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".'"
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!
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.
I'd expect German law (and US, along with probably every Berne signatory) says "you've been given permission by the copyright holder(s) to make the two copies, so go ahead.
This is a nice way of saying "Giving away copies of our work can be good for us, too".
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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.
Sorry...
I disagree with you. I believe society can now handle a "patentless/copyrightless" society.
I do NOT believe they are beneficial in their current form. Most artists and inventers receive next to nothing in compensation when corporations and associations gain all th economic benefits.
And at the same time, these rights have been so extended (both in time and in scope) as to be unconstitutional...
Frankly, I think it's time some damage is done. However, I believe said damage should a) not harm life or limb, b) not harm non-combatants (such as myDoom virus)
Yes, it is. But it might just illustrate to the music industry that there are other marketing models to adopt other than the grab-control-and-screw-it-for-all-its-worth model that they currently adopt. The band is clearly making a political point about home copying. It would have been cheaper for them to put three copies of the album in the case and say to give the other 2 away.. instead they gave away CD-R's because that immediatly evokes the image of home copying and also points out that every blank CD-R is not the same as a lost record sale.
Perhaps if this CD sells because of its notoriety and because loads of people like the idea of getting a couple of free CD-R's with the logo on, maybe they might get a clue that there might be ways of exploiting the free (as in beer) exchange of copyright material for their own profit.
If they did that, then they may stop looking like a load of sad King Kanute's and start looking like a bunch of people with brains and flair.
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!