••• I call upon all companies and organisms that might end up contributing on their profit, to see the validation of their own future in doing so: creation, whether digitizable or not, never was, is not, will never ever come without a cost, unless the creator can be granted studies, instruments, tools and studio time, free rent and zero income tax, and allowed to pay for none of the things any human being can acquire only by paying. I call upon us all to ask not who did actually commit the spoliation of the artist resources, but who did actually made money in letting the spolition occur; ask who, in silently inciting, smartly calling for - or advocating for - free lunch, made himself the spoliation best tool. Ask not who must pay, for allegedly having committed the act, but who can, who for and what for, for undeniably having inspired and gained from that act; ask who should pay in a simple and transparent manner so that, all together, we can freely enjoy art and still make a living out of it tomorrow.

••• I call upon you all to see, in this suggestion, far from bowing before the spoliation that occurs whenever 'free downloading' does not produce creator's income, just the opposite: the only income mechanism that might ever work today and tomorrow. To understand that, far from advocating for the artistic devaluation of the works that their 'free disposal' by the ISPs might induce, I am in the contrary looking at the only viable system the digital age allows us to develop durably and efficiently, regardless of technological upheavals present and future, never to believe that direct purchase can ever be hurt by this system: in the physical world, direct purchasing of works of the mind is and will remain pertinent in generating proper income to the beneficiaries. It never was so - and never will be so - in the digital world, in a coherent and durable way, over products of equal quality, despite all that can be praised about today's digital 'legal offer'. Again, I see no future in a system that pretend to sell what can be acquired for free, one way or another, legally or illegally.

••• I call upon those of us, 'free-downloaders', to see in this manisfesto no resignation, no acquittal nor green light: their doing will still amount to genuine spoliation, making them the new empires' best friends, supporters of a system far worst than the major labels they felt justified in criticizing: and so, as long as the universal legislation I am calling for, or a legislation of similar effects, is not implemented. Then, and only then, free downloading can be viewed as proper and legitimate free access to culture and art, because both usus and abusus subsequently granted to them, do generate fructus to the beneficiaries, even though they might not be the direct generators. In the absence of which, digitizable art could simply die. The whole of our civilization might be at stake.