"It will never be harder than it is today to pirate a movie," a blogger told a film conference last year. It's one of those phrases that sticks in the mind. It was certainly intended as a warning but for him it was also a statement of the bleeding obvious.

It's not just that broadband connections have proliferated, though that is playing its part. It's not even that knowledge of how to steal a film has expanded rapidly, though that's also certainly true.

The reality is that a generation is growing up for whom free content delivered online is a fact of life, even a principle. Naturally, business doesn't like the sound of that - and not just the Hollywood giants.

A twisted argument goes that stealing from huge global corporations is effectively a victimless crime. Even taking away the moral argument that theft is bad and that piracy funds organised crime, such a notion ignores the interdependency of independent national film with the studios today.

And, as Screen demonstrates today (see p20-23) independent film-makers are also victims and suffer disproportionately, given that their margins are so tight that even relatively low-level theft can make a crucial difference.

Piracy is therefore a global menace but that statement comes with caveats, and our blogger's statement above offers a useful context.

There are a growing number of indies, particularly younger ones, who believe the internet offers the greatest opportunities to make their voices heard in the history of film. They, too, believe in the notion of a free internet with free standards.

Power To The Pixel, a conference at the London Film Festival, brought together film-makers who are exploring new means of doing business, creating models for making money that bypass today's ways of doing business - voluntary payments, investment communities, subscription services etc.

For them, the real fear is that tackling piracy will be used as an excuse for the introduction of ever tighter restrictions on copyright - restrictions that cannot really beat pirates but can damage the development of online film.

Some point to the hypocrisy of a business too tied to vested interests to take on the most logical means of taking on piracy - closing the release window between theatrical and other media releases.

It is easy to get carried along with the enthusiasm of the proponents of some of these new models. One can reasonably point out that for all its flaws and limitations, the current analogue, theatrical-dominated film business is consistent, with clear standards. Listening to digital advocates, it's impossible to ignore the fact that their world seems much more fragmented and uncertain.

But what should not be ignored is the debate over whether standards being introduced merely shackle the future to the current economic model rather than open up opportunities for a wider film world.

Independents should be asking tough questions about whether tight copyright restrictions or DCI standards on projection quality are really in their interest.

One understands the determination of the studio-dominated status quo not to lose its grip on the industry in the way that the music industry has, but what about those who want to see change'

There are some who see a monolithic future in which giant Hollywood spectaculars turn theatres into 3D theme parks in which the thoughtful, the contemplative and the challenging are pushed to the margins. But there is an enormous room for manoeuvre between today's business and a digital future in which new voices can be heard.

The real potential for change over the next few years is the increase of choice - connecting audiences with content in whatever way works best for audiences or is financially viable.

That pluralism must not be sacrificed in a war on piracy; rigid insistence on tough industry standards must not stifle the creativity on which cinema's future will be built.