The commons thread to my work on the non-market sharing of digital works between individuals is to defend that when carefully delineated, this sharing is a right whose definition lies outside the realm of copyright. As such it can not be the object of copyright-based compensation. I developed this point in Internet & Creation (in French, 2008), though the point was blurred because the amount of the new financing scheme I suggested remained based on a compensatory reasoning. In Sharing (February 2012), I separated the recognition of non-market sharing and the detailed design of the creative contribution. The latter was explictly based on the needs of creative and expressive activities of individuals and on providing a new source of support to production and added-value intermediaries. This separation became even more explicit in my recent elements for the reform of copyright and related cultural policies. A new form of resource pooling is useful and needed to reward and support the creative activities that fuel digital culture. It can be socially accepted, provided one starts by recognizing that the right to non-market sharing is a primary condition of existence for digital culture, and only if one makes sure that the collected sums are truly received by contributors (authors, artists, technicians) and creative projects. There are many reasons to abstain from basing the amount of this new financing on a compensatory reasoning. Since most independent studies conclude that the non-market sharing of digital works between individuals is only responsible for a very limited part of the cultural industry problems in the digital world, adopting a compensatory viewpoint could ironically lead to very small amounts or to an unfounded capture of funds by media interests. In this post, I focus on another reason for rejecting a compensatory assessment of needs for a new financing source, which is how it would impact the cultural economy. More at : http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=5970&lang=en