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.
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.
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.
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!
...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?
Hitler must be spinning in his lake of fire!
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!
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.
Actually, hip-hop is by far the most popular music style in Germany now. It's a part of a larger fascination with 'black' music, where 'black' music covers stuff like rap, soul, RnB, reggae etc.
There are many German rappers singing in German, too, but it's too slow, watered down and bland for my taste.
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 "german rap scene" ???? ;)
Hitler must be spinning in his lake of fire!
Well, maybe. But if he could look at todays Germany, the fact of there being a rap scene or not would only slightly alter the rotation speed... there's too much other stuff that would make him spin...
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/
this is a band sticking it to the man!
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some German rap is very good. Remember, hip-hop is urban culture, and Germany has plenty of urban areas. So do France and Great Britain, both of which also have hot hip-hop scenes. And what's great is that each area is adding its own influence to the genre, not just reiterating Reverend Run rhymes in low German. Although, the band mentioned in this topic is just noise, some of it is really good.
It's the integration and unity of races that is growing in modern urban areas that increases the angular velocity of Herr Adolf. The fact that there's some modern clicks and whistles coming out of their Blaupunkt speakers would probably not increase this outrage.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
what we need is a strong german leader to bring them back to their rightful place of glory
moron
1. If you refer to eisbrechers music as being rap then you either never heard a song by them or your definition of rap is quite unusual. In your definition wumpscut, rammstein, Das Ich or such bands would also count as german rap ;-)
Best chances to hear one of their songs is at one of the many wave/gothic clubs in germany. Most probably during one of their industrial/noise sessions. (Mind you those genre names mean slightly different things in europe)
Both members have excellent track records making goth music and producing other bands of the genre. Before Eisbrecher they were rather succesful with their band Megaherz.
2. As far as I know they aren't on top of any german scene let alone the rap scene. Their debut has only recently been released in germany and they are currently not listet in the german 100 and aren't even listed in the german alternative charts. So I would not say they are top in germany at the moment.
Greetings from germany
Jef
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.
Early hiphop was heavily influenced by Kraftwerk, esp. "Trans-Europe Express". That the birds come home to roost surprises me very little.
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.