Even that’s not conveying how silly this is: in your analogy you’d at least have the option to natter on about how the vinyl sound was so much warmer and truer to the artist’s vision, as audiophiles have done for decades.
This is more or less you saying you paid for a receipt showing you paid to have a hash of the same MP3 everyone else is listening to.
It's one step beyond that; it's paying for some people on the internet to _pretend_ that you own the record. There is no actual literal transfer of ownership at all.
It's paying a lot of money for an unenforceable extra-legal claim to ownership of a slip of paper with directions to a building that may have once contained a not-at-all rare copy of a song that was only ever recorded as an mp3 to begin with.
This is more or less you saying you paid for a receipt showing you paid to have a hash of the same MP3 everyone else is listening to.