something so important." But that's how I like it, I guess. So I'm going to go ahead and oppose the current draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well, I didn't read ALL of the posts, but I'll throw in my two cents.... So I'm going to go ahead and oppose the current draft. While feedback is appreciated regardless, it's pretty clear that, like you yourself say, you didn't read all the posts. There are more concerns governing the introduction of this policy and, in my mind, necessitating it than simply "wow, this seems like a good idea", and we've taken a good bit of time already to refine it from its previous incarnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I'm going to have to oppose. I said this in the other thread and I'll say it again. The artists are the sole owners of the rights to their work, and for that, they decide where it should be distributed and who should have it. By telling the artist you won't remove his mix from the website you're telling him that you own the rights to distribute his work, and that he has no right to stop the distribution of his work wherever and whenever they want. I think compy and specially coop have put up some valid points to prove a valid scenario of a remix removal could be presented. I think you're basing this, as I said in the other thread, in guessing that no one would want his mix removed permanently. Coop gave some goosd scenarios and I bet that some others that no one has thought of could be presented in the future, so I think the right policy here would be to accept the removal requests, and do not accept back the removed remixes. EDIT: Also if we have to explain our opposing vote, why no one has to explain their accept vote and counter the sticking points? bias much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFireKai Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 EDIT: Also if we have to explain our opposing vote, why no one has to explain their accept vote and counter the sticking points? bias much? No, it's so that the staff can gauge what people feel is wrong with the policy. Telling them that you think they got it right doesn't help them a whole lot, as it's implied by the vote. A no vote on the other hand, could apply to any aspect or combination of aspects of the policy, and that needs to be clarified to be helpful for the purposes of overhauling the draft. What I don't understand are the people who vote yes, then express reservations about the wording. That just strikes me as bizzare. Also, AP posted his reasons for his vote in the other thread, so please count his vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I also have a feeling that just as (or perhaps more) important than the explanations for the votes, are the actual people making them. I can't help but notice that most of the dissenting votes are from non-ReMixers, or inactive ReMixers. But if a popular ReMixer such as bladiator or Reuben Kee were to disagree, however, I'm thinking it would hold a lot more weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts