# Purchasing tracks online



## carlmichaels (May 2, 2012)

So it's been a while since I purchased music online. My question is, can I buy individual classical music tracks online?

I know it's possible at iTunes, but they give very little or no information on recordings so the only way to learn anything is to cross reference the album cover to some other source that has information, which is tedious. Also, the selection at iTunes is poor in this genre.

I used to purchase from Classics Online and loved it - all the information one could possibly wish for, but it appears they only supply whole albums now. Same with most of the other major suppliers. Naxos has got really lazy and just points you to distributors. Amazon.com does allow individual track purchases, but only within the US. I'm in Canada and Amazon.ca does not.

Any other options? I won't be purchasing a whole lot of classical music if I must purchase whole albums.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

dont waste money buying tracks

use this utility

http://www.youtube-mp3.org/

converts any you tube video to sound only - can then be burned to CD or put onto mp3 player.

I doubt if the sound quality is significantly worse to any noticable and I have found it adequate if I just want an odd track.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

stomanek's proposal, it should be noted, is a form of copyright infringement.

eclassical.com and theclassicalshop.net are good sources of legal downloads.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/

You can buy single tracks or the entire albums of most of their CD catalogue. You can even choose between 320kb MP3 or CD-quality FLAC. (some Master quality as well)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> stomanek's proposal, it should be noted, is a form of copyright infringement.
> 
> eclassical.com and theclassicalshop.net are good sources of legal downloads.


Not if you download music whose copyright has expired.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The copyright on the music may be expired, but not the copyright on the performance.


----------



## carlmichaels (May 2, 2012)

I'm aware of the youtube-mp3 site. YouTube is invaluable for previewing music but I don't collect music this way for a variety of reasons:
(1) my moral compass has changed from that of my teens, as has my financial capabilities
(2) much there is live, which I don't prefer
(3) the source/info is often unavailable/unreliable

Thanks for the legal suggestions. I will investigate..


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

GioCar said:


> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/
> 
> You can buy single tracks or the entire albums of most of their CD catalogue. You can even choose between 320kb MP3 or CD-quality FLAC. (some Master quality as well)


This, nothing to add :tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The copyright on the music may be expired, but not the copyright on the performance.


If the copyright on a recording has expired - it is in the public domain - it can be copied legally.
However - it may infringe the user agreement stipulated by youtube that content must be streamed. I dont have any moral issues with downloading where copyright has expired.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> If the copyright on a recording has expired - it is in the public domain - it can be copied legally.


Correct. In the United States, recordings made before 1923 are safely out of copyright. If made later, probably not unless the copyright has not been renewed (which has been automatic since 1992).

"Before 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright, but copying was nonetheless regulated under various state torts and statutes, some of which had no duration limit. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 extended federal copyright to recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, and declared that recordings fixed before that date would remain subject to state or common law copyright. Subsequent amendments have extended this latter provision until 2067. As a result, older sound recordings are not subject to the expiration rules that apply to contemporary visual works. Although these may enter the public domain as a result of government authorship or formal grant by the owner, the practical effect has been to render public domain audio virtually nonexistent." (Wiki)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Correct. In the United States, recordings made before 1923 are safely out of copyright. If made later, probably not unless the copyright has not been renewed (which has been automatic since 1992).
> 
> "Before 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright, but copying was nonetheless regulated under various state torts and statutes, some of which had no duration limit. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 extended federal copyright to recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, and declared that recordings fixed before that date would remain subject to state or common law copyright. Subsequent amendments have extended this latter provision until 2067. As a result, older sound recordings are not subject to the expiration rules that apply to contemporary visual works. Although these may enter the public domain as a result of government authorship or formal grant by the owner, the practical effect has been to render public domain audio virtually nonexistent."


Under UK law - from nov 1 2013 copyright was extended to 70 years. But any recording which was made available to the public whose copyright had already expired before that date is indeed in the public domain. So more or less anything released before 1963 nov 1 is in the public domain.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This article heralds the status of the beatles song love me do released in 1962 into the public domain in europe.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...-do-hits-the-public-domain-in-europe-20130112

dont know about the usa - seems that state copyright laws are tough.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting! I think I prefer the British approach. The most recent extension of US copyrights to 95 years was dubbed "the Mickey Mouse protection act" for obvious reasons!


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Give Google Play Music a try. I managed to find some pretty rare albums on there and you can buy individual tracks.

https://play.google.com/store/music?hl=en


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Interesting! I think I prefer the British approach. The most recent extension of US copyrights to 95 years was dubbed "the Mickey Mouse protection act" for obvious reasons!


The UK/EU law doesn't have a nickname but the extension from 50 to 70 years was clearly aimed at protecting the cash cow of sixties pop music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> *The UK/EU law doesn't have a nickname but the extension from 50 to 70 years was clearly aimed at protecting the cash cow of sixties pop music.*


Indeed - and in 20 years time they will increase it to 90 years - there is no limit to the greed.
In my view copyright on all mediums should be no more than 10 years - enough time for the creator and publisher to make a worthwhile return. At least we can enjoy all the recordings free where copyright expired including those early beatles hits - emi/rca recordings etc. No doubt the publishing companies will be kicking themselves for not lobbying and bribing 10 years earlier to get this scandalous new regulations through the european parliament and into uk law.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

With the advent of torrent sites like The Pirate Bay is there really much point in having copyright laws on this kind of stuff? You can watch episodes on watchseries.li literally hours after a show airs on HBO or CBS. Sometimes you can even watch them BEFORE they air. It seems to me that despite the best efforts of lawmakers to deal with intellectual property of this kind, they are pitifully behind the the technology curve. They can make all the laws they want, but it doesn't stop millions of people from getting it for free anyway. I'm not trying to say whether this is right or wrong, but it's just the case that copyright stops almost nobody from watching or listening to what they want.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I haven't downloaded for a while, except for the occasional I tunes ditty. I first tried downloading a few years ago from HD Tracks and Cedille but hated the results. A high Res download would literally take hours and be plagued with dropouts. I have however improved my Internet connection recently and I have just significantly upgraded my DAC so I would like to try again and the presto classics catalog looks inviting. Do they have their own download manager?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

As much as we clash, I agree with Stomanek about using youtube to mp3 downloaders... As long as it's for your personal collection and you aren't distributing what you download for a profit it should be perfectly legal anywhere. I really don't see where anyone gets hurt either, the players all got paid by the record company, the record company in nearly all cases now put the videos up on youtube themselves and they get a profit from traffic on the videos plays, and all the music I download the composers are dead.

I only pay for music if the composer is still alive and collecting. Also carimichaels, I don't like live performances either and if you look hard enough (usually by putting in the exact name of each movement of a piece {which I believe was your number 3 on the list of reasons why you don't but you can find all that info at wiki or this place: http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page }) you can find the individual tracks in a non live version and usually there are many recorded versions to choose from. Not that I'm trying to stop you from paying, by all means if you have it.

Seriously though as long as its for a personal collection, it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The irony of YouTube download legalities is that most of the _uploads_ are technically _already_ illegal. I've seen entire box sets of Mozart Sonatas, Chopin Nocturnes, Beethoven Sonatas and String Quartets, entire Symphonic Cycles, live concert events filmed illegally, excerpts of recordings still in print and still being sold retail on Amazon and elsewhere -- all uploaded to YouTube without permission.

The legalities are usually entirely ignored and accepted if the downloads are intended for personal use only. If those downloads are being sold, the person could be in a heap of trouble. But as matters stand now, the copyright laws are rarely being enforced. Usually the worst that can happen is that the uploader may loose his YT account or is forced to remove the videos.

I feel sorry for the performers who have no artistic control over what ends up being posted online without their permission. Why is this being allowed? Because the public wants free content - uploads may have value as promotional items - and the masses are also spoiled by its easy availability.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> The irony of YouTube download legalities is that most of the _uploads_ are technically _already_ illegal. I've seen entire box sets of Mozart Sonatas, Chopin Nocturnes, Beethoven Sonatas and String Quartets, entire Symphonic Cycles, live concert events filmed illegally, excerpts of recordings still in print and still being sold retail on Amazon and elsewhere -- all uploaded to YouTube without permission.
> 
> The legalities are usually entirely ignored and accepted if the downloads are intended for personal use only. If those downloads are being sold, the person could be in a heap of trouble. But as matters stand now, the copyright laws are rarely being enforced. Usually the worst that can happen is that the uploader may loose his YT account or is forced to remove the videos.
> 
> I feel sorry for the performers who have no artistic control over what ends up being posted online without their permission. Why is this being allowed? Because the public wants free content - uploads may have value as promotional items - and the masses are also spoiled by its easy availability.


If you upload a recording - a publishing concern will slap a claim on it. I know - because we have recorded our son playing various sonatas (18thC) and had BMG or whoever claim it is their recording. So we have to fight the claim etc and we win of course.

So these box sets - you will see ads appearing etc - that revenue is all going to the company that puts in a successful claim on the material.

I have a channel that I used to upload 50s LPs to - I fought all claims at the time as I believed all those UK issued LPs were in the public domain. And I won the whole lot. I collect some money on those through advertising - havent checked my account in ages but must have collected enough to buy a big mac meal by now.

Dont lose any sleep over those copyright cash cow concerns - they get their money.


----------

