At the same time, the industry has responded to consumer demand by making its music available to a wide range of authorized online subscription, streaming and download services that make it easier than ever for fans to get music legally and inexpensively on the Internet. These services also offer music reliably, with the highest sound quality, and without the risks of exposure to viruses or other undesirable material.

Federal law and the federal courts have been quite clear on what constitutes illegal behavior when it comes to "sharing" music files on the Internet. It is illegal to make available for download copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owner. Court decisions have affirmed this repeatedly. In the recent Grokster decision, for example, the court confirmed that Grokster users were guilty of copyright infringement. And in last year's Aimster decision, the judge wrote that the idea that "ongoing, massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of copyrighted works somehow constitutes 'personal use' is specious and unsupported."

It's certainly more up in the air than that - see the last portion of the LA Times story cited above - but the hour of reckoning is upon us, and soon we will know much more about digital copyright law than we do now, than ANYONE knows now.

I want to see creators get paid - no question - but I don't believe the RIAA's current path - or indeed the state of copyright, especially digital copyright - is in the public's or the creative sector's ultimate interest.