Italianos Incesto Gratis

Canon Digital

digital Canon seems like a joke. crime in Spain is not downloadable movies. Or share music or anything. Yes, provided that no profit. not me talking, says the Criminal Code. And this is true as a temple, do not be fooled.

With this in mind, it seems incredible that we have to pay a "fee" from which they profit only the SGAE **** for something that is not a crime. I understand that we can not benefit from the work of others without paying a dime. Copyright yes ... but not at any price. never understand why I have to pay a few euros more for buying a hard drive or a computer screen, and only by chance that they would use to copy and / or download material . But where have we come? You really are losses due to piracy, or because they intend to make figures that go beyond what is reasonable? Spiderman 3 has gained about 1000 million dollars worldwide. The film, as I recall, cost about 300. Please, what do we mean then?

Is it really because the English authors want to charge more, and it will take a picture with Zapatero to say they can not eat because of piracy? Why do I have to put a guy like Alejandro Sanz tell me that, with the amount of money you have, and knowing exactly what indiscriminate canon?

I repeat, if someone has a right, has to defend ... but we must remind Mr. Sanz, for example, that we live . Of the listeners (not including me) music. Of those who are interested in it, and get paid for their concerts. Can not given (n) notice that the sound of his music, we are creating fame? What that actually benefits them? What is not permissible is to have to pay 20 euros for a CD of music that most songs do not like. I'm not going to pay 20 euros for two songs. Neither I nor anyone with half a brain. And if neither heard his songs, he would go running out of money ...

also why someone has to pay extra for a CD, if you use it to record personal files? Or simply due to labor? Does this mean a preventive measure? Wow, better not let us out there, it reminds me of preventive a. ..

will count two real cases: years ago when the legendary Napster was the most used P2P program in the world, had to close for an application (in USA), by copyright. Offspring was one of the groups that supported explicitly to the platform, because they understood that, with this type of program, users share their music and they are revealed. and confessed that what they earned more money, it was with concerts, not CDs. This reminds me of a certain professor of mine, we are encouraged to photocopy the book, as the "lost profits" was not significant (in fact, took the euro meant that profit, and threw it out the window.)

Another case is the latest and of course, Radiohead. Internet put on his new album, and allowed each user to download it for free or pay what they deemed appropriate. The end result was that Radiohead made more money this way than any other previous record (and why the "media" of money paid by each listener was 4 euros). 4 euros! And we charge 20 in the shops ...

Well, actually I consider unacceptable that by buying a phone that has MP3, you have to pay about 10 euros. Or even to have DSL (it claims as the sky). And is supposed to be "in compensation." But I say ... "in return for what, when, remember, we are not committing any criminal act? Not even a loss! I can not stop going to the cinema to see a movie downloaded from my computer ... Being able to download a movie does not mean "pass" to go to the movies ... if I see one, you do not worth paying for a cinema ticket (or music CD or whatever). So ... he really is a waste the artist / author?

Alexander, I would never buy an album I own!