"I Swapped Spotify for Vinyl and It Changed My Life"

[krabapple]

The existing US copyright laws are aimed at the practice of giving/selling copies you made, to others. That goes back to the LP/cassettes era.
Doing that is illegal here, full stop.

But by extension, your bought disc is a 'copy' too, meaning rip-then-sell-the-disc would be illegal too(Even if you don't get back anywhere near the $$ value you paid for it.)(Again, that's here in the USA. Copyright laws vary around the world)).

Good luck enforcing it!

The objection from the RIAA to digital copies was aimed most famously at file sharing sites (Napster) when those sites starting drinking their milkshake. The RIAA didn't really go after used CD stores and the people who patronized them. The Discogs market thrives to this day, along with all the other resale markets. Basically the industry looks the other way, pretending no one copies and sells. They've also all but conceded that their 'copy protections' are failures, witnessed by their failure to pursue on that score. (Or, show me any who have been prosecuted for rip-and-sell?)

But the issues are interesting.

Like, what if your hard copy fails?
What does a legal beagle say?

In addition to making a backup copy of software, it is legal to make a backup copy of a CD or DVD so that you can continue to enjoy the copyrighted material if your original copy fails. It is illegal to make copies of CDs or DVDs if you intend to distribute them to third parties, even by giving them away. Additionally, in some instances it may be unlawful to circumvent anti-piracy technology in order to make a backup copy of a CD or DVD.

OK, so that covers 'failure' but what if you lose your beloved disc to fire, tsunami, dog ate it, cat peed on it, ex-lover took it, simple carelessness? Bye bye rips until you buy a new copy? I think not.

What if you just throw away your CDs? In an ecologically sensitive way, of course.

The industry has also struggled for years with the concept of copies being worse/less valuable than the originals. For example, back in the LP day there was sympathy for the argument that cassette copies sounded so obviously inferior to LPs, it wasn't something to go crazy about if Jim Anchower made a tape of Destroyer to play in his Festiva then sold his LP for weed money.

But industry was far less tolerant of mp3, even though the Napster era files could sound quite crappy indeed. Why the difference? Because it was so damn easy to share those files.

As for 'me do me'....I still have my boxes and boxes of CDs in a closet, all in their nice little CD envelopes I printed their names on. The booklets occupy yet more boxes. Separate boxes for SACDs and DVDAs too. I prolly couldn't sell them if I wanted to, since I'd have to buy cases for them again first.

But if I sell an SACD, but keep my PCM rip of it, and The Man come for me, I'll get some audiophile lawyer to argue my rip is obviously inferior to the real thing.

 

[EJ3]

I may have luck that most people arround me do activly listen to music, altough other music than most here. And many have quiet deliberate systems.

My girlfriend for instance boutght expensive speakers and so, and actively listen to it a lot (we both don't own a tv), altough very often other music than i would play (we have a very different cultural background). And i often go to friends to listen to music also. We sit in a room or outside when possible and listen and discuss music. But many of my friends are musicians or dj's or producers (and often the mix of those). And very often these system (mainly the speakers) are diy or custom made, not something you can buy in a store.

Mainstream people mainly use music as background noise altough...

We have not had a TV since 2007. But my wife dislikes music (even from her native land). Not even as background noise, at home or in the car.
So, when she goes for groceries or goes to exercise with my mother, is when I listen to music. It's only critical listening in the sense that I need to hear some music.
When I was young, I was a radio DJ from 1975-86. And no, that did not make me sick of music. My wife says that she worked in too many places where music was on all the time & she's sick of hearing it.

 

[EJ3]

And later you say you don't use the laptop connected to your system.

So, what music delivery do you actually use? Discs? AVR-based streaming?

(You don't have to literally sit in front of a laptop, in order to play music from it. Apps exist to control playback software from your phone.)

In my case (not that I would stream anyway [unless its from my own NAS {which is the point I want to get to next year, maybe}).
But nothing on a phone is an option where I live, as there is no phone signal here (thank God). It's hard enough for me dealing with people who come by that don't understand that having a dead 5 or 6 ft. snake on the gate is meant to keep them from coming over.

 

[Jokke]

Tidal SQ is much superior to any vinyl. As an audiophile, I can't stand the ticks and pops of vinyl. I do listen to vinyl, but only occasionally.
Sound Quality is too important for me, to waste time on something like vinyl.

 

[Mart68]

Well, also as long as the CD doesn't succumb to disc rot.

That only affected a few discs from I think two pressing plants, over a short period of time in the 1980s. I only have one that suffered. Replacing it cost me £2.50. It's a non-issue.

 

[Newman]

The existing US copyright laws are aimed at the practice of giving/selling copies you made, to others. That goes back to the LP/cassettes era.
Doing that is illegal here, full stop.

But by extension, your bought disc is a 'copy' too, meaning rip-then-sell-the-disc would be illegal too(Even if you don't get back anywhere near the $$ value you paid for it.)(Again, that's here in the USA. Copyright laws vary around the world)).

Good luck enforcing it!

The objection from the RIAA to digital copies was aimed most famously at file sharing sites (Napster) when those sites starting drinking their milkshake. The RIAA didn't really go after used CD stores and the people who patronized them. The Discogs market thrives to this day, along with all the other resale markets. Basically the industry looks the other way, pretending no one copies and sells. They've also all but conceded that their 'copy protections' are failures, witnessed by their failure to pursue on that score. (Or, show me any who have been prosecuted for rip-and-sell?)

But the issues are interesting.

Like, what if your hard copy fails?
What does a legal beagle say?


OK, so that covers 'failure' but what if you lose your beloved disc to fire, tsunami, dog ate it, cat peed on it, ex-lover took it, simple carelessness? Bye bye rips until you buy a new copy? I think not.

What if you just throw away your CDs? In an ecologically sensitive way, of course.

The industry has also struggled for years with the concept of copies being worse/less valuable than the originals. For example, back in the LP day there was sympathy for the argument that cassette copies sounded so obviously inferior to LPs, it wasn't something to go crazy about if Jim Anchower made a tape of Destroyer to play in his Festiva then sold his LP for weed money.

But industry was far less tolerant of mp3, even though the Napster era files could sound quite crappy indeed. Why the difference? Because it was so damn easy to share those files.

As for 'me do me'....I still have my boxes and boxes of CDs in a closet, all in their nice little CD envelopes I printed their names on. The booklets occupy yet more boxes. Separate boxes for SACDs and DVDAs too. I prolly couldn't sell them if I wanted to, since I'd have to buy cases for them again first.

But if I sell an SACD, but keep my PCM rip of it, and The Man come for me, I'll get some audiophile lawyer to argue my rip is obviously inferior to the real thing.

You can get legal advice on all your new hypotheticals, but no need to do so for your original assertion: one cannot legally sell or give away one's CDs and keep the rips.

I don't think "good luck enforcing it" is appropriate here either.

cheers

 

[rdenney]

Even a CD that won’t play is a license to listen to the backup copy you made, as long as you possess it. When you sell a CD after ripping it, two people now have the CD’s contents though only one paid for it. That’s the key determinant of copyright law interpretation: did it deprive the copyright holder of a sale? You know the answer to that.

Rick “ethics don’t care if it’s unenforceable—but automated enforcement is just a matter of technology” Denney

 

[Mart68]

Even a CD that won’t play is a license to listen to the backup copy you made, as long as you possess it. When you sell a CD after ripping it, two people now have the CD’s contents though only one paid for it. That’s the key determinant of copyright law interpretation: did it deprive the copyright holder of a sale? You know the answer to that.

Rick “doesn’t care if it’s unenforceable—but automated enforcement is just a matter of technology” Denney

In the UK it is illegal to make a copy for any purpose - as a back up, to play in the car, whatever.

As stated, the law is unenforceable. Just like the drug laws - only yesterday I walked past some people smoking weed openly on the street, even though technically you can get seven years in prison for possession of any amount, it is a commonplace occurrence now.

The question as to whether we should disregard unenforceable or stupid laws is complex. To my mind if you're going to break one law by making a copy you might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb and just sell the CDs you've copied.

 

[Bloomer]

Well, streaming music is gratingly awful, spotify hurts my ears. Severe listener fatigue. I haven't heard their FLAC or whatever it is version; not interested. Liking the smoother sound of vinyl is understandable. I have 3 tube amps and like them, maybe because they're smooth, have pleasant decay characteristics and leave out microphonics good SS amps clearly reveal. Easy to listen to for hours. Apply that to vinyl, add in cartridge, tonearm and phono amp characteristics and you've got something with it's own sound.

Digital recordings can easily be mastered for musical sound. Mass market one week half life stuff with 2 dB dynamic range, hot mix, mickey mouse boing boing voice filters and all the other travesties, really don't represent what can be done with the medium.

Quite honestly, I doubt most people have never heard high fidelity audio. My system is not the best but good enough that almost everyone who hears it for the first time says "Wow! I've never heard anything like that!" We've been oversold on convenience, can't turn off that phone for fear we miss a notification!

Whatever floats your boat!

 

[Waxx]

In the UK it is illegal to make a copy for any purpose - as a back up, to play in the car, whatever.

As stated, the law is unenforceable. Just like the drug laws - only yesterday I walked past some people smoking weed openly on the street, even though technically you can get seven years in prison for possession of any amount, it is a commonplace occurrence now.

The question as to whether we should disregard unenforceable or stupid laws is complex. To my mind if you're going to break one law by making a copy you might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb and just sell the CDs you've copied.

in the EU it's legal as long as you keep the original (whatever medium it is), and don't spread it. But in reality there is no control but on dj's who play digital (and even there very minimal). If you sell cd's you need to delete the digital copies from it to be legal or buy a legal digital file in stead.

But most artist earn most on vinyl sales, so they prefer if you buy the vinyl pressings of their music. Streaming earns them little to no money, it only creates fame that leads to paying concerts and merchandise sale. CD's are a bit in the middle.

 

[rdenney]

That only affected a few discs from I think two pressing plants, over a short period of time in the 1980s. I only have one that suffered. Replacing it cost me £2.50. It's a non-issue.

I've been buying CD's since about 1984, when I could afford a CD player and had the time to use it. When I went through my library to rip them so I could play them in the car, I found only two that Exact Audio Copy rejected, but both of these ripped with no audible effects just using Music Bee. (Exact Audio Copy is extremely rigorous about repeatability, and disc rot affects bit-level repeatability first.)

CDR's from live music field recordings, of which I have many, is another matter, but even if one is flaky in one player, I have another player that will probably be able to play it.

Rick "would expect to lose the license to play the music if the CDs were lost in a house fire" Denney

 

[Petrushka]

I have always listened primarily to “classical”. Spotify has allowed me to sample old music (pre baroque). I’m not even sure this music is even available on vinyl. If it is, I couldn’t afford to buy it.

Any decent media is good enough to let you listen through to the music, if you are interested in music.

 

[Waxx]

Classical on vinyl is almost not done anymore, because the format does not suit the music. I love vinyl and have thousands of records, but for classical it's 100% high res digital, even if i have actually some classical vinyl records that i inherited from my grandfather. I'm not selling those, but i never listen to them.

But most other styles, i like it on vinyl, but in reality i use both high res digital files and vinyl, depending on what, when and why...

And yes, vinyl is technical inferior to digital, but not on entertainment level (at least for me and many). If it doesn't fit you, you have the choice to go full digital. But you don't have to to enjoy music. And for many the whole vinyl thing bring way more joy than digital, even if it's technically inferior. And it's the joy that matters for enjoying music, not the numbers and specs.

 

[krabapple]

Well, streaming music is gratingly awful, spotify hurts my ears. Severe listener fatigue.

Oh come on.

*If* dynamic range compression and/or EQ is applied by the streamer, sure, it could make things sound bad (or better).

Extreme lossy data compression could make it sound bad, but no service today that I know of uses extreme lossy data compression.
At the rates streaming services use, lossy compression is basically inaudible. To basically everyone.

That leaves the mastering of the music, which is at the whim of the original producers, not the streamer.

To condemn all 'streaming music' as suffering from 'gratingly awful' sound, is simply not supported. It's prejudice.

 

[krabapple]

You can get legal advice on all your new hypotheticals, but no need to do so for your original assertion: one cannot legally sell or give away one's CDs and keep the rips.

It's a darn good thing I didn't assert that, offissa

I wrote 'I could get rid of' particularly with my understanding of the intent of copyright law, in mind.

And it was in simple response to a post about physical media being irrevocable blah blah compared to files, and has now gone off into other argumentative weeds.

krab 'in classic ASR fashion' apple

 

[krabapple]

in the EU it's legal as long as you keep the original (whatever medium it is), and don't spread it. But in reality there is no control but on dj's who play digital (and even there very minimal). If you sell cd's you need to delete the digital copies from it to be legal or buy a legal digital file in stead.

But most artist earn most on vinyl sales, so they prefer if you buy the vinyl pressings of their music. Streaming earns them little to no money, it only creates fame that leads to paying concerts and merchandise sale. CD's are a bit in the middle.

In a sane world, the compensation/royalty structure for artists would incorporate the strong possibility of copying, as well as resale of used physical media.

The industry would fight that with every tool at its disposal. (And it would raise costs for the precious late capitalism consumer.)

 

[Chrispy]

Me, too. But I sit at a laptop at work every day. I don’t need or want to do that when relaxing at home. Even my YouTube-watching room only has an Apple TV box. I installed a laptop on my main listening system to record and play digital files, but it hasn’t been turned on in over a year.

Rick “the desire to escape keyboards has been a Covid after-effect” Denney

Ah, am retired for quite a while so the computer/various devices are just for what I want to do, a lot of it is queuing music as well as video. I use various devices/apps to direct digital wirelessly around the house. The only old analog thing I have is a rarely used tt, so usually info about the artist/album is easier accessed on such devices rather than sit in a room with only a tt and vinyl cardboard holders Altho have done plenty of that otoh, just rarely in recent years. Overall I fully understand getting away from the office, in my day it was a ton of phone work and I tend just not to use a phone (as a phone) much these days.

 

[Bloomer]

Oh come on.

*If* dynamic range compression and/or EQ is applied by the streamer, sure, it could make things sound bad (or better).

Extreme lossy data compression could make it sound bad, but no service today that I know of uses extreme lossy data compression.
At the rates streaming services use, lossy compression is basically inaudible. To basically everyone.

That leaves the mastering of the music, which is at the whim of the original producers, not the streamer.

To condemn all 'streaming music' as suffering from 'gratingly awful' sound, is simply not supported. It's prejudice.

It's my opinion. I'm very well aware of how music is constructed and know what good sound is. I've been building audio equipment for half a century. If you like how spotify sounds, OK; tracks I've listened to that I have on CD aren't even a little bit close the the CD's. Maybe the CD's are awful and mp3's rock?
Peace!

 

[krabapple]

It's my opinion. I'm very well aware of how music is constructed and know what good sound is. I've been building audio equipment for half a century. If you like how spotify sounds, OK; tracks I've listened to that I have on CD aren't even a little bit close the the CD's. Maybe the CD's are awful and mp3's rock?
Peace!

It's not about how music is constructed.
It's not about CDs vs mp3's -- and mp3s aren't a single thing anyway (there are different encoders and different quality levels) nor is mp3 the only lossy audio format (Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, while Apple Music uses AAC, for example)
Maybe you could learn more about streaming?

 

[Bloomer]

It's not about how music is constructed.
It's not about CDs vs mp3's -- and mp3s aren't a single thing anyway (there are different encoders and different quality levels) nor is mp3 the only lossy audio format (Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, while Apple Music uses AAC, for example)
Maybe you could learn more about streaming?

Maybe you'll find peace some day.
Happy holidays.