A few nights ago I fired up my computer with intent to break the law. With just a few clicks of my mouse, I was all set to pilfer from some hard-working musicians who I would never meet and who would never see any green from my wallet. I would accomplish this heinous criminal act by downloading a few songs using one of the many peer-to-peer file sharing programs so demonized by the recording industry.

I tell you this neither with pride at my fiendish behavior nor with shame that I'm a dirty, cheating crook, but because something interesting happened as I thieved my way across the internet.

As I trolled through the results of this program's search engine looking for a couple of pop songs that had imbedded their snappy tunes in my head like a tumor, I noticed a few files labeled as "sponsored results." These results had by far the most "hits" - meaning more people had copies of the song and they would download faster than similar files - so I shrugged and clicked one.

Instead of taking me to a screen that said my crime was in progress, Apple's iTunes program booted up and I was redirected to their music store where I could (gasp) buy this song for a buck. I tried clicking a second file tagged as a sponsored result and was again brought to this musical grocery store where they wanted real money in exchange for their real product.

Pay for music? The very notion confounded my sense of reality and I quickly closed those windows and picked a result that was not sponsored. Within a few minutes, I had the two songs I wanted for free and was bopping along to the beats blasting from my speakers.

I'm not going to bother defending my actions or make the case that file-sharing isn't theft, just sharing. Although I will say that I see downloading "free" music from the internet as stealing, but only slightly more so than being charged $18.99 for the latest aural diarrhea from the no-talent hacks getting record deals today. Instead I'd like to discuss - and commend - what Apple did with their sponsored result gimmick.

As you may well know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched a campaign a few years ago to stop file-sharing, a laughable and impossible goal. They began by suing Napster, the first widely-used file-sharing network, which operated by allowing users to search for and download songs from other users who were all connected to a hub.

Eventually, their suit resulted in Napster's demise (although it later resurfaced as a pay-for-service music site), but Pandora's Box had been opened. Soon similar, decentralized programs were released and in widespread use and it became apparent that file-sharing was like a hydra - cut off one head and three more pop out to take a bite.

The RIAA changed tactics and warned that they would start suing people they believed to be downloading and distributing songs online. They followed through with their threats, suing some 260 people or so, many of whom settled for a few thousand dollars rather than risking court settlements of several hundred thousand dollars.

The RIAA hoped to curb file-sharing with these suits by scaring the bejesus out of anyone who was downloading or sharing music online, and to some extent it worked. But record sales continued to slide and the RIAA only responded by announcing more lawsuits.

With that brief history lesson out of the way, here's my point. Attacking the people who share music by suing their pants off is a stupid way to go about things and the RIAA would be better off getting it through their thick, collective skull that file-sharing isn't responsible for the continued decline of record sales.

Blame Britney Spears and her musically challenged ilk, vastly expanded competition for people's limited entertainment dollars and the one-hit wonder mentality most record companies have for driving consumers away. I like music a whole lot, but like most people, I just can't afford to shell out $20 for three decent songs and a shiny coaster.

While these lawsuits are reprehensible, the guerrilla tactics some companies and record labels have used are admirable and a far more effective way of persuading downloading hooligans to come into the light. Besides the sponsored links trick I talked about, I've seen (well, heard) how some companies will flood the networks with bogus tracks before the release of a new CD. If it's more of a hassle to steal music than it is to buy fairly priced albums, people will more than likely choose to pay.

And when it comes to giving consumers the freedom to buy individual songs online instead of crap albums, Apple blazed a trail that others are falling over themselves to follow with their iTunes music store.

At the end of the day, what Apple's store and file-sharing programs in general allow is for the elimination of the middleman between music consumers and musicians, namely the dinosaurs represented by the RIAA. Sensing their demise, these corporations lashed out against the very people who trusted them to find and develop talented artists. They had the power and money to bring bands that normally would have toiled away in obscurity for years to a wider audience immediately, but they blew it, choosing instead to chase the almighty dollar.

Whatever trust once existed is broken and there is no going back. Record labels are no longer necessary and savvy bands today get their breaks without becoming shameless shills for greedy corporate overlords. Sure, they'll continue to sue and sure, we'll continue to download for now, but eventually their reign of tyranny over music will end, thanks in large part to the internet.

In the meantime, I'll be listening to songs like Bitter:Sweet's deliciously haunting pop song "The Mating Game." Pick it up today at your local record store or online through Apple's iTunes. Or not.