No se si te has dado cuenta, pero el segundo articulo se limita a proponer *el canon de la SGAE*. Ese impuesto que considera el beneficio de las diiscograficas como servicio publico.

-------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC: I never listen to music. Why should I pay for it?
A: I don't have a car or children, but I pay for your schools and roads.

PUBLIC: I don't download music. Why should I pay for it? I'm not having this on my phone bill! - A: See above
-------------------------------------------------

Sin comentarios. Llenar el iPod de este senyor es "de interes social"

-------------------------------------------------
RECORD CO: This will expand the music market, but you're fixing it at Year 200n levels. That's not fair. - A: Very, very few business people complain about increased demand for their product. Under flat fees, only the gross revenues from rights royalties will be fixed. So extracting dollars and squids from people in lots of creative ways carries on as before.
-------------------------------------------------

Si, ya. Puedes ganar dinero de otra manera, pero la forma de repartir *ese dinero* queda fijada per in secula saeculorum en en ano 2005. tio listo.

-------------------------------------------------
- FAN/ANYONE WHO ISN'T PAUL McCARTNEY: It isn't fair because it doesn't reflect how much I like an artist who doesn't sell many copies.
A: About the only thing that can be guaranteed about a flat fee model: it isn't perfect.
-------------------------------------------------

Si me obliga a pagar a la SGAE y/o a Bustamante entonces es demasiado imperfecto para existir.

Es la primera vez que opino que una entrada tuya es mala. Pero malamalamala.

A veces hay que leer cosas con las que no estas de acuerdo. El viejo asunto de la perspectiva, tan demode.

mxxxxxxxxx!!