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

[DragonFireKai]

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.

Sometimes the people with no attachment to a situation have the clearest perspective.

[Sir_NutS]

Meh, I'm a (somewhat) active remixer in the community, and my issue is not something that I will apply to myself, as I highly doubt I would remove any of my songs after being a ocr member since almost it's beginnings. However I can see this as a point that could easily bring issues in the future, and that given the new official status of the term of use, could be troublesome to handle for david later.

and DragonFireKai, I stated that because I see that there's an attitude of "none of the points given are valid, shoo", when I haven't seen any valid counterpoints to these statements.

anyways, good luck with this, as I said, I don't think this will be an issue for me and won't determine my further support for ocr but I can see this as a weak point in the document.

[Dhsu]

Good point. There's quite a few big names in there though...including a certain recently unbanned ReMixer, I noticed.

Meh, I'm a (somewhat) active remixer in the community, and my issue is not something that I will apply to myself, as I highly doubt I would remove any of my songs after being a ocr member since almost it's beginnings.

Yeah, that's why I said "most"...in fact, I think CHIPP has a mix waiting to be posted as we speak.

[Liontamer]

Good point. There's quite a few big names in there though...including a certain recently unbanned ReMixer, I noticed.

Yeah, that's why I said "most"...in fact, I think CHIPP has a mix waiting to be posted as we speak.

Indeed, he has one waiting. For the record, out of the 10 no's so far, 6 are from ReMixers. Of the 60 yes's so far, 39 are from ReMixers. Fun stats! FUN!

[BrainCells]

Well here's my opinion. I really like this place. I was welcome here since day 1 by Larry, and Djp made me really feel at home with his well structured and intelligent reviews about my arrangements. The whole community philosophy is ok for me, though I must say that for a musical growth I chose to be more active at VGMix.com. Everyone I met here are great people and I'm really thankful for being part of this community. I really consider DJP and all the judges around people of good will.

However, the music I work in, be it original work or arrangement, is a part of who I am. It says so much more than how I play or produce. It tells how I was feeling on that moment and so much more of my own philosophy and personality, and I'm pretty sure that what I'm saying must make sense for every single person on this planet who created a piece of art in life.

Because of that, it seems very important to me to have some control about how my music is distributed, and I'm not talking about profit at all. Untill last weeek, I could say that I was 100% ok with OCR's rules. Today, not anymore. This alone proves my point that things change, I can change and so the site's policy or philosophy can change into something I cannot make part anymore in the future, and I'm not telling it could change to something worse, just something I don't agree with, something that I don't want to be part of anymore.

I saw in the past OCR going through all the songs already posted to see if some should be deleted. It's OCR telling us that what they did in the past may not be the best situation for the present. Let me say, as a musician, that I can't affirm what I did yesterday is my choice for the rest of my life.

Also, I think it's very unfair that the site retains the right to delete your song at any time, but the reverse way doesn't work the same.

I wish I can be part of all of this forever, but I can't set it in stone. Because of that, I reserve my right to choose the destiny of my music and that's all.

That's where I disagree.

[zircon]

BrainCells, I can understand your concerns, but let me ask you this... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR? It's already out there, people have already listened and formed an opinion. All you would be doing is stopping new people from enjoying your existing music - and believe me, people do enjoy it, as you are a great remixer.

[djpretzel]

Also, I think it's very unfair that the site retains the right to delete your song at any time, but the reverse way doesn't work the same.

Would it change your vote if this weren't the case, and we could only remove your mix if we found that it violated submission standards, or due to a cease & desist? The "reasons including but not limited to" does indeed suggest that we could remove it if we just felt like it... in actuality, for the same reasons that we don't want to facilitate removal, we wouldn't do so. If more assurance from us that we won't just remove your mix for whatever reason we choose would actually change your vote, let us know. It's worded open-ended because there may be reasons we'd want to remove a mix by someone that we haven't thought of... for example, if someone tried to DDoS us repeatedly, we probably wouldn't want their music on our site, etc.

[BrainCells]

... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR?...

Actually what concerns me is not who listens to my song, but where my image is attached to. You see, when an artist signs a contract with a record label and produces an album, that piece of art will be available forever, but since it s in a distinctive type of media, most of all CD's and DVD's these days, it's not something that can be changed suddenly in it's content. I pretty much doubt that the record label can change, for example, Metallica's Black Album cover to a plain white image, or even change the songs order or anythig else you can imagine, since it's surely stated in contract that they can't. Even so they cease the contract in a distant future, what happens often, they are sure that who holds the rights of the material in question will not change it drastically, and, in most of the cases, the artist still have the option to make a deal and buy its own rights.

That, for such a dynamic media as a website, is impossible to control. I really don't know tomorrow which path OCR is going to choose and it really bothers me that today I must give my "OK forever" for something I really don't know how is going to be in 10 years.

Let's imagine DJ Pretzel dies (and I hope not, of course) and a relative of him takes the control of the site, changing its philosophy to something completely different, or let's imagine that due to some reason unknown he decides to sell OCR for some company or a third person. Things like this can happen and i'm not sure that in 2026 this will be an environment where i will want my image attached to.

Would it change your vote if this weren't the case, and we could only remove your mix if we found that it violated submission standards, or due to a cease & desist? The "reasons including but not limited to" does indeed suggest that we could remove it if we just felt like it... in actuality, for the same reasons that we don't want to facilitate removal, we wouldn't do so. If more assurance from us that we won't just remove your mix for whatever reason we choose would actually change your vote, let us know. It's worded open-ended because there may be reasons we'd want to remove a mix by someone that we haven't thought of... for example, if someone tried to DDoS us repeatedly, we probably wouldn't want their music on our site, etc.

You see, I have these days asked myself about this policy, and if I would bother about that if it was already like this when i joined OCR, and probably it would make no difference for me, i'd go and submit a song the same way.

About your question, yes, that really would sound better if some distinct reasons were stated in the policy for removal of songs, instead of the open way it is right now.

I totally agree with the reasons why you are going through this policy and I even thik it is totally necessary. I just don't see where taking away the right of the user to remove his own piece via request clashes with the needs you state as necessary for the policy at all.

A doubt I still have: How often does that happen that a user asks his songs out that can drastically affect the site in a negative way?

For the cases of some people just angry about some bullshit in the forums or because a new song got rejected, why not to include a clause in the policy, saying that all removal requests will be effective in 90 days from the day of request, and a confirmation will be needed after this period. this way it would avoid from deleting songs from people who just were angry in the heat of a moment...

I'm saying all this because, as a member, I was invited to be here. All I'm putting here are just my sincere opinions to make this policy as fair as it can be for both sides. However, I can say that the way the policy is right now, with the changes that DJ Pretzel said possible to me, would really be ok. I really think that all the future plans for OCR, like distributing songs in physical media and all the kind of advestising possible is VERY positive and of course I love the ideas.

I don't think the way the new policy works would be impeditive for me to submit new songs on the site, however, what I suggest here i think is fair and in no way could bring any kind of prejudice to OCR and its contributors.

[Sir_NutS]

BrainCells, I can understand your concerns, but let me ask you this... if you did want to remove your tracks someday, do you realize that they've probably already been downloaded tens of thousands of times; possibly hundreds of thousands? They're all over the internet, on torrents, P2P networks, on people's iPods, on burned CDs, on hard drives, in cars, etc. What would it really do to remove them from OCR? It's already out there, people have already listened and formed an opinion. All you would be doing is stopping new people from enjoying your existing music - and believe me, people do enjoy it, as you are a great remixer.

You seem to don't get our point, as we aren't stupid enough to realize that a song that had some time up at ocr has been downloaded everywhere already by thousand of people. That is not the point, the point is about rights. Does the fact that you've stated give ocr, or any other entity, the right to hold my music and distribute it, even if I don't want to be part of that community/entity or as braincell stated, I don't want my image attached to that anymore? Besides, keeping the song would mean even MORE people everyday will download the song with the OCRemix label on it which is what, in the first place, an artist wouldn't want.

The point here is not what you think the artist is thinking when he asks for removal. It's not if he'll beg you to posts his songs again up in the site. It's about the right of the creator of a piece of art to have complete control of it's use.

As i said, sorry but I still remain oppossed to this policy, it's contradictive and antiethical.

[zircon]

As I posted in the other thread, you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here.

A compromise such as the one djp/BrainCells are talking about would make sense however.

[Sir_NutS]

As I posted in the other thread, you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here.

A compromise such as the one djp/BrainCells are talking about would make sense however.

uuh.. braincell is talking about the same thing. o_0

though he added another issue that is the specific cases in which ocr will remove songs from the site, which is just fine as this is his site and as such he has the right to remove any song from it, if it clashes with his hosting policies/goals/terms of service/user conduct policies. Now if my own policies or plans as an artist clash with those of the website, I can't remove my songs from there? oh so it doesn't goes the same both ways?

I would agree that in some producing/publishing deals you lose control over your songs, however, ocr/djp aren't making money out of this, they are posting the songs to fulfill the mision/vision of the website:

"This website is dedicated to arranging video and computer game music. Our mission is to prove that this music is not disposable or merely background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form."

[BrainCells]

...you never have "complete control" over your music under U.S. law, and in almost all kinds of recording artist agreements, publishing deals, distribution contracts (etc) you lose a measure of control. Hence why I do not understand the outcry here...

Sorry to disagree, but that's like "he kills, so I'll kill too" attitude for me. That alone doesn't justify the situation, and is just another prove that something awful from this culture is entering through wide open doors in this comunity.

[zircon]

I do not agree, and I could go into a lengthy discussion, but I will be brief. Think about these things:

* Grandmothers and little girls getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading and sharing MP3s

* Sony DRM protection on CDs that made computers vulnerable to hacking

* Windows Vista DRM that degrades picture quality if it thinks content is not "legitimate"

* USB Dongles for programs like Cubase and Arturia synths that are expensive, bulky, inconvenient, cause computer problems, and slow down the software

* New legislation in the US that would effectively shut down thousands of internet radio stations (this was barely avoided)

All of these things arise from people wanting to "control" their copyrights. The attitude of people wanting to have ALL rights at ALL times, more often than not, hurts the general public and is not fair to them. For centuries, in all countries - not just the US - the purpose of copyright has been to encourage the creation and distribution of creative works by giving people a limited monopoly over them. Keyword is "limited". The purpose is NOT to give artists, writers (etc) total, permanent, exclusive control. When people do try to obtain that you get situations like those I outlined above.

I am an artist myself and I can empathize with wanting control, and believe me, I am a huge defender of copyright. But to say that we should always have total control, and that the public at large should pay the price... well I just don't agree, and I think most people in the world don't either.

[BrainCells]

...The attitude of people wanting to have ALL rights at ALL times, more often than not, hurts the general public and is not fair to them. ... The purpose is NOT to give artists, writers (etc) total, permanent, exclusive control. When people do try to obtain that you get situations like those I outlined above.

I think that what we're discussing here is far different than "wanting to have ALL rights ALL the time". If you analize the section of the policy draft that talks about removal requests

you'll see that it's pretty much the opposite, since OCR gives you zero control about it, It's like it said "If you want your song removed for whatever the reason you "think" is fair, it's up to us to decide, there's nothing you can do about it. Never. Forever." Besides it's absolutely clear that DJ Pretzel can't see a fair reason to accept the removal request, so it's probably never gonna happen.

Did you understand when I said ZERO control? It's far different than wanting to have it all, even because that is not what I want.

All I want is, since it's open for discussion, a fair policy that gives both sides at least one option to change things, cause the way it is , about this particular section, it's given the artist zero option if needed. It's important to find balance between both sides and this is the point where I think the weight goes all over one side.

[Dhsu]

Okay, well after no small amount of deliberation on my part, I've decided to vote no. Here's why.

Like I explained earlier, the problem isn't so much the actual act of distribution...there's no way an artist would be able to control that, short of DRM like zircon mentioned. The issue here is more about the matter of association with the site...akin, perhaps, to a situation in which a store continues calling itself "Bob's Pizza" long after Bob got disgruntled and left. It might have the legal right, and it'd be a pain to change the signs and phone books, but it seems like a reasonable courtesy to Bob. And sure the ReMixer agreed to the terms in the first place...but so did Antonio when he offered a pound of flesh to Shylock.

Now, from what I understand, the main objections on djp's part to allowing ReMix removals is three-fold:

1. djp personally disagrees with the most common reasons for remix removal.
   This is irrelevant and has no place anywhere in the process of creating a formal policy.
   
2. It's a "pain" on the part of the staff and reviewers.
   This objection is valid, but not sufficient in my opinion. The relatively low occurrence of removal requests makes this not a strong enough reason in my eyes to justify distributing an artist's work against his will.
   
3. Allowing removals would make certain things infeasible, such as providing torrents and compilation DVDs.
   This is the one I most agree on, and here djp's "one big album" analogy makes a lot of sense. Until now, this was the only reason I agreed with the policy's wording, but upon further consideration, I can't help but feel there has to be a better alternative than refusing practically all removals.
   Perhaps one such middle ground would be initiating lockdown periods before events such as torrent or DVD releases, and including a clause in the policy stating that remixes cannot be removed after they have been locked down. During the lockdown period, ReMixers would be given one last chance to opt out, and if they don't, their ReMixes default to being locked. Granted, it'd be more work, but I believe it gives ReMixers a bit more breathing room and to me is, if not a huge improvement, a much more palatable option than instating an automatic and perpetual state of lockdown as the current policy draft would do.
   If that's not reasonable, I'm sure the community could work something else out. I'm just not convinced that flat-out refusal is the solution.
   

And there you have it. Those are my reasons. That said, I'm going to be a hypocrite for a moment here and admit that even if the policy were passed as is, it probably wouldn't be enough to keep me from submitting in the future, as I personally don't anticipate it ever becoming an issue for me. So if I had to agree to the current draft in order to get my stuff on the site, I would, albeit with considerable reluctance. Although honestly, if djp asked for my first-born, I'd probably give it.

[DragonFireKai]

You know, for a little while, I was scared that i was going to be the only one opposing this. I would have looked rather foolish getting blotted out 66 to 1. But I'm glad that not only I wasn't the only one who voted against, but some promenent members of the community share my reservations. In the end, I don't think this policy will destroy the site, or even make a noticable impact, but I stand by my comments I made.

[Rambo]

Like I said in the comments thread, I wouldn't be able to accept the terms knowing that I couldn't have my work removed without consent. And by the sound of it, consent would likely not be delivered.

I had just started remixing and was excited about potentially joining the community in the near future. I know my No won't mean much in terms of impact to the site since no one has any idea who I am, but I figure there may be others like me who would just opt not to vote thinking the same thing.

In any case, I could personally want to have work removed for one of 2 reasons.

Should I feel after a length of time that a past submission is a very poor representation of myself, I wouldn't want it displayed as such. The second is if I have serious problems regarding site management (or a member of). Similar to someone harassing management or attempting to hack, should a member of staff do something of the same degree it may lead to me not wanting association with the organization.

I do think that should DJP feel that it is a very poor decision or not agree with the action at the time, he should hold the right to refuse future submissions.

In any case, thanks for the opportunity to vote and discuss.

[Dhsu]

Er, judging from the above post, I'm guessing your voting "yes" was unintentional then?

[Rambo]

Er, judging from the above post, I'm guessing your voting "yes" was unintentional then?

Uh... I swear to God I hit no. Shit.

[Liontamer]

Uh... I swear to God I hit no. Shit.

You win!

[Rambo]

You win!

Well that is terribly embarrassing... and I'm gonna stfu now.

In any case, for the record I did in fact mean No. Sorry.

[DragonFireKai]

Smooth, Rambo, Real smooth. I could've had a baker's dozen of like minded allies, now all I have is a pedestrian regular dozen.

[Compyfox]

Perhaps one such middle ground would be initiating lockdown periods before events such as torrent or DVD releases, and including a clause in the policy stating that remixes cannot be removed after they have been locked down. During the lockdown period, ReMixers would be given one last chance to opt out, and if they don't, their ReMixes default to being locked.

Two reasons why this would not work:

1) There will be no further lockdown according to DJP himself (chat)

2) How do you contact all remixers? And if you can't reach them within the time the lockdown runs out (for example in stormy area's), what then? Is it still valid?

I'd agree with this option however. This is indeed a more fair deal than just giving the tracks away and then you're stuck with an infinite and irrevocable release, or releases on physical medium. So if this'd be pulled off, I'd consider a vote change.

Though there's still the thing with my "uber-hypocretical what-if scenario" (/quote DJP), but this is something completely different, and while it's still a valid reason for a removal IMO, it's a special exception and needs to be discussed seperately.

[Sir_NutS]

I was thinking that perhaps, in the case of remix removals, there could be a period of the year in which all remix removals requested/in queue are removed from torrents and the site. That way the staff will only have to mess around the torrents ad the database once a year, sort of a lockdown.

[The Author]

I was thinking that perhaps, in the case of remix removals, there could be a period of the year in which all remix removals requested/in queue are removed from torrents and the site. That way the staff will only have to mess around the torrents ad the database once a year, sort of a lockdown.

This could be a good compromise. If you want your remixes removed, you must request it during a specific period of time. A "spring cleaning" of sorts.