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?"
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.
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!
If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.
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
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?
For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.
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!?
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.
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"
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.
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.
Yes, it does make a difference whether or not the materials are Copyrighted- and a live performance carries a Performance Copyright (i.e. The performer largely owns the rights to that if not all the way...). RIAA's involvement typically involves the recording company's interests, which is to say a Recording Copyright.
It's contorted, but simply put, because of contracts, the artists typically can't record without the permission of the label they're signed with, and the label owns the rights to that version/instance. Now, unless the label's done a recording of the live performance, you're only in violation of the Performance Rights- at which point, it'd be up to the artist(s) to defend their rights.
I'd love to know who actually sent the notice- if it was RIAA, they'd better have standing for dealing with that sort of infringement (i.e. They and their legal counsel can't be threating lawsuits unless they own an agreed upon recording of the concert.). I would dearly love to have someone hand them their kiesters over their overzealous "protection" of the labels' rights.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's a tricky question at the minute that combines several fields of law. Recently (IIRC) there was a ruling that stated that the current US laws against bootlegs were unconstitutional, not because the idea was unsound, but specifically because it gave a perpetual time period, in violation of Section 8 clause 8 of the constitution. That states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
So that law may be rewritten and come back.
The other legal issue is whether or not someone has the right to tape a concert. Most of the bands on btree specifically allowed and encouraged taping. However, there is no inherent right to record a performance, so someone making the tape could be sued for doing so if there was no permission. Whether that tape could be distributed after the fact is another question entirely, which I don't know the answer to.
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.
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."
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.
Yeah, but aren't only the web site and .torrent file in China? The peers would be everywhere.
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?
Shameless plugs to follow... check out:
Phish, Dead, String Cheese Incident and others
Live Music Archive @ Archive.org
These are amazing sites to get that show/song you are looking for, from bands who lived and survived by allowing their fans to tape and trade their shows.
I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
...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.
This just confirms my suspicions that the music industry is trying to kill the music industry.
If the band say it's ok, the copyright is owned by the taper. Ok, maybe not the taper, but the record label has no jurisdiction over a completely amateur recording of a live concert. At least, luckily for me all the bands I tape are totally cool with it, and I've never gotten harassed by a label for spreading my shows around.
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.