"Ugly File Sharing Debate #2"
Ken Tamplin [the guy pictured at left] offers another take on the mp3/file sharing issue that Jason Milburn brought up with Issue #104's "Intermission" piece.
Many, many magazines keep asking me this question and I would like to put it
out to magazines as a personal statement.
I realize it's almost throat splitting on my behalf, but timely and
necessary nonetheless.
Mr. Tamplin, what do you think about the mp3 downloading controversy?
Well, this is obviously something I am going to get flack for but here goes.
Having music as my profession, do I feel "ripped off" when someone steals my
music and downloads it for free, sticking me with the bill of writing,
producing, performing and manufacturing this music, you bet 'cha.
Am I guilty myself? You bet 'cha.
So what do I do with this hypocrisy and apparent conflict of interest within
myself.
Let me put it this way;
Since the beginning of recorded music, music groups have been ripped off
blind of their royalties by their own record companies, managers and
producers since day one.
Isn't it a bit ironic (for the most part) that these "record label thieves"
are the very same record executives that are shouting "stop thief!" when
pointing to mp3 downloaders while their own hand is in the till? (this
doesn't in any way excuse the dowloader)
In addition, they have had a monopoly on the music industry far too long,
stifling considerable talent predicated on the fact these artists are no
longer under the age of 21 and have therefore become irrelevant and passe'.
Now a technology comes along that they can't get their arms around and yet,
this same technology through the internet, has provided the greatest vehicle
for media expansion imaginable. Again, ironic.
For the most part, you can find things that have been long out of print that
these labels weren't even offering. (could be a great source for revenue I
might add).
So what do we do? Sue our fans like Metallica considered?
Take college boys to jail for copyright infringement?
Why doesn't the industry embrace the technology and come up with interesting
ways to keep the "buying public" interested in buying, or do they need
someone creative to do that for them as well?
Sure that's it, get one of these creative thinking artists or software
designers to come up with a technology so they can steal the idea like any
good business mogul would do.
You see, then it's legal.
Oh Ken, you sound like you have an axe to grind. Actually, not really. I
don't make my living in the record industry anymore, I make my money in the
film industry (who by the way will be next in line for infringement). I am
just simply pointing out how we arrived here. We can ignore it, or we can
learn from it.
The way I see it is this; the technology is not going away, in fact, it's
increasing exponentially.
If it were me in the record company seat, I would come up with technologies
like, holographic music. Yes, live music video's recorded with holographic
video and 5.1 surround sound mixes like you were right there at the concert
or recording studio. Then use free mp3's as a teaser to sell the holography.
These files would be WAY too large to download (at least for now). Or how
about offering 8 channels digital mixers with the CD's so fans can actually
make their own mixes of their favorite artists. Intimate interactive
biographies. (like Reality TV hasn't taught us that some people actually
approachable people) Even throw in a couple of bonus tracks on the song
itself of the outtakes or multiple guitar solos that were never used. This
too would be way too large to download (for now). These are just simple off
the cuff ideas, not ingenious, but let's face the music, the technology is
here to stay.
So you see, it doesn't bother me that the technology is here. What bothers
me is how we are not using this technology in a constructive way.
-Ken Tamplin
www.kentamplin.com
Copyright ©2003 HM Magazine, LLC.
Return to Internet Exclusives
Comments
