Loz Kaye: 'The industry is failing to deliver what customers want'

It seems everyone is a pirate these days. There have been many wild accusations recently. Rupert Murdoch even called Google a "piracy leader" on Twitter in a dramatic week for the web, climaxing with the take-down of Megaupload.

Piracy appears to have come to mean copyright infringement. However, in the digital age, copyright is being used as a weapon to stifle innovation and ideas, to maintain an industry that profits from, but isn't the primary source of creativity. There is a lot of truth to the phrase "no new ideas under the sun": in smaller musical communities the notion of copyright is broadly ignored by those who continue the traditions they love. If copyright were to be enforced absolutely it would hamper the ability to innovate and create. That is the direction we are moving in.

The press has been full of talk about the "problem" of "chronic piracy". But the apparent solution isn't about a majority of artists, it isn't about what's morally right, it's about maintaining an outmoded business model, the sale and distribution of content in physical form and the control of what we can do with the material we buy.

It's not the case that the creative industries are in terminal decline. The figures show that business is booming. US music sales increased to an all time high of 1.6bn last year. Fewer physical albums were sold, but digital and singles sales continue to rise. It makes no sense to suggest that filesharing can only impact on one format. Clearly the problem isn't that rights holders aren't making money or that growth is falling.

Is it then that the problem is trying to find how to get a bigger slice of money? The accusation against Megaupload was that it caused £300m in lost sales. But there's no concrete evidence for that, or that shutting a site down will result in finding even a portion of that £300m. It's claimed that the controversial Digital Economy Act will bring £200m yearly into the creative sector, but where is this money going to come from while incomes are squeezed?

The industry is failing to deliver what customers want and in doing so turning people to other, easily accessible means to find what they do want. If the industry looked at pricing and made access to content easier it might well find that its revenues continue to grow and build a healthier relationship with consumers.

I'm not advocating a free for all, there are legitimate legal channels to deal with those who truly disregard the interests of artists. However, what the industry is championing is disproportionate legislation to solve a problem no one has properly proved exists. Indeed, much of the objection to Sopa was based on its potential to harm the fundamental architecture of the web itself.

We all – pirates and artists – have an interest in a properly functioning and free internet. Last year 70% of the total volume of British music sales were digital. The BPI would do well to remember that its future income is dependant on the very people it is currently antagonising.

It's time for a real debate to open, and name calling to stop. It's time for policy and law based on evidence, not lobbying. Over this week many found that "piracy" is not just a cultural, but also a political issue. Megaupload claimed 150 million users. 150 million pirates? Maybe. But remember, it could well be 150 million voters too.

• Loz Kaye is leader of the Pirate party UK

Frances Moore: 'Piracy kills investment in culture'

Creating culture doesn't come for free. It sounds a simple statement, yet it's one reason industries such as music and film have to worry about protecting their rights from operators such as Megaupload – a company alleged to have built a huge commercial business on the back of other people's copyrights, costing the creative industries over $500m.

Creative industries like music invest. They invest in new artists hoping to build a long-term recording or performing career. They invest in discovering, developing and promoting talent. Our member record companies invest just under one-third of their entire turnover in A&R and marketing globally – that is about $5bn.

The problem with piracy is that it kills investment in culture – not just the financial investment of a music or film company, but the creative investment of the artist and creator. It takes time, toil and money to make that track or album that will inspire audiences across the world. That is why we have copyright, which is founded on the principle that those who create have the right to choose how their works are exploited.

The music business was the first creative industry to be hit by digital piracy. Thousands of artists have suffered, hundreds of thousands of employees have lost their jobs and many labels have disappeared. Now films and books are in the same struggle. A European study says more than a million more jobs will be lost by 2015 unless online piracy is tackled.

Today, the music industry is fighting back, and making the environment safe for creators and investors is more important than it ever was. We're licensing music widely to sites like iTunes, Spotify and Deezer. This growing digital music business is fantastic for artists and for consumers. Yet it can't survive in a market rigged by illegal piracy. Events such as the US Justice Department charging Megaupload are important developments – not just for the music industry, but for the whole creative economy.

There are anti-copyright lobbyists who argue that creative works should be free in the digital world. It's nonsense. First, you cannot fund creativity by taking away the rights of creators to be paid. Second, just look at who is benefiting from "free". We cannot be fooled by opportunists hiding behind seemingly lofty principles to feather their own nests. One of Megaupload's operators alone allegedly made tens of millions of pounds in revenues from infringing artist copyrights. If proven, that's not free, fair or right – it's profiting from crime.

• Frances Moore is chief executive of the IFPI, representing the recording industry worldwide