Free mp3 downloads!

nonstick_nik · 17 November 2011 at 12:22AM

Buy 2 x Promotional cases of 12 bottles of Becks Beer for £15 at Tesco and get a free (upto 0.99p) mp3 download from Napster with each bottle! 24 x 0.99p = £23.76 take away the £15 you paid for the beer and that means that if legally download music, you can actually earn upto £8.76 by drinking beer! How sweet is that! Multiple bottle label promo codes can be used to by albums too it seems!

ada1988 · 6 December 2011 at 10:06AM

I always download songs from youtube with a youtube downloader,that can convert the videos to MP3 for my MP3 player while it downloading from youtube.
You can have a try,it is easy to done and free.

Lugh_Chronain · 8 December 2011 at 9:33AM

Free 6-track sampler - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

email address required.

Tracks included are:

1. Hidden In Snow
2. People Lie All The Time
3. What If We Could?
4. Oraculum
5. Please Take Your Hand Away
6. Under The Midnight Sun

Lugh_Chronain · 8 December 2011 at 3:56PM

Not that I'm bothered though do bear in mind both isoHunt and The Pirate Bay are facilitators of illegal downloads.

Personal, I'm not saying I wouldn't even consider using them though I think this thread is more to do with where you can get free legitimate downloads.

You can also try Tunechecker.com for cheaper CDs/MP3s if you choose not to use both the above. Or choose to wait for the prices to come down. Or post a request on the I wanna buy-it or do-it board.

In the end the decision is the consumers.

esuhl · 8 December 2011 at 4:21PM

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

Not that I'm bothered though do bear in mind both isoHunt and The Pirate Bay are facilitators of illegal downloads.

Call me pedantic, but... Technically, only the uploads are illegal. So long as the downloads are for personal use they are unlawful, but not illegal - i.e. a breach of civil law, rather than criminal.

Lugh_Chronain · 9 December 2011 at 2:17PM

Not according to the Los Angeles Times, The Pirate Bay is "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading".

Depends on what they mean by the term illegal I suppose. May be they say this to put people off. Though I guess what they mean is it's the suppliers/websites that are committing a criminal act and not the consumer as per say.

I kind of agree with the point your making though. What harm are people doing, weren't we recording stuff in kind of the same way before MP3s and the internet?

It would be interesting to know if the music industry is really suffering because of this. It would be nice to see the facts.

esuhl · 9 December 2011 at 8:27PM

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

Not according to the Los Angeles Times, The Pirate Bay is "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading".

Depends on what they mean by the term illegal I suppose. May be they say this to put people off. Though I guess what they mean is it's the suppliers/websites that are committing a criminal act and not the consumer as per say.

I kind of agree with the point your making though. What harm are people doing, weren't we recording stuff in kind of the same way before MP3s and the internet?

It would be interesting to know if the music industry is really suffering because of this. It would be nice to see the facts.

"Illegal" is (necessarily) very precisely defined, so it doesn't "depend what they mean by the term illegal". However, the Los Angeles Times is presumably referring to US law, whereas I was referring to UK law.

In any case, journalists tend to be very lazy when it comes to in-depth analysis, and they generally lack any expertise (except, occasionally, an English degree). Details and the truth rarely matter at all - it's about getting a headline and an emotional response from the reader. Essentially, their job is to increase the value of advertising space, not to write anything meaningful.

Sloppy and inaccurate use of language is commonplace. Note the existence of the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (aka FACT) in the UK. Most intelligent people would know that theft means "to permanently deprive the lawful owner of", whereas copyright infringement has nothing to do with theft.

Lugh_Chronain · 9 December 2011 at 9:04PM

esuhl wrote: »

However, the Los Angeles Times is presumably referring to US law, whereas I was referring to UK law.

Yes, that's what I thought.

esuhl wrote: »

journalists tend to be very lazy when it comes to in-depth analysis, and they generally lack any expertise.

Not half! The things you hear, and I've lost count the amount of times I say to myself when listening to the radio "that's lazy reporting".

esuhl wrote: »

Note the existence of the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (aka FACT) in the UK. Most intelligent people would know that theft means "to permanently deprive the lawful owner of", whereas copyright infringement has nothing to do with theft.

Out of curiosity, can you explain what the difference is between playing music in public and uploading and downloading music? I remember U2 got fined for playing Bring on the Clowns sometime in the 80's, I suppose for copyright infringement. Could this be because they included it onto their live Under A Blood Red Sky album?.

esuhl wrote: »

esuhl · 9 December 2011 at 11:24PM

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

Out of curiosity, can you explain what the difference is between playing music in public and uploading and downloading music? I remember U2 got fined for playing Bring on the Clowns sometime in the 80's, I suppose for copyright infringement.

Actually I think I got confused with the distinction between "uploading / downloading" and "personal use / for profit"...

If you are distributing copyright material without a licence and making a profit from it, then it's considered to be piracy which is illegal. The police can investigate and arrest you and the CPS can prosecute you in a criminal court.

If you are not profiting from the act and are breaking the terms of the copyright agreement, then it's considered unlawful - like a breach of contract. The police/CPS can't get involved, but the copyright holder can take you to a civil court and sue you for damages.

What interests me is how the damages are worked out. If I download a song that normally costs 99p from a dodgy site, it would hardly be worthwhile to sue me for 99p! I'll have to look up some cases when I get bored!

As for public performance, I think the same distinction would apply depending on whether you were making a profit from it or not.

I'm a complete amateur lawyer, by the way! I only found out about all this in another post on this site a while back. There's a bit more info from far more educated people than me in there if you're interested:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3191638

Lugh_Chronain · 10 December 2011 at 2:38AM

esuhl wrote: »

I only found out about all this in another post on this site a while back.

Yeah, that's how I tend to learn as I go along as well.

Thanks for information you've provided, very interesting. I'll have a read at some stage the thread you've posted as well. It's good to read what others are saying as well.

Thanks esuhl!