Slashdot Mirror
EZTree Shuts Down
John3 writes "Easytree.org, a popular Bittorrent tracking site also known as EZT, shut down today after their ISP received threatening letters from attorneys. Unlike sites like Lokitorrent that have been shut down in the past, torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances rather than commercial product. Is a site that shares old Stevie Nicks, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Hunter live shows really that much of a threat to the music industry?"
...we hardly knew yee.
Of course they're a threat. Do you have any idea how many old people there are still living?
Is a site that shares old Stevie Nicks, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Hunter live shows really that much of a threat to the music industry?
Yes. History has shown that if you give people an inch, they go the whole way. If they want to be successful (both image-wise AND legal) they need to pursue ALL cases of piracy.....even if it's older bootlegs.
Does it make a difference if the material is copyrighted?
Or are live performances automatically free of copyright?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Are they that much of a threat to the music industry?
No! They're not a threat at all. You see, all it takes is a letter from someone claiming to be a lawyer and they are shutdown. Easy Peasy.
Of course. The threat is one of control. The RIAA is a music cartel who's entire business model exists around the premise of being the best way for aspiring artists to get their music out to the masses and make some money while doing so. This business model requires the perception that they control the market to the largest extent possible. Every nick in their armor is one more chance someone else might realize that the Internet has blown the doors off content distribution business models.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
the RIAA didn't get their cut and they're not about to stand for allowing the unwashed masses to be entertained without their express blessing and say so. And oh, a contribution to the corporate coffers.
Is a site that shares old Stevie Nicks, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Hunter live shows really that much of a threat to the music industry?
Anything that provides quality product free of charge is going to cut into the sales of overpriced crap. What really scares them is that people may discover there's more to music than k0rn and j-lo.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.
They don't want you to listen to anything but the stuff that they are selling. So reguardless of whether or not they are providing that content themselves they would like to shut it down. In fact they'd shut down all of the competition if they could get away with it.
Michael
of course they're a threat... any place where the general public can get hold of music that is an alternative is a threat to the commercial publishers desparate to push their pap on everybody... that last thing they want is the public experiencing real music...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Haven't you read 1984? Eventually it will be a thoughtcrime to think about downloading music.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances rather than commercial product.
Many musicians have taping policies which state that shows may be recorded and redistributed free of charge. I believe the shows distributed on easytree were completely legal.
It is when these companys want every last penny, and DVD boxed sets of old rat pack performances, etc., go for anywhere from 22 bucks to 99 bucks.
Even if it's a different performance and is only availible through bootleg channels (I.E. Grateful Dead), they are scared to death a fan might "get their fix" and not buy a boxed set.
Ridiculous.
what right do they have to sue for damages when they're not even trying to sell the "pirated" product themselves? Where is the loss of revenue?
How about you stop posting all the popular Bit Torret URLs to a high-traffic news site? That might keep them a live a bit longer...
For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.
By offering any of her performances, they should be brought up on terrorism charges.
Managed Hosting
Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. It's unthinkable to the music distribution industry that something distributed is done outside of its reach.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
To distribute a file with bittorrent requires a tracker that isn't really anonymous (the downloaders can be except for their IP address). But the trackers aren't. Bram never meant for people to use Bittorrent for distributing music or movies. It is for mitigating the slashdot effect for large software packages and security patches (like Linux distros). So when people use it to share music and movies they have a huge painted target on them. Older filesharing networks like Napster were much better (or worst depending on your point of view) for sharing copywrited stuff b/c you just shared a directory and could disappear just by logging off.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
A great example of what I am talking about is the Greatful Dead. If my recollection of my GD days are clear they basiclly didn't care if you recorded a boot leg of thier concerts. If they were touring today, my guess is that they would be happy to allow this sort of distribution.
Those that don't choose to allow it, whether you like it or not, have the right to defend thier copyrights. If you don't like the fact that a performer decides to enforce thier copyright, don't listen to thier music. Just don't steal thier music and then justify it by saying they are *ssh*les for not giving it to you for free in the first place.
I have a terrible ratio there because once I'm, uhm, done with my downloaded material I come to the realization that there are a bunch of perverts connected to my machine and shut down the torrent.
Otherwise, yep, it rocks.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
It's not that torrent sites and others are making live shows and other bootlegs available, it's that there are still millions of folks who are downloading and trading stuff that IS copyrighted. I shudder to think, but I guess enough people want to download the latest top 40 pop sh1t that it's beginning to hurt the record cos. Which is why now we're in for a season or twelve of Brittany's new reality show.
*gags*
If people were only trading and downloading unsigned bands, the outcry from the industry would not be so loud. And I might actually be able to quit my dayjob to pursue MY unsigned band's future.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
All of MP3 is a viable replacement for these bittorrent sites offering music. I wish they'd offer first-run movies as well...
Is a site that shares old Stevie Nicks, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Hunter live shows really that much of a threat to the music industry?
Of course it is. It was said many times, but I'll say it again:
It was never about "lost sales" of current music pwn3d by RIAA members, it was about squashing competition and choice. Execs in the music industry are many things, but they are not stupid, and they are the people with the best access to the numbers showing that free exposure to music increases its sales. It was always about control of the distribution channel. The listener would have a choice other than buying music from them, either by downloading live, unreleased performances, or independent artists.
When you shut the alternatives people have no choice but to buy music from RIAA members.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
To be fair, this site also hosted torrents concerning live shows from a wide variety of artists. From the submitter's offhand comment, this site is portrayed as only hosting older live sets and this is far from the truth. For example, NIN's latest shows (from the currently on going with teeth tour) were bootlegged and releasted on this site.
With that being said, I'm sad to see this site close as its user base was very dedicated to providing high quality live sets from a variety of bands.
not in all countries, not all music is played in the usa
Deliriant isti Americani.
Because it's no longer a matter of are the files being traded illegal, it's the fact that someone could trade an illegal file if they wanted to.
Soon, you won't be able to buy a razor to shave with because you "could" break it down and use it as a weapon.
This is how the corporate world works, let something get popular then tear it down even if it's not a "real" threat So long as they are the last choice for where to get the product for a while, thats all they care. How long have CD's been at the same price when we all know that the technology's over all cost is nowhere near what it was 15 years ago?
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
FWIW, as a (former) heavy user of EZT I can truthfully say that any music you can imaginre was available there: Classical (I d/l'ed a John Williams (not the composer) Guitar Concerto the other day), Jazz (Diana Krall was a frequent find), new rock (name the band, they were there QOTSA, A Perfect Circle, Wilco, ...) Old Metal (Black Sabbath), Prog Metal, punk, fusion, Ethno (Shankar!), .... this site will sorely be missed amongst the live music collectors.
Won't all this stuff simply go offshore, to China and the like?
Many of the bands featured on EZT allowed non-commercial trading of live shows yet some don't however allow trading of their shows even if you can't buy the live material in a store otherwise. No one is profiting from these bittorrent sites so its a bummer that the artists and their lawyers get so upset. I guess EZT is going to leave us much like the awesome sight sharingthegroove.org did a while back. Atleast bt.etree.org is still up!
To answer the question, of course they're no threat.
This is all about power: corporations have it, the people (nor their democratically-oriented institutions) do not.
In a time when air is sold on the streets of Mexico City, where the WTO is pushing the idea of private ownership of water, this is just another symptom of capitalist greed run amok.
A good chunk of the music on EZT was from artists who allow their live performances to be recorded and traded. Bands like the Grateful Dead and Phish not only allowed it but encouraged it. Other artist like the Pat Metheny Group merely allow it. In other words, there was a huge difference between EZT and suprnova/Lokki/warez BT sites.
I really dislike live music, I prefer studio stuff. But it appears that alot of people really like live music. They are even interested in listening to multiple versions of the same artists doing the same song at different concerts. There is huge potential here that the industry is ignoring. It is doubtful that many people would buy dozens of different CDs of the same music performed at different live concerts. However, these same people might very well download lots of different versions, just to see the difference, or maybe everytime they wanted to listen to a given song they would listen to a different live version of it. The music industry has all these millions of versions of songs that they are not even recording and distributing (even though people want to listen to it) because their distribution model is so archaic.
So what do I propose? I think the music industry could make tons of money by switching from music being a *product* to music being a *service*. You pay 5$/month to have unlimited downloads to a complete archive of everything the industry can pull together. With so much data, the risk of the users downloading and freely distributing it all doesn't really exist. Users will pay the 5$/month to have easy access to all the brand new music and all the archived music. The ease of use would make this very profitable.
This isn't my idea. It is well described and documented in a PDF from MIT. They strongly believe that a download-service business model would work. I tend to agree.
When I was using Napster, I was sharing and downloading live Grateful Dead and Black Crowes shows. Both are fully permissible by the bands and free of copyright. But since a few corporate f*cks were worried about 2% growth versus 3%, I lost the best trading source I ever had. (I never ONCE downloaded frickin' Metallica!)
Keep in mind, I STILL have a Sony (one of the companies always fighting to bring down Napster, Kazaa, etc.) CD-IT blank audio cassette, whose sole purpose was to tape from CDs. Trouble was, back then, CD-Burners weren't generally available and pretty much all the CDs there were to copy were copyrighted. Talk about hypocricy!
Revolution is necessary! 2RA
Sugapablo
...but a site that offers Stevie Nicks videos for download should be shut down on general principle.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
It is a true shame that lawyers aren't automatically disbarred when they commit illegal acts. And it is an illegal act to threaten someone with an expensive lawsuit when they haven't broken the law.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Along that line, can anyone tell me how to get a good Phish concert recording of "Dark Side of the Moon" that they did in Utah? From what I hear, the band sez concert recording is just fine, so one of these recordings isn't illegal.
Scary thing is that I've lived in the Burlington, Vt. area over 25 years, and only ever heard Phish once or twice on the radio. I did like what I heard, though it was a bit too late, and I have liked DSotM ever since it came out. I'd like to hear the Phish rendition.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
They're trying to hide the fact Stevie Nicks is a sheep
The real reason is they want you to buy the Live comp and listen to a bunch of diffrent performances
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
and now... they'll shut THAT one down, too!
This article should also include a reference to the decision by a federal judge last september that "struck-down" the anti-boot leg law.
i -bootleg-law-struck-down.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/ant
Yes yes, mod this post way up. The content according to september's ruling may be actually legal.
Once they downloaded them, yes. They would like to sell them to you now.
Home of bittorrent (bt.etree.org), they have a bunch of torrents from artists who specifically say that users can post live performances but not anything that's commercially sold.
Raises the question though - if you pay for a ticket to attend the concert, doesn't that mean the performance is 'commercially sold' ?
I've only recently gotten on the torrent bandwagon, and have enjoyed some live performances of the artists from etree.org
my geeklog
torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances
The key word in that sentence is USUALLY.
If the site was hosting 9999 copyright free Grateful Dead concerts, and only 1 warezed copy of Halo 2, guess what? They're in violation.
They could have simply gone through their offerings and only removed the illegal stuff.
Lots of those live performances ARE commercial stuff too. Go look at the CD aisle at Best Buy, and imagine that, there are plenty of professionally produced live concerts.
Even Metallica has no problem with fans trading bootlegs of concerts. The thing is, those bootlegs sound like dogshit, and people would rather trade a CD-rip of the "Binge and Purge" boxed set.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Excuse me, but it depends on whom contacted the site... While I don't agree with the premise of the filetrading of bootlegs, unless it was one of the lawyers for the rights holders, they don't get to demand anything.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is an action that RIAA must take. If they forego opportunities to draw distinct lines around their property, they won't have a chance when real cases are brought to trial.
Hell, it's good enough for unreleased live performances.
Everybody needs a fucking lawsuit these days. They're hip. They're in. Get with the style or get the fucking out of this country you fucking le Francais pussy.
Of course they are a threat, but not in the way most of the posts here talk about. The party line on Slashdot seems to be that it's all about greed and that's bad.
Fist of all, it isn't. Greed is what builds and maintains economies. It's what allows you to afford the high speed connection to take the music you don't want to pay for (in itself a greedy act.) But ultimately, it's not about greed, it's about precedent.
Copyright & Trademark law require the vigorous defence of your property. It's a use it or loose it scenario. They have to go after everybody or nobody. IF they're selective about some claims and not others it opens it up to challenge in court for the stuff that does matter to the holder. It has happened where a judge has basically said 'Too little, too late' regarding companies who let their IP slip.
If you don't fight for it all, then the courts assume that you don't care for it all. And if you don't care for it all, the courts get to decide what you care for. That is bad precedent. That is what this is about.
- The Google Toolbar has a spell checker button AND it works, consider that before hitting submit next time k?
Then the solution is an alternative method of tracker distribution. One that can't be shut down. Along with someone dedicated to receiving trackers and distributing it in a way other than being sued as the web-site owner.
My modest suggestion:
Usenet.
Unless everyone can agree on one adware-free/spyware-free P2P network to make them available on.
In that case: WinMX.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Recording a live show can be legal, some bands evn encourage it. However, the distribution of them may be illegal.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
What's up with legaltorrents.com? It's a great premise for a site (and a great site too), too bad it seems to have fallen down for the past coupla weeks...
I don't know if the concerts EZtree were swapping were from okay-to-boot bands or not...but I will note that Archive.org, in conjunction with etree.org, are still making available literally thousands of live concert recordingsin lossless formatsfrom bands that allow concert taping and trading. If you take a look at their collection, you might just be surprised by some of the bands there. Gin Blossom, Guster, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Rusted Root, Butthole Surfers, Cowboy Junkies, etc. etc.
I'd just like to plug a favorite band of mine, the Ozark bluegrass band Big Smith, to whose members I am distantly related (and with whose family mine used to have a blood feud going about 80 years or so back). If you're not into bluegrass/folk/gospel, then you're not into it...but if you are, check 'em out.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
History is much less clear on what happens when you allow people access to unreleased Frank Sinatra, Stevie Nicks, and Ian Hunter bootlegs, but they don't dare take that chance, do they?
Does this mean sites like Archive.org's Live Music Archive and bt.etree.org have to be shut down as well? I was under the impression that if the artist permitted taping and redistribution of live shows, it was all legit. Of course, I am aware that there were some instances of trade-unfriendly tapings being distributed through easytree (e.g. Bob Dylan), but all they'd have to do is implement a stricter policy of what can and cannot be seeded.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Hey, they're the ones with the money. Of course the pigopolists want to corral them in.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The people suing may not even have stading in the case (the record companies ususally don't have the rights to live shows anyway). But that doesn't matter if you don't have the megabucks needed to fight in court.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
I sure wish someone would grow some ballz one of these days and stand up for their right to free speech. Doesn't anyone have hosting to offer? This site was the only legit way to download music, and now it's over. Artists give permission for CD-trading of live shows - attorney sends letter to an ISP - now music is gone? Get another ISP, quite letting these cartels control our access to entertainment. We are people, not sheep.
They need to stand up to people threatening to sue. And as for the legal expenses, chances are if they person-being-sued were to ask for help from netizens, they'd receive it.
Thank you.
No.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
Thank you. I've never heard a better argument for why laws deserve zero respect. Let's have some anarchy.
We need to stop thinking, sharing, and expressing our desire to consume music in ways that they haven't monopolized and just purchase CDs. Don't go to concerts (more likely to benefit the artists directly) we should just buy the concert CD. We should all pay for satelite radio, buy the best-of CDs, watch MTV and shut the he11 up.
EZTree stole that intellectual property
This is an oxymoron. "Intellectual" property cannot be stolen, by definition. Only physical property can be stolen. IP can be copied, infringed, abused, improperly used, or devalued, but without actual removal or destruction of the original, no "theft" exists.
You(pl) cannot recreate the definition of stealing to make copyright infringment sound more destructive or immoral. I won't let you.
EZTree certainly committed a crime.
I wouldn't be so sure of this if I were you. IIRC, the legality of bittorrent (among other P2P applications) is being contested in the Supreme Court right now. AFAICT, there is no evidence that EZTree was even seeding the torrents - in which case, they were not even infringing on anyone's copyright - they were simply contributing to infringement, which may or may not be considered a crime (in the U.S., which is where I presume EZT is located) based on the court's decision.
Oh -- and never confuse legality with morality or illegality with immorality. The two concepts are, at best, weakly related.
Oh, how true. It's a knife that cuts both ways - some moral things are illegal, and some legal things are immoral.
Articles like this make me miss Frank Zappa. When he realized the amount of money people were willing to spend to buy bootlegged concert recordings, he went and bought a bunch of them himself, remastered them and sold them under his label. Unless the records companies are planning on doing this, let the music be free!
I worked on a study determining what impact the TpB would have on an individual's ability to engage in copyright violations. In a small random sample, we had about 350 students. (Much more information then this, just citing some key points) When given the choice between a napster clone and a torrent website in a scenario comparing the two mediums. They preferred the torrent version (they liked being anonymous (as it was perceived). However, when given the requirement that they needed to register with a valid email address, phone number, and place of resident which would be verified less then 18% would use such a service.
Where did we get the "registration model" it has been proposed as a method to reduce the copyright infringement by the RIAA and MPAA to protect their interests. Goes back to the tried and true question many of my intro students point out. "If you have nothing to hide or done nothing wrong, why does it matter if they go and search your house?"
After several classes going over the importance of the 4th Amendment, I inevitably out of frustration come back to It Just Does for those that simply do not get the issue at hand.
It has become a very sad state of affairs when we assume that everyone is guilty and sadly when it comes to anything P2P or torrent related you are assumed guilty.
Just wondering if these trackers are still in The Wayback Machine.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It was my understanding (IANAL) that whoever made the recording owned the copyright to that recording. For example, the photographer I paid to take my high school senior pictures owns the copyright to those pictures, even though they are pictures of me.
By the same logic, the people who actually taped the shows should own the copyright to those recordings. Since the record companies do not own the copyright to the recordings, the shouldn't have any legal right to demand that any sites like easytree shut down.
Now, the legality of actually taping the shows could possibly be called into question, but the music industry would have to take that up with the tapers themselves, not the sites distributing the recordings, since the distribution sites aren't actually breaking copyright laws.
Two more days and that Van Halen Us Festival DVD download would have finished! Oh well, I'll have to be happy with what the shows I was able to download (which was substantial).
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Without worrying about this sort of thing? Personally, I thought Germany would be safe from this, but I guess not.
>
Absolutely. These are gateway artists to harder stuff.
It's just a short hop from this music to Toni Tenille, Dean Martin, and Rick Springfield. Think of the children, for God's sake.
That is all.
Excuse me, but which part of "We don't want an open border with Mexico" don't you understand, Mr. President?
Probably the words "border" and "Mexico" as they contain more than four letters.
Bands and musicians are pretty clueless. This type of sharing does nothing to affect their profits. Generally only hardcore fans listen to what many times are poorly recorded shows. It's not like they're sharing the latest Wing CD.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
For more information, and links to more sites (there are jillions), visit the File Soup Forums.
Any form of music distribution outside the channels they control and can extract money from are a threat, whether or not they are legal. Soon we will see a crackdown on sites that distribute free music legally, such as stuff under Creative Commons license. That's where the real threat to their business model is - legal free music. That will scare them really badly, and they will go to great lengths to stop it, including illegal harrassment, but mostly by making it impossible to play non-DRM music on most hardware and software. It'll only play on open source platforms, and there will be a great effort to make sure a free OS will not even run on future DRM enhanced hardware. Why? It escapes channels they control, channels they can extract money from. When that happens, their business models are destroyed and they go broke.
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
Opt out altogether. I don't listen to the radio, I barely ever listen to my old CDs, I certainly never buy any, I never go to concerts. If the artists are going to be the wussies they are and let the record companies schtup them for as big a percentage as they do, and keep putting out crap, and the record companies engage in abuse of intellectual property laws as they do, attempting to expunge the very concept of fair use, I say, screw giving them one more penny.
What are they going to do? Insist on a new law to tax me to get a sort of cover charge out of me just in case I overhear music on someone else's stereo some place? I ain't paying them anything. Nada. Not the artists, not the industry, not the phony poseurs who pretend to being alternative, not the people endlessly brainstorming more online music models, no one.
If we all went on a music spending free strike indefinitely, they might get the hint.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
It's not the sharing of old songs that the industry has a problem with. It's the _idea_ of sharing. If they don't shut down even relatively innocent sharing sites, then other sharing sites gain more credibility and will be harder to shut down. It's an all or nothing deal with the industry. Sucks, but the mere mention of the word sharing throws the music industry into a tizzy.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Well, I just got done with a download from etree and it was in the FLAC format.
You might be surprised, but I actually agree with you on this one. But that guy seemed to think that it mattered what his moral outlook on the issue was... as if he was exempt from the law because he didn't feel he was committing a "moral crime". The laws are broken, and they need to change -- but that doesn't mean the laws don't exist.
501 Not Implemented
convenient for you == released before you want it.
You mean "convenient for you == released before you die."
EZTree also allowed you to download live music from artists like Norah Jones, Simon & Garfunkel 2003 tour, Billy Joel, you name it.... the way this post is written is an example of how some proponents of bittorrent try to justify entirely illegitimate uses of the technology. The truly legit bittorrent sites for live music like archive.org (which also has central http download servers) and bt.etree.org don't make music from such non-tape-trader-friendly bands available since the users are militantly against posting of such bands. The flame wars that start up when an ear-in-monitor recording of Dave Matthews set are quite entertaining.
"who'll buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?"
Let me explain:
The RIAA is evil. They want to destoy all that is good. Music is good. So, the RIAA has raped, pillaged, and burned music for years. Now, they're trying to ram it into the ground until it reaches hell and brings the world with it.
The RIAA will never do anything worthwhile or good. It will continue to suck souls out ot Americans until the Information Revolution has come to an end, and either everyone is dead or we've put a stop to their practices.
The music industry attorneys are all on permanent retainer so it is costing them money whether the attorneys sit and do nothing or file lawsuits right and left. So given that the retainer fees have already been paid they, the music industry, prefer to use their legal team to go after infringers no matter how minor the offense because they are already paying for the attorneys anyway so why not have them do something? It is also an attempt to dissuade other potential infringers by making an example of grandma that will not soon be forgotten. These tactics raise the amount of fear and suspicion among consumers, reducing piracy at least in the short run, but in the long run they promote an atmosphere of distrust that is bad for both parties, but Arrrr! Everything has a cost matey.
...will be the eventual widespread use of more-secure, hard-to-prove-who's-using-it, hard-to-prove-what-its-used-for file sharing software. Something like Freenet, although I'm not trying to start a debate about a particular project's privacy/security.
Remember, enough complexity = reasonable doubt.
The problem is, truly bad actors can use those more-secure options. Terrorists, kiddie fiddlers, David Hasselhoff. I know they're already out there doing their secret, ugly stuff, but the more prevalent those options are the better for those bad actors.
So, in effect, the RIAA/MPAA is
1) engaging in an 'arms race' it ultimately cannot win and
2) encouraging/promoting a much darker internet.
Meanwhile, sales are up for DVD's, and the music industry continues to puke out horrible pap and insist that the reason nobody's buying is piracy.
It seems to me odd that the greatest artists of history from plato to shakespear, mozart and bach and so many others that I am to uncultured to know about created their works without any copy protection what so ever. Yet britney spear's work must somehow be protected by fbi raids. That is advancement? You can keep it. Artists should be starving, it helps the muse.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Wrong story? Or just a random anti-bush troll? (not that I have a problem with anti-bush, just incredibly OT posts)
Ian Anderson is the flautist/guitarist/vocalist for Jethro Tull, and as far as I know, is still alive, and making music. Ian Hunter is the former lead singer for Mott the Hoople.
And, please, Is There Something I Should Know? The only Duran Duran albums worth listening to are the first two... =)
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
It seems to me odd that the greatest artists of history from plato to shakespear, mozart and bach and so many others that I am to uncultured to know about created their works without any copy protection what so ever.
Actually that is not true. Shakespeare in particular tried to keep tight control of copies of his scripts. Of course, people copied them anyway.
Can be found here and here.
So THIS is how I find out about my easytree account being canceled!!! *$&@ YOU /.!!!
This just confirms my suspicions that the music industry is trying to kill the music industry.
Thank you for pointing out what many people on Slashdot don't understand.
It isn't the RIAA that you should be angry with, it's the musicians. Two people (at minimum) must sign a contract for it to be binding. That contract they signed with the record company has made it possible to attack you as they've given them every right to everything the artists produce.
The RIAA doesn't come after you because you break a "copyright" law or two. Copyright just keeps you from calling it your own or reselling works (not giving them away).
It's because that musicians sign away exclusive distribution rights to everything they, the artist, produces.
It's wrong for musicians with existing, restrictive, contracts to encourage you to use p2p (Prince!). They are the ones who decided that no one but Sony or Time Warner has the rights to their music. If they really cared about "freedom" they wouldn't sign onto restrictive copyrights.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If they don't shut down the unpopular music sites, sharing unpopular music will become popular.
Now you may be asking yourself, "If unpopular music becomes popular, then wouldn't it not be unpopular?" Well of course it would, but all music started out as unpopular, and eventually became popular. It's entirely possible that it goes from unpopular, to popular, to unpopular, and back to popular. Just like John Travolta. As you can see, if John Travolta is popular, they must shut down unpopular music sites.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
AFAIK, the artists or promoters hold all copyright to their live performances, whether or not they are published as albums. This is similar to the "No restrasmnission or reproduction of the images or audio of the SuperBowl is allowed, except with express written consent of the National Football Leage". So unless the band specifically allows taping and redistribution of a live performance (like The Grateful Dead or The Dave Matthews Band often do), the artist's copyright is still being violated.
I believe in the U.S., you do not have to claim copyright on a work, you automatically have copyright "the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". If I fart on the street corner, you can't tape it and re-distribute it without my explicit permission.
[Not the original author]
Unless the bands only perform their own work, they don't actually have a right to OK digital distribution.
Look at radio -- the songwriters get paid, but not whoever recorded the song (unless it's the same person).
So, a band *can* say "it's cool to record our show" but they *can't* say "it's cool to distribute it for free over the Internet" (again, unless, they own both the performance and song-wrighting rights).
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
If I fart on the street corner, you can't tape it and re-distribute it without my explicit permission.
Poor example, I can go taping and distributing people on street corners all day, it's a public place. But yeah, we got your point.
Anyone have suggestions for any way to possibly help them get back up and working?
EZTree has been a wonderful source of music for me, and this comes as a really pretty big loss to myself and others. I've been fortunate to get some rather rare stuff there; stuff that any legit label will certainly never carry. Who's gonna buy, say, a mono, staticy, recording of Sonny Rollins from 1967? Not enough that the record labels would produce it. Mahavishnu Orchestra audience recording? Not likely.
Seemed to me that the BULK of the stuff on EZTree was stuff that would never EVER be commercially produced... a few exceptions noted.
Any thoughts? Who do we email / phone / send layers after to get their ISP to let them back?
Or... anyone out there willing to host (for a fee) the site that only tracks the torrents of non-commercial, rare, unavailable music?
yeah, good point
Material is copyrighted by default at its creation.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
But if the music and lyrics were already copyrighted, then bootlegging them would still be infringing.
The law you're looking at only applies in the narrow circumstance of bootleg recordings of improvisational musical performances, basically.
But that is a fascinating case, with some interesting implications for the DMCA, IMO.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A Horse! A Horse! My Kingdom For A Horse!
This was a great site which distributed music not commercially available. It increased artist exposure and enabled people to discover new music - in a way that encouraged going along to a live performance.
The music business is not interested in choice, only profit. Any effort to manipulate the market away from buying a small selection of products at high margin will be seen as a threat by big music companies. They promote conformism by linking music with fashion and in doing so ensure they only have to market a fraction of the product they would otherwise have to.
Ultimately music is older than commerce and I believe its spirit will prevail. The music companies will destroy themselves trying to manipulate people out of a natural desire to communicate a state of mind - which is what music is all about. Both creators and consumers of music benefit from its power, and without one the other could not exist.
Music is not about money, its about society. The ultimate effect of the music industry's current stance is to force people to go and see more live shows. Its already reached the point where lesser known folk acts can sell out stadiums Britney can't fill.
Sure, kids have the highest disposable income, but you can't put a true price on the pleasure of live performance.
Music is bigger than all of us and it will prevail.
Yes, its almost a religion to me and I might be a freak for thinking this way. Whatever...
I just can't wait for the day that the music companies go bust leaving just the true musicians - who were never in it for the money anyway. Yes, they need SOME money, but that is not the centre of their passion.
The only other outcome I can see is that humans eventually relinquish freedom of choice and become controlled by a minority - but they would have to actually enjoy the process for this to occur. Now it could only be a bunch of total freaks that would make that choice... I hope...
Who uploaded as much as I downloaded and also donated money to keep the site going I am sad to see it go. Yes there were some torrents up their that were from bands that do not allow taping but the majority was from bands that do. It is too bad. But there are sites that strictly monitor what is being shared so it does not infringe on the artist. furthernet.org and bt.etree.org are two that come to mind. I used to trade tapes of Grateful Dead shows. You had to first hook up with someone who either taped shows themselves or someone who knew someone. Then you usually had to buy tapes by the case and mail them to that person hoping they would send them back relatively soon. I see the trading of shows as a form of killing the bootlegger. I only download unreleased live recordings. I make it a point to purchase studio recordings of the artists I like. Hopefully easytree will work things out and get back online.
Clear Channel, in addition to owning about half of the commercial radio stations in the USA, owns almost all the music venues (including first refusal rights on public arenas in most US cities), almost all of the ticket distribution companies (such as Ticketron), and about half of the outdoor billboards in the USA.
Musicians are told in no uncertain terms that they will accept the performance contracts offered to them regarding the percentage of gate admissions and band items like T-shirts that they will receive by Clear Channel. Or, their music will not get airplay. This is in addition to the fees that are charged to the 'hit men', the independent promoters, to 'consider' playing the record on the air of a Clear Channel FM station.
The musicians are, of course, charged the cost of this payola from their record company royalities, after, of course, the record companies take the expenses for producing the record. If the musicians refuse to use the hyper-expensive producers that the record company insists upon, the record company has the right, in the standard artist's recording contract, to refuse to accept the record as a part of the contract.
All this means that musicians are the dumbest and most exploited people in the working world. In everything they do, except have sex with groupies, they are losers.
People used to look up to musicians as truly cool people and some younger people still do. But in reality, they are to be pitied because they are stupid and have agreed to be locked into a contract that makes them permanent losers, regardless of how many records they sell, how interesting their music is, or how good that they look.
Musicians are like the guy who shoots himself to show his girlfriend that he can't live without her. He severs his spine and has to live the rest of his life in a cheap wheelchair with a piss-bag hanging over the side.
Do you feel sorry for him? Of course; on an elemental human level. Is he responsible for his condition? Fuck yes, he shot himself.
Musicians are also responsible for their exploitation. Only in their case, we can help them and others who would dream of becoming musicians, by refusing to give them any more money!
So yes, you have my permission to copy and distribute any music or so-called intellectual property that you want to.
Simply infringing on copyright is not necessarily damages.
Bull. See 17 USC 504(c).
Now, with all that said, most artists on major labels are also under exclusive contract, which can get you into trouble if you sell any performance of theirs. That's a contractual issue, though, not a copyright one, and that ends when the contract does (usually after the required number of albums have been released).
And labels will often refuse to release any album by a given artist just to make the artist shut up.
It's about CONTROL.
It's about the standard primate human attitude:
Not only must I succeed - YOU must fail!
To people like that (which is just about all you monkeys), everything and everybody is a "threat".
You deal with people like that by either putting bullets into both kneecaps, or, if they have more resources which would continue to make THEM a threat, straight into their heads.
There really are no other effective options.
Of course, now you have to deal with the same morons who are running your friendly local, state, federal and international governments.
For that, you need appropriate technology. Which WE should have in another two or three decades.
At which time your monkey-ass attitudes will be "adjusted" - one way or the other - permanently.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
If I fart on the street corner, you can't tape it and re-distribute it without my explicit permission.
Yes I can.
1) It's arguably not creative, and therefore not copyrightable.
2) It's arguably not a work of authorship, and therefore not copyrightable.
3) It's not fixed in a tangible medium, and therefore not copyrightable. (Unless 1101 applies, which is dubious with regards to facts and the law)
4) Implicit permission is fine even if some form of permission must be had.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It's OK to eat popcorn and drink soda in the movie theatre, but it's not OK to bring your own.
Is it OK to eat low-carb candy in a movie theatre?
It is not about money - the corporates do not give a fuck about cash or they would act sensibly. It is all about CONTROL. They do not appreciate fans ripping off artists because they consider that is THEIR JOB. END OF FUCKING STORY
Which is the greater evil: ignorance or apathy? I dont know and I dont care.
Downloading live shows for free is perfectly legal as long as the band agrees to allow thier show to be recorded and distributed.
Not necessarily. What if every songwriter doesn't agree? And even if the songwriter is a member of the band, how can the songwriter prove in a court of law that the songs he wrote are in fact original musical works?
Have The Allman brothers (Who i'm not familiar with at all) given a reason for the line between digital and analog recordings?
The general thinking is that unlike analog reproductions of recordings, digital reproductions of recordings do not have generation loss past the initial encode, and given a good DAC and FLAC, even this initial encoding loss is minimal.
True, the strictest form of use it or lose it applies only to trademarks. However, patents and copyrights are still subject to the laches doctrine; look it up.
I was under the impression that if the artist permitted taping and redistribution of live shows, it was all legit.
Each songwriter has to agree as well, and many songwriters won't budge from the 8.5c/song/copy cap that the Copyright Office puts on mechanical royalties.
This was a message posted by an EZT moderator on the Easytree Yahoo group:
"
Infact, there is only *one* letter, signed by *four* lawyers. Still
don't know from whom, though. It looks like they very well knew it
wouldn't make sense to contact us directly, so they chose to contact the
hosting service and threaten them as well. Like I already said, we had
to obey, as otherwise the hosting service would have shut down the
servers. This way, we still control them. It appears that the letter may
come from German lawyers. Anyway, we'll have the provider fax us the
letter tomorrow and then we'll see... Depending on from where the
lawyers hail from and the letter's content, we might need support from
American or German lawyer(s)."
Any big labels in Germany?
Artists give permission for CD-trading of live shows
Is such permission the artists' to give? Many recording artists have exclusive contracts with a given record label. Many artists perform songs by trading-hostile songwriters.
The vast majority of recordings on the site were live recordings, allowed and often encouraged by the bands.
The others were often live recordings of bands that don't allow taping. In this case the only crime was trespassing. The current law that forbits the sale of live unauthorised recordings has been stuck down because it was not time limited. Further it would not have applied here because there was no sale.
Most sites of this type don't allow posting of 'official' recordings intended for sale, and the vasy majority of users of the site spend more on tickets and 'legal' recordings than most folks.
The only reason they took it down was the lack of funding for legal defense, not because they thought they could not win.
Trackers are scripts that handle information in real time. Even if the Wayback Machine were to catch a list of IP addresses of clients that were open at one time, it'd be long outdated by now.
Soon we will see a crackdown on sites that distribute free music legally, such as stuff under Creative Commons license.
Should this crackdown happen, it will go down similarly to Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. A singer-songwriter was found liable for copyright infringement by having subconsciously copied a song that he had heard over a decade ago on commercial radio, recording the song, and selling records.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! We're all surprised every time the recording industry goes after honest content creators and distributors instead of going after pirates. It's like a German peasant in 1632 being surprised that the Spanish burned his house, raped his wife, and butchered his children, instead of burning witches at the steak. If you get in the recording industry's way, expect your 6 year old to be found partially burned, gutted, with her intestines staked to the ground 3 feet away.
There were no witches during the Spanish Inquisition, and there are no pirates that cost the RIAA / MPAA money. The Spanish Inquisition was about political power. These lawsuits are about stopping competition.
The MPAA / RIAA leaders are not stupid. They can see that when file trading goes up, so does sales. They want to stifle competition.
The goal of the recording industry is to shut down all competitors to their total monopoly on content. They tried to outlaw the VCR (See the BetaMax case before the SCOTUS.) They will try to outlaw every instrument that makes content creation possible without spending billions.
In every business textbook, it says that if you lobby Congress to pass laws (regulate your industry,) then you can increase the cost of entering your industry, and thereby create a competitive advantage for the big money people already there. That's what the RIAA / MPAA is doing. READ A BUSINESS TEXT BOOK. It's a specify example of the golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules.)
So, you've got 1 option: (1) loose in the courts...no, no...you've got 2 options: (1) give up, or (2) loose in the courts...no, no, you've got 3 options...(1) give up, (2) loose in the courts, or (3) assassinate the CEO of the company sending nasty letters.
You can not hurt the lawyers without silver bullets and wooden stakes, so don't try it. Those suckers are nasty. If you do try to assassinate any CEOs, I suggest throwing garlic at them.
That's it, and that's what makes the RIAA & MPAA so deadly. That and the fact that they are in the mob's pocket more than the liquor industry in 1920's Chicago.
Andy Out!
I mean, technically it was a "cover" of an Eagles tune, complete with samples of the original music...
"Napster Helps RIAA Again; RIAA Still Ungrateful (Updated)"1 3
0 2
5 2
h 2004.pdf
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/18122
"Napster Spurs CD Sales; Gets Sued Again Anyway"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/31/16372
"RIAA Almost Down To Pre-Napster Revenues"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/27/02132
"RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy"
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
"The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales, An Empirical Analysis"
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Marc
which found:
"We find that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average
album in our sample. Moreover, the estimates are of rather modest size when compared
to the drastic reduction in sales in the music industry. At most, file sharing can explain a
tiny fraction of this decline. This result is plausible given that movies, software, and
video games are actively downloaded, and yet these industries have continued to grow
since the advent of file sharing."
So, yes, let's be real for more than a second.
Any sound recording before 1973 is not copyrighted under United States law and legal to distribute under federal law.
There are state laws in effect to cover recordings before 1973, but those laws don't exist in all states, and in many states, it only applies to for profit redistribution, which means file sharing for recordings before 1973, including records, are legal.
I've yet to see a slashdot post on this. You can look up the information online at the copyright office, and the justice department has a list of state laws to do with IP you can go through.
I haven't purchased OR downloaded a single piece of music in the past 3 years. I just listen to CSPAN all day long. ;)
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
I really loved ezt.
I think the videos killed this one more than the bootleg audio. There was quite a bit of video content, taper stuff not commercial. But it was very good quality. U2 San Diego shows were up within a day or two (3/28 and 3/30) and that kind of thing is something that might cause riaa/mpaa legal counsel to come out swinging. They see gold in that video, not some 30 year old Dead shows or even Sinatra. Plus the Dead are OK with it. I miss ezt already, only on it for 2 months and it was great!
This is a radical idea, and I have no idea if it has ever been done.
The artist would have it set up so he or she gets 10 cents from every sale of a given song. (No albums, keep songs sold separately.) Now, this is done by the artist with no middleman. It could be done over the Net. The person downloading the song would agree that if he or she decides to sell a digital copy of the song, that he or she must give 10 cents per sold to the artist. This would be an anti-incentive to give the song away for free. Perhaps in the music-video or song there'd be a disclaimer it would be on the honour of the buyer to do the right thing.
From the RIAA's point of view, the distribution of any performance by a musician that is covered under them that they don't receive financial compensation for is a threat.
People should realise that (shock and horror!) if they put something in their sig, it gets attached to every comment they post.
Once again for the hard-of-thinking: You are posting it with every comment you make.
It is part of every comment you make.
***And what do people do to other people's comments? They REPLY.***
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Another thing to note about this case is that the judge's complaint is that the law does not cary with it a limit for how long the copyright lasts making it unsimilar to other copyright laws. Eldred v. Ashcroft made that differnce moot. Congress can extend indefinately the term of copyrights. So i'm not sure that this judges ruling will stand.
Rubbish! Are you suggesting that the works of Britney Spears are not copyrightable???
No, he is correct in that while it could be extended indefinately, it's required to be finite, and the relevant statute is not.
It's just that if Congress cares, they'll make a minor amendment to cure it, and this defense won't work twice.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Live recordings are legal.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Well I thank you for clearing that up for me. You are OK for a lawyer even if you aren't my lawyer...;-)
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
True. However, as other have noted, this was a privately owned torrent site, supported only by donations and ads. I sincerely doubt they had the money to fight this legally. Why should people who don't have any interest in the specific files send takedown notices? Well, (a) They could be sending form letters to everyone who has "*torrent" in their name, figuring something has to be illegal, (b) taking down a torrent site and being able to claim to their stockholders that they've "eliminated a pirate threat to the profitability of the stock" is probably a big PR boost for them, or (c) is the possibility that they're hoping it gets into a legal battle so that they can extract outrageous legal penalties. Sure, the people involved have only their paltry job incomes, but when the legal battle is like shooting fish in a barrel, what's the harm of using buckshot?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Based on this message it appears that the admins of Easytree have examined the letter(s) sent to their ISP and may bring the site back online.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
This is impossible, due to the structure of the RIAA business model. If you buy anything at all in this country, you are paying the RIAA.
How is that?
Let's say you decide to buy any item at all from a store. The store has piped in music, and has to pay ASCAP/BMI licensing to do so. A portion of your purchase goes to support the starving music execs and superstar artists.
The stakes are higher when a company licenses a song. Let's say you decide to buy a Chevrolet. They used the Rolling Stones in an ad. About $50 or $60 of your purchase price goes to them even if you hate their music. Same for Jeep or Toyota or Honda, etc. etc.
Even if it only amounts to a half cent or so per item, it adds up in a hurry. Because the way to truly get rich is to figure out a way to get a slice of money out of everyone, rather than trying to get a few big sales. Only the music and oil cartels have effected this.
BMI/ASCAP licenses music and when it does for the purpose of piped in music, or clubs, or restaurants, the license covers the whole body of music. So you have to pay for music that you think sucks, whether you like it or not. You have to kiss the ass of artists who you hate, like Britney, or Emiminem, and there is no way to avoid it, except to leave the country.
Well, okay, poor example. Say the fart is part of one of my poems I'm reading alound.
Huh? Isn't your tape the fixed and tangible medium? Where does the law say the author has to do the fixing? IANAL, but US Code Title 17, Ch 11 - 1101 seems pretty clear-cut to me. How could it not apply (assuming the fart were part of my poem, and not a random act of nature)? Hasn't 1101 been around for a very long time, and seen many challenges? Surely 1101 itself is not legally "dubious"?
Copyrights and patents *don't* have to be actively protected. It's a myth. If someone violates copyright for 20 years (see C&H), then BW has the same rights to go after them that he did the day he first published.
Trademarks, on the other hand, can be lost if not actively protected. That's why Xerox had to tell people to start using the word "photocopy" instead of "Xerox". Once "Xerox" becomes a commonly accepted verb, any company can make "Xerox Machines", since that would be an accurate description of what they do.
Last post!
...and bands that don't write their own material shouldn't be respected or given a chance. Anyone can learn an instrument and perform someone else's song, it takes talent to write it and perform it.