Lately I've noticed something we'll call The Fairness Principle. Fairness is a recurring theme in music news. Much of the record industry acts as if the most fair business model is also the best business model. This is a problem because the "fairest" business model may not necessarily be the best model, and a concept of fairness has shaped everything from licensing deals to squabbles over royalties to determined adherence to DRM.

Artists and labels' idea of fairness is quite different than consumers' idea of the concept. Fair, to businesses, is determined by the means the music acquired and the amount that was paid. But what is the goal here? Is the goal to maximize fairness or to maximize profits?

In the age of file-sharing and easy piracy, the fairness principle tells us the best business model is the one that prevents the greatest amount of piracy. In context of Radiohead's tip jar release, this definition of fairness classifies a successful album release as the one with the greatest percentage of paying downloaders. But a model that maximizes the paid-to-downloaded ratio may not make the most money. The two goals, fairness and profit, might not work in concert.

After his tip jar release of an album by Saul Williams, Trent Reznor admitted he was disheartened by the low percentage of people who downloaded the album and paid for it. Williams made a good amount of money from the release -- relative to what a typical release would have generated -- but the number of freeloaders affected how Reznor felt about its success. For the latest Nine Inch Nails release, he tweaked the model by giving away an abridged version and charging a small amount for the full album. And he openly embraced file sharers, those scourges of the fairness principle.

Digital Music News' Paul Resnikoff referred to this issue. "Most likely, fans will grab the first, free volume of the album in heavy numbers, and a smaller percentage will pay for the expanded collection," he wrote. "Sure, Reznor seeded the first volume onto BitTorrent. But who are we kidding? Fans are in charge of this channel, not Reznor."

Reznor has put aside most concerns about fairness and has concentrated on a practical goal: Generate as much revenue as possible while getting the music into as many hands as possible. Is it fair that some people will take the entire album on file-sharing networks? Maybe, maybe not, but a business model that is constructed upon one party's definition of fairness is probably not going to achieve the best result. Reznor understands the futility in fighting file sharing and he knows he can sell his music in spite of file sharing.

The economist Milton Friedman said a corporation's overriding purpose is to generate as much profit as possible for its shareholders. Judging from his views on a corporation's obligation to society, Friedman probably worried less about the subjective definitions of fairness and more about cash. Even though the tables are turned in this case -- the corporation, not society, is concerned with fairness -- I think Friedman would have encouraged music companies to stop fretting about fairness and just do good for shareholders.

Without a doubt, the concept of fairness influences how companies set prices and policies. Businesses insist upon fair margins, fair prices and fair contracts. It will be difficult, but music companies need to approach the new digital marketplace with an unemotional eye towards profit and growth. Keep fairness out of it.