The Recording Industry Association of America is the leading organization in the fight against illegal Internet music sharing. Its Web site gives illegal music sharing a more charged term: “It’s commonly known as piracy, but it’s a too benign term that doesn’t even begin to adequately describe the toll that music theft takes on the many artists, songwriters, musicians, record label employees and others whose hard work and great talent make music possible.”

When you download songs illegally, you’re harming musicians, their families, their employees, their employers (the recording industry), your fellow fans and even the quality of music in general.

Most people who download music probably don’t think of what they’re doing in that way. They’re just taking advantage of what’s available to them.

A British study found in 2008 that 96 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds had illegally copied or downloaded music, and that the average teen’s MP3 player had more than 800 stolen songs on it. Regardless of the accuracy of those numbers, that’s a lot of acceptance and participation in something that allegedly does so much harm.

The harsh penalties sometimes laid out selectively on those that share music have done nothing to stop the crime. Illegal file sharing in the 21st century is a lot like drinking alcohol was in the 1920s; you’ll get in trouble if you get caught, but most people do it anyway.

What the RIAA is failing to realize is that they are soundly on the wrong side of both economics and technology. Their courtroom crusade against file sharers is less about the rights of artists than it is about their existence as distributors.

In today’s world, distribution costs for music are rapidly approaching zero, while an artist’s potential audience of customers has become every person with an Internet connection.

This is great for artists and fans but very bad for the recording companies who historically have brought them together. Unless they adapt, finding some middle ground in the fight, they’ll find themselves with no reason to exist.

The RIAA is using its lawyers to try to preserve its industry. Its Web site even states that “educating fans about the value of music” is one of its goals. It makes a lot more sense to change its business model so the Internet is a tool to reach customers, instead of using confused and outdated copyright law to try and force its customers to change.

Many Web sites, software developers and members of the music industry are already seeing the potential of embracing the Internet’s capacity to share music. When the band Radiohead released its 2007 album “In Rainbows,” fans could download the album from their Web site, paying whatever price they wanted.

While they admit most people paid nothing, they also are certain that the publicity was responsible for making the album a hit when it was released in stores a few months later.

It is modern takes on Internet-sharing like Radiohead’s that are going to shape the future of the music industry. Publicity and a base of fans are also priceless assets to new bands trying to get their names out there. Whether it’s through subscription, advertising or something else, there are still plenty of ways people are willing to pay for music, without being called criminals in the process.