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".'"
Bad Music - Great idea
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell 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!
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.
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'
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?
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.
Hitler must be spinning in his lake of fire!
I see it as a concept that may make people understand the idea of 'copyright'. It stuns me to see how many people DON'T understand the idea. A case is on my web site I have an area where people can download music. It's also copyrighted music.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been emailed about it, from anonymous do gooders making sure that I know they know I'm serving copyrighted goods online, and that it's illegal, and that I could get in some great trouble. Even had one guy argue with me until he broke down into swearing and abuse insisting the RIAA would have my balls on a platter.
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.
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.
If this were a band offering free MP3s for download, that might be interesting.
Check out the link in my sig, www.magnatune.com
Those artists are offering free MP3s of their albums.
Plus they get a 50% cut of what you decide to pay for the album. Great idea imo.
You buy the albums through the internet by the way, downloadable in different formats (WAV/OGG/MP3/FLAC)
CDBaby is also doing something like this. (although they sell real CD's, not downloads)
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
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.
this is just a publicity stunt.
And it worked.
I'm going to buy this album and I've never even heard of this band. Sooner or later, the music industry will realize that the old ways are dead. Pretty soon, McDonalds and Taco Bell will be record labels of their own, selling new releases with the purchase of a value meal.
What did you think that those Wifi installations were for anyway? New cell phones will have WiFi and Bluetooth by the end of '05. It will be easy.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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!
(Joe Normal doesn't read this website)
Yes I do!