Plantation or the Law of Private Agreements?

Link: Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: Meanwhile, back at the plantation. Nick writes a populist post for the Internet masses (musicians in this case) which is not exactly what you might expect from him. It is quite well done and manages to "pull at the heart strings" for the little guy (in all sincerity it does). And while many us have similar sentiments for the "sharecroppers" of the world (either having been among them or watched our parents labor in those fields)--the argument Nick makes is fatally flawed.

The musicians who "licensed their works" did so obviously because they thought that they would benefit from doing so. The fact that the other party to the "contract" benefited more, leaves them no real room to complain. This does not have the markings of a "contract of adhesion" where the "little guys" had no other alternative but to sign on the dotted line. They freely entered into a private agreement. Private agreements (i.e. contracts) control most of what occurs in the business world on a daily basis. They allocate risk, not after the fact, but at the time the contract is made. Sans some kind of illegality or fraud, they are a critical part of the legitimate engine that drives commerce as we know it.

Aren't book publishers a kind of plantation owner? Large corporations? Newspapers? The point is that we can't start denying a party the benefit of the bargain without it having much broader implications with respect to the society in which we live. A society (despite its shortcomings) that has produced arguably the best standard of living, for the most people, that the world has ever known. It can and should be improved. There are iniquities in the distribution of wealth that "scream for a solution" in a civilized society, BUT contract doctrine is not the place to muck with "social engineering" experiments.