Anyone recommend a free music download site that´s easy to use
The quickest way is to use a BIT TORRENT down loader like UTorrent and get torrets from somewhere like Piratebay , most are very quick to download .
Tried all that, after about the seventh programme I was asked to download I gave up. Now my IE is buggered up just like when I installed expat shield! I think I have uninstalled everything, but now I have the problem of maintaining my type size on ie. Every time I close and open it it goes back to 100 per cent I want it to stay at 150 per cent
The other problem is that it insisted I download a New Codec pack, whatever that is. My anti virus would not let me do it!
There must be an easier way, something like itunes, but free
Chris, try Jango.
It's a free Internet radio and music search engine....so you can choose the artists played to suit your taste.
Not tried downloading/saving but it can share with social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc and you may be able to save after sharing.
Best of luck.
Hank.
Google You Tube download - there are a number of little programs that let you download stuff as an MP3 or 4 directly from You Tube.
Quote from: Chris485 on August 12, 2012, 09:25:34 AM
Anyone recommend a free music download site that´s easy to use
No such thing anymore.. you more than likely will end up with a virus on ur pc..
Try gomusicnow.com its not free but it is very very cheap, hassle free and simple to use..
Well... next time I need the house painting I'll get in touch.
Nice to have someone who thinks everyone should work for nothing.
Thank you for all your replies. After much research I have gone for, not free, but very cheap, site that works well called mp3million.
Graeme - quite agree.
Downloading free music is theft, pure and simple.
Try kickasstorrents, good for all types of downloads, music, video, books, games,computer programmes, and loads more, and easy to use
Quote from: alfie on August 13, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
Graeme - quite agree.
Downloading free music is theft, pure and simple.
free = theft?? some birthdays you must have.
On topic, music sharing is not piracy, if a friend lends you a film or cd, do you consider that piracy? Music sharing online promotes bands and is a big part of their marketing, and there are many bands that support and promote. Just a few off the top of my head are Metallica, Radiohead, Linkin Park, System of a Down, Nine Inch Nails, etc..
As far as viruses, trojans, rootkits or any malware you want to talk about, I will agree that they are available on torrent sites, they are also available on normal sites without downloads, through popups, activex scripts, java, etc.. Its up to you to know what your doing and downloading, and in this day and age people need to be able to recognize security threats on their computer. Torrent files that claim to be a full album, yet the file size is less than a megabyte, which is impossible, dvds also should have a minimum file size of 600 mb.
Apart from that, most torrent sites have a comment system, where people will warn you about threats. Also need to say that if your downloading programs that need to be cracked, are also identified as threats by antiviruses, although this is a false positive, it is because of the packing named "HEUR" which poses no threat.
If you want to be sure, dont be the first person to download. Leave it to other more experienced people who know what they´re doing to revise the uploaded files and comment.
And as for Graeme, this thread was started by someone looking for help and advice, not looking to be lied to and told that torrent programs are viruses, etc ( wikipedia will give you a full readup of best torrent programs with each ones pros and cons), I'm sure you were told at least once in life that sharing is a good thing, even if it didn't sink in. By the way, there will always be musicians who play and make music just for the love of music, you think JR Tolkien wrote lord of the rings to make money? or Cervantes wrote to make money? No. Poetry, music, etc., have only recently become ways of making loads of money, and yet somehow they still existed.
ISOHUNT
Spotify is superb and has a choice of tarrifs, including a free one which c0mes with adverts. You can't download and keep- I think- only stream, but it's worth a look.
Donna
The Pirate Bay
If your IP blocks it use this https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/
The following is an extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Spain . It would appear that "P2P" is not defined as intellectual property theft in Spain.
Copyright Law of Spain
Right to the private copying and home playing:
"The law explicitly allows to make private copies of copyrighted work without the author's consent for published works if the copy is not for commercial use. To compensate authors, the law establishes a compensatory tax associated with certain recording media (CDs, DVDs, cassettes), managed through societies of authors and editors (as SGAE and CEDRO). Such private copies of a protected work must be made for the private use (not collective, nor lucrative) of the copier (2�º of art. 31): the author is compensated by a tax on the means of reproduction (e.g. photocopiers, blank cassettes) determined at article 25. However, computer programs can not be copied except for a backup copy (art. 99.2): they can be modified for the sole use of the person performing the modification (art. 99.4). Any work can be played in a "strictly home" environment (art. 20.1) without the author's consent. The moral rights of the author can only be exercised in the respect of the rights of owners of copies of the work or of rights to its exploitation, as detailed in article 14."
Some consumer's associations and specialized lawyers contend that the current legislation allows file sharing (as with p2p networks) as this is not for profit and is for private use [6][7]. Additionally, the Penal Code explicitly requires the intention of commercial profit in order to commit a crime against the Intellectual Property [8].
Quote from: ping on September 01, 2012, 22:44:56 PM
The following is an extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Spain . It would appear that "P2P" is not defined as intellectual property theft in Spain.
Some consumer's associations and specialized lawyers contend that the current legislation allows file sharing (as with p2p networks) as this is not for profit and is for private use [6][7]. Additionally, the Penal Code explicitly requires the intention of commercial profit in order to commit a crime against the Intellectual Property [8].
That is not quite correct.
Although private copying is permitted, MAKING AVAILABLE copyright material publicly ('collectively') is unlawful under international agreements and under Spanish law. Further, the "not for profit" argument falls flat on its face when you realise that these sites are run for profit, taking money from advertisements, for example. Some are pulling in over 100,000 euros a month. There is an ongoing case where a court ruled that posting links to P2P sites was not unlawful but that case did not address the actual hosting of content or properly address the funding of these sites.
They are essentially criminal enterprises, stealing from people who create content and turning things they do not own and have no rights to into personal gain. Theft pure and simple. If you had recorded music, written books, or made movies only to see your work ripped off like this you would feel differently about it.
This is one example where (while normally strongly opposed to it) I would like to see the US seek extradition proceedings against those involved. 399 years in a federal 'supermax' might make them think twice.
Quote from: ramblarider on September 02, 2012, 05:42:30 AM
They are essentially criminal enterprises, stealing from people who create content and turning things they do not own and have no rights to into personal gain. Theft pure and simple. If you had recorded music, written books, or made movies only to see your work ripped off like this you would feel differently about it.
This is one example where (while normally strongly opposed to it) I would like to see the US seek extradition proceedings against those involved. 399 years in a federal 'supermax' might make them think twice.
Ramblarider,
These are strong views and I respect your personal views, but there is still nothing in Spanish law to suggest that copying music for personal use is theft! We are in Spain, and not the USA nor the UK where different laws apply. And there are other Countries similar to Spain (extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Peer-to-peer_issues):
"
Countries where sharing files without profit is legalDownloading copied music is legal in some countries in the context of the copyright, such as Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, and Panama, provided that the songs are not sold. In Canada it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for non-commercial use, but it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).
Russian lawDownloading music and films for home use is legal due to exception provided by section 1273 of Russian Federation Civil Code. A special 1% compensatory levy intended for copyright holders is collected from the price of certain goods (like computers or clean CD-RW disks). The compensation mechanism is unclear, though, and left entirely in the hands of the collecting agency established at the same time, with Nikita Mikhalkov, a prominent film director and political figure, at its helm."
So do take care. To accuse anyone, who copies music in Spain for personal use, of intellectual property theft, might be deemed libellous!
Trust me on this. If I caught anyone distributing any of MY intellectual property, being "libelled" would be the least of their worries.
You write it, perform or create it, you can do what you want with it. If you didn't it belongs to someone else, and unless you have their permission to distribute it you are crossing the line. It is morally wrong. Ethically wrong, and criminal.
In general, there are widely accepted guidelines for "fair use". Making backup copies, or such-like. However, if you think you can just take someone else's work that they have worked hard to create, and own the rights to, and simply give to all and sundry then I suppose you would have no problem with me taking a liking to your car, and doing the same?
Theft pure and simple, and if you don't like that description - too bad.
Quote from: ramblarider on September 02, 2012, 09:32:45 AM
In general, there are widely accepted guidelines for "fair use". Making backup copies, or such-like. However, if you think you can just take someone else's work that they have worked hard to create, and own the rights to, and simply give to all and sundry then I suppose you would have no problem with me taking a liking to your car, and doing the same?
Theft pure and simple, and if you don't like that description - too bad.
Ramblarider,
It's not a matter of what I like or dislike. The fact remains that it is not defined as theft in Spain. Furthermore "theft" is defined in many jurisdictions as the act of taking another person's property with
the intention of permanently depriving them of that property: I don't think that applies to copying music, but it would apply if you took my car!
You suggest that there are widely accepted guidelines. Would you let your mother borrow your backup copy overnight, or would that be a breach of your personal code or guidelines?
Personally, I have no great interest in music. It is just organised noise. But sometimes I get excited. I really enjoyed Gareth Malone's Military Wives singing 'Wherever You Are'. I downloaded it from 'You Tube' and watched it over and over again. I then bought the CD to support the cause. Had I not downloaded it first, I would not have become such a supporter and I probably would not have bought the CD. So am I guilty of theft according to your guidelines?
When you steal someone else's intellectual property, you "permanently deprive" that person of their income. Simple. It is identical to shop lifting.
To put this in context, I have been writing textbooks for 30+ years. I now rely on the royalties from those to live.
Similarly, artists who create music, or films rely on that too. They are not all "filthy rich" and they cannot afford to have their life's work stolen out from under them. The vast majority of authors, actors and musicians spend years perfecting their craft. They rarely enjoy high incomes by commercial standards, and don't usually have pensions or "benefit packages". They are much on their own, and often highly dependent upon back catalogue sales and royalties. In addition, new artists now find it very hard to make a decent living because of this rampant theft. I know some who have had to give up as a result. One consequnce of that is less original material to steal in the first place. Everyone loses (except the people coining it running illegal file-sharing networks). Orange jump suits, shackles and a few hundred years in a US jail are hopefully waiting at some point.
Quote from: Graeme on September 02, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
I say, of course it applies to music. It's taking the intellectual property of another person and permanently depriving them of any money they would have made through the purchase of that property. To the mind of any thinking person, that equates to theft.
Quote from: ramblarider on September 02, 2012, 10:47:57 AM
When you steal someone else's intellectual property, you "permanently deprive" that person of their income. Simple. It is identical to shop lifting.
While I sympathise with your arguments, it might be difficult to prove that either of you would suffer a loss! You are assuming that if someone is stopped from downloading a piece of music, that they would instead buy a copy: that doesn't necessarily follow!
I agree with most of the comments above regarding illegal downloading and sharing of music and other media.
Spotify is probably the best solution. It is completely legal (owned by Sony, Universal, EMI, Facebook etc) and most of the major record labels have signed up to it. You don't download the music, but have access to thousands of artists, albums and tracks to play streamed through your computer or device. You can create playlists (handy for parties) and share amongst friends. You can also purchase tracks. Used via a free account, it is IMHO an excellent resource.
Quote from: ping on September 02, 2012, 10:54:29 AM
While I sympathise with your arguments, it might be difficult to prove that either of you would suffer a loss! You are assuming that if someone is stopped from downloading a piece of music, that they would instead buy a copy: that doesn't necessarily follow!
It does not necessarily follow that if I steal your car I might not just dump it somewhere, either, when I've finished with it.
Ramblarider,
Thank you for a lively debate, but I think it best if I now withdraw to avoid it degenerating.
I only joined in because of Graeme's attempt to persuade the moderators to pull the topic on the grounds of a false premise. However Graeme was correct in saying 'ping has obviously never produced anything of intellectual merit'.
And now, despite the earlier discussions, Sheilsoft still uses the same incorrect phrase of 'illegal downloads': immoral or unethical perhaps, but definitely not illegal in Spain.
But let me finish by saying that I sympathise with your attempts at making a fair living. And, if I am tempted to download any material in future, I will first check to ensure that I am only downloading from those producers who are "filthy rich".
Some good news breaking today on this topic, anyway:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/02/pirate-bay-founder-arrested-cambodia
I suspect he'll find a Cambodian prison slightly less comfortable than a Swedish one.
... he probably won´t need an allen key, either!!
Another relevant news article that appeared today:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19474829
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197248/Bruce-Willis-fights-leave-iPod-tunes-family-Actor-considering-legal-action-Apple-battle-owns-songs-downloaded-iTunes.html
This interested me because it appears that even when you pay to downloaditunes you are really only "borrowing" them!?
I hope he wins the case - I believe Apple to be one of the most over-hyped and greedy companies on the planet!
You're quite right Graeme...but one gun at a time! I just find something very unsavoury about Apple's general philosophy and modus operandi, no doubt they are very successful (unless you are currently a shareholder!), just find the whole setup unclean. Yes, there are many others like them, but as I said, for me, one gun at a time!
Quote from: Karen4 on September 04, 2012, 15:57:53 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197248/Bruce-Willis-fights-leave-iPod-tunes-family-Actor-considering-legal-action-Apple-battle-owns-songs-downloaded-iTunes.html
This interested me because it appears that even when you pay to downloaditunes you are really only "borrowing" them!?
I hope he wins the case - I believe Apple to be one of the most over-hyped and greedy companies on the planet!
You do not "own" the music on CD's you buy either.
You own the CD. There's a difference. Same with DVD's. You do not own the movie - you own the media it was delivered on.
What you can do with the music or movie is subject to many limitations. This is all in the small print that no-one reads.
People have said the same about Microsoft... they now say it about Apple. Fact is, both have been incredibly successful and without them the world would be a very different place. Both of them have made technology that was once the preserve of mega-corporations to just about everyone. Computers in every home, iPhones... both Microsoft and Apple have made this work. When you have achieved a mere fraction of what they have, by all means criticise them.
Oh I think we're allowed to criticise even if we haven't achieved the same levels of success as they have! It's only an opinion after all, and if it's valid to criticise politicians, flim-makers, singers, the NHS etc, etc then I think we're allowed to criticise Microsoft, Apple and the rest! The alternative? If we don't criticise then we fail to challenge and so no improvements are ever made.
I was merely making the point that "Apple Bashing" seems to have become some kind of new sport... of course they want to make large profits. That is what companies exist for. To make profits. No-one forces you to buy their stuff. Buy something else instead.
If you really want to annoy them, you could buy Samsung....
I'm not sure what your point is about large profits - that is the aim of every business and I have neither mentioned this nor do I have an issue with it per se. I simply said I do not like the over-hyped approach, and their over-priced products, nor do I like their modus operandi. I'm glad not to have to buy their products, and I choose not to. Samsung? Now there's a thought! :lol:
Quote from: Karen4 on September 04, 2012, 15:57:53 PM
greedy companies on the planet!
That was the reference that came to mind....
Oh I think there's a difference! Never mind, time to get outside and enjoy a bit of fresh air and chillax time! :wave
Hi
If you still have a problem with torrents and downloading music then might i suggest contacting the Albox Computer club about membership and, when you are a fully paid member, you can have all your questions answered by people who actually know what they are talking about. Or you can contact me. I do the "computer corner" in the SolTimes (usually near the back - but hey ho :-)
Next to Microsoft :-)
Quote from: Graeme on September 02, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
I'm with ramblaraider all the way on this.
ping has obviously never produced anything of intellectual merit, only to have had it subsequently ripped off by others. I have and I can tell you, whatever the law might say, to interpret it as giving permission to steal copyrighted work was most certainly not its intention. If ping ever has this happen to him/her, you can bet the farm his/her stance will will rapidly change.
The law is a total ass in many ways but, in this modern age, it's finding it almost impossible to keep with the rapid advance of technology that allows this sort of thing to be done, hence the poor framework of much intellectual property law.
ping says "Furthermore "theft" is defined in many jurisdictions as the act of taking another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of that property: I don't think that applies to copying music."
I say, of course it applies to music. It's taking the intellectual property of another person and permanently depriving them of any money they would have made through the sale of that property. To the mind of any thinking person, that equates to theft.
This is all very commendable, it's all right getting worked up and outrageous about it, but the facts are the times are not just a'changing - they have changed. Record companies, artistes and producers at last understand that since the Internet phenomenon things will never, ever, be the same again and are changing how they sell and promote music through the net, hence musicians own web sites with offers, Spotify and numerous ideas. Sure, we shouldn't expect our music for nowt, but one should remember the record companies have been ripping off the British buying public for decades, they got away with over pricing albums for years, double the cost of a similar record in the States (Simon & Garfunkel - Best Off - 40 year old tracks? - that will be £12.50, thank you sir) over the years I never heard bands or artistes complaining about that, pleading with the record companies asking that their records should be sold at a fair price. That attitude has now come back to bite them and while we read about how many billions Sony, Apple and the like profit from the music industry every year and how musicians and singers of even modest talent seem to be millionaires in no time at all, people that download illegal music from the net are not going to feel guilty about it. Your protestations are commendable, but in specific relation to the music business out of date. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating stealing, just seeing things as they are and will be, not should be. I presume in order with your beliefs you would not borrow a CD from a friend and play it on your HI-Fi because you haven't actually paid for the privilege to do that, if you did you would be stealing the intellectual rights from the artiste - so you have never, ever played a CD you haven't paid for? - or you are really in the same boat as the rest of us.
Have a nice day. :tiphat:
Agreed, Loafer. It's also the same as bands/groups playing covers of other writers' songs, even if they only play for the public in little local bars, here or anywhere else. Maybe they pay the licence to perform? Maybe the bars do? I don't know but I would think someone has to or I suppose it's also stealing the music, is it not? v) :drinks:
:wave
now children play nicely
did any of you ever listen to pirate radio station inthe 60's??
Mike
:tiphat:
:wave
it's exactly the same as downloading music for free
radio London, Caroline, Essex never paid a penny in royalties
by listening to these & many other station we collectively condoned their actions
Mike
:tiphat:
Quote from: sparkiemike on September 08, 2012, 16:08:43 PM
:wave
now children play nicely
did any of you ever listen to pirate radio station inthe 60's??
Mike
:tiphat:
Radio Caroline - did then and do now, still a good station. :)
Quote from: Graeme on September 08, 2012, 22:44:15 PM
Downloaders, on the other hand, permanently deprive the copyright owner of his fair dues.
I'm surprised that this debate is still on going! But since it is: I would suggest that you may be making an enormous false assumption. I suspect that 'downloaders' are generally unlikely to buy instead, if they were prevented from downloading. So even if
the law were changed to make downloading illegal in Spain, and such a new law were actively enforced, the unfortunate copyright owners are unlikely to benefit by any increase in income!
OK.... so, if I wander into Mercadonna and steal a can of tinned beef that is fine, because (as a vegetarian), I would never buy it anyway?
I understand you can have free books through this forums Reading Room?
Quote from: ramblarider on September 09, 2012, 06:10:24 AM
OK.... so, if I wander into Mercadonna and steal a can of tinned beef that is fine, because (as a vegetarian), I would never buy it anyway?
You cannot be serious! Unlike tinned beef, music is available free everywhere: radio, television, youtube, free Spotify... So why would someone, who was stopped from torrent downloading, change to buying?
Quote from: Hawkeye1 on September 09, 2012, 07:21:39 AM
I understand you can have free books through this forums Reading Room?
Well spotted Hawkeye. It would seem that the Forum's Reading Room has no scruples!
Quote from: Graeme on September 09, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
Quote from: ping on September 09, 2012, 08:21:27 AM
You cannot be serious! Unlike tinned beef, music is available free everywhere: radio, television, youtube, free Spotify... So why would someone, who was stopped from torrent downloading, change to buying?
Music on the radio, television, etc. might be 'free' to the end listener, but someone paid for the right to broadcast it and the copyright holders (both intellectual and mechanical) got their fair dues.
Not sure about Spain, but in the UK (and many other countries) the use of a radio or TV in a public place, such as a bar, requires the owner to pay a fee for 're-broadcasting'.
So it has always been. Therefore no change, and still
no more income for the copyright owners!
Quote from: Graeme on September 09, 2012, 17:42:17 PM
I'm pulling out of this thread.
I think I have made my views well-known and I accepted (some time ago) that those who are morally and ethically bankrupt enough not to understand that the downloading of copyrighted material steals from those who produced it are never going to change their stance.
I just hope that it happens to them one day - then see how quickly the boot will move to the other foot.
Of course, this rarely happens, as they are usually artistically bankrupt as well.
You put your case across well, you made your point(s), you know
you are doing the right thing and there are many others that agree with you - job done. :)
Just out of intrest
whats everybodys angle on watching BBC programes and listening to BBC radio without paying the telly licence fee here ? would you all say it was theft ? ie a sort of " satalite signal shop lifting?
TVM :tiphat:
were,s Pings post just gone ,i think the under 75,s BBC "signal lifters "have just zapped it ;D
In the UK they cover themselves not by saying you need a TV licence to view it but you need a TV licence if you own a piece of equipment that is capable of receiving a transmitted signal . If the TV is in a box and unpacked you need a tv licence but if its in a room you use and has no plug fitted then you don't .
i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted . If the TV for some other reason can be shown not to be operable and needs to be repaired again you are safe .
It was a common trick used in the poorer areas where we once had a Post Office , inspectors were regular visitors to check if TV licences had been applied for when someone was caught and claimed they had just applied for one the inspectors would come in to check their story .
Have no idea what the situation is outside the UK if you use FREESAT but would be interesting to know .
As we are not supposed to view channels then its a bit of an anomaly and grey area as there is no TV licence system here for private homes .
Well we watch the telly here,and all we do is bang a few quid to children in need red nose days watzitts to even it up a bit for the beeb :handshake :)
Quote from: APY2 on September 10, 2012, 13:30:11 PM
i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted .
The database of every house in the UK throws up a list of homes without licences and those are the properties targeted. Strangely enough, the vans they use sit outside for a short time and monitor which channels you are watching, at what times, in each room. Then you get the knock :redcard:
Now if you live out in the wilds or in a mansion with a 3 mile driveway you might possibly get away with poking wires because you'll see their lights coming towards you. The rest of the country just pays up. v)
As far as freesat is concerned (via sky or any other boxes) you'll probably know that the programs transmitted are invariably copyrighted for broadcast in the UK only. You are therefore breaking that law receiving them. Why do you think people need ex-pat shield and the like to receive the BBC via internet? ???
. You are therefore breaking that law receiving them. Why do you think people need ex-pat shield and the like to receive the BBC via internet?
Yer fair point thair Primo ,imangine how many new Darlecks doctor Who could afford if this lot got thair hand down ;D
plus if thairs any money left after the Darleck update,the could get the 60 min team in from ITV and give the old Tardise a freshen up as well ;D x2
Quote from: arrow on September 10, 2012, 14:09:13 PM
Quote from: APY2 on September 10, 2012, 13:30:11 PM
i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted .
The database of every house in the UK throws up a list of homes without licences and those are the properties targeted. Strangely enough, the vans they use sit outside for a short time and monitor which channels you are watching, at what times, in each room. Then you get the knock :redcard:
Now if you live out in the wilds or in a mansion with a 3 mile driveway you might possibly get away with poking wires because you'll see their lights coming towards you. The rest of the country just pays up. v)
T hats absolutely correct Arrow , as you say they can even tell what channel your watching but i can assure you on the council estate close to where we were situated the van is soon spotted and everyone knows about it . The numbers that they caught was tiny compared to the ones they should have caught , They do also have dummy vehicles plus real but unmanned ones they drive around as a deterrent and i have no idea how they differ from the manned ones but they dont fool those accustomed to fiddling whatever system going . I would be a rich man now if i had been prepared to set the date stamp back to late the previous evening , fortunately since the Post Office introduced terminals its not a temptation , its also better for Post offices as they wont have to tolerate the threats and abuse for not bending the rules a bit , would never have another Office . 30 k year in the 90s but would need to be 10 times that to ever do it again .
Just to be boring: it is not a crime to receive BBC 'free-to-air' television in Spain. It is more difficult, in that you need a much bigger satellite dish here than in the UK, but certainly not illegal.
Some people might be paying others, who redistribute the signals. That is a crime – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198204/The-1m-Sky-jackers-Fraudsters-tapped-satellite-signal-sold-bogus-subscriptions-sports-TV-channels.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DInderdeep%2BBains .
BBC radio is free to listen to anywhere. You don't need a licence. And you can listen to it in Spain on BBC-iplayer, without the need for 'ex-pat shield'.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast in the UK. (But if you're over 75, as ex-pats in Spain, the licence is free anyway!) This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder. Simply owning the equipment is not an offence! - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/.
Quote from: ping on September 10, 2012, 15:38:58 PM
Just to be boring: it is not a crime to receive BBC 'free-to-air' television in Spain. It is more difficult, in that you need a much bigger satellite dish here than in the UK, but certainly not illegal.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast in the UK. But if you're over 75, as ex-pats in Spain, it's free anyway!This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/. Simply owning the equipment is not an offence!
Well my recollection is 25 years old and the internet wasn't available as it is today so i can easily believe they have changes things a bit , back then the only way most people watched TV was via a TV set , owing a working one or anything capable of receiving a transmitted signal was the criteria for needing a licence at that time .
Not sure if its correct but i recall being told that when you bought a new TV your name and address had to be supplied to the Licencing authority then also .
Quote from: APY2 on September 10, 2012, 15:47:53 PM
Well my recollection is 25 years old and the internet wasn't available as it is today so i can easily believe they have changes things a bit , back then the only way most people watched TV was via a TV set , owing a working one or anything capable of receiving a transmitted signal was the criteria for needing a licence at that time .
And all men are guilty of rape since they have the necessary equipment!
Quote from: APY2 on September 10, 2012, 15:47:53 PM
Not sure if its correct but i recall being told that when you bought a new TV your name and address had to be supplied to the Licencing authority then also .
Your later added comment is correct. And I believe it's still done. That's so the licensing authority have you on their database and can then keep sending you threatening letters. And it's probably because of that, some people have assumed it necessary to have a licence as soon as they purchased new equipment. In other words the propaganda has worked in some areas, and it's been far cheaper than having lots of detector vans rolling around at great expense!
The full story on these "Detector Vans" and the secrecy surrounding them is worthy of a James Bond novel.
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm
The point is made there that legally, they cannot (and as far as I know never have) been used in a single prosecution - in over 50 years! The basic problem being that in order to provide evidence in court, their full workings would be subject to scrutiny by the defence (as are speed cameras).