Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[pseudoid]

Not foolish, certainly - in many realms what seems unthinkable becomes the norm, once it has been thought of.
....
I like your troll. No, I don’t purchase an object for an agreed-upon price and then go back and offer to pay more. It’s a thing. It is not intellectual property. But yes, I may go back to that store again the next time I need another thing, It is a way of rewarding the seller for providing a venue and product lineup that makes my life easier. That, too, is a moral imperative.

There is a place for capitalism, but it is not in our souls. There are values above what money can put a price on.

Your first insult was foolish; and looksey here... it now morphed into accusations of trolling?

If an artist thinks the place for capitalism is NOT with their artwork; they are welcome to give away or donate it for altruistic reasons.
I don't mind! Really!
Let us say, I like Picasso's artwork [ummm... I dunno... maybe his "Nature Morte, Crane, Ousins et Oignons"].

Are you trying to tell me that my purchase of such work is but a partial ownership?
Worse yet (due to your long but confusing justifications); You are indicating that I should be flush with guilt when I decide to sell for a (huge or small) gain?
What if I sell it for less than what I paid for it? Does Picasso Foundation owe me money?
hmmmm... I thought so!

 

[Ricardus]

A tablet is tangible, and a lot less expensive than a vinyl collection.

Seriously? This is your argument?

Here. Let me tell all the people who are into the vinyl resurgence what you had to say, and I'm sure they'll all just abandon their new hobby.

 

[pseudoid]

Seriously? This is your argument?

Here. Let me tell all the people who are into the vinyl resurgence what you had to say, and I'm sure they'll all just abandon their new hobby.

Get the popcorn ready; when/if this discussion extends to what to do with that 2K CD library, when that $2K CD player just kick the bucket.
Would pleading that I purchased them outright (and not on pay-per-play subscription or contract) exonerate me from that IP purgatory, if I decide to sell the whole shebang?

 

[levimax]

Get the popcorn ready; when/if this discussion extends to what to do with that 2K CD library, when that $2K CD player just kick the bucket.
Would pleading that I purchased them outright (and not on pay-per-play subscription or contract) exonerate me from that IP purgatory, if I decide to sell the whole shebang?

It is not complicated and has nothing to do with CD players. Owning a CD you gives you the right to play it and in the US the right to back it up. You also have the right to sell it and then the buyer gets the right to play it and back it up. After you sell a CD you no longer have a legal right to continue to play your backup. You may not like it but that is the law. Practically speaking nothing is going to happen if you continue to play the backup. Arguments about "bad" record companies or other grievances are not relavant. Not sure what else there is to say.... since nothing will happen whether you play or delete your backups it is a personal choice what you do but the terms you purchased the CD under are clear.

 

[EJ3]

It is not complicated and has nothing to do with CD players. Owning a CD you gives you the right to play it and in the US the right to back it up. You also have the right to sell it and then the buyer gets the right to play it and back it up. After you sell a CD you no longer have a legal right to continue to play your backup. You may not like it but that is the law. Practically speaking nothing is going to happen if you continue to play the backup. Arguments about "bad" record companies or other grievances are not relavant. Not sure what else there is to say.... since nothing will happen whether you play or delete your backups it is a personal choice what you do but the terms you purchased the CD under are clear.

Hypothetically: if your car CD player destroyed your original CD and you replaced your car CD player, are you allowed to use your back up to play the music that had been destroyed?

 

[levimax]

Hypothetically: if your car CD player destroyed your original CD and you replaced your car CD player, are you allowed to use your back up to play the music that had been destroyed?

Yes, at least in the US you are allowed to make and use backup copies if the original fails, laws vary from country to country.

 

[Sal1950]

Get the popcorn ready; when/if this discussion extends to what to do with that 2K CD library, when that $2K CD player just kick the bucket.
Would pleading that I purchased them outright (and not on pay-per-play subscription or contract) exonerate me from that IP purgatory, if I decide to sell the whole shebang?

IMO, Here's the problem in a nutshell.
"Artists" whether musicians, actors, painters, whatever, believe what they do has more value than anything anyone else does or can do.
Even the greatest surgeon in the world only gets paid once for your heart transparent, not again every day for the rest of the patient's life. And most of a "artists" product's value is simply a matter of opinion.
Amir can actually measure if the design engineer did a good job, who's to say if any one piece of "art" is good or not?
IP BLAH

 

[caught gesture]

IMO, Here's the problem in a nutshell.
"Artists" whether musicians, actors, painters, whatever, believe what they do has more value than anything anyone else does or can do.
Even the greatest surgeon in the world only gets paid once for your heart transparent, not again every day for the rest of the patient's life. And most of a "artists" product's value is simply a matter of opinion.
Amir can actually measure if the design engineer did a good job, who's to say if any one piece of "art" is good or not?
IP BLAH

And you decide what musicians, actors, painters, whatever, believe? Early in the thread you had decided that musical artists were paid too much so you could justify your theft. Now it’s another character problem with artists that justifies your theft. It’s not true that an artist’s product has an arbitrary value on it. The value is the price on the label along with the rules about copyright and distribution. Your opinion/taste is the arbitrary factor.
If I come to your property and decide to steal something because a) I think you have too much or b) I think you are arrogant and over value your contribution to society, you would probably call the police or start waving a gun around and insist I leave. Theft is theft.

 

[danadam]

Even the greatest surgeon in the world only gets paid once for your heart transparent, not again every day for the rest of the patient's life.

The difference is that you cannot replicate this heart transplant effortlessly and for free on other patients.

 

[Galliardist]

The IP laws are total BS and only fair to the performer, they've been on a gravy chain way too long while the public got screwed.
JMHO

IP laws favour the rich. Surprise? The vast majority of performers get paid once, and often not at all. Those violinists aren't on a share of the royalties, nor are the session musicians, and the artists that make 90% of what gets released get a few thousand dollars net. And have you seen what they get per stream or YouTube view?

 

[caught gesture]

The whole artist/performer remuneration arrangement is weighted in favour of monied interests. Money attracts money. I think the whole system needs a rewrite (and not just in the music industry). Theft is still theft as a moral position.

 

[antcollinet]

I am reminded of the anti copying adds shown in the pre-streaming era (especially before the feature in cinemas):

"You wouldn't steal a car...."

To which the obvious answer is:

"No, but I would download one"

 

[Albiepalbie]

T

Simple: sound quality.

Heresy, I realise, but I can only speak from my own experience which is this: after 20 years of pursuing the digital dream I decided to try some of my old records and was blown away by what I heard, compared to what I was used to for those past years: MUSIC. Toe tappingly, head bobbingly engaging MUSIC. And it was the same, again and again - each record I tried sounded way more enjoyable than the same digital album, particularly with an all analogue recording. Now I'm 95% vinyl and 5% digital in my active hi-fi listening.

Plus there is the pleasure of curating and caring for a collection, which you do not have with digital. It brings a connection to the music utterly missing from a digital collection and makes listening to music more of an event rather than just a background activity.

That’s all brilliant!
Whatever magic vinyl has when setup well is always at the mercy of that last hurdle
The quality of the pressing
I listen to mostly Classical- loud
The torture of the end of Mahlers 9th etc accompanied by ever louder click drove me mad plus wow and rumble could never get me back on that vinyl horse
I’ve got to like the realistic
bright crash of cymbals and the thump of bass drums too much now as well

 

[Galliardist]

The whole artist/performer remuneration arrangement is weighted in favour of monied interests. Money attracts money. I think the whole system needs a rewrite (and not just in the music industry). Theft is still theft as a moral position.

There's another side to this - there always is. The artist can't sell their music widely without the benefit of some kind of industrial base to do some of the work. At the end of the day, though, this is not a discussion that can be had without involving politics, which isn't allowed here, so I guess we have to get back to rumbling on about turntables.

 

[mppix]

IMO, Here's the problem in a nutshell.
"Artists" whether musicians, actors, painters, whatever, believe what they do has more value than anything anyone else does or can do.
Even the greatest surgeon in the world only gets paid once for your heart transparent, not again every day for the rest of the patient's life. And most of a "artists" product's value is simply a matter of opinion.
Amir can actually measure if the design engineer did a good job, who's to say if any one piece of "art" is good or not?
IP BLAH

IP laws protect the inventive process independent of profession that is not "frequent" by definition (you can decide to do ha heart transplant a day but you cannot decide to invent something whenever..). Patents for example protect intentions for a time and are credited to move a "secrets" based manufacturing, where core technologies were often "forgotten", to a manufacturer sharing information, and propelling innovation.

Of course, we can discuss if creating music qualifies as inventive process (or at least some types of it)
- Pop music production largely "industrialized." Germany's talk host Jan Boehmermann had monkeys in a Zoo write a pop song that made it into the single charts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menschen_Leben_Tanzen_Welt
You can easily do this also with AI.
- There is only a finite number of information that you can encode in a say 5min track in redbook quality (or whatever digital quality). Therefore, all possible solutions are known and are even cataloged https://libraryofbabel.info/
It is not relevant how large the number of possible songs are, artists only find and popularize "known" information.

 

[Sal1950]

The vast majority of performers get paid once, and often not at all. Those violinists aren't on a share of the royalties, nor are the session musicians, and the artists that make 90% of what gets released get a few thousand dollars net.

True, they get paid for the day they go to work, just like about 99% of everyone else in this world.
Don't hold a legal knive to my back and tell me the object I purchased today still belongs to you

Theft is still theft as a moral position.

Maybe, there is the point of how to approach a immoral law.

 

[Sal1950]

If I come to your property and decide to steal something because a) I think you have too much or b) I think you are arrogant and over value your contribution to society, you would probably call the police or start waving a gun around and insist I leave.

No, this is Florida, you WOULD get shot.

 

[EJ3]

No, this is Florida, you WOULD get shot.

South Carolina also. Many carry their guns when they are on their own property (cars are also their own property). Break in, get shot, no waiting for them to find the room or trunk where their gun might be.
Also in Saipan we managed to get the law on "No Carry whatsoever" changed to:
(a) A person may not carry a firearm, except as provided by this Division or Commonwealth law.
(b) A person lawfully in possession of a firearm may carry the firearm:
(1) Within the registrant's home or on land belonging to the registrant;
(2) On the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission;
(3) While it is being used for lawful sporting purposes, such as target practice at a shooting range or
shooting gallery;
(4) While it is being used for lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes with a license or permit while
engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing;
(5) While it is kept at the registrant's place of business; or
(6) While it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by § 209 of this Chapter or
federal law and in accordance with the requirements of said law.
Much better!

 

[pseudoid]

No, this is Florida, you WOULD get shot.

Not really worth the hassle; taking life in exchange for property << not the right kind of tit-for-tat!
But if you want to have some fun with some nutzo-bag, as @caught gesture's hypothetical case below:

If I come to your property and decide to steal something because a) I think you have too much or b) I think you are arrogant and over value your contribution to society, you would probably call the police or start waving a gun around and insist I leave. Theft is theft.

A painful tongue-lashing may be much more effective and enjoyable than even calling the cops...

 

[MattHooper]

From one nutso obsession to another, it seems.

I think if the USA adopted a "swap your guns for vinyl" policy it would be a much safer, happier, saner place to live