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.
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
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.
For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.
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.
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.
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.
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
No, they don't. You're confusing copyright and trademark law. Trademarks must actively be protected. Copyrights do not.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.