Slashdot Mirror
Two Blanks Against the Trend
skdffff writes "German band Eisbrecher has decided to make a statement for its fans and for music consumers in general and is releasing their album ("Eisbrecher") including a bonus DVD with 2 blank CD-Rs which have the same label as the CD itself. Alexx Wesselsky (singer and head of the group): 'We are of the opinion that the music buyers are criminalized enough and have been made responsible for the wretched state in the music industry. We are giving them the chance to make 2 legal copies for private use with "official blanks".'"
this is just a publicity stunt.
remember, the USA is the country where your discontent will be sold back to you.
Bad Music - Great idea
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
For those of you who want to check out the band and support this action, but aren't really familiar with them, they're one of the top bands right now in the german rap scene. While they've branched out and included things like guitars and synthesized melodies into their music, they still have krauthop roots. But nevertheless, check them out, they're definitely a little different.
I remember thinking to myself... If only the artists and the consumers got together to fight the evil music oppressors, we all might start getting somewhere.
This looks like a very good start
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
I think it's a great idea that artists are trying to fight back against the RIAA. Sure they're German and sure they aren't that big, but it's a stand. Every journey starts with one step!
Where can I download the CD-Stomper template for the label for the blank CD-R's, so I have something to go with my Grokster MP3's I download for this album?
Whoever came up with this idea is clever. But, he/she similarly totally misunderstands the point of copyright laws by playing "bright lining" games (as do, in my experience, many slashdot readers).
(the term "bright lining" means doing some activity with a full knowledge of where the law or regulation is and doing something right up to this regulation, this living up to the letter of the law, though, the implication is, not the spirit.)
Copyright is a socially constructed concept. Basically, copyrightholders are entitled to a monopoly of sorts for a limited time on their work. most people agree that the primary reason for this is to encourage more creation of works.
When people talk in terms of "it's legally okay to copy a song from the radio" or "it's legally okay to copy three pages, but not the whole book", then they are basically referring to PRAGMATIC copyright interpreations and rulings based on past technological and social circumstance. as technology and social circumstance change, it may become necessary to change (usually tighten) what is allowed in order to best preserve the spirit and intention of copyright, which, again, is to encourage authors.
here's a really obvious sign of when the spirit of copyright is broken--i call it the "extrapolation" argument. basically, somebody takes an existing interpretation and tries to "scale it up":
* sharing music with your kid sister is ok, so sharing music with everybody's kid sister is (Napster)
* photocopying one page is ok, so let's set up a distributed system via amazon's new full-text thing by which everybody downloads one page and somehow they are combined again (slashdot/amazon)
* MIT has a blanket license for analog music / copying music from existing analog sources of music is ok (radio - unscheduled recordings, includes ads, not complete songs), so let's play a clever trick by which people can get whatever they want in a high quality, but analog format (MIT)
All three of these will work, in the short term. And all three will generate stricter interpretations and a clamp-down, because they are so clearly against the spirit of the socially beneficial copyright law (oh, shut up already, completely-anti-copyright anarcho-libertarians - go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely). The end result of this will be stricted interpretations and more bitching and whining on slashdot. What is the root cause of this? The evil RIAA and MPAA? Yes, they occasionally go overboard (the mickey mouse extension act is pretty egregious), but generally they are in the right.
The root cause is those who think that they're being clever by bright-lining copyright interpretations without realizing that they are interpretations that are subject to reasonable modification as circumstances warrant, not god-given cast-in-stone truths. or, in other words, more technological sense than social understanding.
Disagree? reply, not mod down.
While I applaud the effort, I still think this could promote the false notion that they have to give permission in order for private home listeners to make backup copies for their own use. This is the real source of debate, whether or not I can copy the CD I own onto my own mix CD and let a friend borrow it.
The *AAs focus on the macro-scale because they know the argument is much more convincing if they try and say the average user is 'stealing' and 'distributing' to thousands of people. Instead, the average person is most likely willing to pay for a song if the price is right and the restrictions aren't too severe. iTunes seems to be doing fine, and the competitors are springing up.
Never confuse volume with power.
A real statement instead of pretending giving away free songs while hawking sugar water is in any way changing the system.
Well, I've never heard of this band, but I'll buy this CD. Maybe it's just a publicity stunt, and maybe I'm falling right into their trap, but I don't care. Because publicity stunt or not, maybe the RIAA will take notice if this album sells extremely well. Even if the band stands to gain from this stunt, I think we as the music buying public do as well. By buying this album we can send a message to the RIAA that we don't like being treated with contempt by them, and that we really do care about fair use.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
"Ok Guys we need some gimmick to sell these CD'S"
Maybe we could use all this publicity this RIAA Thing is generating?
But seriously, I think this is a very good statement by a band, and hopefully it will make people realise that its not the artists who are causing all the trouble, its the record companies with their insane mark-up on album prices.
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, never mind the reasons for them..
The purpose of a stunt such as this is to get publicity. Perhaps the only reason they did this is to push their new album, but at the same time they are helping to bring light the situation that we have here which is about copyright laws. I think we all have moved beyond the issue of destroying the music industry. We need to move on to what we can do to fix the issue of moving our music from medium to medium (i.e. record to tape to cd to computers) Once we figure out what is acceptable and fair to music makers then we can begin to focus on what's important: making better music with better quality and therefore better entertainment.
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
You see this is exactly what is needed - A changing music business model, combined with a tolerant "lets not be evil" policy
The trouble is that the business model of "Litigate until you show a profit" is somewhat self-perpetuating whereas this new one is risky...
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
this is just a publicity stunt.
Which, of course, is a real surprise coming from the record industry. I bet you feel a right tit. (boom boom)
The Dead Kennedys did something remarkably similar years ago with the tape version their "In God We Trust Inc" album.
The statement that they had was 'Home taping is killing big entertainment industry profits; we left side two blank so you can help'
This doesn't work if your band is counting on millions of sales in order to recap huge ad costs -- i.e. Backstreet Boys, etc. But it works wonders if you need higher distribution, and just want exposure. What a great idea to help distribute music!
stuff |
but why don't they just give you two extra copies of album instead of CD-Rs?
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
IANAL, and I know this isn't happening in the US, but wouldn't the two blank discs intice a US consumer to break US laws? Aren't we allowed on one personal copy?
What are Germany's laws in regards to this?
I was unaware that the music industry had been doing much complaining about people making copies of CDs for personal use. I could have sworn they were much more upset about people either A) giving out mix CDs or B) downloading illegal files.
I don't see how this move will really effect anything. You can give out two copies to a friend, I guess (although that's illegal), and it will have the official CD logo. Or something.
Of course, the CD-R won't last as long as the real CD anyway and nothing would have prevented people from copying the CD anyway. This is just some dumb gimic to grab attention, and it seems to have worked.
If this were a band offering free MP3s for download, that might be interesting. It isn't, it's just a band saying that they don't mind people using fair use rights. (Or whatever they are in Germany and the EU, I don't know.)
I guess I don't see what the big deal is.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I don't need no stinking cd's .. the original CD IS the backup. Next time .. feel free to include a pendrive for the "personal backup" :P
Wouldn't it have made more sense to just include two extra copies of the CD instead of two blanks? At least then you wouldn't end up using the blanks for something you REALLY want extras of, like Fedora Core or Led Zeppelin.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
Goddam record companies forcing me to pay for 2 blank CDrs that I don't need. This is what happens when you have a monopoly.
I'm going to download the tracks off p2p in protest.
Love the idea, and congratulate them on taking a stand. Its definately a step in the right direction. However if I buy this CD I own it, and can do what I want with it, copy it, destroy it, give it away, sell it, maybe even listen to it. If they want to sell me a product and tell me what I can and cannot do, then I'm not buying.
but then again, if I buy a gun....
serenity now!
.. a couple of DVDRs, encouring you to actually copy the DVD, that would have been more newsworthy.
...if they had, it'd just be a three-for-the-price-of-two-as-we-can't-sell-all-th ese-cds-we-pressed bargain bucket release, rather than a feelgood, slashdot-friendly option that gets them a load of free publicity.
We are giving them the chance to make 2 legal copies for private use with "official blanks".
How is this more 'helpful' than, say, simply enclosing two additional CDs with the album already recorded onto it, thereby saving their fans the trouble of duping the CD when the CD-R already has the album's label glued onto it?
Cool, so now I can burn my porn to their official cdr's and nobody will notice :)
But seriously, I don't think this will have much effect on the music industry. If a big artist like Britney Spears (well, there's something big about her) would do this, then it would get a lot more media attention, in this case in the mainstream press and not on a backwater website like Slashdot (Joe Normal doesn't read this website)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
And again, by someone whose music doesn't really interest me. Maria Jimenez, a singer from Spain, included a blank CD with one of her latest releases so that people wouldn't feel guilty about making copies for their own use. She only asked in return that people did buy her CD.
This is the only comment I found in English (last paragraph).
---- Take the Space Quiz!
to copy our linux distros on while we prepair for the raids....
;_)
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
...that the original CD is copy-protected!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The band shellac did something similar. They offered their album in CD and Vinyl. The Vinyl copy ironically came with a free copy of the cd. People still bought the CD though.
Of course it is, but it's a good one at that.
Oh, the irony!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
We do this because we're a bar band. We're not with a major label. We have no distribution besides selling our recordings by hand at our gigs and maybe garnishing a wee bit of counter space at a local Mom&Pop coffee shop or two (not to mention, of course, giving them away as presents and sharing online via P2P). We do this because we figure the more our music gets out there, the more of chance that somebody from a label will hear us and like us and we'll finally be able to just do what we really love for a living - making music.
Now, let's assume that our dreams come true. We makes lots of cash solely by making music. Well, we've all agreed that as soon as our first contract expires, we would only sign another one that allows people to distribute our music freely. Why? Simply put, we've already started making a living at what we love, and we know that people will continue to buy our CD's, whether or not they can get our music for free! This is a proven fact!!!
Sure, we might not end up being as filthy rich as other music stars, but who cares? Greed sucks. Allowing the most amount of people as possible on this planet to enjoy what we, too, enjoy more than almost anything else (sound familiar to any of you Linux programmers?) - now THAT would be AWESOME!
-A witty .sig proves nothing.
The extra copies could be sold for the price of the original CD. The blanks can be sold for the price of a blank CD (about $0.50).
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
The blank cd-r are for "personal use only". The whole problem of people making copies and distributing them to their friends is still there. It would have been more news worthy if you were allowed to give away two free copies of the album to your buddies.
doesn't it cost more to include a blank cd-r than another pressed cd? is anyone going to use the blank for something else? and what if you get a buffer underrun while burning it! bummer :p (anyone still have a drive without underrun protection?).
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Over here in the UK, a socialist singer/songwriter called Billy Bragg did this with audio cassettes. He released an album that was entirely recorded on the 'A' side and the 'B' side left blank and unprotected with the label 'Confuse the enemy - bootleg the Bragg'.
It seems to me all Eis-brecher are doing is the same thing, only brought up-to-date.
Please remember socialist != communist.
A few posters seem to be criticising this thing as if it were supposed to be practical. Of course, as anyone can see, this is not supposed to be practical.
The CDs are blank, probably to avoid extra payments to copyright holders. Although the CDs are empty, they've been printed on, and therefore earmarked for this particular purpose. Of course this is impractical, but it's supposed to be. It's just a statement, and a good one too.
If you buy an audio CD-R (8 Euro) you pay royalties to the GEMA (society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights). That's about 16 Euros or about $20 (+labeling) for this PR stunt.
Normal CD-R cost only 0.40 Euro that's about $1 (+labeling) for the 2 CD-R included in this CD.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
It's music I've written, I've recorded, I hold copyright over
Are you sure? What way have you of knowing that you didn't just subconsciously copy substantial portions of someone else's copyrighted work? George Harrison got in trouble for that.
Chicks dig my good /. karma.
The Rosenbergs did a similar thing in 2001. They included a second copy of the CD, dubbed the "Napster Copy"
http://www.livedaily.com/news/2625.html
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
in a nutshell
With the relatively high demand for portability, I wonder if a band would be willing to pre-RIP their songs into MP3s or AAC or whatever format directly onto their CDs for personal use... just a thought on similar lines.
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
Ok so you get two nice-looking blank CDRs with the album (only the first 5000 albums will contain those btw). However, are you actually allowed to rip-and-burn the songs from the official album? How are those copies "legal"?
More specifically, is the band actually relinquishing their copyright on the songs? Or are they including a limited-copy license? If they don't, then it's still illegal to copy their album onto their CDR blanks or any other kind of media.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to check out the band. Can someone make a copy of the album and send it to me? Even better if it's on one of the official blanks.
The copyright holder has given you the ultimate legal weapon to copy those CDs - the fabled explicit written permission :)
How can the purported copyright owner be completely sure that he is, in fact, the copyright owner, that his work was original and not a subconscious derivative of an existing copyrighted musical work? Subconscious copying is actionable infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976).
On /. I hear a lot about fair use and what that implies. This system allows you to do things that a straight 2nd copy wouldn't. So, if you want to scramble the order of the tracks, or maybe do a mix of your own karaoke over the originals, then you can. This system allows you to own the music and do what you want with it in a new way.
It's almost like the linux router that didn't release the source code. Once it had, hackers converted it to a super-router with loads of hacks to do what the owners want to.
More questionable euro-band music like "Der Kommisar"--and they want us to make COPIES of it, too!
/snicker
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're getting duped into being viruses for perpetuating bad music!
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Twenty years ago The Dead Kennedys album "In God We Trust, Inc" (cassette tape version) came with the notice:
"Home taping is killing big entertainment industry profits, we left side two blank so you can help."
I believe the album was released in 1981.
"Eisbrecher's record label ZYX Music supports this action"
Their label may be supporting them in this, but ZYX Music have hardly abandoned the IFPI in disgust.(http://www.ifpi.org/)
"IFPI particularly encourages new laws that protect against Internet piracy, and prevent hacking of technological protections."
Really? You don't say!
--
The way royalties are paid is by the number of copies sold of a specific sound recording. Three copies of the recording means three times the royalty check for the band.
./weed | bong
What kind of music do you play/write?
While I applaud the sentiment, and I'm sure they have the noblest of intentions (beyond the desire for publicity/hype/sales), I see the possibility that this could lead to something bad.
Ok, they've given the consumer two "official" blanks. If this becomes an accepted practice and considered a de facto license to make two copies of the album the blanks were distributed with, does that mean that NOT bundling "official" blanks is considered a prohibition against making ANY copies? "If we want you to make copies, we'll give you the blanks to do it with." Could this be twisted into a back-door attack on fair-use copying/archiving in general?
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
So when you buy the album, you get two blanks that look exactly like the original?
how many people will just buy this, rip the music to the computer and keep the blanks blank?
or record something else on the blanks? that'd be funny...
when i was younger, the older brother of my best friend bought a Queensryche (sp?) vinyl record, and while the label print on the disk was for that album, the recorded tracks were actually George Thorogood songs. we figured someone at the record pressing factory was drunk and / or pissed off at management the day it was made.
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. I will buy all 5000 copies of Eisbrecher's album, and copy "Duke" onto all 10,000 blank CDs.
Now for the truly evil part the scheme - I will replace copies of Eisbrecher's album in record shops with my Genesis version, and the poor shoppers will be dumbfounded and confused when they put it into the CD player, and don't hear the music they expect. When they check the label, they will be even more confused! Ha ha ha!
Captain Kaos strikes again!
I recently ran across a good, concise discussion of US copyright laws with timeframes of when content becomes public domain here at Project Gutenberg. Looks like we will see some PD works next in 2019.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
one of the top bands right now in the german rap scene
Kind of like being the best kickboxer in Belgium
...will have the blank CD-R's.
Also, it's crappy music to boot (sounds like Rammstein, which was (is? do they still exist?) pretty bad). Pretentious growling and synthie-bashing... I wonder how one of the first posts above can say it's German Rap?
Yes.
Read about Landser...
I don't get this. According to copyright law (well, at least the copyright law in Finland and as I have understood also other Western countries) I am allowed to copy any published work for private use. And I can make as many copies as I want. I don't even have to own the work I make private copies of, I'm allowed for example to copy works I have borrowed from the library or my friends.
Then this band comes along and says: "Hey, look here. We are nice to you. You may copy our record. But you may only make two copies and only on these particular branded discs."
This is nothing to celebrate. The band is acutally not giving me more liberties, they are trying to say that they have the right to restrict my liberties from status quo. Bah! Don't support them!
is never illegal. The RIAA doesn't give a shit.
Put MP3 Copies of that CD up on Kazaa for 2.5 million people to download however, tends to raise their ire.
While I commend them for going against the grain and supporting your right to do what you want with their music, this opens the door to bootlegging and fraud. If you can copy the cd and sell the copy as an official because it looks official, that's not good. However, if you keep it blank or put something else on it and sell it as what the official label says it is, then that's fraud, which is very bad.
And you have to have the original material and be able to proof so. Else, you are fried.
IOW when your friend gives you back the CD (granted: IANAL; earlier actions were afaict legal) he is having an illegal copy. And should destroy it.
PS: some CD's and video's and blabla even contain a notice that you may not _lend_ them out!
Oh the irony...
That said, some have expressed disbelief that there is a German hip hop scene at all. There is but it is similar to the US where what you hear on the radio is crap and in order to hear what is really going on you have to keep your ear to the underground.
Lots of cool stuff coming out of Hamburg Hannover and Berlin.
Check out: Fettes brot (Some would argue this is crap from the radio, meh!), Fischmob, Stylemonstarz, Absolute beginner, Ferris MC.
check out these links:
this
this
and this
--Residential Interior Design
I'm in the demoscene.
"I was unaware that the music industry had been doing much complaining about people making copies of CDs for personal use"
Sure. And DRM is just for the bad guys. It has nothing to do with preventing personal copies.
And if you leave cookies for Santa Claus, he'll leave you more presents. Lets not get into the Easter Bunny!
"Complete with such bullshit stories as "the RIAA is sueing a 12 year old girl." "
But they were! They were suing mommy because Briana loaded kazaa, downloaded songs, and by default Kazaa will share those files from everybody else.
The RIAA are a bunch of goons, and the sooner the music revolution comes, the sooner the RIAA goons will end up against a wall.
It can't come a moment too soon.
Just copy the damned thing from a friend.
As for blanks, order them from the US, where there is no tax. 100 CD-R's are about $10-12.
Hell, I stopped paying for music 3 years ago when they went after napster. I decided to give away popular music when they decided to start suing their customers.
www.kapitalband1.com did the same with their album "2cd"
I've stopped buying from the recording industry. No I don't download or copy illegally either. I know of a few scenes on the net where the artists make their music available w/o the industry and that what I look to for new music. I miss some of my favorite bands, but I'm not giving the recording industry another cent. They've proven that they don't care what I think. I've found I don't need them either.
A local Portland Oregon folk artist, Lew Jones, released a new album several years ago with most of his older work included on the CD in MP3 form.
This was a mixed-mode CD where the audio came first and then the data. Placing the CD in an audio player gives the sound, so there is no blast of noise when the data is placed on the CD first.
Also there were a few selections of other artists from the same small label on the CD in MP3 form.
This is pretty neat and is an example of the RIAA companies should be doing to address this issue. It's too bad that these companies are all run by bozos who have let all the cocaine, limos, bimbos, and rock-star celebrity cloud their business sense.
Another idea would be is to have the original mix tracks on the CD in MP3 form along with a program that allows the buyers to remix to songs differently. Remove that irritating guitar solo, add more reverb on the bass, things like this.
this was a joke gone wrong. sorry for not being clear. mod me down and mod grandparent back up.
very much doubt this cd has any sort of copy protection on it, i couldn't read german even if it did.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
If these guys want to make a statement, they should release their music under one of the Creative Commons licenses.
Handing out blanks is just a stunt, and it's been done before. This is all PR.
Very admirable. But I've yet to hear from someone signing with a major and then afterwards releasing their music into the open. Ofcourse, a lot of musicians don't own their music, but even those that do generally still follow the old model of clinging hard to their right to copy.
In a word: awesome. It will hardly change anything, but it's cool, very very cool.
Kudos to Michael for a very cool thread title as well.
The way to fight the RIAA is to destroy the whole notion of buying copies of music. Simply putting music online and letting it generate the fame that selling CDs does is the way to fight the RIAA. More importantly, throwing off the pay-per-copy notion is the only way to stop our downward spiral toward a world where the electronics we buy and the things we do with them are closely watched and tightly policed.
can i listen to some of your stuff?
Really good noise? What?
Did you hear of the guy who tried to sell his music on CD-Rs on Ebay and got stopped?
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,55926
I agree. Lots of people don't understand copyright. Many on Slashdot too.
Many think copying stuff is stealing for instance. They just don't understand that if copying is stealing, since there are plenty of existing (and extensive) laws in most countries to handle theft (in myriad forms too) there would be no need for copyright laws, since the theft laws are there. And even if the theft laws aren't good enough they can always change/add. But copyright infringement isn't theft.
What if digital brain enhancers become common?
And almost everyone has photographic (+audio +video) memory (think current digital camera + pda + extrapolated). And almost everyone have a form of telepathy by transferring those memories wirelessly.
Who owns those memories? You hear some music, you "remember" it. Is it infringement to share your memories with your friend? Or with others? Or is it not your memory and the RIAA/MPAA requires a cut for each transfer? Or you lose access after 1 transfer?
Or do you have to do the Canada thing and pay a tax on every memory card for your e-brain just to make the greedy pigs happy.
The tech is practically all there - and people would be able to do lots of cool things, but the laws and greedy pigs could get in the way.
I think the main reasons why the Music Industry and Film Industry aren't making as much money is:
1) There are plenty of other attractive ways to spend money and time nowadays- internet, cellphones, video games, etc.
2) Their stuff doesn't appeal to enough people.
For 2) it's been 40+ days (or more) since the LOtR first screened over here. And a collegue just tried to get tickets without booking and it was fully booked. This here is the country where you can get non-original DVDs and CDs for low prices. If your movie is good enough people will pay to watch it.
Disney + Pixar make plenty of money doing the family stuff (whole family = more money), whereas the rest of Hollywood insists on pushing their world-view/agenda despite it costing them much potential profit.
The Music Industry makes 40% less, and they blame piracy, hmm I think Sun, HP made a lot less in the past few years too.
Why sell a CD and two blanks, instead of say... including three already-printed CDs? Sure, saying you let your consumers make two copies sounds great for headlines, but besides that, what's the point? They still say "make two copies for private use." To me, that means you are not supposed to give the copies away or sell them. You can actually legally make as many copies as you like for private use and backup (in the USA). It's only considered piracy when you give the copies away or try to sell the copies. Of course, some labels are trying to prevent even backup copies by "copy protecting" their CDs.
This little stunt is just... silly. And expensive. One commercial CD and two blanks (with graphics) is generally a lot more expensive to produce than just triple the amount of commercial already-printed CDs.
I guess they are trying sell the whole "STICKIN' IT TO THE MAN" aspect of this.
Hope there are some good German Beer songs or I ain't gonna buy it.
Hell I have never heard of this band, but I'd really like to support them. One problem: Most rap music gives me headaches (because it's only stupidity pressed onto a CD, mod me as flamebait but that's my opinion). I'm not going to buy the CD when I can't download and listen to at least one of the songs on it. Would you?
The punchline? It's music I've written, I've recorded, I hold copyright over, but as part of that copyright I allow my music to be downloaded.
So where is it?!?!?! No link!?!?!? WTF?
I would sure like to check it out and see if you have something I might like.... it's OK to link to your home page! (look below, and you'll see that I sure do)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
all music is viral.
good or bad they all spread from brain to brain. via ears, radio waves, via audio tape and disc
Their reproduction has been sped up by mass media and recording technology, of course.
Why not take these two black CDs, download the ISO images for Ninnle Linux and NinnleBSD and burn off your own copies?
I guess it's ok to make a statement, but I find the concept laughable. Why include two "official" blank CDs? Why not just include two extra copies? It probably cost them more to create the sanctioned blanks that it would have to increase their copy run 300%...
I'm glad to see this posted! And I'd like to clear up the confusion as to what kind of music it is. IT IS NOT RAP! :)
The project Eisbrecher is Alexx Wesselsky (lyrics/vocals) and Noel Pix (composition/keyboards, guitars, programming); both were already successful before Eisbrecher with the rock-group Megaherz in the German-speaking world as well as abroad (above all, in the USA).
The music from Eisbrecher is progressive electronic trip-rock. The electronics form the base, onto which Alex and Noel build harder or softer tones towards melodies. The programming is the heart of the Eisbrecher-esque vision of modern rock: interesting songs, progressively packaged, and danceable. The original positioning of hard guitar riffs and driving bass lines further clarify Eisbrecher's understanding of electronic rock. In this context, the deep voice of Alex adapts melodiously and varying: it speaks, it sings, it feels, it lives.
"It's getting cold!"
In their lyrics, Eisbrecher go on a journey through private and interpersonal states of feeling in a world growing cold. It's about the "me" and "you" as we're in the here and now; it's about what you make of it.
Noel Pix has been working since 1996 in the professional camp and can look back at his career up to this point as a producer, singer, guitarist, arranger, and programmer at over 80 releases as well as gold and platinum awards. Among others, he was awarded with the BDA and ADC awards for various multimedia-installations. He played from 1998 until 2000 with Alex in Megaherz, where he was responsible for the electronic element and moreover, composed most of the songs. Music is his life and the range of his creative works speaks for the great openness opposite all the styles.
For Alexx Wesselsky, the professional career began with the first signing of Megaherz in 1997. Aside from his career with Megaherz, he has been working since 1999 as a studio singer and lyric writer for various projects (among others, a platinum production). As voice, head, and composer he stayed until the end of 2002 as the front man of Megaherz, which he founded in 1993. The desire for something new and for hard music beyond current metal-cliches was there for both Alex and Noel which they brought together again in the Fall of 2002, after both had been going their own ways for almost two years, not least to recover from each other, and the project Eisbrecher was born.
Alexx and Noel got to know each other in 1997 during the production of the Megaherz-Debut "Wer Bist Du" (Alex had unknowingly academically dealt with one of Noel's releases in the context of his German studies course a year before). From 1998 until 2000 they got to love and hate each other and vice versa; Alex -- the charismatic, impulsive, perverse, 2-meter troublemaker -- and Noel -- the sensible, superdisciplined, charming, cheeky musical genius -- have taken everything apart and put it back together again. They tore, avoided and tolerated each other. The result of this process is called Eisbrecher.
This may further mess up canadian preconceptions about their copying rights.
I get pretty frustrated at typical canadian misconceptions about copying music; they generally assume we're burdened by the US model.
Thing is, we are allowed to borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy. If I'm letting others copy a CD (etc.) that I own, I can loan that CD out ad infinitum, so long as each friend makes only one copy (and doesn't redistribute).
Likewise with downloading. I can download a song once (well, have one copy of a downloaded song). I cannot share it, however.
Pretty realistic rules (except for the levy part).
Damn those pesky terrorists
I haven;t read the article, but for arguments sake, if that is the case, way to negate your own action. You make the copying easy (and attractive) but contribute to the funds available to prosecute those folk...
If they are with a indie label, or even better, if it was DIY release...
I'm curious (but far too busy at the moment) to find out the answer to that one.
Hell, my band isn't affiliated with any label, I think we'll rip the idea off. The ditribution of out latest work is being handled by a kid who used to bootleg recordings or our shows... Can't get any farther from RIAA than that.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Writing this late in the day on the west coast, so it'll probably get ignored, but....
Not every copyright holder is a large corporation or association. The fact that artists don't get properly compensated from these large companies isn't the fault of copyright; the artists chose to give up their rights in exchange for the marketing these large companies provide. The real problem is that few people will take the time to look outside the heavily-marketed mainstream in order to find something that suits their tastes.
I run an online game, Meridian 59. It's a niche game that offers full PvP and character interaction. My game is profitable, but only because the employees (including myself) make about 13% of what I could make by working at a large gaming company. We make nowhere near as much money as the larger games do, however.
A lot of online gamers complain that games water down their PvP offerings in order to appeal to a wider audience. Many games either don't offer any PvP options, or relegate PvP to one server where the game operators ignore cheating and generally refuse to balance the game with PvP in mind. In theory, the audience is there for a well-run PvP game.
In practice, it's not going to come unless I spend a lot of money on advertising. My company can't afford to have a huge marketing blitz where we put full color ads in major gaming magazines. People are mostly content to sit around and only pay attention to what is aggressively advertised. So, my game gets ignored compared to the larger offerings out there that can afford these types of marketing blitzes.
Some might point to the relatively "ugly" graphics in the game. This is just another facet of this money problem. I'd have to spend a lot of money to update all the art, which would require taking more investement money. In the end, this would require me to give up some of my control and profits for this investment. (Further, no investor would give me money if there weren't some way to protect the investment, namely copyrights and trademarks.) This situation has exactly the same problems as when an artist signs their career away to a major label.
Now, an online game is really a service, not a product. While I might distribute software, that's just a convenient way to use the service. It's not practical to give away a service for free as the anti-copyright advocates suggest for products. It's like an accountant allowing other people to sign his or her name on tax returns. If the IRS finds a problem and finds out the accountant allows others to sign his or her name, then the problems are going to fall squarely on the accountant's shoulders. Similarly, someone running a bad service using my copyrights and trademarks will reflect poorly, in the customer's eyes, on the product as a whole. So, a lot of the advantages touted by the anti-copyright group simply don't apply in my situation.
So, what can we do? The best way to solve the problems of artists not getting compensated is to look for independent artists. If enough people supported independent artists, we'd see a real change in the industry. Artists wouldn't be forced into horribly lopsided contracts that favor the large associations. They'd have more freedom to allow their music to be copied freely. They'd get a LOT more money per record and would be able to support themselves doing what they love. But, until then the artist needs to have the exposure the labels can give them in order to make enough money to really do what they love.
Of course, this means a bit of sacrifice. You might have to put up with lower sound quality since the independent musician didn't have enough cash to get the record professionally produced in an expensive sound studio. You might have to put up with 2D sprites in an older game engine instead of having the latest high-poly count 3D models because the independent game developer couldn't afford the artists to update the game. You might have
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
But "flamebait"? How many responces to this post? That's quite a flame.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Children stop and stare at me open mouthed because usually I'm the first TRULY happy person :)
they've ever encountered in their lives.
I'm the happiest motherfucker I've ever known.
Are you sure thats not because of the anti-depressants your doctor prescribed you?
You know, you might actually get more respect if you were to name the PR firm you're working for and which client you're working on behalf of. Are you ashamed of working as a propagandist?
"the spirit of copyright" - hey, either change your favorite recreational drug or at least get it from an honest dealer, what you're doing has got you fuxx0red in the head.
I notice that you don't mention the words "fair use" anywhere in your post. Since the only people who don't get the concept of "fair use" are the RIAA and their paid apologists, I'm calling "Astroturf", not "Bullshit" for your post as a whole.
You don't even get the "bright-lining" concept... which is supposed to in the copyright context allow easy differentiation of "fair use" from "copyright infringement" in a manner that any reasonable person can understand, not a coverup for copyright infringement.
As for your "examples":
Ever seen an FM radio? Do you know the difference between a 128K MP3 track played over FM radio and one that's shared via P2P? Either might sell a record. ONE use is illegal. The difference is that your bosses bought enough politicians to make digital rebroadcasting of broadcast quality material illegal. Why? To cut off a channel by which non-RIAA artists can distribute their material to the public free of charge.
Somehow, that sounds like too stupid an idea even for the n00bs around here to come up with. One of your handlers under the delusion that he can come up with k3wl new tech ideas of his own?
In other words, broadcasting FM radio in response to listner requests is good in exchange for substantial money paid for licensing is good, but figuring as a reasonable person would that broadcasting the same content over wires shows that MIT people are trying to steal content they are paying to use?
What you call "examples" I call self-serving industry propaganda bullshit.
Go to your bosses and tell them that if they expect you to post propaganda in public policy discusseion, you need enough background to be able to write posts that indicate that you're something other than clueless. Did you really think you'd get away with this?
When people talk in terms of "it's legally okay to copy a song from the radio" or "it's legally okay to copy three pages, but not the whole book", then they are basically referring to PRAGMATIC copyright interpreations
For your "interpretations"... try googling on "Audio Home Recording Act".
Come back when you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Finally a group that tries to make their cds worth buying. Like dvds with special features and superior quality, their bonus dvd adds a motive to buy the cd. I'm less impressed with the blanks, but it does make a good statement about the group. I've never heard of them before, but i'm gonna dl some of their stuff to see if i like it and if so i'll buy their cd set.