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?"
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.
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.
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!
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.
Every performance is copyrighted. If you make a work, you own the copyright to it. Your question was more "does the record company have rights to the artist's live performance", and that would boil down to the contract they signed.
I would think that the record company does hold some rights to the live performances.
Sucks, but, i think thats the way it is.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
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.
If the site did not contain any copyrighted material that the clients of these lawyers owned then they would have no standing to bring a law suit. This is not "alternative" music it is popular music that is being distributed for free without due compensation to the copyright holders. If the site only contained music and live shows that were voluntarily posted by the artists/copyright holders, there would be no legal way for the RIAA, MPAA, or any other entitiy to shut down the site.
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.
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.
torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances The key word in that sentence is USUALLY. As a (now former) EZT user, that "key word" is, in fact, wrong. The EZT moderators were quite meticulous in their identification and banning of any material that was officially released. Ditto for any material from artists who objected to their shows being posted there, such as The Allman Brothers Band. Offending torrents were, as far I could ever tell, banned before anyone ever got a chance to snatch them. 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. Nope, wrong again, not on EZT...any such recording would have been banned in short order. They took great pains to comply with the law, and still they were shut down.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The term "bootleg" usually refers to a recording of a band who does not allow recording (usually called a stealth recording) that is offered up for sale. Tapers hate bootlegs, we tape for our own and others enjoyment, not to make money off someone else's hard work. However sometime some shady individuals get a hold of our recordings and put them up on Ebay. There are entire groups of tapers dedicated to bringing these illegal auctions down.
The record stores that were raided deserved it, but offering up the shows for free to anyone who wants them is ok in my book.
I dunno who it is
but it prolly is fhqwhgads.