It was suggested last week that one solution to the issue of music being shared illegally, among other such as making ISPs taking more responsibility for what activities their customers do, is to charge a levy or tax on internet use and let us do whatever the hell we like.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a situation in society where for one reason or another we have reached a point where a decision has to be made. The government can either back a model that has failed completely in the eyes of the public to be worthwhile or credible, or it can start to look forward and towards new solutions to the issue of file sharing of music. Certainly I don't think anyone who has seen this develop since 2001 can say they ever thought that there would never be an end to the days of easy access to illegal sources of music.

Despite adverts that have been shown that equate stealing a Britney Spears album to stealing a car, the reality is that people don't equate sharing music to theft while there is no direct loss. The musician still knows their music, can still sell it and play it, they just haven't sold a copy to that person who has it. Is this an issue? Some would say not given that arguably that person would never have bought the music if they had to part with cash.

This is ultimately where the real debate over intellectual property and copyright infringement lies. It is not in the actual theft it is in the reimbursement of ownership. On one side you have those that believe if you can't afford to own something you shouldn't own it, on the other you have people that think systems of money are oppressive; somewhere in the middle most music downloaders are saying they're happy to buy something, like a car, if they see that the person would directly lose out by them taking it, but that ultimately there is no loss caused by them not paying for the music. It's tough, and defining what you would and wouldn't buy is all too easy in hindsight.

One thing is clear though, and that is that those on the "piracy is stealing" side are very quick to ignore the benefits of file sharing, the community and word of mouth. One person wrote not all that long ago that the real reason that the music industry hates pirates is not because people can get free music and tell people what a cool band they've just heard, but that they can get free music and tell people how bad they were. Not being able to foist mediocre bands and talentless hacks on us was clearly the main fear as far as the writer was concerned.

But here we are, there are still shit bands and they're still somehow thriving, yet equally the live music scene appears to be growing. This is something I personally don't have much trouble correlating with the community aspect of sharing music and experiences through music.

I feel there is a lot of good to be had from music file sharing, but far from it being close to the mantra of "Download the tracks to see if the album is worth buying" we are getting further and further from that moral core, almost accepting that the music industry doesn't deserve our cash but that they must give us music which we can find for free. There's a balance to be made here, and I feel the levy is it.

Gone would be the days of having to spend hundreds of pounds to legitimately own all of your favourite music from a year, but equally money could be distributed to those that need it. With more management models based on recording artists acting as individual businesses rather than contractors with a larger corporation this would be an even better marriage of legislation and mainstream action. But this does, unfortunately, lend to the argument that some have against situations such as the BBC.

How do you solve an issue of everyone paying a fee when some supposedly don't benefit? Those that simply "do not listen to music" that are forced to pay a charge? It would be impossible within a liberal society to allow a two tier system to take place, so unfortunately some may be lumped with the tax...however how many of us never really listen to any music? With a proper levy scheme then that music you hear in the background of flash cartoons you watch is technically actually being supported rather than just being stuck in there by a coder who thinks it's cool. In fact artists would be a whole lot more free to go and promote their goods knowing if there was a solid stream of basic revenue coming in for them, concentrating on drumming up the more important (to them anyway) gig and licensing deals.

Maybe it's cloud cuckoo land, I certainly know that the practicalities of making the above system are probably extremely tough and would take many years to sort through to everyone's satisfaction. But I have to say that in terms of averting a major conflict between society and the music industry, one way or another, it's the avenue that most needs to be explored.