Well, there we go with a little revisionist history. I would claim that it was the peer to peer networks, and their explosive growth that finally forced the content industry to offer legal downloads. Only when they realized that their music was going to be offered on line no matter what actions they took (including suing Grandmothers and nine year olds) did they relent and offer legal downloads.

It would be fair to say that Apple offered the content industry that legal outlet, and in the service of the content industry massively speeded the public acceptance of DRM.

Well, whether or not the P2P networks "forced" the advent of legal downloads, the more important fact is that the content industries, and companies like Apple, leverage the Internet for legitimate business models. Would they have found out how to do this without your ruffian P2P copyright infringers. Yes... Who really thinks that in their days of novelty and glory, the outlaw P2P networks were "innovative" compared to the business and technological capabilities of companies like Apple? If they were, they would have banked their money on sustainable revenue streams. These P2P networks found their fame ripping off content creators and owners, and while they claimed to be pioneers in using innovative technologies, they based their piggy banks on furtively placing spyware on users' computers.

Well, I seek first to understand, and then to judge. I am not interested in clouding my analysis with value judgements. When you say "Whether or not the P2P networks "forced" you are in effect dismissing the analysis phase, saying only the illegality is important. I say simply this: conduct a dispassionate analysis, then judge.

Of course you're right that P2P was used for violating certain laws when it was used to trade music files...but that does not change the fact that this file trading created pressures on the content industry to provide legal downloads.

The content industry, BTW is not clean in it's behavior either, having tried to suppress the VCR for example. Or in their support for the DMCA, which many consider an affront to the Bill of rights. Or in their opposition to P2P networks themsleves, rather than pursuing only the illegal uses of those networks. They have a history of trying to outlaw technology, rather than actions.

Also, P2P can be used for many legal actions also. For example I download my Linux distribution using this technology, so the bandwidth costs are not born by the distro, but by my bandwidth, which I am, in effect, donating to my distro.

What is there to understand about outlaw P2Ps? The fact that you re-assert your statement about them "forcing" legitimate companies to adopt various business models shows that you're reaching for any and all justifications. The content industries and Apple developed their businesses because they could offer something to consumers, rather than to appease illegitimate P2Ps. Your intellectual orbit in logical reasoning doesn't change what has already happened.