Amour & Discipline Short Reductive Version

How much does a band earn when you’re sharing
their music with a friend, or when you’re using P2P
or direct download services to get it?

Well, ok, zero.

But how much does a band earn when you buy
a $10 CD in a store ?


How much does a band earn when you buy
a $0.99 song on Itunes ?


How much does a band earn when you listen
to a song one hundred times on Spotify ?


How much would a band earn if you sent them
a free donation ?

The exact amount you chose to give.


 Most of the time, no matter how you listen to music, the artist gets very little financial support. Of course, these are average figures regarding both indie and major label artists ; some manage to get better deals, others get worse (if you’re signed on a major label, you’ll probably get zero from sales: majors give an advance to record the album, and you won’t earn anything until it is repaid. Very few artists recoup this advance)

 In recent years, technology has made music shift from scarce goods to infinite goods : once the original is made, it takes zero marginal cost to make a digital copy and distribute it. All the music in the world is available for (almost) nothing, and less and less people are buying physical records. Global Non-Commercial Culture Sharing is now a reality – which, don’t get us wrong, is simply great – but the problem of decently funding artistic creation remains.

 But Why?

. a lot of people want to maintain old centralized models of distribution in the digital world, creating artificial scarcity on infinite goods, and pretending global culture sharing never happened
. big entertainment corporations keep laying down the law
. many middlemen are still involved. Some of them are valuable (independent labels), some have to be questioned

 So, why not directly support those who create music and those who really help to produce it?

 This is what we’re experimenting with this Donation Platform. A&D project is not about charity, but Gift Economy. It is not about guilt, but common decency. Of course, good ways to support bands/labels already exist (buying stuff directly from them, for example) and crucial ideas still have to be tested, but we think A&D can be a useful step to promote two fundamental and inseparable points :

1. Culture Sharing is essential and legitimate
2. We can and we must find new ways to support independent authors and producers, so the aforementioned fact won’t cast them in the sewers where they will starve alone

 We think the combination of coercive (i.e. governments) and mercantile (i.e. corporations) tactics should certainly not be the only ones driving the legislation, distribution, and financing of culture. On the contrary, we believe the present situation urges us to invent new alternative strategies.





Amour & Discipline Breathtaking Full Manifesto


 For a century, production and distribution of recorded music followed a linear path : from the musician to the ears of the audience, from the manufacturing to the distribution, a lot of commercial middlemen were necessary. Big corporations controlled most aspects of this process.

 In the meanwhile, indie labels slowly built alternative ways to produce music, while the cassette tape (1963) and the CD-R (1995) allowed people to copy and share recorded music with their friends and close circles.

 Then in 1999, Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks changed the rules.

 Suddenly, people were able to share music worldwide without any commercial intent. Myriads of out-of-print releases were instantly available again. It made no big technical difference whether 10 or 10,000 people downloaded a record, whether they lived in Chicago or Kuala Lumpur. It became possible to listen to all the music ever recorded at no other cost than an access to a computer and to the Internet, instead of buying a few CDs a month.

 Music (and then movies, comics, etc.) went from the reign of scarce goods to the reign of infinite goods : once the original is made, there are no marginal costs to make a digital copy and distribute it. Whether we like it or not, shifting from the economics of scarcity to the economics of abundance is a change in paradigm bearing huge consequences :

. Technology and people made Global Culture Sharing possible. We don’t want to use the weird expression “file sharing”, which designates the packaging, not the content (when someone lends you a book, no one would call it “paper sharing”). Non-commercial distribution of culture on a planetary scale became a reality. This is a step as big as the invention of the printing press.
. But a crucial question has emerged (among others) : How can works of art and culture be financed if everyone is able to copy and share them?

 Instead of calmly discussing this issue, a few big corporations decided to stigmatize people sharing culture as though they were criminals. You’ve never seen their face, they watch you at night and they know what is good for you : they are the Corporate Justice League. Copying has indeed increased exponentially since the dawn of the digital era, but these corporations want us to forget that the very act of copying has always existed, through many forms and within various technological environments, and is thus an integral part of being human.

 The question cannot be “how can we stop it?” but “how can we handle it?” But hey, it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it — think about copyist monks discovering the printing press. So major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), teamed up with Hollywood in order to present us an astounding musical, The War on Sharing.

 That said, we won’t deny that there are people who share culture without caring about the bands whose music they eagerly download. There is a parallel between corporations at war with sharing and people who take universal culture sharing for granted and don’t see the necessity of combining it with some kind of support : they are basically bound together by the same greed and selfishness. But irresponsible culture sharers are a minority. Studies prove that people who download music illegally also spend more money on music than anyone else. And, without doubt, many people would appreciate a system allowing to both share and sustain creation.



 The Corporate Justice League tells us that copyright must be reinforced and that culture sharing should be demonized, for the sake of artistic creation.

 But how do they actually treat artists ?

 To answer this weighty question, we won’t dwell on the countless swindling stories which enliven the music industry. Instead, let us bring up a few mundane figures. When we buy a CD at a store, a major label artist earns around 10% of the retail price (around 30% goes to the store, around 60% goes to the label/distributor). Admittedly, real costs are involved : the CD and its packaging have to be manufactured, trucks have to transport it, the store has to pay a rent… In the end, CDs still belong to the realm of scarce goods.

 But in the realm of infinite goods, the artist should logically earn much more ! So, how much does a major label artist earn when you purchase a 0.99 dollar song on Itunes? 8 cents. Yes.
This is the situation they want to maintain. This is why they struggle, are ready to manipulate, sue, restrict fundamental liberties.

 The first act of the War on Sharing musical is propaganda. A big part of it rests on semantics: Steal, Counterfeit or Piracy instead of Copy and Share, for example.
Using the words Counterfeit and Piracy deliberately blurs the difference between making a copy for profit and making a copy for non-commercial purposes. But sharing cultural goods is obviously different from mass-manufacturing handbags or attacking and plundering boats. Using the word Steal helps turn a complex issue into a simplistic one : « Hey guys, copying files is the same thing as passing by a restaurant, spotting an appetizing meal, going in and taking it without paying ».

 But it’s not.

 To make our point, we’ll use the same analogy : I’m going to a restaurant. In my pocket, I have a technological device called the Amazing Molecular Reconfiguration Magic Box. Yes. I see a wonderful meal, and then I use the Magic Box to recreate the exact same meal. But hey, guess what, the original meal is still on the table.

 It sure raises a lot of ethical questions, a big one being “how is the cook going to pay his rent ?”. But did I steal food, or did I copy it ? Stealing means “the unauthorised taking of someone else’s property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property” : if I steal your bicycle, you’ll have to take the bus. If we copy food with the Magic Box and share it, there is no deprivation, we just have to find new ways to support the cook.
Sadly, such a Magic Box providing unlimited food access to the whole planet doesn’t exist yet. Do you think restaurant owners would sue its inventor ?

 Of course, food and culture are not equally important. But culture can’t be reduced to Entertainment : it is also a means of intellectual emancipation and its access shouldn’t be controlled by big corporations.
One must admit that the Corporate Justice League’s lexical battle is quite successful. We often use their words. The fact that a lot of independent musicians and labels use these language tricks is an ideological triumph of breathtaking proportions for corporate power. We also often confuse things which are very different (copyright, patents and trademarks are mixed in the vague expression “Intellectual Property“).
Until now, they have also managed to dismiss any real debate about the actual copyright system as crypto-stalinist rantings. Fortunately, more and more people realize it has to be questioned : for instance, Creative Commons are a set of free licences allowing authors to protect their creation without stifling the diffusion of culture. Even the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda admits that the actual copyright is failing to financially reward artists…

 The rest of their propaganda is a massive failure. In France, everyone laughs at Hadopi ads. In the US, recent campaigns have shown a great lack of intellectual honesty and understanding of what is at stake : sharing files would be like taking money off the hat of a street artist, or endorsing child labor and criminal cartels.
Unsurprisingly, the number of people sharing culture has continued to grow, and they still don’t consider themselves as criminals.

 The second step is taking legal action :

. Individuals sued and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars because they have shared a few files. We don’t feel the need to argue, this “strategy” is absurd and inefficient — even the former head of the RIAA admits it.
. Napster, Kazaa, Audiogalaxy, Grokster, Morpheus, Limewire, or recently Megaupload : all were taken down, while the Pirate Bay, Iso Hunt or eMule suffered severe legal attacks.

 Did people stop copying and sharing ?

 The third act is, well, convincing governments to muzzle the Internet. SOPA, ACTA, Hadopi… This is a crucial issue and tons of articles about it can be found here or here or here. And here is a good video. Thanks to Internet protests, SOPA and PIPA have been delayed, but ACTA is alive and well, and rest assured that other similar bills will turn up soon. The problem is that these actions go far beyond culture sharing. They imply pervasive scrutiny, monitoring, censorship, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights. Those who argue against online sharing should be aware that it is impossible to reduce it without increasing drastic surveillance and policing out of proportion — which they will, in turn, probably regret. It is therefore reasonable to ask ourselves : Is it worth it? Shouldn’t we, at least, try out alternatives?



 All the music in the world is now available for free, and more and more people only listen to digital music. We share it with our friends via emails, links, usb sticks, etc. Universal culture sharing is provided by non-commercial P2P networks and commercial direct download services that don’t give a cent to artists nor to labels. Well, most of these cyberlockers aren’t perky for now.

 In the meantime, two kinds of commercial initiatives transferring money to “right holders” have emerged :

1. Those who act as if music still belonged to scarce goods, i.e. à la carte download services such as Itunes. Most of these services take the same kind of cut physical stores do, that is to say around 30%. Most of the time, they don’t deal directly with indie bands/labels, which means they have to go through a digital distributor taking a fixed annual fee and/or a 10 to 30% cut. Fortunately, good alternatives such as Bandcamp exist (they directly deal with indie bands and labels and just take a 15% cut). However, we’re not convinced that any centralized à la carte download service is the ultimate solution, because it still considers digital culture as a scarce good. We all use devices that can store dozens of thousands of songs, yet most of us can’t afford to fill these devices with legally-purchased music only. In a few years time, when we’ll be able to store all the music ever recorded and all the books ever written in a hard disk as tiny as a fingernail, it will probably seem more and more strange to buy digital culture products one at a time.
2. Those who integrate a distorted version of culture sharing and think it must be ruled by big corporations : streaming services such as Spotify. If you stream a song by a major label artist, they will earn much more per stream than an indie artist would. Spotify is very vague about this and doesn’t disclose any figures (they have signed Non-Disclosure-Agreements with everyone involved). However, some have surfaced : on average, if you listen to a song 100 times on Spotify, an indie band will earn around 20 cents. And don’t forget : when you stop your subscription, you end up with nothing.

 Among other concerns, these initiatives don’t solve the critical question of decently funding artistic creation because :

. they pretend Global Culture Sharing never happened
. big corporations keep laying down the law
. many middlemen are still involved

 We think digital ways of circulation should also generate new kinds of support : it is necessary to give something back to people and projects we care about, even if material goods are not involved anymore. We’re not saying “all artists should make a living from their creativity” — it has never been the case nor will it be for 99% of interesting artists. But creation does cost money.
So, why not directly support those who create music and/or those who really help to produce it?



 This is what we’re experimenting with this donation platform. We don’t know how many people will decide to use A&D. Well, that depends on you. And it is certainly a long-term process. But we think that alternatives should not rest on coercive (i.e. governments) and mercantile (i.e. corporations) methods, and that A&D can be useful to promote two crucial and inseparable points :

1. Culture Sharing is essential and legitimate
2. We can and we must find new ways to support independent authors and producers, so that the aforementioned fact won’t cast them in the sewers where they will starve alone

  The backbone of A&D is not charity nor guilt, it is Gift Economy. Gift Economy is about common decency, responsibility and being conscious of being part of a community.

 Gift Economy ruled ancient societies, and was theorized by blazing anthropologists such as Marcel Mauss or Karl Polanyi. They proved that the capitalist vision of human nature which implies that we’re all condemned to be suspicious and selfish individuals driven by our greed is scientifically wrong.
The universal assumption of market economy enthusiasts is that what essentially drives human beings is a desire to maximize their pleasure, comfort and material possessions, and that all significant human interactions can thus be analyzed in market terms.

 Marcel Mauss has shown in his essay The Gift that in ancient societies, economic life was based on utterly different principles: most objects would move back and forth as gifts. Such gift economies could on occasion become highly competitive, but when they did it was the opposite way from our own : instead of competing to see who could accumulate the most, the winners were the ones who gave the most away.
It may all seem quite exotic. But how odd is it, really? Nowadays, Gift Economy still persists: if you give me a present for my birthday, or if you invite me to dinner, I’ll reciprocate. Not necessarily in an identical or immediate way, but there’s a good chance I’ll be grateful and will give you something in return, someday. These are examples of universal human feelings which are somehow discounted in our own society, but used to be the very basis of the economic system of former communities.
Karl Polanyi pursued Mauss’s research and demonstrated how free market economy, which seems so natural to us, is in fact a social construction.

 Jeremy Rifkin, in his 2010 book The Empathic Civilization gathered an impressive amount of scientific data about recent discoveries in brain science and child development that are forcing us to rethink human nature. Biologists and cognitive neuroscientists have notably discovered mirror-neurons that allow human beings and other species to feel and experience another’s situation as if it were one’s own. We’re not only self-centered and materialistic beings, but also the most social of animals and need cooperation and companionship with our fellows.
Jeremy Rifkin adds scientific evidence to the fact that every society entails a common decency (in George Orwell’s terminology), a moral minimum, without which men would be unable to live together. It obviously manifests itself in various ways, depending on time and place, but Marcel Mauss has highlighted its universal conditions. The principle of all morality/ethics rests on a threefold obligation :

  1. to give (being capable of generosity)

  2. to receive (being able to take a gift as a gift, not as something owed)

  3. to give back (being capable of gratitude)

 We think it is crucial to question the prevailing and pessimistic conception of human nature, and to redefine the importance that empathy, Gift Economy and common decency should have in our societies.



 Of course, we don’t claim that A&D is the ultimate solution. Good ways to support bands/labels already exist, and important models have yet to be tested. For example, the Creative Contribution and the Global Patronage projects.
Both want to simultaneously recognize non-market exchanges over the Internet and fund creation, by introducing a contribution which would be paid by Internet broadband subscribers.
The Creative Contribution suggests that distribution of money be based on use (the more a song is listened, the more money the artist will receive), while Global Patronage suggests it be based on choice (each Internet user decides which artists he wants to support). A&D can be compared to a foetal DIY version of the Global Patronage project.

 Both approaches acknowledge digitized cultural products are infinite goods, calling for a global reconciliation between culture sharing and financing. Both are technically feasible. These proposals should inspire authors, producers, audience, and governments. The present situation urges policy makers to consider that current laws, as in many other fields, don’t represent the interests of 99% of the population :

. The current copyright system has to be questioned. Making clear that copyright should solely regulate commercial, intent-to-profit activity would be a first step.
. Non-commercial Culture Sharing has to be legalized.
. New ways to support culture financing have to be implemented
. DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) has to be outlawed
. Net neutrality must be guaranteed.




Alternative models

  The Creative Contribution idea has been theorized by Philippe Aigrain and the Global Patronage system has been theorized by Francis Muguet and Richard Stallman.
Both want to recognize non-market exchanges over the Internet while funding creation, by introducing a contribution that will be paid by Internet broadband subscribers.
The Creative Contribution suggests that distribution of money be based on use (the more often a song is downloaded, the more money the artist will receive), while Global Patronage proposes it be based on choice (each Internet user decides which artists he wants to support).

 We think both approaches are interesting, and maybe a mix of both ideas is the solution.

 Philippe Aigrain has just published Sharing. Francis Muguet sadly died in 2009 (rest in peace, dude), but Richard Stallman is still championing the Global Patronage Project (he recently convinced the green French party to include it in their political program).

 It sure raises a lot of questions : should Internet users have the option to not subscribe to this fee? Should the money be collected by ISPs, governments or another organization? Should the money be distributed by already existing copyright collection societies or should new organizations (Donation Collecting Societies) be invented? And so on.
None of these questions is unsolvable, and we’ll definitely write more about these models in A&D Webzine.



 Since we think major labels are responsible for the current situation in which sharing is considered a criminal behaviour, it is not possible to send donations to major labels or major artists through A&D.

 But we think it is necessary to sustain independent labels. Our support should not be solely addressed to “The Great Creator” (i.e. the musician), but should be organized in a way that takes into account the complex micro-economic/solidarity forces behind the act of releasing an album. Those labels (acting disinterestedly for their vast majority) still play an essential role, even if more and more people only listen to digital music and don’t care about physical records anymore. Labels play a very important function in the indie/underground network, being simultaneously activists (by materially and economically supporting the bands) and the best “filter” to highlight important new music. Indie labels are as old as recorded music, but their current shape started to grew in the late 70’s, when punk bands such as Crass chose to free themselves from the decision-making process of the major record labels. Since then, labels such as Dischord, Load, Night People and thousands of others have showed us an alternative way to produce music, with integrity and passion.

 We’ve decided to use a large definition of “independent label” : a label is independent as long as it doesn’t belong to a major company. It means it is also possible to send donation to big independent labels, although some of them are (even partly) distributed by a Major and/or don’t have the same vision as we have on culture sharing legitimacy.


Further questions about unlimited access to culture

 The infinite accessibility due to dematerialization represents a challenge for those creating music and those listening to it. Many of us had built their relationship to music in a cultural environment based on the physical object system. Then, we had to gradually apprehend, integrate, and hopefully enjoy new ways to access music.

 Some continue to reject, partly or completely, the Culture Sharing process following peripheral arguments we’d like to sum up and try to answer to. We don’t claim to be all-comprehensive, and would be delighted to share some thoughts with people who agree or disagree with what is following.

 How did we build our music culture and how did we share tastes and opinions on music before the Internet ? Friends, mixtapes, magazines, fanzines, local shops, libraries, live shows… As a matter of fact, it was usually a different, smaller scale. I remember borrowing tapes and Cds from my local library, selecting methodically, every week, the maximum allowed (5 CDs !) and copying them on tape, and later CDR, for further use. It was a long random process, and in retrospect, I regret having been disconnected for all those years from what was happening in other musical fields. I was completely bound to the tastes of my librarian. I didn’t even know that something existed beyond mainstream products. In the small town where I grew up, I didn’t know people, places or tools that could have helped me explore the cracks in a mainstream culture that was imposed to me. Online sharing is lifting underground and alternative music to another level. They get more accessible and less visible since so many contents are potentially available.The Internet is shifting if not cancelling the limits of time, distance, and matter. For instance, we should celebrate the Internet for making out-of-print releases forever available. Perhaps underground is not the most appropriate term anymore, and parallel dimensions may fit better to what is offered now. The issue is not anymore the mere access to music, it is finding one’s own way in a galaxy of possibilities.

 It’s often argued that the huge ambivalent power of aggregation/dispersion of the Internet is turning us into idiots, diluting our concentration in the “two clicks away” commodity. Some are nostalgic of a physical realm where obtaining information and music were heroic quests. We do believe there is no difference in the quest’s goal or in its length nowadays, the treasured crown of knowledge is still somewhere, moved away from us each step we get closer. The territory where we’re looking for it has extended indeed, and thus requires efforts and discipline. It’s hard not to feel overwhelmed by the amount of data shared online : how many tunes did we store without ever listening to them ? More than ever before, we need time and we need methods to really domesticate this flow and digest music. It’s up to us to use new guides that came to light (webzines, collective databases like discogs, …), and not to forget older ones that are evolving (labels, radios…). But this noble journey is less and less destined to a minority and this is what matters.

 We understand that there is a form of pleasure in finding something which was hard to get, and which consequently few people possess. But we don’t believe this narrow pleasure should justify scarcity in the field of music and art in general. Live performance is a subjective experience that concedes its meanings in its limited time and random reproduction. On the contrary, recorded music should not be artificially made rare by supporting anti-copy / Internet control policies. We regret deformations (track listing not respected, dissected artworks…) or misused contents – artists should be able to decide what art is from their work , and preserve the integrity of their productions – but the nature of recorded production, as a continuation of the oral traditional practices, is to be shared.


Different ways to support artists/labels

 Of course, we don’t think A&D is the only way to support underground/indie music. We know that numerous intelligent and decent initiatives already exist on the Internet, and that our scenes cannot be solely build up behind computers.

 We strongly encourage people to experience various ways to support the communities :

. Help other people discover indie/underground/obscure music by following the sacred 3 steps dance : talk – share – talk
. Go to live shows.
. Or, even better, put up shows by yourself, host your favorite bands, help DIY venues around you or open one with your friends…
. As often as possible, directly buy stuff from artists/labels
. When it is not possible, buy through indie distributors or local d.i.y. shops : use Fusetron, Miramoglu, Midheaven…not Amazon
. Use à la carte download platforms that don’t take crazy cuts, don’t help the infantery of cultural industry programmed starvation : use Bandcamp, not Itunes nor Emusic…


Creative Commons

 Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.
CC provides free licenses and other legal tools to mark a creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry. Others can share, remix, and use commercially, depending on the terms the creator chooses.

 More info here.


 Allows others to copy, distribute, display, and perform a copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way the original creator requests.


 Allows others to copy, distribute, display, and perform a work — and derivative works based upon it — but for non-commercial purposes only.

Share Alike

 Allows others to distribute derivative works only under the same license as the original work.

No Derivative Works

 Allows others to copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of a work, and not derivative works based upon it.