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?"
If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.
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?
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!?
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
How about a reference then?