View Single Post
Old 11-03-2014, 12:03 PM   #31
Mike L
Wizard
Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Mike L ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Mike L's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,479
Karma: 3846231
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Device: Kindle 3, Samsung Galaxy
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul View Post
It appears the rights owner gets the license fees paid for use. They are probably only going to have a small proportion of rights holders coming forward so the thing is not going to be a net cost to the taxpayer.
I agree that they rights owners will only get the fee paid for the actual use, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking who pays the fee - the person using the work, or (in effect) the taxpayer?

I also agree that only a very small number of rights owners are going to come forward. And, even then, I suspect the amount they get paid will be fairly trivial. But I don't see how that leads to your conclusion that there "is not going to be a net cost to the taxpayer".

But I don't want to make a big issue of this point. I only raised it out of curiosity.

Mike
Mike L is offline   Reply With Quote