[Closed] free music downloads

If you want it from a legitimate site, you pay (which is fair enough, I guess). There are always the torrent sites - but that would be naughty.

As above, music is mostly not free.

I tend to find the convenience of using iTunes is the best thing for iPods and the like.

If you have a stack of your own CDs, then you can start be ripping them.

If you don't mind crap quality using real player you can download mp3 from Youtube clips.

I was listening to Guy Garvey last night on 6 music and he said "pay for your music - there's no excuse not to". That made me think. He's got a point.

Just buy it. You wouldn't walk into a shop, pickup a CD and then walk out without paying for it, so why is buying music online any different?

thanks for replies, fair enough I'll pay for it.

cheers

Just buy it. You wouldn't walk into a shop, pickup a CD and then walk out without paying for it

I've been downloading music through bit torrent for years, wouldn't consider buying it unless it was something I really wanted that hadn't been ripped off yet.

I pay spotify for the convenience, dont even bother downloading free anymore, most music isn't worth the time for the amount of times i'll listen before I get bored of it.

Sometimes you can find old stuff on Blog sites. Just Google the album and check for blogs. Not many left since the anti-piracy guys jumped in, but still some about.

jekkyl - Member
I've been downloading music through bit torrent for years, wouldn't consider buying it unless it was something I really wanted that hadn't been ripped off yet.

+1 CountZero

jekkyl, what exactly entitles you to acquire something, in this case music, for nothing?

I've been downloading music through bit torrent for years, wouldn't consider buying it unless it was something I really wanted that hadn't been ripped off yet.

Yes, that's a bit like stealing a jar of instant coffee from your local shop and justifying it to yourself by saying it not a nice as ground coffee.

PS. High-horse squeaky-clean boys - my recommendation above is only for old stuff that you already paid for (eg. on vinyl) 😛

PS. High-horse squeaky-clean boys - my recommendation above is only for old stuff that you already paid for (eg. on vinyl)

I think that's more justifiable, but when someone says they don't buy something because they think it's crap but are happy to download it for free is a bit hypocritical. At least they should be honest about what it is they're doing - which is avoiding paying for something.

where did he say it was crap tho?

http://www.googlemusicsearch.com/

If you're just looking to build up your library, music blogs tend to post links to free tracks. A lot of newer musicians put out free music to try and build interest, so there's usually free tracks and sometimes EPs. Pigeons & planes put out a set of free downloads on sundays. It's not all great, but there are some gems and it's a good way to find new artists.

i tend to buy stuff i really like but often torrent it first

i dont feel guilty i buy plenty of music, especially from smaller bands

I liked the radiohead experiment where they let you choose how much to pay for their album (in rainbows?) the average payment was 3 quid and i think thats a good price, if all albums were priced at that the industry couldve sold plenty more and avoided much of the torrent ass kicking they recieved

2nd hand cds on ebay/car boot sales etc is a good legit way to do it

2nd hand cds on ebay/car boot sales etc is a good legit way to do it

This has always interested me from a legal aspect. Presumably the reseller does not own the copyright, so why should they make money by selling it?

If it wasn't for illegal downloading of music we would be paying around £25-£30 per cd by now (was paying £18 in the early 90's remember?) , record companies would be still ne giving artists £80 million five album deals with next to no quality control over the stuff they put out. The way we buy music is a broken business model, streaming music services like spotify is the way forward as at least you know you rent it.
Oh and by the way torrenting music is not stealing music , it's copyright infringement which as much as the music industry propaganda will tell you is not the same.

[url= http://www.mp3million.com/download/Bauhaus ]Cheap Bauhaus. [/url]

[b]steal[/b]

[u]Verb[/u]

Take (another person's property) without permission [u]or legal right[/u] and without intending to return it

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's "exclusive rights", such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. It often refers to copying "intellectual property" without written permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator.

Still not stealing

Still not stealing

It is if you do it without "legal right".

No it's 'copyright infringement'

zokes - if you record a track off the radio, is that still stealing?

How about if I record a TV program from the telly? Stealing?

Why are these different from dowloading a track from the internet?

I download music for free simply because I can and because I can get away with it, the police haven't come knocking down my door yet, it's great. I don't d/l loads, perhaps an album or so every month or so. I also download movies but I have a love film sub.

I've never paid £18 for a cd in my life, has anyone?

Spotify is fine for previewing music, but artists get a pittance from them so don't kid yourself that it's a substitute for buying music

Recording from the radio is a grey area I think - the key difference though is you have no control over what is played. You can't just grab an artists entire back catalogue like in a torrent site.

I think people who illegally download music can't value it very much. This is a shame - but I do suspect that if they were unable to do it they would just be taping their mate's CDs or whatever

People who love it pay for it in some way or another, those that don't, don't. it's always been like this

AS this is still going - I, personally have an [url= http://www.emusic.com/ ]eMusic[/url] subscription, where you pay a monthly fee and tracks are 42p each.
Also a regular user of [url= http://bandcamp.com/ ]Bandcamp[/url] where loads of new (and old) give music is given away for FREE and you can sample full tracks before you buy/get for free. Many have a low fixed price, many do like the Radiohead thing above, where you set your own price. For new music Bandcamp is amazing.
I also download stuff from blogs, not because I don't value music, but completely the opposite - because I love discovering new stuff and thre's no way I could afford to pay for it all, and how else am I going to hear it? If I like something I've downloaded, I'll get it on eMusic or Bandcamp if it appears. A lot of the time I just delete stuff. That's how music is these days. I'm sure all artists are aware that as soon as they release something it's available, shared on the internet.
And a few middle aged blokes on a forum saying "OI! You're a thief!" ain't going to change it anytime soon!

I've never paid £18 for a cd in my life, has anyone?

I'm old enough to remember how 'Home taping is killing music' . Now downloading is ?

Funny I think the dross of what is 'x-Factor' is killing more.

ps. on that note : I emailed Burial when my mate copied his first album off me, saying I thought my mate should buy it, what did he think. Burial replied saying "As long as they are hearing the music, it's cool".

[quote=sideshowdave ]No it's 'copyright infringement'

No, downloading music is stealing. If you ripped it to CD and started selling them, *that* would be copyright infringement

[img] [/img]

I think people who illegally download music can't value it very much.

sorry mate this is nonsense. I LOVE music,I love all the tunes on my HD, otherwise I wouldn't have got them regardless of the means of acquisition.

No, downloading music is stealing. If you ripped it to CD and started selling them, *that* would be copyright infringement

No , taking a physical thing or taking funds without permission is stealing, downloading music is copyright infringement .

And no I don't and no I don't advocate it in any way but it's not stealing

Love the picture 😀

[i]taking a physical thing or taking funds without permission is stealing, downloading music is copyright infringement[/i]

But surely if people keep repeating "It's stealing" over and over, adding nothing to their argument, they will be right in the end, yeah?

sorry mate this is nonsense. I LOVE music,I love all the tunes on my HD, otherwise I wouldn't have got them regardless of the means of acquisition.

I'm sure your boss loves your work. Does that mean he doesn't have to pay you? Doubly so if your profession is something intangible in the service industry.

But surely if people keep repeating "It's stealing" over and over, adding nothing to their argument, they will be right in the end, yeah?

By downloading something for free, against the owner's wishes, when you would otherwise have had to pay for it, you're stealing.

But it's not stealing , it's copyright infringement , u are not taking the owners copy , you are downloading a copy of it , the artist/record company still holds the master copy

But it's not stealing , it's copyright infringement , u are not taking the owners copy , you are downloading a copy of it , the artist/record company still holds the master copy

You are depriving them of the money that should have been paid for the copy.

Just like stealing a CD is stealing - it's not the 20p for the case and the blank media you're stealing, it's the 10 quid the finished product is on sale for.

Either way,

the artist/record company still holds the master copy

sorry mate this is nonsense. I LOVE music,I love all the tunes on my HD, otherwise I wouldn't have got them regardless of the means of acquisition.

Then pay for it! I have no quarrel at all with someone like Dez who uses blogs etc to find new music and I'm sure spends plenty on his subscriptions etc. I do the same sort of stuff

But someone with an HD full of music downloaded entirely for free "because they can" is just a freeloader. That music doesn't appear from nowhere - someone sweated over it and deserves to be paid

If my boss didn't pay me I'd get another job, to be a musician I think you have to accept that people would rip you off. You can always make money through merchandise or touring. It's not right to rip tunes off torrents but I do it anyway, I have no justification at all other than that I love music. But so long as I have the means to do it I will continue.

The tunes I possses aren't just from illegal sources of course. I ripped all my cds years ago, take stuff off free sites and blogs and podcasts and torrents.

I'd argue the way zokes does. WHen you are buying a CD you are buying a license to listen to the music in that format - which is why technically you;re not supposed to rip it to MP3, but I digress. If you obtain the music without paying for it, it's theft.

If you then distribute that music, without permission to do so, you are infringing the copyright of the holder...

copyright isn't about having a copy, it's about having permission to use something for a certain application

Just like stealing

There you said it yourself , it's not stealing by definition it's a different crime.

If the record industry dies on its arse due to piracy, will we simply be left with people who write and record music simply for the love of it and wanting to share that with others, rather than rubbish bands and artists whose sole focus is record deals and stadium tours?

There have always been very talented people out there who are unable to 'monetise' their work. This would actually level the playing field while handily disposing of several million tons of manufactured shite.

To follow on from nbt's post above, I don't think in the absolutes zokes is applying to the argument, but whatever it is, you're not paying for it and this depriving the artist of what he might deserve for producing it. And that seems wrong.

My moral compass once pointed to torrents all the way but when I had a think about it, I stopped.

Who amongst us hasn't watched a copied film at some stage or taped music from the radio or lent a video of something we've recorded to a mate? If you haven't, then yeah, occupy the high ground.

Either way, sharing has changed the way that artists approach their audience and IMO, has been good in lots of ways (eventually). Bands have to go out and your lots more these days as that's how they can really make money. Now...the price of flipping concert tickets...don't get me started on those.

martinhutch - Member
If the record industry dies on its arse due to piracy, will we simply be left with people who write and record music simply for the love of it and wanting to share that with others, rather than rubbish bands and artists whose sole focus is record deals and stadium tours?

There have always been very talented people out there who are unable to 'monetise' their work. This would actually level the playing field while handily disposing of several million tons of manufactured shite

This is very untrue. I agree no one will cry if Justin Bieber can't make a living anymore - but there are lots and lots or artists that just "get by" - making money touring, selling their music etc. You would be suprised how many bands are barely able to keep going

Grizzly Bear are a relatively high profile band who claim not to be able to afford health insurance

[url= http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/121002hardscrabble ]link[/url]

If they all had to get day jobs - they wouldn't be able to buy equipment, they wouldn't be able to spend as mush time writing and recording, they wouldn't be able to get time off to tour. I don't want my music to be made exclusively by bedroom musicians.

This argument is not about manufactured music - this will always exist. It's about keeping the good stuff

www.soundcloud.com

DJ's rather than artists mainly but some up and coming artists - most of its free and legit.

If illegally downloading files is stealing or theft, then the police would get involved, and there would be criminal charges brought against people who did it - as it stands, there are not, and never have been charges of stealing or theft brought against people who download illegally, or even those who distribute illegally - in both cases, the charges are on the basis of copyright infringement.

Theft is the misappropriation of real and tangible things, in order for it to be considered in this light then it would have to mean that the wronged party no longer has the thing which the other party does - given that in the context of digital downloads it can easily be the case that both parties can remain in possession of the disputed thing, it's not theft.

This isn't to say that it's morally ok to download illegally, just that it's shrieking hysteria to call it theft.

By US law if you're redistributing commercially or redistribute more than $1000 worth in something like 180 days then it's a criminal offence, otherwise it's civil. Not sure what the UK boundaries are but I'm fairly sure it can be criminal if you're redistributing commercially.

Spotify is fine for previewing music, but artists get a pittance from them so don't kid yourself that it's a substitute for buying music

I spend more money on Spotify than I've regularly spent on music in my life. We've got 2 full accounts in the house so chuck £20 a month at it. The idea that I'd go out and buy those 50 albums I'm listening to in the month is absolute rubbish. Spend most of my time trying new artists that would get £0 off me were it not for spotify.

Don't kid yourself that it's piracy because it's cheap and easy, the more people who use Spotify, the more money there is in the pot. Artists get about 0.1p per play of their track, I'll merrily listen to music ALL day, 5 days a week, so that's about £3-4 directly to the artists. More than they'd get directly if I bought a CD, given all the costs associated.

The last album I bought was in the late 90s.

By US law if you're redistributing commercially or redistribute more than $1000 worth in something like 180 days then it's a criminal offence, otherwise it's civil. Not sure what the UK boundaries are but I'm fairly sure it can be criminal if you're redistributing commercially.

But not of theft.

This is very untrue. I agree no one will cry if Justin Bieber can't make a living anymore - but there are lots and lots or artists that just "get by" - making money touring, selling their music etc. You would be suprised how many bands are barely able to keep going

Grizzly Bear are a relatively high profile band who claim not to be able to afford health insurance

link

If they all had to get day jobs - they wouldn't be able to buy equipment, they wouldn't be able to spend as mush time writing and recording, they wouldn't be able to get time off to tour. I don't want my music to be made exclusively by bedroom musicians.

This argument is not about manufactured music - this will always exist. It's about keeping the good stuff

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I guess the point I would make is that there will always be a significant spend by the public on music, even in an era where the vast majority of music is pirated.

If fewer record company artists are available to attract that cash because the record industry and its methods of promotion have withered, it perhaps becomes more likely that smaller, better bands like the one you mentioned will find ways to be better known, attract a greater share of any revenue out there, and bigger live audiences.

Only a hypothesis, but at the moment you have mainstream acts promoted by industry sucking up all but a small fraction of public spend on music.

Theft is the misappropriation of real and tangible things, in order for it to be considered in this light then it would have to mean that the wronged party no longer has the thing which the other party does - given that in the context of digital downloads it can easily be the case that both parties can remain in possession of the disputed thing, it's not theft.

So, to go back to stealing from shops, one assumes people who steal CDs / DVDs are only held accountable for the 20 pence-worth of blank disk and case? And the remainder of the worth is down to the copyright holder to pursue through the civil courts?

After all, the only tangible thing that's been physically removed is the disk and its case, not the content, as

the artist/record company still holds the master copy

Please, can we just let Zokes be right? Yes, it's stealing. Cool.

Yes, it's stealing. Cool.

Thank you.

its all about greed

people want to pay as little as possible for music

the music companies wanted to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible

no zokes it's different, theft would be seen by the courts as theft from the retailer (not artist) of an item of their stock at a value of £20, which the retailer has paid for and owns.

So, to go back to stealing from shops, one assumes people who steal CDs / DVDs are only held accountable for the 20 pence-worth of blank disk and case? And the remainder of the worth is down to the copyright holder to pursue through the civil courts?

After all, the only tangible thing that's been physically removed is the disk and its case, not the content, as

the artist/record company still holds the master copy

The theft isn't from the artist/record company, the theft is from the retail outlet, so the fact the master copy resides with them is a moot point.

Theft in that context is based on the fact that the retailer did have possession of something which they no longer have. Guilt with regards theft isn't on the basis of the value of the goods - the punishment may well come down to it (although not always) but the guilt or otherwise is unaffected.

Did I miss the answers to my earlier post trying to define exactly was is stealing and what isn't?

Following on from that slightly, I was also wondering whether it's still stealing if you copy a CD that you own onto your MP3 player of choice... as I don't know if people are aware, this is also classed as illegal under exactly the same law that would have you for downloading music from t'interweb in the UK at present. Although I do believe the government has proposed a change in the law for this, but only for music, and that it will still be illegal for DVDs and games etc...

Now I do hope none of you naughty people have been doing any of that sort of thing... 😉

I bought a CD the other day. First time I've done that for many years.

I'll download stuff I can't buy. Record companies can't bloody complain if they don't offer to sell me something, surely?

It was the Stooges first album by the way. The CD I bought.

To the OP, have a look at Spotify, it has an app you can use on your iPod and syncs stuff pretty well. Can't argue for a tenner a month. I use it at home, on my phone and at work.