Radiohead and Philosophy - Brandon W. Forbes [63]
Go Slowly
Now, what would Rawls say about Rainbows? It’s a very different case, of course, but I think we can see a few places where Rawls’s discussion of distributive justice helps us think about how In Rainbows might help us go slowly towards finding a good solution here.
Can we give everybody the right to listen to music as they please, and to download and share music as they see fit? In other words, to have the right to enjoy music as a part of our culture, rather than as part of an industry?
Let’s look back at Rawls’s first principle. Rawls thinks we should all hold whatever liberties can be given alike to everybody. Back when only a big record label would be able to support, develop, and promote artists, we, arguably, couldn’t all hold this right, because it interfered with the centralized machinery necessary to create that music. Back then, it very well might have made sense to say that it was dangerous and harmful to undermine the standard album-as-consumer-good model. Now, though, many other models are viable, and we can’t claim that it’s irresponsible to suggest to fans that the relationship between listening to artists and supporting artists is negotiable, and might take various different forms. We might want to say instead that we all now ought to have the right to listen, to rip, to share, and to burn.
Where does that leave the artist? Well, it leaves the artist looking for new ways to support herself. Is that fair to the artist? Maybe it doesn’t seem like it is, but, on Rawls’s view, we can’t justify limiting the freedom of others unless it benefits them in the end, and the old model of restricting listeners just isn’t a necessary limit anymore. Models like those that Rainbows point us towards can allow artists to survive and support themselves without doing so at the expense of fans’ free relationship to music.
I say the same thing here as I said above about affirmative action. Is this fair to everybody? No, probably not—but, hey, it turns out the world isn’t fair, and that just means we need to figure out which claims about fairness are more important. And, in my view, having a free relationship to music, and to culture in general, is more important than ensuring that musicians can keep making money in the way they have been. Musicians made a living before the DRM-restricted download, before the CD, before the tape, the 8-track, and before vinyl as well. What we stand to lose is not music, or the possibility of making a living as a musician—what we stand to lose is only the narrowly commodified relationship to music that has been in place for the last few decades or so. And good riddance, I say.
Labels certainly don’t need to wither and die either. When the way that we think about rights changes, this can certainly force some people with legitimate claims into unfortunate positions. For example, after the Emancipation Proclamation, I’m sure there were a good deal of Southern plantation owners who were upset about the way that their business model had been undermined. And why not?—they were conducting business on the basis of what had been the law. But rights are more important than profits, and the farmers who lost their slave labor adapted or went under.
As our thoughts about the rights of listeners change, labels need to adapt to the new environment. They need to start to think of their business as providing services rather than products. They, in the end, are in the business of finding, developing, and promoting musical talent and creativity. As artists find new ways to support themselves, labels—no longer the only show in town, so to speak—will have to find new ways to provide valuable services to musicians.