I think that the RIAA must go after the dot com's that provide the venue for people to essentially steal online what they would buy in a store if they had more integrity--a cd is a cd, whether it is for sale in a store or online. Piracy is piracy, whether one is a child, an adult, or a senior adult. Doesn't matter. Where the RIAA errs, I think, is in not going after those who strategized profit from the file sharing piracy, and even in supporting those dealers in streaming who make money on subscriptions and allow unlimited streaming to happen online under the twist of legal verbiage---Napster, Rhapsody, etc. not any better than Kazaa. Musicians are being ripped off, and done in the privacy of some one's home is a rip off just as much as doing it in the store. You think you should be able to hide all manner of crime just because it's done in your home? The venues for piracy--file sharing being a nice term for grand theft-- not only profit, from, but encourage this kind of criminal behavior and create a convenient forum for it--their own market place where subscriptions are for sale and the merchandise black marketed--no integrity, no more sense, and no end in sight on these profiteering websites. How is the legal community, having proven itself corrupt as well and in so many ways, going to meet this challenge? Why are people afraid of loss of privacy and rights? Because the law and its enforcers have proven themselves corrupt as well. The only solution for musicians tired of being ripped off is to copy protect, copy protect, copy protect, because so many music lovers have proven that they are thieves who want to make their actions online more politically correct and euphemistic and use the twisted terms "legal" filesharing instead. Be honest with yourselves. A thief online is no different from a thief in the store, except s/he can claim "sanctuary" under human rights laws, laws that need to be changed quickly.