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?
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.
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!
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!?
Yes and no. The majority of material spread by EZT was from bands that allow taping and there was no issue with that.
The things that led to the downfall of EZT was the availability of recordings of artists that do not allow taping and the fact that these recordings keep showing up on ebay.
Are old live recordings of Sinatra a threat to the industry? Hell yes. Have you heard the crap they pass off as music these days?
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
Here ya go
etree.org is like EZtree, except that etree is completely legal. Unfortunately because of this, you won't find very many artists, but there are a few big names. Specifically Phish, the Grateful Dead, Primus, Ben Folds, 311, the Spin Doctors, Jack Johnson, and others.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
So instead of letting fans get access to these shows via torrents the music industry will drive them back to bootleggers who sell these shows on CD for a profit. Does anyone else remember when you had to buy a bootleg LP for $15 or $20 in order to hear studio outtakes or live unreleased shows? To me, the best thing about P2P networks is that they take the criminal middle-man (bootlegger) out of the equation and let the fans trade materials directly.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
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.
Downloading doesn't give me the same warm, fuzzy feeling running over babies with a lawnmower does.
Trolling is a art,
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.
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.
When you shut the alternatives people have no choice but to buy music from RIAA members.
BZZT, wrong. Funny enough that are the same mistakes(!) the RIAA makes.
1. Not all music sold is controlled by the RIAA. To (US) americans it might seem like it, but there are actually big countries, even continents outside the United States. Yes, I know this will probably get this post stamped as flamebait, but it's the simple truth, live with it.
2. There is always the alternative to simply not buy. I find it increasingly funny that this case is always forgotten by so-called economists.
What I'd like to see is for more musicians to realize that this whole P2P business is a win-win situation for them - they can give the fans what they want for little to no cost, and they get non-fans to buy their records (what other businesses call try-before-you-buy). The only losing part here is the record company (and even that can be argued), and that is why the RIAA tries to shut down everybody else.
Oh, and of course the old "because we can".