EZTorrent Bites the Dust

Just like with napster...
Shut one down, 1000s more pop up
MPAA, RIAA can never win this war

You mean the war on crime, where you're the criminal?

Yeah we are all, criminals I bet your the biggest one.

But wait not all crimes are equal, that is ok, ripping people off is ok as long as your a big company, cool, I love Law School.

$$$ Talks steve. You know that. The RIAA's and MPAA's need to win, and will because of the money they can throw at the suit.

Come on, that's wrong on so many levels. I never visited that site, but if it's like most I've heard about, it didn't host any content other than torrent trackers or links to them, which as you must know by now DON'T CONTAIN copyrighted material.

Secondly, of course, even if they were one of the few sites foolish enough to host illegal content, it's not stealing, it's infringement.

I always thought using BitTorrent for illegal P2P was foolish as there's not even a pretense of anonymity, but it's a great tool for distribution, and there's a huge swath of what should be fair use (time shifting TV for example) that is not ethically black or white.

-- B

The DMCA says torrents are quite illegal.
Any form of directly enabling the distribution of material protected under the DMCA is a violation of the DMCA.
The fact that torrents don't have control over content is no excuse.
I know that for a fact.
We have consulted an attorney that specializes in DMCA defense in order to keep a Usenet reporting board open and legal.

As far as infringement VS. stealing, it's just semantics.
The end result is you have denied someone enrichment lawfully Thier's under the copyright laws that exist.

Not quite correct. VCR's are a direct enabler of stealing but they have legitimate uses as well. the movie studios tried to kill the VCR..now they have made untold billions from it. They are trying the same thing with BT and p2p and will suffer the same fate..or worse.

That's BS. Publishing a web site that contains a link to a web page containing copyrighted material is directly enabling the distribution of material protected under the DMCA. The DCMA is poorly written and overly broad -- according to a literal reading this post is covered by DCMA, for example.

Well you are 100% right.
That's why URLs are plain text and not hyper-links on the warez boards outside of China now.
If a user has to cut and paste the link into their browser or downloading program then it's the user, not the board that committed the offense.
Yes it may be silly and a fine point, but that's how the law is interpreted now.

DSLR owns rights to all these posts.
If they would decide to limit distribution then it's in DSLR's rights to do so.
Remember the case of the news service suing Google a week or two ago?

There is no DMCA issue here. None. The DMCA does not make torrents infringing.Actually, lack of control is a defense against against a claim of contributory infringement.I suggest you find another attorney. If this one told you the DMCA makes torrents illegal, he's incompetent.

Well, we will see about this as the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court are ruled upon. The MPAA and RIAA have tried this same stuff before with Cassette recorders and VCR's, using these same arguments and have been consistently shot down by the Court. I would not be surprised to see them go down in flames again, espedially since the court has ruled that a site that just carries traffic is not responsible for the type of traffic it carries, illegal or not.

In any case the RIAA needs toi wise up. You notice they are no longet trying to sue every kid that downloads music, which was a losing strategy to begin with and cost them millions in lawyer fees. Now they are trying to go after the P2P outfits, like Grokster (their suit against which, as I remembersd got shot down by the supreme court), like they did with Napster. I love how they have ressurrected napster as a shill for the industry. "Get it here". LMAO. I'll jump right on it! I sure will....

Yeah, but how much $$$ will the RIAA and MPAA throw at lawyers for a war that they can't win.

Hey Steverino, instead of shooting off your mouth again with your tired "THIEF! THIEF!" crap, read Sarah 's post (»EZTorrent Bites the Dust , so you won't strain yourself scrolling with one hand) and tell me how shutting down a site that was actually trying to blaze the "right way" through this legal forest warrants you sniping at them. Are you really that starved for attention?

These guys were the meet point between many bands and their fans, with totally authorized (read: LEGAL) content being distributed in the most efficient way possible.

they weren't 100% legal

they dealt in "non commercial" aka "bootleg" material

just because it isn't for sale (legally) doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted

for instance in addition to legitimate, author approved torrents, they had beatles cartoon torrents, austin city limits clips, and other material that was guaranteed to not be author approved

since copyright exists on all artistic work by default on everything made from 1978 on, there was plenty of infringement going on

all you need is one nasty letter from bruce springsteen's (example, insert anyone's name here) people, or his label, or whoever controls the copyrights and you're sunk

That's what doesn't make sense, though... in this case, EZT is happy to ban an artist's torrents from the tracker if and when they request it. So instead of sending a lawyer-letter all they had to do was send an e-mail and it's taken care of. Why pay the lawyers to sue if you don't have to?

Shutting down the site prevents fans from hearing more of the RIAA's competition... indie artists on indie labels that are fan-friendly. That's the only reason I can think of that someone would want to shut down EZT rather than just ask to have them ban that artist's material.

all the more reason to shut them down

the RIAA hates competition

The law against "unauthorized fixation" of live recordings was recently struck down. So while the _composer_ (and the other music mafia, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) might have a case against a bootlegger, the RIAA and their member companies do not.

This is what is so infuriating about the whole thing. There are small bands who are as good if not better then any RIAA offering. They try to market their own works but they can't get air time on a Clear Channel station, or any place else because the backers of the RIAA have an effective strangle hold in this area. But when they try to market their own works they find their only avenues blocked by the same outfit. Sure they can and do set-up websites to sell their music but like any other business you have to let people know where you are in order to attract customers. Every where they go they find the RIAA and the MPAA is standing in the way. Something has got to change.:(

said by RadioDoc:

---

...so you won't strain yourself scrolling with one hand...

---

How exactly do you scroll with more than one hand? The design of a wheel mouse makes it totally awkward to work with two hands.

I suppose it's easier to do with one of those trackball mice that Logitech makes, but it's still kind of awkward.

Logitech keyboards have a scrolling wheel on the keyboard located on the left side.:) Logitech has long made my favourite keyboards and mice/trackballs, the MX1000 laser mouse is simply the best mouse ever, get a clean piece of clear glass or plastic and hold it up in the air and slide the mouse on it. The MX1000 will not see anything to track but put a nearly invisible finger print on either surface and the mouse will see it.

Yes, obviously.

atleast TV shows arent illegal to download, and the DMCA isnt a real law in my mind its as much of law as the speed limit is.

the most popular ones are still up.

WOOT!

Denial doesn't change copyright laws so time to GET REAL or GET JAIL CELL.

"Get Real", and "Get Jail Cell" are two of the tracks on the newly released CD from the band
"Taylor Troll and The Chicken Chokers". It has hit the charts like a bullet.

@transmaster .....

Every time one of these threads pops up, you post under another anonymous handle. What dog do you have in this hunt? What is your vested interest in this. Reason I say this is because someone without a vested interest wouldn't be spreading FUD.

Is the RIAA after all audio on the internet even without copyrights? What would the lawyers have to back up their suit? If there is nothing illegal, and not copyrighted, what can the lawyers do?

If an artist did not want their material shared on EZT, all they had to do was ask, and none of their material would be allowed on the tracker. It was strictly enforced. They did not allow any commercially available material, also strictly enforced. They worked to fight against bootleggers selling EZT downloads on eBay. They were the good guys of file-sharing. A lot of bands specifically condone the sharing of live audience recordings (Phish, Government Mule, etc.) and they were all over EZT. A LOT of perfectly legitimate downloads were taking place there.

.....that offer legitimate files to download? Linux Live CD's, Linux OSes, things that are not covered under the DCMA, MPAA or the RIAA.
This has gone beyond rediculous. Soon, you won't even be able to download offerings from legitimate companies using torrent because of the Terrible Trio!!!!
This torrent shut must stop. The Terrible Trio must be stopped and disbanded. They are killing off legitimate uses for p2p software.

But I don't feel bad when people download music when I see rappers with more gold on them that Fort Knox, PoP stars acting like whores, and the ever so classy rock star that forgot he had $5000 worth of drug related stuff in his $1million RV he goes on tour with.

They get that way for claiming to be "artists" that put out 20 CDs of the same stuff at $15 a pop with 1 popular song. You have to spend a fortune to find one decent artist that is worth listening to.

People in the music business need to reorganize, makes songs cheap online was a good start. But the way its marketed is like its a fad, they don't consider it for the long term because if they did each and everyone of these "artists" would sell there OWN music online and don't let RIAA dictate them on how to do business. nuff said!

Can you imagine what the Sony must be thinking of the CD Thriller, by Michael Jackson, in light of the way they market their stuff now;. If I remember correctly every track on this recording was a huge hit.

This is as it is now......Thriller $17.00 one CD

This is how Sony would market these tracks today.

1. Wanna Be Startin................17.00 for the CD
2. Baby Be Mine.....................17.00 for the CD
3. The Girl Is Mine...................17.00 for the CD
4. Thriller...............................17.00 for the CD
5. Beat It...............................17.00 for the CD
6. Billie Jean............................17.00 for the CD
7. Human Nature......................17.00 for the CD
8. P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing).....17.00 for the CD
9. The Lady In My Life...............17.00 for the CD

So in order to get all of the Good stuff which is now found on the Single "Thriller" CD for $17.00 dollars today they would break it up into 9 CD's for which you would have to fork over $153.00. People are not fools they can see when they are getting ripped off.

P.S. Hey Michael how about selling The Beatles publishing rights you are sitting to Paul McCartney where they belong.

do u people realise that american copyright,patents etc dont mean shit in other countries(that dont abide by the act) so getting it is entirely legal?weather its phrohibited in those countries is upto thier respectful legal departments to deal with not the americans.

True. But, try to gain hassle-free access to the US market without native protections similar to American IP legislation.

...by the amount of ignorance and stupidity on display here particularly when the topic turns to Bit Torrent/file sharing.

BTW, ignorant doesn't mean stupid. It means not having knowledge and that is excusable. Stupid is when you're ignorant but pretend you're not. In this case, it means rendering an opinion on a subject about which you have no knowledge...or worse, stating your mistaken opinion as if it were factual. That is inexcusable.

Contrary to popular belief, there are bands that promote or encourage the taping of their concerts. Other bands tape their own concerts and offer these soundboard recordings for sale via download from their websites. These same bands freely allow tapers to make audience recordings. Some even allow well known tapers a patch from the soundboard. Copyright infringement? I don't think so, Tim.

There are many collectors of concerts from the past. My particular taste runs toward Pink Floyd recordings from around the world. Others collect Grateful Dead performances. There's no accounting for taste as a tour of the audio section of the Internet Archive (»www.archive.org/) will clearly show.

Do know why bands go out on tour? Because it affords them the opportunity to earn money without the label taking it all, deducting for expenses, and presenting the band with a bill for those expenses the gate take didn't cover.

We live in a society where the government no longer speaks for the people, where money is king. It can buy justice, elections, and just about everything else we believe to be honorable, fair, and on the up and up.

In this case, the holders of money believe file sharing will hasten the demise of their cash cow. They equate file sharing with piracy. They spread their propaganda in the schools and on the airwaves and their cash in the halls of government.

Remember the INDUCE Act? Check out the campaign donations the proponents of that bill received and the origin of that payola. Orrin Hatch is into the **AA for at least $158,000. Microsoft was also a supporter of the INDUCE Act.

The Attorney General of the State of California used material prepared by the RIAA in his polemic against file sharing...but he forgot that Microsoft Word stores a lot more in a document than just text. There's irony in there somewhere.

It's all just bread and circuses, citizens.

I'll now go back to lurking.

"The Attorney General of the State of California used material prepared by the RIAA in his polemic against file sharing..."

Actually, it was the MPAA and not the RIAA, but me trying to differentiate between the two is like trying to decide which cancer is the most malignant *grin*

You are of course correct. It was the MPAA.

Mea culpa.

And to address the comments that some make about US laws not applying in other places on the planet, I also failed to mention that EasyTree.org was a Euro site.

Money knows no borders.

Anyone who believes that the only thing swapped over any torrent/P2P program...start your own site, provide any needed software and start your own. That is simple. And when the lawyers come knocking fight it. When you win every file trader wins and you prove everything that was swapped was leagal all along and then those harrassed in the past can sue for damages. Simple isn't it?

How about the offshore sites like eztorrent simply post a clear notice on opening that it is illegal for Americans to use their services and/or block their use by those that can be identified as being from the USA?
I don't know the tech or law well enuf to say if this feasible but it seems to me that these are American organizations, concerned with the infringement of American law, which, unless I'm missing something, can only apply to American citizens.
It's only Americans who have a say in changing the DCMA or, for that matter, the behaviour of their trade organizations. Denying them services that others could freely enjoy elsewhere might lead to raising awareness, voting and lobbying where it's needed.
In Canada and much of Europe we pay levies on blank media (including that routinely used for data back-up of course) to fund artists and their industry for their presumed losses (even though presumption of copy-write-protected recording guilt is a questionable concept). This "solution" was, of course the result of lobbying by the equivalents of the RIAA, MPAA and their ilk. This makes being ensnared in what is essentially an American policy dispute gone nuts all the more a piss off.
BTW I think the closing of eztorrent clearly shows it's a dispute gone nuts. The site's attempts to fulfil music lovers' dreams while at the same time respecting artists requesting exclusion and strictly enforcing a ban on truly copyrighted material, should have been applauded not stomped on. Their demise in this manner clearly shows the industry puts regulation ahead of their core customers' passion for art and its expression.

They're back

»www.dimeadozen.org/torre ··· owse.php

i have a few points to say about the closing of EzTree, and it could be applied to STG.

1. The content shared was STRICTLY controlled. i.e. no comercial matterial was available, no material was made available that any artist/record company wished was not shared. And there was posts/rules ina agreement about this when joining the site. the many mods would make sure posts of illeality were shut down quickly because of this.

2. Comparing EzTree to SuprNova is stupid and idiotic, whoever wrote that knows knothing about any of these sites. do a little research before you write a sentence.......

3. Due to all the closure of these "LEGAL"/"LEGITEMATE" sites, the future of music will suffer, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PAST OF MUSIC CANNOT BE SPEREAD. i mean, i love loads of older acts, and if it were not for these sites, i would have to pay a bootlegger on the street or local record fair for a DVD, which i could normally download for free.

If any record company representative ot any RIAA read this; would you prefer us all to pay to some drugged up person for a crap DVD, or download it on-line for free, whilst making and talking to friends????? that is seriously how simple things are. and you want us to pay these crack heads because we cannot find the material else-where???? ok, so in conciquence, we will now HAVE TO fuel the VRACK world to llisten to the music we love (not talking about legal recordings)

On the subject of Live recordings, trading/downloading thereof, versus commercial releases:

The problem the music studios would have had before the DMCA was that a "live recording" taped by some guy and distributed (especially for free) to friends was that no damages were incurred - the studio was not damaged by the taping and distribution.

If you taped a Led Zeppelin concert, Led Zeppelin or their record company never lost a sale - they never sold the recording of the concert, so how could they claim they had lost a sale, or otherwise been damaged? How did you benefit by taping and distributing for free? You made nothing, so no monetary damages resulted.

That was the theory, anyway.

Copyright in the U.S. used to allow statutory damages, so they could get something. Once the work was taped, it belonged to the record company, and you took it, and thus they were entitled to statutory damages, as I recall.

Further complexities arise depending on the live show/rehearsal/music taped. For example, if Peter Gabriel plays a show in Europe, and it is broadcast on French radio, taped by Pierre in France, then traded to Fred in the US, is it illegal for Fred to have this and distribute for free (or even for $$?)? Who commited the improper act - the fellow who taped off the radio? Studios and their lawyers avoided this type of situation like the plague.

The DMCA did away with that. Now you are seeing lawsuits alleging hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in damages.

Just my two cents. Worth what you paid for it.

What you perceive is that there are no damages. I know most contracts state that anytime the artist performs in public that they are getting paid for that performance not to mention it is IN the contract that no illegal recordings of said performance shall be made, given away, sold or distributed in any form without written consent of the artist and or music company. So yes, there are damages incurred.

I am just amazed that people do not support the musician anymore. Nevermind what you think of the RIAA or the music industry. This thread would have the artists lower their costs and profits and virtually give away the music in "hopes" that they'll make money if they hit it big. But hope doesn't pay the rent.