would have to give students an alternative to file-sharing while evaluating technological measures (i.e., traffic shaping, deep packet inspection) that they could deploy to thwart P2P traffic on campus networks. Many—if not most—schools already closely monitor traffic on their networks, with some (e.g., Ohio University) blocking it altogether, and the bill would provide grants to colleges so they could evaluate different technological solutions.

The most objectionable part of the bill is the part that could force schools into signing up for music subscription services. In order to keep that beloved federal aid money flowing, universities would have to "develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property."

I must say passing a law to force someone else to market your business is a somewhat unique idea.

Now, the recording industry is not asking schools to do all the work for them. The industry will still play the role of judge and jury. A letter from the Association of American Universities points out that the law would also require the schools to publish a list of top 25 violators

that does not reflect a universal consensus of violations, nor even an appropriately designed random sample of violations. Rather, the recording industry gets to decide who is a "violator."

Well, at least the industry is willing do some of the work.

The recording industry should stop fighting the last war. The Internet provides for new models of business and there is plenty of money to be made - if they adapt. If they continue on this path of adversarial relationships with their customers, more and more artists will finds ways to distribute their music without them.