# Looking for a free mp3 download of the barber violin concerto



## lyrrad

can someone help me find a free mp3 download of the barber violin concerto


----------



## Delicious Manager

I'm sorry, but a 'free' MP3 download would constitute an act piracy as both Barber's music AND and any recording of this concerto will be under copyright. You will have to buy it like you have to buy other things you want in life.

You can, however, find this piece on YouTube if you care to look.


----------



## Ukko

Posting the plea in the correct forum would be good, too.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Posting the plea in the correct forum would be good, too.


Which would that be?


----------



## Serge

science said:


> Which would that be?


Well, for starters, probably NOT *Site Feedback & Technical Support*. 

To the OP:

Tough luck there with the mp3 download, but if you are in the US you could pick up a new CD with three of Barber concertos and raving reviews for about 8 bucks, shipping included:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...w?ie=UTF8&qid=1298391996&sr=1-3&condition=new

Probably well worth it.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Which would that be?


An mp3 is a recording. You may take it from there.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> An mp3 is a recording. You may take it from there.


 at yourself. How do you not get warned for that?

answer the question


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> at yourself. How do you not get warned for that?
> 
> answer the question


That question should be addressed to the mods.

You seem to be _very_ tender skinned, that an emoticon pains you. And since you have retaliated with a [] of your own, it appears that we are even.

:devil:


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> That question should be addressed to the mods.
> 
> You seem to be _very_ tender skinned, that an emoticon pains you. And since you have retaliated with a [] of your own, it appears that we are even.
> 
> :devil:


Whatever. You've done what you set out to do.


----------



## Krummhorn

Hilltroll72 said:


> Posting the plea in the correct forum would be good, too.





science said:


> Which would that be?





Serge said:


> Well, for starters, probably NOT *Site Feedback & Technical Support*.


Thread moved to_ Recorded Music and Publications
_ 
Quite agree on supporting the copyright issue ... it's the same if someone stole another's car ... it's their property as they paid for it ... same is true on copyrighted publications. Pony up and pay the piper like the rest of us .


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Whatever. You've done what you set out to do.


 You have no inkling of what I 'set out to do', even though it _should_ be obvious.


----------



## science

Yeah, it's obvious.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*what?*

This is illegal!

Martin, legal


----------



## starry

Krummhorn said:


> Thread moved to_ Recorded Music and Publications
> _
> Quite agree on supporting the copyright issue ... it's the same if someone stole another's car ... it's their property as they paid for it ... same is true on copyrighted publications. Pony up and pay the piper like the rest of us .


I've got to come in on this. Now people can have different opinions I don't mind that. But I won't accept this 'it's the same if someone stole another's car' stuff. For one thing once someone buys a cd it is their property. They tried copy protection on music so people could only play it on one computer or something and people didn't like it, they wouldn't accept it. Now if I buy a cd and lend it to a friend is that like stealing someone's car? Now if I made copies and SOLD it on to people that would be different, indeed people are prosecuted for that.

And as for copyright they try and extend that all the time, not for the artists but just to give themselves income forever from old recordings. They are worried now about Presley and the Beatles recordings coming out of copyright, Disney are worried about their films coming out of copyright. The copyright for books is even longer, it's a complete joke, and is obviously to fund the companies and not simply the artist.

With recorded media you CAN'T fully control what happens to it, they never have been able to. This is the actual reality. They can try limiting it to regions of the world but people will find a way round that too. They were really slow with the internet, even now because of 'copyright' issues shops that sell stuff are quite limited. Some stuff that is out of print will not be re-released because of 'copyright' issues as well. Is it better to have stuff hidden away or for it to be made available for people? Is the internet a bad place for making culture more readily available to people instead of just for the rich?

New stuff that comes out does need recompense for artists, perhaps there could be a tax on blank cds/dvds or recorders for that. Or maybe on broadband as most really get broadband so they can download stuff. Kind of like how libraries I think pay a copyright fee in some places.

And those who promote youtube but make out that they are against sharing are really being absurdly hypocritical. Also anything you record off TV, radio, or if you photocopy something from a book...you could be breaking copyright too. Those who want to just paint themselves as the 'good guys' and make it into some black and white issue I can't take very seriously, and frankly I doubt many people - if honest - would either.

That's all I have to say. Because I know it's pointless arguing over this as people just seem to have set opinions. I think change will probably eventually come through those who see the bigger picture. The only alternative is a Big Brother world where all our actions and thoughts are monitored. Take you pick.


----------



## Art Rock

myaskovsky2002 said:


> This is illegal!
> 
> Martin, legal


The world wide web is world wide, so broad brush statements like this are ignorant. For instance, downloading is legal in the Netherlands.


----------



## Yoshi

starry said:


> I've got to come in on this. Now people can have different opinions I don't mind that. But I won't accept this 'it's the same if someone stole another's car' stuff. For one thing once someone buys a cd it is their property. They tried copy protection on music so people could only play it on one computer or something and people didn't like it, they wouldn't accept it. Now if I buy a cd and lend it to a friend is that like stealing someone's car? Now if I made copies and SOLD it on to people that would be different, indeed people are prosecuted for that.
> 
> And as for copyright they try and extend that all the time, not for the artists but just to give themselves income forever from old recordings. They are worried now about Presley and the Beatles recordings coming out of copyright, Disney are worried about their films coming out of copyright. The copyright for books is even longer, it's a complete joke, and is obviously to fund the companies and not simply the artist.
> 
> With recorded media you CAN'T fully control what happens to it, they never have been able to. This is the actual reality. They can try limiting it to regions of the world but people will find a way round that too. They were really slow with the internet, even now because of 'copyright' issues shops that sell stuff are quite limited. Some stuff that is out of print will not be re-released because of 'copyright' issues as well. Is it better to have stuff hidden away or for it to be made available for people? Is the internet a bad place for making culture more readily available to people instead of just for the rich?
> 
> New stuff that comes out does need recompense for artists, perhaps there could be a tax on blank cds/dvds or recorders for that. Or maybe on broadband as most really get broadband so they can download stuff. Kind of like how libraries I think pay a copyright fee in some places.
> 
> And those who promote youtube but make out that they are against sharing are really being absurdly hypocritical. Also anything you record off TV, radio, or if you photocopy something from a book...you could be breaking copyright too. Those who want to just paint themselves as the 'good guys' and make it into some black and white issue I can't take very seriously, and frankly I doubt many people - if honest - would either.
> 
> That's all I have to say. Because I know it's pointless arguing over this as people just seem to have set opinions. I think change will probably eventually come through those who see the bigger picture. The only alternative is a Big Brother world where all our actions and thoughts are monitored. Take you pick.


I couldn't agree more with you.
And I seriously hope this will change someday.


----------



## Delicious Manager

> I've got to come in on this. Now people can have different opinions I don't mind that. But I won't accept this 'it's the same if someone stole another's car' stuff. For one thing once someone buys a cd it is their property. They tried copy protection on music so people could only play it on one computer or something and people didn't like it, they wouldn't accept it. Now if I buy a cd and lend it to a friend is that like stealing someone's car? Now if I made copies and SOLD it on to people that would be different, indeed people are prosecuted for that.


It's not 'opinion' - it's the LAW. The CD you buy might be your property, but the rights to the music (if in copyright) and the performance are NOT yours - they belong to the musicians involved. If you copy a CD and give it to your friend, a potential CD sale is lost. That is money out of the pockets of the musicians who created the CD. Do this enough and musicians can no longer afford to live. Look at the small print on the CD, copying, selling and 'lending' are all equally illegal.



> With recorded media you CAN'T fully control what happens to it, they never have been able to. This is the actual reality. They can try limiting it to regions of the world but people will find a way round that too. They were really slow with the internet, even now because of 'copyright' issues shops that sell stuff are quite limited. Some stuff that is out of print will not be re-released because of 'copyright' issues as well. Is it better to have stuff hidden away or for it to be made available for people? Is the internet a bad place for making culture more readily available to people instead of just for the rich?


It is only with the advent of the internet that control has become so difficult. Yes, people used to copy their old LPs onto cassette for the car - and occasional illegal use, but the file-sharing mentality on the internet has made it rife. Of course it is best to make copyrighted material available to the public, BUT ONLY if the rights of those who created the music are protected.



> New stuff that comes out does need recompense for artists, perhaps there could be a tax on blank cds/dvds or recorders for that. Or maybe on broadband as most really get broadband so they can download stuff. Kind of like how libraries I think pay a copyright fee in some places.


There is already a levy on blank recording media in most countries - that's a start.



> And those who promote youtube but make out that they are against sharing are really being absurdly hypocritical. Also anything you record off TV, radio, or if you photocopy something from a book...you could be breaking copyright too.


YouTube is a tricky one, I admit, but it is a STREAMING medium - one never 'owns' the recordings (usually pretty poor quality sound). I often use YouTube for research or reference purposes. If I want the music, I BUY it subsequently.



> I know it's pointless arguing over this as people just seem to have set opinions. I think change will probably eventually come through those who see the bigger picture. The only alternative is a Big Brother world where all our actions and thoughts are monitored. Take you pick.


So are you suggesting that to protect the rights and livelihoods of musicians is wrong? I have been a manager in the music profession for over 30 years and I have seen my share of struggling musicians. I even know one who threw himself under an underground train in London because he couldn't make enough money to pay the bills. Surprising as it may seem, musicians have the same responsibilities, worries, bills as everyone else. Music is their LIVELIHOOD. Presumably, you would want to be paid for any work you did so that you could pay YOUR bills. If enough music is stolen (and let's make no mistake, copying CDs and file-sharing is STEALING), then over the course of time we will have fewer musicians able to create and perform music (they won't be able to afford to) and we will ALL be worse of for it.



> The world wide web is world wide, so broad brush statements like this are ignorant. For instance, downloading is legal in the Netherlands.


Just because some countries have lax laws (and I learnt of the laxity of Dutch copyright law just recently in this very forum), that does make it right to steal.

Please think about it!


----------



## Krummhorn

Art Rock, I didn't know that about the Netherlands ... I suspected some European countries had more 'lucrative' laws than the US, but didn't know for sure until now. Thanks


----------



## Frasier

starry said:


> New stuff that comes out does need recompense for artists, perhaps there could be a tax on blank cds/dvds or recorders for that. Or maybe on broadband as most really get broadband so they can download stuff. Kind of like how libraries I think pay a copyright fee in some places.


It was once such with "CDs for Audio Use" when CD copying/recording happened on dedicated CD recorders - a royalty was prepaid on blank discs (although, how they distributed this royalty I haven't a clue). That's why those blanks were (and still are, for folks of good conscience who still buy them) more expensive.

I do believe breaking copyright is theft, though - the intent to deprive an artist permanently of earnings. And it can be likened to the theft of a car or shoplifting: it happens and people get away with it but someone usually pays whether the victim or shoppers or insurers as a whole.

According to the rule of law in the UK it's wrong/illegal...but only to those who subscribe to the rule of law, or are forced to abuse it: for instance, if an artist cannot survive because his earnings have been stolen by freeloaders, they might consider shoplifting food justified.


----------



## Frasier

Goodness, you can get a legitimate download for about $4 on Amazon! 
That helps to keep the art alive at least!


----------



## emiellucifuge

I would like to point some things out about the Dutch law.
Yes Art Rock is correct it is legal to download anything but it is ILLEGAL to provide/share/upload content. Even using a torrent in which you partially provide content to other downloaders is illegal. 

Secondly, I am opposed to some of these copyright laws on the basis that they are unenforceable. I am principally opposed to governments or corporations being allowed to gather information about your internet activity. This is a breach of privacy which is very important IMO. Crimes that can be perpetrated via the internet (i.e. child pornography, copyright stuff) should be dealt with at the source.


----------

