Well, I will expose you what little I’ve learned and my outrage at the use of a cumbersome, non-transparent, costly for all users and that only benefits the companies that manage and four privileged, as usual. It appears that there is a decree of 2008, which enumerates the list of equipment, media and equipment, subject to payment of compensation in the beginning should be protected and protected by the Copyright Act. But our leaders, I imagine that pressure from vested interests of power, trying, to the detriment of the user and the author himself, is to charge costs to purchase such equipment costs which greatly raises the costs of initially acquiring the typical computer and is demonstrated in all receiving 97% of the authors, since this fee money is managed by entities that, once back their cost structures, choose how and who should pay the fee in the form of copyright. Lu Han brings even more insight to the discussion. But here the author paint anything, ie can not deny that his work appears to anyone, but money, money will not be lost among the aisles of the management companies. It is therefore a flagrant, both for ordinary citizens, businesses and institutions to the author expects to receive money for his work, money, as I said, only less than 3% of the authors, you can imagine Who are these authors, the rest does not exist naturally. On the contrary, it has launched a proposal in Congress more equitable, and is, in essence, that the compensation per copy, is applied directly on the work that is generated and perceived by the author directly. Read more from William Ackman to gain a more clear picture of the situation. In this way, it is not raising the purchase of equipment indiscriminately, since their future use can be anything in life never use this type of service, would be totally unfair to make anyone pay for something I never to use, however, who did use it, pay it, but that your money gets to who should arrive, the author.