Yesterday we covered RIAA President Cary Sherman's idea to move content filtering out of the network and onto the home computer. His goal is to avoid the encryption that will likely make network filtering useless, but the idea of convincing users to install some sort of RIAA-approved monitoring application on their computers is one that needs a little more time in the oven. Now, the RIAA tells Ars that Sherman was "simply musing" and that the group has no specific home filtering agenda to push.

An RIAA spokesperson who attended Sherman's panel discussion tells us that Sherman "was simply musing in response to a question that required it. He was not proposing or suggesting anything specific but speaking in the abstract about a few general ideas."

On one hand, this is excellent news; there's no official push to start peering inside everyone's PCs. But on the other hand, the fact that this sort of plan is what comes out when RIAA bosses start "musing" tells you something about the way they instinctively approach these sorts of problems. It's not just Sherman, though; music's international trade group feels exactly the same way about filters, and it's willing to call for a government mandate.

But in our view, the solution to the illicit use of intellectual property cannot just be ratcheting the thumbscrews tighter; at some point, any success that this approach achieves will be offset by widespread user outrage and a legitimate anger at not being in control even of their own machines.

The problem isn't that filtering won't be 100 percent accurate. As Sherman rightly pointed out in his remarks, we do all sorts of things to prevent crime in our society, and none are 100 percent effective; many even carry some risk that innocent people will be inconvenienced or even thrown in jail. No, the real issue is that filtering won't work until the thumbscrews are so tight that blood is pouring from people's hands. Should that day ever come, the revolucíon won't be far behind.

Network filtering won't work; Sherman knows it and said as much in his remarks. While perhaps initially successful, encryption will stymie deep packet inspection techniques and will be built into all major P2P clients. The Pirate Bay has already announced plans to tweak the BitTorrent protocol to include such encryption.

So the filtering police need to move to the edges of the network, into a user's computer. But even here, things will be tricky. When all you need to do is boot a free OS (Linux) inside free virtual PC software to do unlimited file-swapping, we've traded quite a bit of privacy and freedom in return for something that won't stop piracy.

And how would the software know what to look for? The whole point of putting the filter on the client machine is that it can examine media files after decryption; but after decryption, when the files are simply stored in a user's media library, the software can't tell whether they are legal or not. The problems go on and on.

Yes, filtering might create a "speedbump," especially for less tech-savvy users, but only through draconian implementations of the sort that would never be tolerated in other law enforcement situations. Would you let the FBI install tracking software on every PC in the country to look for encrypted e-mails promoting terrorism?

While data on the effect of P2P use is conflicted, several important studies have shown that it's not killing the music business in the ways that are generally assumed. In 2006, for instance, we noted a study (funded by CRIA, Canada's equivalent of the RIAA) that actually showed 75 percent of file-swappers purchasing music that they had first downloaded illicitly. Another well-known study in 2007 found that P2P's effect on music sales was "not statistically distinguishable from zero." Maybe the bogeyman just isn't that scary?

Given that filtering isn't going to work unless we're willing to become a copyright police state, the industry needs to keep up its (laudable) experiments in music distribution instead. Things like Nokia's "Comes With Music" are interesting experiments, as are the free streaming from iMeem and Last.fm. And would it kill someone to offer the same product found on a CD (lossless digital music) as a download for $8 an album? Or what about charging $15 a month for a blanket license to download content and play it on portable devices? I'd pay.

What we need is better business models, not tighter thumbscrews.