One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[Negoba]

Aye

[Vospi]

upd.: Oh, I now see that the only difference is, like, a prolonged ban. Isn't that a bit harsh on a "friendly competition"? And also I'm not that familiar with the history, were there, like, egregious cases where you had to request it every month?.. If no, I don't think that's necessary, it just sounds more imposing and that's all, maybe that's the point?

Otherwise, I'll leave my original text just for consideration. I'm gonna stay neutral on this and still state my case.

my original text:
I could only vote for this if there are safeguards in place.
Taking myself as an example, I actually release my tracks and license them, I can't afford just giving the sources to, potentially, "the whole Internet". And I've had experience: my publicly posted source material got first stolen way before I earned any money with this, decades ago. It's not like we have a lot of leverage with the copyright law, especially internationally, especially for smaller authors/productions. I know you could defend yourself theoretically, but it's really, really expensive, if possible at all due to the international thing, at the very least. Internet is not only OSC, it's literally everybody these days.

So:
either only the organizers examine those,
or/and there's a legally binding paper to sign about acknowledgement of rights/intellectual property,
etc.

Please don't think I'm insane, I'm also not doing that for just myself. People can do all kinds of things. If we can come up with an easy, reasonable solution that doesn't maybe completely cover your back, but at least protects one from just the easiest copy-paste in the world, I'd be happy.

So, in principle, I do agree, but in this current formulation, it is a nay. <-- upd.: again, you can discount that in light of my first update at the top of the post.

[neverbeeninariot]

If you ever wondered what it would be like to visit Scotland, well now you know...

[jasinski]

Aye

[doctorbob]

Aye

[RichardSemper]

upd.: Oh, I now see that the only difference is, like, a prolonged ban. Isn't that a bit harsh on a "friendly competition"? And also I'm not that familiar with the history, were there, like, egregious cases where you had to request it every month?.. If no, I don't think that's necessary, it just sounds more imposing and that's all, maybe that's the point?

Otherwise, I'll leave my original text just for consideration. I'm gonna stay neutral on this and still state my case.

my original text:
I could only vote for this if there are safeguards in place.
Taking myself as an example, I actually release my tracks and license them, I can't afford just giving the sources to, potentially, "the whole Internet".

Any decision for a prolonged ban would depend on 1. The nature of the refusal, and 2. History of issues with the participant.

To allay your fears - The organisers examine such requested files confidentially, and would be able to offer reassurance on the forum of the legitimacy (or otherwise dq) for the Challenge.

The following clause already in the rule will also remain:
"(intellectual property respected with file used for examination only and destroyed immediately afterwards)"

[Atomicco]

Aye

[Taron]

Aye

[spridgeon]

Aye

[Vospi]

Richard, gotcha, thanks for the reassurance

[J.Ruegg]

Aye

[IV!]

In light of Richard's additional explanation, yes. Although I am already well over 15...

[Double Tap]

Yes

[silverpants]

Aye

[Juergen]

Aye