Slashdot Mirror
New File Sharing Networks
An anonymous reader sends in: "Most readers of slashdot have been following the exploits of the RIAA and their attempts to shut down Napster, KaZaA, Morpheus, etc. In response, it appears some live music fans have taken things into their own hands and started new file sharing networks made exclusively for trading live recordings of bands that allow that sort of thing. The main player, RNL has reached version 1.0, features a distributed architecture, supports linux, and is even GPLed. Another peice of interesting software is Furthur. Though still only in beta, Furthur has cool features like allowing a user to piggy-back another user's download to reduce the load of the uploader."
Haven't these guys heard of etree.org? Etree has been around for a few years, and exists to allow the trading of lossless recordings of live shows from bands who allow trading.
Its not p2p, mostly ftps and burn + post cds, but it has been there for some time. Loads of good shows too :)
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
Furthur is being developed by some of the etree.org crew. Etree.org has an outstanding track record so far. The group trades only "taper-friendly" recordings, and if anyone asks for a recording that isn't taper-friendly, members are sure to jump on the request and tell him to look elsewhere (some are more polite than others).
/.) would be chaos. However, the group is pretty well self-policed.
You'd think that a group of over 13,000 (that was last I heard a while ago, and with the second related story in a week, there are sure to be many more directed from
The fact is, if someone wants an illegal bootleg, there are plenty of other places to look rather than the etree.org lists. Rather than get flamed and endanger etree.org, those people just go elsewhere for those needs.
Check out etree.org's legal page for more information about policy. After 3 years, there still hasn't been an RIAA shakedown.
Presumably the record companies defer to the bands on this point.
Well, the way I understand recording contracts is that the recording company owns the recording, but the band still owns the music. The band rarely gets enough of a cut from the contract that sales hurt their personal bottom line. Huge bands like Pearl Jam, Metallica et al are big enough to negotiate that sort of deal. This is why Lars from Metallica was one of the few artists who cared about Napster. If you'll notice the RIAA, not the artists, is suing people. They claim they are protecting the artists, but they are really looking out for their own pockets.
Most bands dont make money on the record, they make money on the concerts and appearances. Granted, they do make money, but it's usually small compared to what they make from other sources...why else would they tour? The recordings basically serve them as advertisements.
The bands typically own all rights to the music itself (not the recording) and they have the right to allow or disallow fans to record concerts.
Usual dislaimers apply...IANAL, esp a contract lawyer, and have never seen a 'typical' recording contract and am just make observations on what I've heard and read.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin