Kainchild Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I noticed in your faq for submissions that it isn't a requirement to show the actually proof that the person got permission to make an arranged for of the song. My question here is do you guys get proof of permission on all these songs because according to the CR office: Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the permission of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution, unless an exemption applies. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150, 000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights. Since the files distributed over the internet or via peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these sources unless provided by an authorized entity. Which basically means anyone downloading a song off this site that hasn't gotten permission is screwed legally. I think it's funny how they don't even give a benefit of the doubt either. Basically your playing russian roulette when downloading music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannthr Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 you're = you are Also, I'm not sure that is actually correct. You can distribute copyrighted works if the copyright owner has licensed to you the ability to do so. I would say that attempt at legal jargon is pretty confused. Obviously, if OCRemix is claiming this, then there must be an "exemption" which applies. Nonetheless, and maybe because I haven't kept up with copyright law, it used to be the burden of the distributor to acquire licences to distribute, not the receiver. This is how radio station listeners are protected from being liable for royalties. The burden of receiving permissions is that of the distributor, the burden of collecting royalties is that of the copyright owner (which is why royalty collection companies like ASCAP and BMI exist). I'm sure that if a copyright holder asked OCR to C&D the distribution of their unlicensed material, OCR would comply. I don't see a problem until they do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrypnyk Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 OCR, it's owner, remixers, jdgfgts, and everyone caught visiting/downloading/viewing content on the site will be contact by Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Sega, and a lawsuit will be filed against them. Seeing how you fall into one of the above category, I hope you have a good lawyer Kainchild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 You're not entirely correct here. While remixers don't get direct permission to arrange the original works, to date NO composer has ever expressed anything other than sincere appreciation and gratitude for what we're doing. And we've heard from a lot of composers. Some of them have even submitted to the site themselves. Suffice it to say that while we are aware that, in theory, the copyright holders could ask us to cease & desist, we strongly doubt they ever will as it's good promotion for them and completely harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 We're fan art, akin to fan drawings published in video game magazines. Those people aren't sued for paying tribute to video games works they enjoy through creations made out of pure fandom. In any case, locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts