A reminder of the site’s outlaw status is splashed up on the site’s front page right now, in the form of a feature promoting “DJ Joel’s $675,000 Mixtape,” which is supposedly “Approved by the RIAA,” the U.S. lobbying/litigating arm of the big music labels.

It’s not approved by the RIAA, of course. Instead, the feature steers visitors to a page that where they can illegally download 30 songs that just cost grad student Joel Tenenbaum $675,000. That’s the amount a federal jury decided he owed the RIAA after being found guilty of copyright violations for sharing the tunes via a filesharing network.

It’s the kind of cheeky move The Pirate Bay revels in and one of the reasons the Web site has such a large and devoted base of users. The main reason, of course, is that The Pirate Bay is a huge repository for free, illegal copies of movies, music, games.

That’s supposedly going to stop after August 27, when Global Gaming Factory X, a Swedish software/Internet cafe outfit, says it will go through with plans to buy the site, and then try to make it legal.

As I’ve explained before, there’s no chance that will happen.

Even if the deal really goes through, the only way The Pirate Bay’s users will stick around is if they can continue to grab whatever they want, whenever they want. And there’s no way the big music labels and movie studios and videogame companies, et al, are going to go for that.

But it will be interesting to watch!

In the meantime, here’s the track listing for the 30 songs that landed Tenenbaum in trouble. I’m pretty sure most of them are available at Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes store:

01 – Incubus – New Skin
02 – Green Day – Minority
03 – Outkast – Wheelz of Steel
04 – Incubus – Pardon Me
05 – Nirvana – Come As You Are
06 – Green Day – When I Come Around
07 – Green Day – Nice Guys Finish Last
08 – Nirvana – Heart Shaped Box
09 – Nine Inch Nails – The Perfect Drug
10 – Blink 182 – Adam’s Song
11 – Limp Bizkit – Rearranged
12 – Limp Bizkit – Leech
13 – Linkin Park – Crawling Hybrid
14 – Deftones – Be Quiet And Drive
15 – The Fugees – Killing Me Softly
16 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – Californication
17 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – By The Way
18 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – My Friends
19 – Beck – Loser
20 – Eminem – My Name Is
21 – Eminem – Drug Ballad
22 – Eminem – Cleaning Out My Closet
23 – Beastie Boys – (You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party)
24 – The Ramones – The KKK Took My Baby Away
25 – Monster Magnet – Look To Your Orb For The Warning
26 – Aerosmith – Pink
27 – OutKast – Rosa Parks
28 – Rage Against The Machine – Guerrilla Radio
29 – Goo Goo Dolls – Iris
30 – Aerosmith – Water Song/Janie’s Got A Gun

Not because the notion is necessarily a terrible idea, mind you. But because musicians and music labels seemed unlikely to be beneficiaries of Washington aid.

Today, however, the music business got one step closer to getting the bill passed: The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation in a 21-9 vote. There’s a long way to go: If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the bill has to get through a Senate committee, then the full House, the full Senate and then President Barack Obama’s desk before it becomes law.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which hits my inbox almost daily with a press release decrying the act and promising its ultimate failure, assures me that “nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels.” And that kind of invective may help them quash this thing.

But let me reiterate: I still think the best way to kill this, if you were so inclined, would be to start calling it the “Britney Bailout.”

Per my previous story, here’s the campaign I would run if I was the NAB: “Slap up an ad that shows Britney Spears driving with her kid on her lap or staggering around an MTV stage or cavorting with K-Fed, and run a simple tag line: “Britney wants more money. Tell Congress not to give her any.” But again, what do I know?

Oooh. Here’s that Schoolhouse Rock classic:

Late last year, the music industry announced that it was going to stop suing music pirates because it had finally gotten Internet pipe companies to help it crack down on file “sharers.” One problem: None of the big cable or telco guys would fess up to joining the plan.

Now one of them finally has–in a very limited, toe-in-the-water, we’re-just-testing-this-out way. CNET:

“At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present….

Cicconi told attendees of the Leadership Music Digital Summit that the notices are part of a ‘trial.’ AT&T wants to test customer reaction, he said. Whether AT&T included any warnings that repeat offenders would see their service suspended or terminated is still unclear. Music industry sources said AT&T told managers at the top labels the trial letter would include strong language about the consequences of illegal conduct, but would stop short of mentioning service interruptions.”

Can’t really say that “strong language” is going to do much to help solve the music industry’s woes. But from the labels’ perspective, it’s better than nothing, which is what the cable and telco guys have traditionally done about file-sharing for the past decade or so.

But if you want to see what the pipe guys can do about file-sharing when properly motivated, keep your eye on what they do about TV and movie piracy.

Remember that the ISPs get zilch from the music business. But they spend billions a year for the right to show TV programs and movies. And they’re going to try very hard to “disincent” you from watching whatever you want, whenever you want, without paying them for that ability.

Bad news, Internet music, movie and other content “sharers”: The content companies are trading their sue-’em-all strategy for one that leans on Internet service providers to help them fight their battles for them. This may ultimately be much more effective. Here’s how it will work, via The Wall Street Journal:

The [Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry's trade group] said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider’s customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some ISPs, but declined to say which ones.”

The fact that the big labels are going to stop suing people who “share” their music via P2P services is the least interesting development here. That’s just the industry accepting that it lost a battle that ended years ago. In Q3 of this year, the volume of music swapped on via P2P increased 28 percent, says NPD.

More interesting is that Big Music thinks it has finally found an ally in the ISPs, who have traditionally been just fine with letting their subscribers swap all the music they wanted. It’s not clear what incentive they’ve offered to get the ISPs on board. And note that the WSJ doesn’t identify any ISPs that have actually signed on to this strategy. So this still may not be a done deal.

But the people who sell you Internet access–whether its the cable guys like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (TWC), or telcos like Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T)–have already shown a general inclination to help content owners fight piracy. Or at least help them fight particular kinds of particularly egregious piracy.

They’ve been doing so by trying to limit, in various ways, your ability to swap lots of files with other people. Some of these strategies have been clumsier than others.

Last year Comcast tried “throttling” the connections of broadband subscribers using some file-sharing software–a ham-handed approach (particularly the lying about it) that earned them a wrist-slap from the FCC.

But other companies have been more upfront about telling subs that they reserve the right to cut off file-sharers. A different approach that many are contemplating: simply charging heavy file-sharers a lot of money.

Do the ISPs really care about the sanctity of copyright? Doubtful. But they do care about the cost of moving lots of data around–and those costs are only going to increase as consumers start consuming more and more video over the Web.

And at least in the case of Hollywood, they do care about keeping content creators somewhat mollified, since all of the ISPs want to make money by selling, renting, or just offering up Hollywood’s movies and TV shows to subscribers.

So I’ve always understood why Comcast was standing up for the likes of Sony’s (SNE) movie studio. But why is Comcast (or its peers) going to start working on behalf of Sony’s music group? I’m all ears.