"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion item"
again.

A whole generation has missed out
on vinyl, which, for many, holds a deep fascination.

Clearly it does for you.

I'm also fascinated by obsolete audio technolgy, particularly those used
with pictures, such as the 4-track magnetic striped system used with 35mm
film from 1953 to the late 1970s. Far more fascinating than mere vinyl, IMO
:-).

David.

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion item"
again.

Urban Outfitters is a semi-fashionable store that sells clothes,
furnishings, etc to college students in the US. I was surprised to find
a small section of the shop given over to such 'obsolete' items as Holga
cameras, cheap turntables and high quality lps.

Stephen

A whole generation has missed out
on vinyl, which, for many, holds a deep fascination.

Clearly it does for you.

I'm also fascinated by obsolete audio technolgy, particularly those used
with pictures, such as the 4-track magnetic striped system used with 35mm
film from 1953 to the late 1970s. Far more fascinating than mere vinyl, IMO
:-).

David.

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion item"
again.

Urban Outfitters is a semi-fashionable store

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

that sells clothes,
furnishings, etc to college students in the US. I was surprised to find
a small section of the shop given over to such 'obsolete' items as Holga
cameras, cheap turntables and high quality lps.

What's a "Holga" camera? Come to that, what is a "high quality" LP?

There are things that have a cult following, that doesn't make them
"fashionable".

David.

On 16/02/2011 20:23, David Looser wrote:

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

As you're obviously *semi-literate* you'll probably never know.

"hunter" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2011 20:23, David Looser wrote:

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

As you're obviously *semi-literate* you'll probably never know.

Well, well, another smart-alec whose only use of newsgroups is to insult
others.

David.

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion item"
again.

Urban Outfitters is a semi-fashionable store

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

Not "high fashion". It's meant to be hip and has mock-vintage style
goods.

that sells clothes,
furnishings, etc to college students in the US. I was surprised to find
a small section of the shop given over to such 'obsolete' items as Holga
cameras, cheap turntables and high quality lps.

What's a "Holga" camera?

It's a cheap film camera that yields distorted but pleasing photos.

Come to that, what is a "high quality" LP?

High priced, 180 gram, expensive packaging (gatefolds, etc).

There are things that have a cult following, that doesn't make them
"fashionable".

In this case, lps and turntables are part of the overall hipster,
faux-vintage style.

Stephen

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion
item"
again.

Urban Outfitters is a semi-fashionable store

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

Not "high fashion". It's meant to be hip and has mock-vintage style
goods.

You need to be careful with the word "fashion" here. The term "high-fashion"
comes from the world of clothing, it cannot be used in any other context. I
think what you are trying to suggest is that the goods this store sells have
a cult following.

that sells clothes,
furnishings, etc to college students in the US. I was surprised to find
a small section of the shop given over to such 'obsolete' items as
Holga
cameras, cheap turntables and high quality lps.

What's a "Holga" camera?

It's a cheap film camera that yields distorted but pleasing photos.

Must be an American thing.

Come to that, what is a "high quality" LP?

High priced, 180 gram, expensive packaging (gatefolds, etc).

Ah, I wondered whether you meant the content was "high quality". I assume
that these LPs are new, not classic.

There are things that have a cult following, that doesn't make them
"fashionable".

In this case, lps and turntables are part of the overall hipster,
faux-vintage style.

Like I said, a cult following.

David.

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote

If it comes down to "the fashion item to have" then turntables are
a much stronger contender.

Really? I *very* much doubt that turntables will ever be a "fashion
item"
again.

Urban Outfitters is a semi-fashionable store

What does "semi-fashionable" mean?

Not "high fashion". It's meant to be hip and has mock-vintage style
goods.

You need to be careful with the word "fashion" here. The term "high-fashion"
comes from the world of clothing, it cannot be used in any other context. I
think what you are trying to suggest is that the goods this store sells have
a cult following.

No, I don't; yes, it can; and under your definition anything fashionable
has a cult following.

that sells clothes,
furnishings, etc to college students in the US. I was surprised to find
a small section of the shop given over to such 'obsolete' items as
Holga
cameras, cheap turntables and high quality lps.

What's a "Holga" camera?

It's a cheap film camera that yields distorted but pleasing photos.

Must be an American thing.

Chinese.

Come to that, what is a "high quality" LP?

High priced, 180 gram, expensive packaging (gatefolds, etc).

Ah, I wondered whether you meant the content was "high quality". I assume
that these LPs are new, not classic.

New lps, mostly 'classic' titles. The quality of the lps was odd
considering the quality of the turntables on which one would presumably
play them.

There are things that have a cult following, that doesn't make them
"fashionable".

In this case, lps and turntables are part of the overall hipster,
faux-vintage style.

Like I said, a cult following.

Or, "Fashion, a general term for a currently popular style or practice,
especially in clothing, foot wear or accessories."

Stephen

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

What do you mean by "use as you choose", Jim.

I mean that they provide the 'music' in a form like LPCM wave or Flac with
no DRM. They provide you with whatever sample rate and bitdepth you
choose.
And you are then free to use that as you choose. So might both have a
96k/24bit version to play on any computer-based system you own, or
generate
DVDs to play on your own players, or CDs, or make mp3s or aacs or whatever
*you* use for your *own* listening. An end to 'now buy another version'.

Wouldn't it be nice? Unfortunately as far as the copyright owners are
concerned their copyrights are assets to be milked. If they can make you pay
again and again for the same work why should they allow you to "use the
material as you choose"?

IMO the law of copyright is far too heavily weighted in the direction of the
copyright owners. I'm not justifying piracy (meaning the commercial
exploitation of another's work without permission) but I feel that the
present situation, where copyright owners can impose any restrictions they
like on your use of the legal copy you have bought goes too far. Have you
seen the list of limitations of use on DVDs? amongst the prohibitions is "no
lending". So you can't even legally lend a DVD you have bought to a friend.

I recently ordered a copy of an article from a 1941 issue of the JSMPTE via
the British Library. I was charged £10 for the copyright, over and above the
library fee, for a 7 page 70 year old article. It was delivered by Secure
Electronic Delivery, which means I could see it on their server, and print
it off, once, but not download it. I complained about this to the Library,
and mentioned that I had re-scanned the print-out to give myself a "soft"
copy. I received a stern rebuke from the Library's copyright dept who
pointed to the small print that said I was not allowed to store the document
in any electronic form. I'm afraid my reaction was not to apologise, but to
tell him that I thought the restriction was utterly unreasonable. Frankly,
what harm does it do to the copyright owner how I choose to store a
document?

No DRM or 'rights management'. They just get in the way of honest users,
and don't actually stop those seriously intent on piracy.

Agreed 100%. Copyright owners have long wanted the "magic bullet" that will
prevent others from copying their material, but the hackers always win. The
only long-term winners from DRM are the technology companies who convince
media companies to use their DRM technology.

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

What do you mean by "use as you choose", Jim.

I mean that they provide the 'music' in a form like LPCM wave or Flac
with no DRM. They provide you with whatever sample rate and bitdepth
you choose. And you are then free to use that as you choose. So might
both have a 96k/24bit version to play on any computer-based system you
own, or generate DVDs to play on your own players, or CDs, or make
mp3s or aacs or whatever *you* use for your *own* listening. An end to
'now buy another version'.

Wouldn't it be nice? Unfortunately as far as the copyright owners are
concerned their copyrights are assets to be milked. If they can make you
pay again and again for the same work why should they allow you to "use
the material as you choose"?

I agree that is the attitude that many clearly have. The reality, though,
is that it simply causes many people to switch to pirating and regarding
*any* payment as something to be avoided. So the problem is in the *if*
statement you used "*if* they can *make* you..."

The reality is that with music, they often can't. Now I *don't* personally
make loads of copies of any music and make them available 'free' for
others. But it is clear that many people *do* this.

The 'media companies' have been trying to stop water that runs downhill
from reaching the bottom of the hill for decades. Maybe they will wake up
and realise their attitude is *not* working before they go bust. Maybe they
won't. If not, I doubt most will miss then *if* the music continues to be
available. And it *will* - either in pirate versions that pay no-one
anything, or by methods more like the ones I described that *do* pass some
money on to the artists, etc.

IMO the law of copyright is far too heavily weighted in the direction of
the copyright owners.

I agree. It is a symptom of something that also features in Iain's response
to what I said. The companies confuse the container with the contained. You
want to buy the *music*. They want to sell you the ability to hear it via
an LP, a CD, a DVD, a...

Decades ago they could easily acheive this. Now they can't. So far as I can
see the decline of their big incomes are down to their not facing this
simple reality.

I recently ordered a copy of an article from a 1941 issue of the JSMPTE
via the British Library. I was charged £10 for the copyright, over and
above the library fee, for a 7 page 70 year old article. It was
delivered by Secure Electronic Delivery, which means I could see it on
their server, and print it off, once, but not download it. I complained
about this to the Library, and mentioned that I had re-scanned the
print-out to give myself a "soft" copy. I received a stern rebuke from
the Library's copyright dept who pointed to the small print that said I
was not allowed to store the document in any electronic form. I'm afraid
my reaction was not to apologise, but to tell him that I thought the
restriction was utterly unreasonable. Frankly, what harm does it do to
the copyright owner how I choose to store a document?

Again, I agree. Note also that quite often the creators of works in places
like journals or magazines either were paid nothing, or got a lump sum. So
they lose nothing if others much later copy the work *because they can't
get a legitimate copy at anything like a reasonable cost in time or effort
or cash*.

Personally, I'd prefer a change to copyright law that essentially gave the
publisher the 'fish or cut bait' choice after, say, a decade or two from
initial creation.

i.e. Anyone could request the publisher make a copy available at a cost in
line with the price during its original on-sale in-stock period (with
inflation allowed). If they failed to do this within a year, *anyone* else
could make a copy and sell at that price. Then offer a small percentage to
the those who owned the initial rights - or the creators. Take it or leave
it.

One of the worst aspects of the current are the 'orphan works' which no-one
dare republish for fear someone who is currently untracable will pop up and
demand 'damages' later on. Another is big companies who keep shedloads of
'rights to works' just to keep control of what is available to compete with
what they *do* publish and as 'captial' to flog to one another. Does the
creators and would-be customers no good at all.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html