Quite a long one this, but it has a happy ending! Yesterday I was in Birmingham taking part in the Big Debate, which was part of Birmingham City University's New Generation Arts festival, which is taking place across the city as we speak. The topic for debate was whether this here digital age has given us – as creators, or creative consumers – more or less power.

One group of people who have less power are the traditional content owners. As ranted here at great length in the past, these companies – from the major record companies to the film studios to the traditional broadcasters – will have to get used to the fact that they can no longer control access to their content, drip feeding it through exclusive distribution partners at different times in different territories. Once content is out there people will access it, through official or unofficial channels, and there is nothing you can do about that, however sneaky your digital rights management technology or however litigious your lawyers. What content owners need to do, and some, including some majors, are doing, is learn to make content available everywhere through everyone, and find ways to maximise revenues in doing so.

Another group of people who have less power are the traditional media, and the editors who run them. Traditionally established media brands – national and regional – and their editors, chief reporters and pundits have acted as gatekeepers to the world. People have accessed news and reviews and coverage and comment as selected and reworked by these media and journalists. But now, of course, the gates are open, and it is easier for people to by-pass these media and journalists and go and find alternative content, comment or reportage. And, perhaps more importantly, there's a whole new generation of gatekeepers – bloggers and ezine editors - apart from the establishment, and often without the commercial or political constraints those in the establishment operate within, and sometimes able to garner bigger online audiences as a result – leaving the traditional players with less influence and, as a result, less advertising value.

But while the big and traditional players suffer, the internet has undoubtedly given power to grass roots and independent creators, and to creative consumers. When I was a teenager with aspirations to run my own magazine, said magazine was a hand written A6 newsletter photocopied at my local library and distributed to friends. If I was said teenager now I could communicate to the whole world, in a similar fashion to the biggest media owners, and probably for less that the five pounds it cost me to photocopy my fanzine. Parallels exist in most other creative disciplines, whatever it is you are making it is easier than ever to reach a global audience, to compete with the big boys, and to bypass those gatekeepers, or to find one of the new generation of gate keepers who might be more receptive to your work.

And, of course, there's a big argument that the creative consumer has more power than ever also. Certainly you have more control over what content you see when, and where. And it's easier to skip through stuff you don't like, and re-watch the stuff you do – and to feed back.

So, a power shift for the good then – the evil big boy has less power and the grass roots creative and individual consumer more power – brilliant. Except that, and despite the power shift, it strikes me everyone is facing the same challenges – big, small, recently more powerful, or currently more powerless.

There's the increased competition for audience, the need to stand out from the ever large crowds, and the challenge of navigating your way round everything on offer. There's the need to find business models that work – systems where content creators can make money from their work, but in a way consumers will accept – and without (as most models so far do) relying exclusively on the finite advertising pot or using the net to promote offline revenues. And the need to find the creative models that really work in the digital world – to stop simply repackaging old content for new media, to truly utilise the creative potential of the digital world rather than just the PR potential of the latest internet fad, and to find ways to pull attention-span-lite audiences away from cats falling over and onto more intellectually stimulating creative experiences.

Approaching all these challenges requires the input of all the above mentioned people. It costs money, which the traditional content companies have access o. It requires utilising existing audiences, and archive content, which the traditional media companies possess. But it also requires new thinking, grass roots experimentation with creative and commercial models, and the fresh approach that community have proven they can deliver. And it needs consumers to decide what they want from the internet, and how they want it, and how they'll pay for it – whether that be through increased advertising, increased ISP fees or pay-as-you-go and subscription systems.

So, power may be shifting, but everyone still has a role to play and many potential rewards to chase. Quite how it will all work out is anyone's guess, but the general mood of the panel and audience at the aforementioned Big Debate was that the internet, and any power shifts it causes, is a very good thing, and lots of good things are still to come from it. Which is a nice optimistic message for me to bring back to you all. Which is unusual – the glorious sunshine in Birmingham yesterday must have got to me.