I really enjoyed this debate as not only someone very invested in 'internet culture' as it forms but as a Music Business grad. I do have to side with +Alexis Ohanian
's comments as the debate hopefully was about 'innovation' over blaming and finger pointing. Sadly, that's where this debate usually leads.
I think it boils down to Taplin and those who would support his opinion not truly understanding what they're trying to protect. Are they trying to protect the artist... or the record labels? Protecting older artists... or new artists? Most of the advance money given by major labels to new artists is spent on production of the album. Sure, the artist gets to keep the remainder but that's usually VERY little. With the exception of an elite few artists with pull, the artist MAY get a small cut of the record sales. The first rule of a new artist working with a label is to have production/pub. credits or you're getting screwed. Older artists were screwed from the get go with the deals the record companies gave them back then, recently spotlighted by the Lester Chambers story on reddit.
So... who is the OG
entity with advantage here? The record industry could get away with such things before the advent of internet distribution because they controlled the major channels. We now know the lines are blurring... the consumer has DIRECT power. And it is well documented that we (the consumer) can and will support monetarily and beyond the products and causes we want to. The longer folks like Taplin keep the blinders on and claim to protect artists by means of enforcing an outdated industry the more casualties we'll continue to have. Teach people to work within the new framework because it's NOT going away any time soon.