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?"

Comments

Of course it was a threat.

[---s3V3n---]

If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.

A threat???

[advocate_one]

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...

It's completely legal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's completely legal

[NetNifty]

Unfortunatly depending upon their contracts with their record label, the artist's "taping policies" can be meaningless, as their label could technically own the music meaning it's not the artist's to give away.

Okay, but...

[ChuckSchwab]

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?

Live Concerts are owned by Label

[blackmesh.com]

If I am not mistaken, aren't recording devices outlawed from concerts because of this? All rights of the music belongs to the label or the artist and allowing people to download it for free would technically be illegal.

Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label

[Croaker]

Yes, they are illegal, which is why the poster took pains to say "...unreleased live musical performances..." rather than the better-known term "bootlegs" which is what they really are. Nice spin doctoring there.

I remember back in the day how dodgey record stores that carried bootleg recordings of concerts were raided by the police, under the same premise that this torrent site was shut down.

(That said, I do wish I could find recordings of several concerts I'd gone to back in the day. I'd pay good money to hear them. But of course, the control-freak music industry is too short-sighted to take advantage of this market.)

Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label

[matth1jd]

It depends on the artist. Some artists openly allow the taping of their shows if it doesn't interfere with other concert goers enjoyment. The Dave Matthews Band has allowed taping for a very long time.

However, not all bands agree to digital distribution of these recordings. The Dave Matthews Band has stated that they do not support digital sharing of their live shows, rather they would like to see the community continue sharing CD's of shows that started before digital music came into the mainstream.

This is a slightly complicated issue especially when artists allow taping of their shows.

Threat is irrevelent. It's about control.

[Lead Butthead]

Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. It's unthinkable to the music distribution industry that something distributed is done outside of its reach.

Threat?

[Gadzinka]

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

Is it a threat, of course

[Calimus]

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?

Shutting down Bittorrent one site at a time

[Nom du Keyboard]

Obviously the **AA is going to shut down Bittorrent one site at a time. These people folded from a mere SLL (Scary Lawyer Letter). They were easy, low-hanging fruit. Every shutdown site puts more of a load on the remaining sites. What they can't get in the courts, they're going to try otherwise -- legal, or not.

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.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't release something at a certain time it's the seller's fault? I love this logic. Since you forgot to sell me the product of your hard work I can just can come take it from you right?

No.

You can argue that the law is wrong with regard to music, but you can't say just because they didn't release a recording when it was convenient to you that you have the right to steal it.

Guilty

[Crim-Prof]

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.

Re:Guilty

[Voxus]

"If you have nothing to hide or done nothing wrong, why does it matter if they go and search your house?"

Because if anyone can come into your private space and look for stuff, even if you really have done no wrong, there will always be someone who doesn't like what you have, what you are, what you're doing, where you're going. From then on, you are dirt. Lawsuits, blacklists, and other forms of discrimination and denigration will result in an attempt to break you, imprison you, and indebt you to the investigating parties or their sponsors.

Re:You're right

[kingjosh]

Exactly. Throughout history we have passed things from generation to generation. During this generation the practice has clearly gone digital.

We're not talking about mass produced music cd's, we're talking about once in a lifetime events. History. If this pace keeps up, we may lose our rights to make or transfer a lot of our history to future generations.

If the artist allows it, it should be permitted. Especially when the industry isn't even offering the goods for sale!

Of course it's a threat.

[afstanton]

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.

Re:Reality says "hi, long time no see"

[theantix]

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.

Re:Yes

[trixy_1086]

I think that the music industry is closing in on their possible success with downloading music, as far as innovation is concerned. I mean, I used to be a shameless downloader, but I am an avid ITMS user now. I actually bought an Ipod because of how much I enjoyed the iTunes software. With all of the things that you mention, what really got them going was when people realized that they were a new media and distribution means. Vcr's opened up the whole home video market, and cassette tapes were the first real portable music medium. I think that it's too soon to say whether or not any of your other examples made the *AA any money in the end. All that I know, is if it weren't for CDR's, I wouldn't have half the music collection that I do, and I would have payed for just as much of it.

Re:Isn't Frank Sinatra's work in the public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Misinformation

[trewornan]

including the US Criminal Code, where copyright infringement is listed as a type of "STOLEN PROPERTY."

How about a reference then?

Re:Misinformation

[trewornan]

Sorry - no banana. Being included in that chapter doesn't make it a definition.

Re:deosn't matter

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Yes

[cpt kangarooski]

That's not true.

Firstly, people who unauthorizedly reproduce works created by other people have been called pirates since the late 17th century, well before copyright law even existed (but during the golden age of the arr matey kind of piracy).

Secondly, while willful infringement for financial gain (which is defined very very broadly) is criminal, so is "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000," regardless of financial gain.

You should probably read 17 USC 506, 106, and 101.

Re:Yes

[tyndyll]

Now, how are they (U2) being hurt when my friend amasses a bootleg collection? He's already bought everything they're selling. If they missed an opportunity for a sale (by not selling recordings of every single one of their shows) it's their fault.

It should also be noted that U2 encourage tapers. Bono has said

We invite people to bootleg our shows. We invite people to...make CD copies.... we've no problems with that, but if some guy is gonna make money off the back of this, we're gonna find out where he parks his car... -- Bono on KROQ Radio USA (10-2000)

I used Easytree regularly, and before that Sharingthegroove.org. While it is true that there were non-taper friendly artists on there (based on that have never said that they are taper friendly) moderators consistently required and requested removal of copyright infringing material, e.g. tracks that have been officially released. On the vast majority of torrents it was requested that the material never be sold, and on most that the music not converted to mp3, ogg or other lossless format.

Lets agree at least on one thing (I know this is Slashdot but please humour me at least), Bittorrent, the protocol is no more illegal than HTTP, FTP or IRC: it is the content that these people are being taken down for (and as an aside the fact that the protocol has become some prevalent in the transmission of these huge files is a testament to both its success and necessity). Personally I think the taking down of Easytree is a great shame and travesty. It provided a great community for *sharing* and *archiving* live and unheard music by a huge variety of artist. I personally will greatly miss it