Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Two Blanks Against the Trend

Posted by michael on Fri Feb 06, 2004 08:46 AM
from the spread-the-news dept.
Media Music
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".'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Two Blanks Against the Trend 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • bah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tirel (692085) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:47AM (#8200400)
    this is just a publicity stunt.

    remember, the USA is the country where your discontent will be sold back to you.

    • Shock horror! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Channard (693317) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:52AM (#8200458) Journal

      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)

    • Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Saven Marek (739395) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:08AM (#8200584)
      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.

      • Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Snowdog668 (227784) on Friday February 06 2004, @11:02AM (#8201838) Homepage
        I agree with you on this. I can take it one step further, I had on old host go in and totally erase my band's site back when the RIAA first started ramping up their attack on Napster. No phone call, no e-mail, no warning what-so-ever, the site just disappeared. Apparently they were afraid of being the next target so everyone that had any mp3's on their site was a pirate until proven otherwise. Once I sent them a fax of my copywrite I find out the damn fools didn't even have a backup of my site so I had to go back and re-upload everything. I wouldn't have minded so much because I keep a current version on my own computer but I'm on dialup so it took a couple of hours to recover. Needless to say I moved to a new host right quick.

    • Re:bah (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordboy (472941) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:28AM (#8200725) Journal
      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 [newswireless.net] were for anyway? New cell phones will have WiFi and Bluetooth by the end of '05. It will be easy.

    • Re:bah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bigman (12384) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:50AM (#8200985) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • I'm so conflicted (Score:5, Funny)

    by CompWerks (684874) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:47AM (#8200408)
    Bad Music - Great idea

  • About time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Polkyb (732262) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:49AM (#8200430)

    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

    • a good start, indeed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by musiholic (94408) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:31AM (#8200750) Homepage Journal
      but will it spread? That is the question I'd like to see answered, and hopefully in the affirmative. Let's hope that more bands pick up on this and run with 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.

  • great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinucus (85222) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:49AM (#8200432)
    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!

  • That's clever, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2004, @08:50AM (#8200441)
    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.

    • Re:That's clever, but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by timbloid (208531) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:07AM (#8200572)

      Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
      Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving
      family?
      Bart: No.
      Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal
      a truckload of bread to feed them?
      Bart: Uh uh.
      Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
      Bart: I guess that's okay.
      Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price
      that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
      Bart: Hell, no!
      Tony: Enjoy your gift.

    • Re:That's clever, but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by NixLuver (693391) <stwhite@@@kcheretic...com> on Friday February 06 2004, @09:12AM (#8200614) Homepage Journal
      I agree with much of the factual explanation here, but I disagree, to a large extent, with the conclusions. The copyright laws were never intended as a means of establishing a media empire on one idea. The copyright laws were intended to allow someone to profit from their idea, but not to own your memories (think Disney).

      The spirit of that decision, I think, can only be observed in one of two ways; short duration, strong copyright laws, or long duration, weak copyright laws. The problem with the egregious Disney extensions is that they apply to other copyrights.

      The ridiculous result is that Disney now owns a large percentage of what's in my head. They have relentlessly pursued copyright violations that were completely tangential to their trademarks and intellectual properties in order to establish the "don't fuck with the mouse" mindset, thus setting an example for everyone.

      In short, I would quite agree with you if our copyright laws were still as originally written; I cannot agree based on current law.

    • Re:That's clever, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mivok (621790) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:21AM (#8200666) Homepage
      While I agree with your comments, I don't understand how the group referred to in the story are playing 'bright lining games'.

      If a person wants to give every customer who buys their song a license to make 2 backups for private use that is their perogative. They're not saying 'here, take these blank cd-rs and make some "legal" backup copies of all your metallica albums', they're not saying 'make a copy and distribute it to your friends'. They're saying that music they produce should be able to be backed up as per fair use, and they're giving people a helping hand doing it.

      Perhaps I simply disagree with you that the spirit of copyright law should force those who have damaged media to have to pay twice. Or that the spirit of copyright law should forbid people to be able to transfer music between different media such as mp3/ogg/aac players. The extrapolation argument you said is okay, but nowhere do I see Eisbrecher advocating that people break the spirit of copyright law as you said.

    • Re:That's clever, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by liquidsin (398151) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:26AM (#8200711) Homepage
      You seem to be missing a crucial point here. All of the instances that you cited were of the general populace trying to weasel through loop holes in copyright law, and the laws were rightly changed to accomodate for this. The instance we're discussing here is a band who is distributing two blanks with their own cd, which one would assume is to encourage people buying the cd to share a copy with a couple friends. This is NOT the same as finding loop holes in the law. They are extending the basic provisions of copyright law the same way as someone releasing code under the GPL is. I would seriously doubt that any sane judge is going to tell you that you can't make extensions like this on materials that you own the copyright to.

    • Chapter 8 [critical-art.net] ("The Financial Advantages of Anti-copyright " - pdf) of "Digital Resistance [critical-art.net]" might interest you. It debunks some of the more persistent capitalist myths behind the idea of "copyright for the protection of the artist".

      I find CAE's [critical-art.net] other books [critical-art.net] quite interesting as well. It's quite hard for me to find well-written material related to the intersection between technology and culture, any pointers?

    • 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)

    • Re:That's clever, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Simonetta (207550) on Friday February 06 2004, @11:54AM (#8202487)
      Copyright is a socially constructed concept. Basically, copyrightholders are entitled to a monopoly of sorts for a limited time on their work.

      The giant media corporations have destroyed the idea of copyright themselves by bribing legislators in the USA to change the copyright time period from limited to indefinite. Since they refuse to release copyrighted material into public domain (by permanently extending the copyright period), the consumers refuse to acknowledge their ownership of the copyright by using new digital technology to make extensive and widespread copies.

      Corporations don't understand the idea of 'social compact' and never will. In the long run, they will dissolve themselves due to inability to control digital copyright, but they will send many random people to prison to set examples and will destroy many works by encrypting them and refusing to release the decryption keys or allowing the sale of the product.

  • Difference in laws between Germany and US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr Guy (547690) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:50AM (#8200444) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Difference in laws between Germany and US (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2004, @09:18AM (#8200648)
      There is actually no debate whether I can copy a CD I own and give it away to (close) friends. I can even borrow a CD, copy it for me and a friend and return the original. This is explicitly allowed and the reason why we pay a surcharge on every blank (GEMA-Gebuehr). The number of copies is also not limited to two (but the audience is limited to relatives and close friends). On the other hand we are not allowed to circumvent copy protection, so the concept of "fair use" copies is quickly becoming a moot point.

  • Hell, I'll buy it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RESPAWN (153636) <caldwellNO@SPAMtulanealumni.net> on Friday February 06 2004, @08:50AM (#8200447) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Comparing business models (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shockwaverider (78582) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:51AM (#8200457)
    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...

  • Nice, but it's been done before (Score:5, Informative)

    by plumby (179557) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:52AM (#8200460)
    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!

  • Maybe I'm missing something (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tsg (262138) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:52AM (#8200465)
    but why don't they just give you two extra copies of album instead of CD-Rs?

    • Because... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RMH101 (636144) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:58AM (#8200508)
      ...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.

    • Re:Maybe I'm missing something (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:00AM (#8200522) Journal
      but why don't they just give you two extra copies of album instead of CD-Rs?
      It's a symbolic gesture. Call it a gimmick if you want :-) They specifically want to make a statement 'not all copying is evil', and make the news with it. Giving away 2 extra prerecorded discs would not make as strong a statement, nor would simply issuing a press statement stating that they endorse copying of their music.

      This is a nice way of saying "Giving away copies of our work can be good for us, too".

  • Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2004, @08:53AM (#8200466)
    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?

    • Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BabyDave (575083) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:56AM (#8200495)

      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.

  • That's Nice -- Wrong Trend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _xeno_ (155264) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:54AM (#8200475) Homepage Journal
    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 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.

    • Re:That's Nice -- Wrong Trend (Score:5, Informative)

      by MooCows (718367) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:15AM (#8200635)
      If this were a band offering free MP3s for download, that might be interesting.

      Check out the link in my sig, www.magnatune.com [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 [cdbaby.com] is also doing something like this. (although they sell real CD's, not downloads)

  • Why bother with blanks? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dave-tx (684169) <df19808+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 06 2004, @08:54AM (#8200480)
    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.

      • Re:Why bother with blanks? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by vidarh (309115) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Friday February 06 2004, @09:37AM (#8200812) Homepage Journal
        Of course pressing a music CD costs much less than 1 or 2 euros in reasonable volumes... As an example, for USD 1.45 - 0.77 per CD (in volumes of 1000 or 10,000 respectively) I found pressing + jewel cases, cover and distribution via Amazon and Barnes and Noble, or if you just want to press discs, $1.65 per disc for a volume of 250 to 0.65 at a volume of 1,000 and 0.40 for 10,000.

        Even in volume prices on CD-R's those prices are competitive.

  • Grrrr (Score:5, Funny)

    by JTunny (653851) on Friday February 06 2004, @08:55AM (#8200483) Homepage
    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.

  • It's been done beofre (Score:5, Informative)

    by Walkiry (698192) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:00AM (#8200523) Homepage
    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 [typicallyspanish.com] is the only comment I found in English (last paragraph).

  • A most excellent first step! However... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maelstrom696969 (746265) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:12AM (#8200615)
    Being in a band myself and having released some EP's and a full album, we always tell people to go ahead and make as many copies of the music as they want, and distribute the songs however they want.

    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.

  • Just a statement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtlanticGiraffe (749719) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:19AM (#8200652) Homepage
    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.

  • The Rosenbergs (Score:5, Informative)

    by RainbowSix (105550) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:31AM (#8200747) Homepage
    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

  • Dead Kennedys (Score:5, Funny)

    by esnible (36716) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:38AM (#8200841)
    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.

  • US Copyright Summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by condition-label-red (657497) on Friday February 06 2004, @10:00AM (#8201110) Homepage
    I recently ran across a good, concise discussion of US copyright laws with timeframes of when content becomes public domain here [promo.net] at Project Gutenberg [promo.net]. Looks like we will see some PD works next in 2019.

    • Re:Info about the band (Score:5, Funny)

      by Burlynerd (535250) * on Friday February 06 2004, @08:59AM (#8200516)
      they're one of the top bands right now in the german rap scene
      The "german rap scene" ????
      Hitler must be spinning in his lake of fire!

      • Re:Info about the band (Score:4, Funny)

        by ahillen (45680) on Friday February 06 2004, @09:15AM (#8200633)
        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... ;)

    • Re:Info about the band (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeff Kelly (309129) on Friday February 06 2004, @10:57AM (#8201775)
      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

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.