Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Music Your Rights Online

EZTree Shuts Down 497

Posted by timothy
from the under-pressure dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EZTree Shuts Down

Comments Filter:
  • Yes? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:28PM (#12158454)
    Of course they're a threat. Do you have any idea how many old people there are still living?
    • Do you have any idea how many old people there are still living?

      Close to 35 million. But remember not every one can sing and dance. Some will insist that they can and grab the mike. Just take a swing at them and you'll do the rest of the world a great favor

    • Of course they're a threat. Do you have any idea how many old people there are still living?

      Hey, they're the ones with the money. Of course the pigopolists want to corral them in.

  • Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SamMichaels (213605) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:28PM (#12158460)
    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.
    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Roguelazer (606927) <Roguelazer AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:30PM (#12158482) Homepage Journal
      Is it really a bootleg if the data isn't even sold anymore? I mean, that's like abandonware... sorta...
      • Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kgruscho (801766)
        in that it's generally still illegal, yup pretty much.

        bootlegs are also generally illegal.
      • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AnonymousNoMore (721510) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:36PM (#12158565)
        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?
    • by PornMaster (749461) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:31PM (#12158507) Homepage
      Haven't you read 1984? Eventually it will be a thoughtcrime to think about downloading music.
    • Okay, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ChuckSchwab (813568)
      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?
    • by MrLint (519792)
      Well we've seen how the mega media companies have paid off congress to get an inch and they have taken the whole way.
    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OECD (639690) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:41PM (#12158633) Journal

      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?

      Only if the Music Industry is releasing similar product (and they're not, by and large.) It's not like folks who are into these files are not buying the studio releases.

      I have a friend who is queer for U2. He has just about everything they've ever released. Now, U2 may not think it's worth it to release CDs of every show on, say, their Zooropa tour. 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.

      • Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 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.
    • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John3 (85454) <john3@cornells . c om> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:42PM (#12158656) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • 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.

      Is that the same inch that was given with VCRs? Cassette tapes? P/DVRs? How about CDRs and CDRWs, DVD-R/RWs...

      Are we getting close here? History has shown the exact OPPOSITE of what you suggest. And for every one of these telling tales, the industry has made more money.

    • by twiggy (104320)
      I don't know if easytree had the same policy as "etree" (http://bt.etree.org [etree.org]) - but etree clearly states (and seems to enforce) that you should only post live shows from "trade friendly" artists.

      Many artists don't just "not mind" but actually encourage live recordings be spread. Much as I detest the way they handled the whole napster thing, Metallica is one of those artists that made its name that way.

      There is lots of great stuff on bt.etree.org and as far as I know it's all trade friendly artists. I ca
  • Does it make a difference if the material is copyrighted?
    Or are live performances automatically free of copyright?

    • by RagingChipmunk (646664) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:36PM (#12158558) Homepage
      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.
      • Thanks,
        Those were my original suspicions, but since the author made it seem as if somehow we had the right to be distributing such material, I though I was wrong.

        So basically we're here to cry because we got (perhaps rightfully) kicked in the nuts.

      • But the real question is for a court to decide damages. What would they sue for? Simply infringing on copyright is not necessarily damages. They've not casued any monetary loss to the copyright holder. All they can do is get a court order asking you to stop. If you don't stop you're in contempt. Still it's the US [in]justice system. Who knows what kind of silly damages they'd reward. IANAL, but I play one on /.
    • by Svartalf (2997) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:41PM (#12158631) Homepage
      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.
      • It would be nice if someone paid for being overzealous, but it's not gonna happen.
        For the most part people don't even care to listen to the news of hundreds of thousands of identities being stolen, I doubt they will care much on the legality of shutting down a server they understand nothing about.

        Once again, it seems that people in the trench have to bend over and take it...
    • 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 Dis
    • Or are live performances automatically free of copyright?

      Copyrights are start when a creative work is fixed in a tangable medium. The person who fixes the work in the medium owns the copyright. So, the bootlegger owns the copyright to the recordings they make at a live performance.

      Now, there are often also copyrights on the lyrics and music and the owner of those copyrights can control the public performance of those works. So, while the bootlegger of a live performance may own the copyrights on the

      • So, while the bootlegger of a live performance may own the copyrights on the recording they made, it would be a derivative work of the song's author.

        I know this is kind of nit-picky, but this wouldn't be a derivative work -- rather, ir would be a new copyright in the sound recording. Sound recordings are copyrights seperate from the copyright in the underlying musical work -- i.e., the song itself.

        But you are right -- in this case, although the bootlegger owns a copyright in the sound recording, he cann
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:29PM (#12158467)
    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.
  • Naked Emperors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saxerman (253676) * on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:29PM (#12158477) Homepage
    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. 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.

    • Re:Naked Emperors (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ThreeE (786934)
      Excuse me, but someone out there has the rights to those live shows -- and it isn't EZTree. Moreover, those recordings were made illegally in the first place. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. If you break the law, get ready to pay the fine and/or do the time.
      • Re:Naked Emperors (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not true. I have used EZTree a lot, and almost all the downloads are from bands who freely allow and encourage taping/trading of their shows.
      • by Svartalf (2997)
        Excuse me, but it depends on whom contacted the site... While I don't agree with the premise of the filetrading of bootlegs, unless it was one of the lawyers for the rights holders, they don't get to demand anything.
      • Recording a live show can be legal, some bands evn encourage it. However, the distribution of them may be illegal.
    • Plus, the last thing they want to do is let people realize that there is older, higher-quality music out there. It compromises their ability to shove the next American Idol down America's throat. What was that Steve Martin movie? The one where he played a con-man preacher and told the kid who had been miraculously healed that the most dangerous thing to his line of work was the "Real Thing." Guys like Sinatra are the Real Thing. They blow the con wide open. Of course they're afraid of him.
    • 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.

      I think the Napster debacle pretty much proved that the RIAA is at best obsolete, and at worst, obstructionist. Anyone in the music industry who hasn't figured out that out by now either never will or is living in a state of denial.

  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:30PM (#12158483) Journal
    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.
    • by Otter (3800)
      I'm not sure you're sufficiently familiar with Stevie Nicks' oeuvre...

      Ian Hunter is the weird guy from Jethro Tull right? I'd express amazement that he's still alive, but then it's not as if Sinatra is. (Of course, Winamp is treating me to Is There Something I Should Know by Duran Duran as I write this, so my musical pontification should probably be taken with a grain of salt.)

      • Re:Yes (Score:2, Informative)

        by gryphokk (648488)
        Ian Hunter is the weird guy from Jethro Tull right?

        That would be Ian Anderson, who is quite alive and still cranking out rock and roll (and sadly, trolling the liberals).

        Ian Hunter is the even wierder guy from Mott the Hoople, last seen touring with Ringo's All-Stars
    • Anything that provides quality product free of charge is going to cut into the sales of overpriced crap.
      And also into its production. Don't kid yourself, even new bands struggling to get a start can't get started by giving everything away. Oh, sure, they can provide some appetizers, but sooner or later they are going to have to get paid or they will either starve or find another way to pass the time.
  • by ---s3V3n--- (398159) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:30PM (#12158486)
    If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.

    • Then they should release it commercially. If Radiohead released their show at Radio City, I'd buy it today. They haven't. So I traded for it. It's an amazing show. Next time they come to Chicago, you can be sure I'm buying a ticket. Bootleg trading is for recordings you *can't* buy commercially.
  • A threat??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:31PM (#12158491)
    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...
    • Re:A threat??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dana P'Simer (530866) * <dana DOT psimer AT dhptech DOT com> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:40PM (#12158620) Journal
      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.
  • by 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.
    • When the outcome of a court case is determined by the pocketbooks of the opponets, the law is kinda moot.

      The people suing may not even have stading in the case (the record companies ususally don't have the rights to live shows anyway). But that doesn't matter if you don't have the megabucks needed to fight in court.

  • A threat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rightcoast (807751) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:32PM (#12158524) Homepage
    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.
  • by Oriumpor (446718) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:33PM (#12158531) Homepage Journal
    For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.
  • 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.

    • 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 t
      • 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.

        You know most bands used to encourage the recording of their performances for posterity. That includes a large number of the works hosted at EZT. For that matter, some bands still do, just not ones owned by the the big media companies since the copyright on those works is very debatable.

      • by jokell82 (536447) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @05:14PM (#12159022) Homepage
        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.
        As someone who records "unreleased live musical performances," I think I have the authority to say you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

        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.
    • 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.

      Thi
    • What's worse, distributing bootlegs is not really consistent with the myth that music swappers care about artists and just hate the recording industry. I can understand the latter, but recording and even distributing something an artist has created only for the moment of a live performance is not just illegal under current copyright laws, it's also morally wrong.
  • by Lead Butthead (321013) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:34PM (#12158540) Journal
    Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. It's unthinkable to the music distribution industry that something distributed is done outside of its reach.
  • by Dana P'Simer (530866) * <dana DOT psimer AT dhptech DOT com> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:36PM (#12158560) Journal
    if the artists that performed the live show agree to having thier performance made available in this way. What people around here just don't seem to get is that it is the performer that owns the performance and it is thier consent that is required to allow the copies to be made. In most venues the unauthorized recording of a live show is grounds for removal from the premesis and is a violation of the agreement you entered into when you purchased and used the ticket to the event. If the event takes place in a public venue then there can be no restrictions on the use of a recording. However, my guess is that most of these bittorrents were "boot-leg" recordings obtained in a clandestine manner.

    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.

    • by servoled (174239) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:49PM (#12158760)
      The Grateful Dead are perfectly fine with distribution of their lives shows. In fact, you can go here [archive.org] and download 2775 of them right now (in flac, shn or other lossless codes).
    • if the artists that performed the live show agree to having thier performance made available in this way.

      Ahh, but in the case of most of the artists on the site in question they not only allowed but encouraged recording of their shows. Now, however, the RIAA is threatening an ISP for hosting a web site, that has bittorrent files, that index other computers that are hosting copies of these recordings.

      Why are artists granted exclusive rights to make copies of anything they produce? Their is a reason you

  • It's not that torrent sites and others are making live shows and other bootlegs available, it's that there are still millions of folks who are downloading and trading stuff that IS copyrighted. I shudder to think, but I guess enough people want to download the latest top 40 pop sh1t that it's beginning to hurt the record cos. Which is why now we're in for a season or twelve of Brittany's new reality show.
    *gags*
    If people were only trading and downloading unsigned bands, the outcry from the industry would
  • Threat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gadzinka (256729) <rrw@hell.pl> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:37PM (#12158580) Journal
    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
    • Re:Threat? (Score:5, Informative)

      by flinkflonk (573023) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @05:28PM (#12159169) Homepage
      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".
  • To be fair... (Score:3, Informative)

    by marekk (572361) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:39PM (#12158604)
    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

    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.

  • by Calimus (43046) <calimus&techography,com> on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:40PM (#12158617) Homepage
    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?
  • 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!
  • by intnsred (199771) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:43PM (#12158661) Homepage
    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.
  • I really dislike live music, I prefer studio stuff. But it appears that alot of people really like live music. They are even interested in listening to multiple versions of the same artists doing the same song at different concerts. There is huge potential here that the industry is ignoring. It is doubtful that many people would buy dozens of different CDs of the same music performed at different live concerts. However, these same people might very well download lots of different versions, just to see the
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:45PM (#12158699)
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @04:46PM (#12158722)
    This article should also include a reference to the decision by a federal judge last september that "struck-down" the anti-boot leg law.

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/09/anti -bootleg-law-struck-down.php [pitt.edu]

    Yes yes, mod this post way up. The content according to september's ruling may be actually legal.
  • Isn't it true that the torrent files are still out there? Only the tracker is now missing?

    Then the solution is an alternative method of tracker distribution. One that can't be shut down. Along with someone dedicated to receiving trackers and distributing it in a way other than being sued as the web-site owner.

    My modest suggestion:

    Usenet.

    Unless everyone can agree on one adware-free/spyware-free P2P network to make them available on.

    In that case: WinMX.

  • I don't know if the concerts EZtree were swapping were from okay-to-boot bands or not...but I will note that Archive.org [archive.org], in conjunction with etree.org [etree.org], are still making available literally thousands of live concert recordingsin lossless formatsfrom bands that allow concert taping and trading. If you take a look at their collection, you might just be surprised by some of the bands there. Gin Blossom, Guster, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Rusted Root, Butthole Surfers, Cowboy Junkies, etc. etc.

    I'd just like to p
  • 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?

    Quite probably. History has shown us that if you allow people access to really good music it makes them far less willing to buy what the record industry these days is selling.

    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?

  • Guilty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crim-Prof (862698) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @05:07PM (#12158956)

    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.

  • Absolutely (Score:5, Funny)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Wednesday April 06, 2005 @05:24PM (#12159122) Homepage
    Is a site that shares old Stevie Nicks, Frank Sinatra, and Ian Hunter live shows really that much of a threat..?

    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.

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin

Working...