EZTree Shuts Down 497
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 it was a threat. (Score:4, Interesting)
A threat??? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's completely legal (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Live Concerts are owned by Label (Score:2, Interesting)
Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. (Score:5, Interesting)
Threat? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Is it a threat, of course (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Shutting down Bittorrent one site at a time (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label (Score:3, Interesting)
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 to hear them. But of course, the control-freak music industry is too short-sighted to take advantage of this market.)
Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:You're right (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
Of course it's a threat. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's completely legal (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reality says "hi, long time no see" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't Frank Sinatra's work in the public domain (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually that is not true. Shakespeare in particular tried to keep tight control of copies of his scripts. Of course, people copied them anyway.
Re:Misinformation (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a reference then?
Re:Misinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:deosn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, people who unauthorizedly reproduce works created by other people have been called pirates since the late 17th century, well before copyright law even existed (but during the golden age of the arr matey kind of piracy).
Secondly, while willful infringement for financial gain (which is defined very very broadly) is criminal, so is "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000," regardless of financial gain.
You should probably read 17 USC 506, 106, and 101.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
It should also be noted that U2 encourage tapers. Bono has said
We invite people to bootleg our shows. We invite people to...make CD copies.... we've no problems with that, but if some guy is gonna make money off the back of this, we're gonna find out where he parks his car... -- Bono on KROQ Radio USA (10-2000)
I used Easytree regularly, and before that Sharingthegroove.org. While it is true that there were non-taper friendly artists on there (based on that have never said that they are taper friendly) moderators consistently required and requested removal of copyright infringing material, e.g. tracks that have been officially released. On the vast majority of torrents it was requested that the material never be sold, and on most that the music not converted to mp3, ogg or other lossless format.
Lets agree at least on one thing (I know this is Slashdot but please humour me at least), Bittorrent, the protocol is no more illegal than HTTP, FTP or IRC: it is the content that these people are being taken down for (and as an aside the fact that the protocol has become some prevalent in the transmission of these huge files is a testament to both its success and necessity). Personally I think the taking down of Easytree is a great shame and travesty. It provided a great community for *sharing* and *archiving* live and unheard music by a huge variety of artist. I personally will greatly miss it
Re:Guilty (Score:2, Interesting)
Because if anyone can come into your private space and look for stuff, even if you really have done no wrong, there will always be someone who doesn't like what you have, what you are, what you're doing, where you're going. From then on, you are dirt. Lawsuits, blacklists, and other forms of discrimination and denigration will result in an attempt to break you, imprison you, and indebt you to the investigating parties or their sponsors.