They sure do. They have their foundation in the Golden Rule: He who has the Gold rules.
If the fileservers had advertising or fees I could see a "profit" but where is the profit being made "trading" files?
I'm an outside observer in all of this (I don't download tracks).
The guy selling mixtapes at the corner store is making a profit but for 20 years, the industry has generally turned a blind eye to that practice too.
Certainly the industry accepted the practice of making a mix tape and GIVING it to a friend. Taping off the radio wasn't a crime either.
The industry eventually got a tax levied on blank cassettes (even though there is no justification of which artists to share that revenue with).
There is no profit involved in file-SHARING.
Besides which, file-sharing is a violation of a malum prohibitum law, meaning it is wrong only because there is law against it, in contrast to a malum in se law, meaning the act (such as murder) is wrong in and of itself.
The current music distribution system developed when the technology for mass reproduction of music was limited to pressing grooves into vinyl disks. The music industry was providing a valuable service to the artists and the listeners because of the large capital investment required to create recordings.
Times have changed. Modern computer technology allows anybody with a PC to record and distribute music, be it music they recorded themselves or music they copied from a commercial source.
People like you want to enforce obsolete business models on modern technology. You want technology to adapt to the law, rather than force businesses to adapt to technology.
If people like you have their way, in ten years it will be illegal to own a general-purpose computer. You will only be able to purchase digital-rights management appliances that, first and foremost, protect obsolete industries, like the recording industry, from modern technology.
Gutting technology available to ordinary people seems like a mighty high price to pay to protect sleazebags like music promoters, but I guess your prefer protecting the obsolete business model of sleazebags to allowing ordinary people to have full access to the most advanced technology possible.
In addition, Supreme Court justices must be required to define an MP3 or AVI. I wouldn't be surprised if at least four justices think that an MP3 is a type of assault weapon.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about border security than pimple-faced 15-year-olds downloading an *exclusive*, not-yet-released Britney Spears track off the internet.
I agree. Who is doing this for profit?