Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EZTree Shuts Down

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the under-pressure dept.

The Internet 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?"

cancel ×

497 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

www.puretna.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158447)

The REAL torrent tracker!

The problem with puretna (2, Funny)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158563)

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.

Farewell thee bittorrent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158451)

...we hardly knew yee.

Yes? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158454)

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

Re:Yes? (1)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158733)

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

First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158457)

DipSet bitch, Dipset Bitch!

Hmm... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158458)

Yes.

Yes (4, Insightful)

SamMichaels (213605) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

Roguelazer (606927) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158482)

Is it really a bootleg if the data isn't even sold anymore? I mean, that's like abandonware... sorta...

Re:Yes (2, Insightful)

kgruscho (801766) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158545)

in that it's generally still illegal, yup pretty much.

bootlegs are also generally illegal.

Re:Yes (-1, Troll)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158592)

That's a load of garbage. Nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.

Re:Yes (1)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158692)

You are incorrect as it applies to this topic. Information dooesn't just "float around." EZTree stole that intellectual property, encoded it for transmission to you, and you downloaded it. EZTree certainly committed a crime.

Oh -- and never confuse legality with morality or illegality with immorality. The two concepts are, at best, weakly related.

Re:Yes (1)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158763)

Information dooesn't just "float around." EZTree stole that intellectual property, encoded it for transmission to you, and you downloaded it. EZTree certainly committed a crime.

Yeah, but once the first person made that copy, the information is free for anyone to download and thus impossible to contain. What the RIAA is trying to do here is an absurdity. You might as well pass laws against gravity.

Reality says "hi, long time no see" (-1, Troll)

theantix (466036) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158716)

It doesn't matter one iota if you think you've committed a moral crime or not, the government has laws and you're breaking them. Case closed, dude.

Re:Yes (1)

vic20 (47030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158736)

your definition of information sounds an awful lot like an errant fart roaming the airspace. i think that terming it in terms of "zeroes and ones" is a misnomer, too. That is a mere encoding of information, not the information itself. if we focus on encoding at the surface level, where does that get us? Hell, we'd be breaking plagiarism laws.

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

AnonymousNoMore (721510) | more than 9 years ago | (#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?

Permitted live recordings... (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158702)

Along that line, can anyone tell me how to get a good Phish concert recording of "Dark Side of the Moon" that they did in Utah? From what I hear, the band sez concert recording is just fine, so one of these recordings isn't illegal.

Scary thing is that I've lived in the Burlington, Vt. area over 25 years, and only ever heard Phish once or twice on the radio. I did like what I heard, though it was a bit too late, and I have liked DSotM ever since it came out. I'd like to hear the Phish rendition.

Free thought is a challenge to authority! (4, Funny)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158507)

Haven't you read 1984? Eventually it will be a thoughtcrime to think about downloading music.

Re:Free thought is a challenge to authority! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158574)

Have you read it? Or understood it?

Orwell was afraid of, and loathed Communism - which seems to be the goal of the FOSS information wants to be free set.

Orwell would think the average slashdotter is a douchebag with his head up his ass, and he'd be right to think so.

Re:Free thought is a challenge to authority! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158694)

I am afraid, if your position indicates any tendency for the average world citizen, that you lack the genuine capacity for critical thought. What Orwell is opposing in the real literary meaning of his text, such as is applicable even now, is the rise or enshrinement of authoritarianism-the *communism that he opposed had at the time become overtly and excessively focused on the provisional governance of the revolutionary area and imposed authoritarian demands on it to suppress that motive force. FOSS represents rather, for most successful projects, either or both the proper balance between authoritarianism for efficiency and democracy for general welfare more than any other systems as participation is either fully optional or selected as avenues of development by corporations to whom the workers have already sold the quantity of their labor power that if assigned it would take from them.

Okay, but... (3, Interesting)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158525)

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?

Re:Okay, but... (0)

SamMichaels (213605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158572)

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?

Loss of revenue doesn't matter. They HAVE to protect their copyright.

Why is the IDSA or ESA or whatever they're called this year going after pirated NES or Atari games? When was the last officially licensed sale of an NES game?

It's all about the legal crap and their image.

Re:Okay, but... (4, Informative)

Misch (158807) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158632)

No, they don't. You're confusing copyright and trademark law. Trademarks must actively be protected. Copyrights do not.

Re:Yes (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158578)

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 (4, Insightful)

OECD (639690) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158633)

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 (5, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158656)

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.

live performances vs. commercial product (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158465)

Does it make a difference if the material is copyrighted?
Or are live performances automatically free of copyright?

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (4, Insightful)

RagingChipmunk (646664) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158558)

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.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158624)

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.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158593)

Always assume that everything in the realm of the creative is copyrighted, because it is by default.

Ironically though, the bootlegger actually owns the copyright of the recording. The musicians own the copyright of their performances and a songwriter owns the rights to the song though, so it doesn't really mean anything.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (5, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158631)

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.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158742)

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...

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158640)

I believe that most recordings on major label albums are owned by the label, as they are "works for hire". The song, and the lyrics are still owned by the band/performer, if they wrote them. (see inside an album, the lyrics say "reprinted with permission from...")


With live shows, the songs, and the performance, are owned by the performer (and therefore subject to copyright), and most recordings made without permission are illegal.


I think.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (2, Insightful)

jschottm (317343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158641)

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.

Re:live performances vs. commercial product (1)

wayne (1579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158646)

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 recording they made, it would be a derivative work of the song's author. If the song is already in the public domain, there isn't a problem, but if not, the bootlegger will have to get permission to copy their recording. Similarly, the song's author would have to get the bootlegger's permission to copy the recording.

There are also generally restrictions about no recording at live events as part of the conditions of sale of the tickets. So, even if the bootlegger recorded a song that is in the public domain, they may well have broken their contract by making the recording and hence can't sell it.

copyrights are so much fun.

that much of a threat to the music industry? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:that much of a threat to the music industry? (1)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158653)

You see, all it takes is a letter from someone claiming to be a lawyer and they are shutdown

And how would you know that...wait are you a litigation lawyer?

YRO??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158475)

Why does is this article under Your Rights Online???

Oh wait, its actually about the Internet :). Sorry, I jumped to conclusions.

Naked Emperors (4, Insightful)

Saxerman (253676) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158477)

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 (2, Insightful)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158591)

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 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158673)

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.

Re:Naked Emperors (1)

ThreeE (786934) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158730)

almost all. Kind of like being almost pregnant.

Uhm... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158761)

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.

Re:Naked Emperors (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158707)

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.

Re:Naked Emperors (1)

madmancarman (100642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158729)

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.

it's the principle of the thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158478)

the RIAA didn't get their cut and they're not about to stand for allowing the unwashed masses to be entertained without their express blessing and say so. And oh, a contribution to the corporate coffers.

Yes (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158483)

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.

Re:Yes (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158649)

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 (1)

lp-habu (734825) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158687)

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.

Re:Yes (1)

SlothB77 (873673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158725)

Please, tell me what music I am supposed to like. Come on, the record companies don't tell us what to like. They are at our mercy. Just cause the music may be crap to you and me (and trust me, I do not listen to Korn or j-lo), but apparently enough people want to buy it. Not to mention that whole illegal technicality, you know, the laws instituted by people like me.

I for one... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158484)

welcome our new litigious music industry overlords!

Of course it was a threat. (4, Interesting)

---s3V3n--- (398159) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158486)

If people download it, then that says to the RIAA and their ilk, that perhaps they can milk it for some money.

Of course it's a threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158490)

They don't want you to listen to anything but the stuff that they are selling. So reguardless of whether or not they are providing that content themselves they would like to shut it down. In fact they'd shut down all of the competition if they could get away with it.

Michael

A threat??? (2, Interesting)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#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??? (4, Insightful)

Dana P'Simer (530866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158620)

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.

Last Live Musical Performance... (1)

SlothB77 (873673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158521)

torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances rather than commercial product.

...I went to they charged me.

It's completely legal (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158523)

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.

A threat? (4, Insightful)

Rightcoast (807751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158524)

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.

I have an idea... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158527)

How about you stop posting all the popular Bit Torret URLs to a high-traffic news site? That might keep them a live a bit longer...

Why am I the last to hear? (4, Funny)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158531)

For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.

Re:Why am I the last to hear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158597)

> For crying out loud. Why do we only hear about good Torrent sites *after* they're down.

Actually I had learnt of EZtree due to someone mentioning it in reply to a previous /. article on bittorrent sites. Sorry to hear people missed it.

Re:Why am I the last to hear? (2, Informative)

djirk (763517) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158630)

check out www.archive.org for a large selection of legal live music downloads.

Re:Why am I the last to hear? (1)

smelroy (40796) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158615)

Exactly!! So who has links to the torrents still? Surely some/most of the trackers are still up and running!

Re:Why am I the last to hear? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158684)

Lots of live music bittorrent sites around, check out http://www.digitalboots.net [digitalboots.net] - lossless live links

Re:Why am I the last to hear? (5, Informative)

MikeXpop (614167) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158636)

Here ya go [etree.org]

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.

Stevie Nicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158533)

By offering any of her performances, they should be brought up on terrorism charges.

Live Concerts are owned by Label (2, Interesting)

blackmesh.com (853255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158536)

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.

Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label (1)

deathazre (761949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158610)

Metallica used to encourage people to bootleg their concerts and distribute it, IIRC.

not in all countries (1)

alarch (830794) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158612)

not in all countries, not all music is played in the usa

Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158690)

Concert performances are not fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and thus were not subject to copyright and were bootleggable until the 1990's when Congress added provisions to the copyright statutes to close this 'loophole'. Ex post facto probably prevents this from being applied retroactivly, these recordings just might be free of federal copyrights, and no action for infringment would lie. (State law causes of action might exist, however, since no federal copyright = no federal pre-emption).

Re:Live Concerts are owned by Label (2, Interesting)

Croaker (10633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158711)

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 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 (3, Interesting)

matth1jd (823437) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158719)

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.

This is a slightly complicated issue especially when artists allow taping of their shows.

Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. (5, Interesting)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158540)

Threat is irrevelent. It's about control. It's unthinkable to the music distribution industry that something distributed is done outside of its reach.

Bittorrent isn't for distributing anonymously (1)

sfcat (872532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158556)

To distribute a file with bittorrent requires a tracker that isn't really anonymous (the downloaders can be except for their IP address). But the trackers aren't. Bram never meant for people to use Bittorrent for distributing music or movies. It is for mitigating the slashdot effect for large software packages and security patches (like Linux distros). So when people use it to share music and movies they have a huge painted target on them. Older filesharing networks like Napster were much better (or worst depending on your point of view) for sharing copywrited stuff b/c you just shared a directory and could disappear just by logging off.

A site like this is fine... (4, Insightful)

Dana P'Simer (530866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158560)

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.

Re:A site like this is fine... (1)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158645)

That's a load of garbage. Like I was saying above, nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer, while information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.

Re:A site like this is fine... (1)

Dana P'Simer (530866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158764)

That is the load of garbage. Our system of laws says that people can own information. Specificlly the copyright and patent laws. If you don't like that, get the laws changed. I can tell you that I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. I make my living selling information in the form of software code and various other computer related IP.

Re:A site like this is fine... (4, Insightful)

servoled (174239) | more than 9 years ago | (#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).

The real problem (1)

The Queen (56621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158570)

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 not be so loud. And I might actually be able to quit my dayjob to pursue MY unsigned band's [curedbyporno.com] future.

Thank goodness for the Russians! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158579)

All of MP3 [allofmp3.com] is a viable replacement for these bittorrent sites offering music. I wish they'd offer first-run movies as well...

Threat? (4, Interesting)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158580)

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

To be fair... (3, Informative)

marekk (572361) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Is it a threat, of course (4, Interesting)

Calimus (43046) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158617)

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?

All Live Music Could Be Found There (1)

zosa (261289) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158623)

FWIW, as a (former) heavy user of EZT I can truthfully say that any music you can imaginre was available there: Classical (I d/l'ed a John Williams (not the composer) Guitar Concerto the other day), Jazz (Diana Krall was a frequent find), new rock (name the band, they were there QOTSA, A Perfect Circle, Wilco, ...) Old Metal (Black Sabbath), Prog Metal, punk, fusion, Ethno (Shankar!), .... this site will sorely be missed amongst the live music collectors.

Just go offshore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158652)

Won't all this stuff simply go offshore, to China and the like?

Re:Just go offshore? (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158737)

Ever tried downloading content from China? Horrible packet loss and latency. Think 40% and 1500 msecs.

alot of the music on that site was legal, some not (2, Insightful)

wazzles (729440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158654)

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!

CONGRATZ, fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158713)

and now... they'll shut THAT one down, too!

Of course they're no threat (4, Insightful)

intnsred (199771) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158661)

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.

Not completely illegal... (1)

Evil Attorney (799759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158668)

A good chunk of the music on EZT was from artists who allow their live performances to be recorded and traded. Bands like the Grateful Dead and Phish not only allowed it but encouraged it. Other artist like the Pat Metheny Group merely allow it. In other words, there was a huge difference between EZT and suprnova/Lokki/warez BT sites.

Industry needs to get with it (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158670)

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 difference, or maybe everytime they wanted to listen to a given song they would listen to a different live version of it. The music industry has all these millions of versions of songs that they are not even recording and distributing (even though people want to listen to it) because their distribution model is so archaic.

So what do I propose? I think the music industry could make tons of money by switching from music being a *product* to music being a *service*. You pay 5$/month to have unlimited downloads to a complete archive of everything the industry can pull together. With so much data, the risk of the users downloading and freely distributing it all doesn't really exist. Users will pay the 5$/month to have easy access to all the brand new music and all the archived music. The ease of use would make this very profitable.

This isn't my idea. It is well described and documented in a PDF from MIT. [shumans.com] They strongly believe that a download-service business model would work. I tend to agree.

yep (1)

sugapablo (600023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158674)

When I was using Napster, I was sharing and downloading live Grateful Dead and Black Crowes shows. Both are fully permissible by the bands and free of copyright. But since a few corporate f*cks were worried about 2% growth versus 3%, I lost the best trading source I ever had. (I never ONCE downloaded frickin' Metallica!)

Keep in mind, I STILL have a Sony (one of the companies always fighting to bring down Napster, Kazaa, etc.) CD-IT blank audio cassette, whose sole purpose was to tape from CDs. Trouble was, back then, CD-Burners weren't generally available and pretty much all the CDs there were to copy were copyrighted. Talk about hypocricy!

Revolution is necessary! 2RA

Not a threat... (0, Flamebait)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158695)

...but a site that offers Stevie Nicks videos for download should be shut down on general principle.

Shutting down Bittorrent one site at a time (5, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

The real reason (1)

Patrick Mannion (782290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158703)

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?.

They're trying to hide the fact Stevie Nicks is a sheep

The real reason is they want you to buy the Live comp and listen to a bunch of diffrent performances

Content might be legal according to federal judge (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

A threat now? Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158735)

Once they downloaded them, yes. They would like to sell them to you now.

www.etree.org (1)

w98 (831730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158743)

Home of bittorrent (bt.etree.org), they have a bunch of torrents from artists who specifically say that users can post live performances but not anything that's commercially sold.

Raises the question though - if you pay for a ticket to attend the concert, doesn't that mean the performance is 'commercially sold' ?

I've only recently gotten on the torrent bandwagon, and have enjoyed some live performances of the artists from etree.org

Loaded questions and spin (0)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12158747)

torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances

The key word in that sentence is USUALLY.

If the site was hosting 9999 copyright free Grateful Dead concerts, and only 1 warezed copy of Halo 2, guess what? They're in violation.

They could have simply gone through their offerings and only removed the illegal stuff.

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.

Even Metallica has no problem with fans trading bootlegs of concerts. The thing is, those bootlegs sound like dogshit, and people would rather trade a CD-rip of the "Binge and Purge" boxed set.

Fuck the RIAA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12158759)

Wow, shutting down actual good music distribution... that's a new one. Maybe if you didn't make such crap aimed at uncultured American teens you wouldn't have such dropping sales. I only pirate because it's massively overpriced crap ... $15 for a CD!?!?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>