Resale royalties

I’ve been reading a recent House of Representatives standing committee report on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 *. Essentially, it looks at the implementation and possible consequences of the proposed legislation to give a proportion of art sale proceeds to the original artist.

At first I thought it was looking at the pros and cons of a resale royalty, but unfortunately it was only formed to make recommendations for changes to the bill as put forward by Peter Garrett. The studies into the pros and cons have already come and gone, apparently without much public notice (certainly not mine!), and anyway it was an election promise by the ALP, and required by Australia’s signing of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1971. Yes, 1971 – it’s taken 38 years to comply with international law in this respect. I think that counts as a strike against those who claim government works quickly or efficiently.

So it’s a done deal, with only the details to be worked out – minimums, maximums, whether it applies to all sales or only ones after the first one, etc. Which is a pity, because I’m interested in why a resale royalty is desirable in the first place. I can think of several arguments against it.

The stated purpose is to:

“to help redress the imbalance between the treatment of other artists (eg authors, musicians) by recognising an ongoing relationship between the visual artist and their work”

I suppose the ‘imbalance’ is that authors and musicians get royalties. But they get them when their work is reproduced, not when it is on-sold. A royalty in that case is basically a purchase of their work. The legislation being examined by the standing committee is a totally new way of applying royalties that does not apply to books or music, so if anything, it’s creating an imbalance, not rectifying one.

It is quite different when there is just one artwork instead of many copies. If we look at other things in which the value is not in the reproducible content, but in the thing itself (eg houses), you can see the inappropriateness of having a royalty imposed on every single transfer of ownership from that point on. Can you imagine the architect or builder demanding their percentage whenever you move house?

Economic modelling was commissioned to see what effect a resale royalty would have, and the consultancy said:

“who bears the actual economic cost of the royalty, and, most importantly whether eligible artists would be net beneficiaries of such an arrangement is not at all clear.”

That is, would there be any real benefit?

Speaking of modelling, a lobby group did some number-crunching on the funds gathered if certain scenarios had been in place over the last 10 years , and came up with payments to artists of about $35 million if you include every sale, and under $5 million if you only count every sale after the first one. I have to wonder, did they make adjustments for the change in behaviour likely to occur if a resale royalty is applied? What I mean is, if you know you are going to pay a percentage of the sale price, wouldn’t you up the price by that much? And wouldn’t that in turn impact on demand? **

An important objection I would make is that policing this is going to be costly. Some of the discussion in the report is on whether private sales should be excluded, how to deal with eBay and the like, and so on. Since the amounts we are talking about aren’t really that much (about $1,000 a year for eligible artists, even under the most optimistic scenario), you have to consider if it’s worth the cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance.

I should note that any royalty system benefits well-known artists the most, so it won’t do anything to alleviate the plight of stereotypical struggling artist either.

All up, I really can’t understand why such a concept was included in the Berne Convention, and why Australia signed up to it. Actually I can – lobby and interest groups wield far too much power over governments.

* Amusingly, the RRVAB 2008 says that “An artwork is an original work of … art” (LOL!) and that “Works of … art include [pretty much everything]”. One suggestion to the standing committe was that “artwork must have artistic quality”. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up!

** It reminds me of the laughable figures ARIA comes up with about lost sales due to music ‘piracy’ – they assume every digital download equals a lost hard-copy sale. Which is stupid – free=overconsumption, so therefore illegal digital downloads are always going to be higher (maybe much, much higher) than CD sales would have been without the internet.

This entry was posted in national and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Resale royalties

  1. Mark Hill says:

    Another scam is the notorious TV licensing fee in pubs, which funds performing artists, since having a TV is so rude since you don’t need to listen to some hack doing covers of Exile or Lynard Skynard.

  2. Jarrah says:

    What’s this fee? I’ve never heard of it before.

  3. JM says:

    Jarrah

    The Berne Convention actually dates from 1886 and Australia has complied with it (mostly) since the initial version of the Copyright Act, 1971 is just a later version (I think 1979 is the latest).

    Most countries are party to the convention, the most notorious holdout was the US which didn’t sign up at all until 1989.

    This resale thing is part of the convention that I think very few countries comply with (in fact most have a “first sale rule” which means that royalties are only payable on the first sale, and not second hand sales)

    My understanding is that the purpose of this initiative is to give aboriginal artists in particular a leg-up in clawing back a fair price after being ripped off for so many years.

    Mark, the real scandal of that fee (which also applies to music in restaurants) is that it is collected in bulk but distributed according to the pop charts – ie. not necessarily to the artists whose works are actually being played. For example, one of my favourite bistros tends to play a lot of jazz and they pay this fee – but I know for a fact that the fee is broken down and distributed according to pop charts. ie. Rhianna gets a cut when a 40 year old Miles track is played. Miles’ estate gets nothing.

    This has been going on since about 1978 when APRA started muscling radio stations. I was part time program manager for a small station at the time. They gave us the option of recording the details of everything we played to ensure fair distribution but the cost of doing so was horrendous for a primarily volunteer operation and we gave up after a couple of months.

    The second leg to this abomination (which I saw later from the other side) is that the artists *dont* actually get anything at all as the record companies hide it all from them with phony accounting – it’s only when the artists’ sales are so large that it’s impossible to hide any more that they see anything at all.

  4. JM says:

    Jarrah, the fee is a bulk fee that APRA levy on radio stations, restaurants, etc, etc who play music. The fee applies at a set rate (eg about $2000/year for restaurants) and is levied as a copyright royalty. It’s bog standard and comes out of long standing copyright law but wasn’t applied for decades as it was too hard to collect (and also the record companies took the attitude for a long time that public performance of their properties was free advertising – that attitude changed during the 1970’s)

    The copyright collection agencies have been getting tough on this stuff for a long time – the notorious RIAA lawsuits against file sharers are just the latest incarnation – and it’s more or less universal across the western world now.

  5. Jarrah says:

    “My understanding is that the purpose of this initiative is to give aboriginal artists in particular a leg-up in clawing back a fair price after being ripped off for so many years.”

    Why? If they have been ripped off, don’t they have opportunity for redress under contract law (eg, undue influence or unconscionable conduct)?

  6. JM says:

    ” redress under contract law ”

    IANAL but probably not. The duress was/is the general inequality and living conditions of aboriginal artists not something applied by the art dealer (“hey Albert, I’ll give you a couple of quid for that nice little water color”). I’m pretty sure a court would decide that its role isn’t to provide redress for general inequality.

    So unless you’re going to get all Austrian and insist that only contract law mediates relationships between parties no matter what inequality or inequity may otherwise exist, placing that much faith in contract law is a bit overdone.

    (I’m not a big fan of this legislation, I’m just saying that’s what the government is reportedly trying to acheive)

  7. Mark Hill says:

    If you’re against the APRA thing, the artists Berne thingy can be abused similarly.

  8. JM says:

    It’s the same thing Mark. APRA is the Australian Performing Rights Association which collects royalties on behalf of copyright owners (ie. the record companies etc who artists assign their rights to in exchange for a contract)

    Berne is the the convention on copyright which nations implement in their law.

    Copyright is messy but is a rag-tag collection of different royalties and rights. For restaurants, pubs etc what counts is public performance where playing a recording (or showing a TV show) in public for commercial purposes requires payment of a royalty. APRA collect those fees for music, I don’t know who does it for TV shows.

    My beef is with the implementation which is crude and rewards the wrong people, not so much the principle (and also the criminally fraudulent financial structure of the “standard contract” used by the music industry).

    If you want to argue against the very existence of the fee rather than its implementation, you’re arguing against copyright itself which I don’t want to do (other than noting its term has become ridiculously long, far beyond what’s necessary to provide any incentives so that it’s become an unjustified rent).

  9. JM says:

    Oh sorry Mark, I missed your point a little. The royalty on resale in Berne is (so far as I know) unimplemented by any nation.

    Apart from contradicting/extending practice of the last century or so, one of the objections to Australia’s attempt is that since no other country does it, the royalties can simply be avoided by conducting sales overseas.

    The other objections are that it would turn every garage sale into a tax collection center on very small transactions where the royalty would be a small fraction of the extremely small residual value left in most second hand items.

    Unworkable.

  10. Jarrah says:

    “I’m just saying that’s what the government is reportedly trying to acheive”

    Not according to the report. Perhaps that’s part of the submissions and unofficial discussions that I haven’t seen, or departmental/ministerial claims. Regardless, I have to wonder if this legislation is the appropriate mechanism for correcting past exploitation. It certainly isn’t specifically targeted in that direction.

    On a more theoretical level, if dealers were exploiting the Aboriginal artists’ lack of knowledge due to poor living conditions, wouldn’t those abnormal profits have drawn in other dealers, bidding up the prices? Do you know if there’s any data on that?

  11. JM says:

    “Not according to the report. ”

    I haven’t seen the report, only newspaper comments that suggest it’s the motivation.

    “Do you know if there’s any data on that?”

    Um, would infant mortality at severe 3rd world levels and life expectancy some 20 years less than average be good enough for you?

    “bidding up the prices?”

    Markets aren’t perfect unless they are complete. If you’re scrabbling for a crust and trying to bargain with someone who isn’t, particularly a South Yarra dealer, then you can’t expect the market to arbitrage away lifetime disadvantage in the sale of a watercolor.

  12. Jarrah says:

    “I haven’t seen the report”

    There’s a link in the first sentence of my post.

    “Um, would infant mortality at severe 3rd world levels and life expectancy some 20 years less than average be good enough for you?”

    ???

    I thought I was being clear – I was asking if you knew if there were any surveys or studies about prices going up due to increased competition for artists’ work. Or even anecdotal stories. Because I suspect that process has occurred to some extent.

    “you can’t expect the market to arbitrage away lifetime disadvantage in the sale of a watercolor”

    Naturally, I don’t. Generations of deprivation, discrimination, denial of human rights, etc, aren’t going to be remedied by art sales. But they aren’t going to be remedied by art resale royalties either!

  13. JM says:

    Whoops, sorry I missed the link. But having read the report now I think it makes fools of us both. It appears I was wrong and that about 50 countries have implemented some form of resale right. Also it appears there is a threshold price so my example of garage sales is mistaken (shows what I get for relying on newspapers).

    Also: “1.27 The income support argument has also been central when considering
    Indigenous artists in Australia.”

    Pages 26-30 discuss the issue of aboriginal artists in a bit of detail, including this one:

    “The sale of the late Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri’s painting for
    $2.4 million highlights the obscenity of the art market.
    Possum received only $1200 for the picture in 1977, and
    neither he nor his family will get a cent from the sale”

    Also from about p14 onwards there’s some discussion of the economic effect of the proposal including references to some studies and a few graphs showing the effect on prices and artists income.

    Personally, I’m leery of a resale royalty but it looks like they’ve put a fair bit of thought into this over the last few years.

    The Possum example I think would have been experienced by many artists indigenous or not and is probably just an example of the art market at work even if it is more extreme than what a non-indigenous artist might experience. There are plenty of commercially ruthless artists such as Picasso, Ruebens, Dobel, Renoir etc who benefit(ed) from institutional support structures (art mags, dealers, patrons, et al) but I can’t think of a single indigenous example. Which is indicative of disadvantage. Dobel et al were well educated and inhabited a highly developed market so they were aware of their leverage early on and could exploit it. Namajira not so much.

    The art market is very volatile and indigenous artists first sale price point appears to be a lot lower than it should be, but I think the report is confusing volatility with disadvantage and trying to use legislation to correct for volatility in the hope that there might be some removal of disadvantage.

    That’s a hell of stretch in my view. And using legislation to remove risk from the art market in general (as opposed to culturally important segments) I don’t think is a social benefit worth pursuing. Unless someone wants to start government sponsorship of rock music, or even worse commercial art (aka advertising).

    “Naturally, I don’t. Generations of deprivation, discrimination, denial of human rights, etc, aren’t going to be remedied by art sales. But they aren’t going to be remedied by art resale royalties either!”

    Agree completely. I don’t like the idea in the first place and I think the justification is bogus.

  14. Jarrah says:

    I did miss that reference to Indigenous artists, but it confirms my point that such consideration was not central to the bill.

    “The sale of the late Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri’s painting for
    $2.4 million highlights the obscenity of the art market.”

    I don’t think it’s obscene. $5422 (in 2008 dollars) isn’t bead-and-button territory. I’ve had a quick look, but I can’t find much to tell me whether the subsequent price increase is ‘obscenely’ large, compared to other famous artists.

    “Also from about p14 onwards there’s some discussion of the economic effect of the proposal”

    Yes, I know, I highlighted it in my original post. It bears repeating – “about $1,000 a year for eligible artists, even under the most optimistic scenario”. It doesn’t sound worth doing. So I guess after all that, we are in agreement! :-)

    JM, thank you very much for visiting my blog and making substantial, intelligent comments. You’re welcome back any time.

  15. Painter says:

    Jarrah
    The artist resale royalty scheme was promoted for years, in very bad faith, by a coalitions of collecting societies and arts organisations who saw it as a nice opportunity for expanded management fees. Its only other benefit is to a handful of famous and mostly dead artists. This is how it has always worked in those countries where it is properly implemented. In the UK, 47% of all the money collected went to just 72 individual resales of artworks by just 20 artists! It is a scam, pure and simple. However, Garrett’s proposal seems to be for a scheme that will be fairly innocuous. Firstly, participation in it by artists will not be completely compulsory and it will not be retrospective. The coalition who have lobbied for this scheme are not very happy with this outcome. They demanded the right to compulsory payment of management fees by artists, a monopoly control for them of the right of collection and for 70 years of dead artists to exploit. At the moment, and we await Garrett’s deliberations on the Standing committee’s recommendations, they look like they won’t get any of this. The main reason why it got as far as it did, was because Viscopy had an alliance with an organisation that claimed official status to represent artists. What was never declared to the Myer Report of 2002 which recommended for the resale right (and which the Labor Party adopted as policy) was that Viscopy, until July 2004, was a tax paying organisation that bought and sold visual artist copyrights for a profit. It was never mentioned by the government sponsored arts organsations (and I include the Australia Council in this) that they were lobbying for a compulsory monopoly power for a commercial business that they were closely aligned to and in the case of the Australia Council, underwriting its very costly operations. Conflict of interest has been written all over this for at least a decade.

  16. Jarrah says:

    Looks like no-one has a good reason to support this legislation, and many have reasons to oppose it. SNAFU, in other words.

  17. Painter says:

    Garrett’s bill can be supported for the simple reason that it is not compulsory for artists to participate in it. Resale royalties are a stupid destructive idea promoted by arts bureaucracies seeking compulsory management fees. If Ms Cave of Viscopy has a salary package worth say $150k she would need the management fees at 15% (minimum) on $1million worth of royalty payments just to pay her wages. The total value of the royalties collected is likely to be about $6million at most and for an artist to receive royalty payments of $100,000, the artist would need resales totalling $2million. It’s a cynical ripoff, not a stuff up.

  18. Mark Hill says:

    Painter,

    We need more people like you to be vocal about this. Many self professed members of an “arts community” defend these ideas tooth and nail, saying it is for your own good.

  19. Painter says:

    I have been as vocal as I can. However a problem is this; the official voice of the art world are quasi gov organisations , NAVA and the like , who have a strong interest in, more management fees and also have a world view stuck in the 70s, government art= good, commercial art =bad.
    And the media like simple stories, good arts orgs versus evil auction houses. Finally there are only about 300-500 artists in australia who are resold often enough to pay for the costs of the scheme, (they are mostly dead) and those who are not are , ‘loners’ not part of the government system , and can be ignored, they are ‘commercial/sold out’ after all.

  20. Painter says:

    To Mark Hill

    A clear example of the contradictions that the government funded art world is mired in, is the position of Arts Law. Far from being a dispassionate advocacy body available to represent the legal interests specifically for artists (in this case visual artists), it has become an extremely partisan advocate of the interests of arts organisations and collecting agencies such as NAVA, Viscopy and CAL. Obviously any artist who thought that the royalty was not in their legal interest would have to look elsewhere for legal representation whereas the organisations have subsidised legal representation (supposedly for ‘poor artists’). The quasi-government art world actively excludes anyone who is not like them and therefore renders virtually all working artists invisible. NAVA the self proclaimed artists representative body receives almost 70% of its funding, not from membership, but in the form of direct grants from the Australia Council and payments for ‘services’ from other publicly funded organisations. It is paid for by management and therefore represents the interests of management; it is the ‘workers union’ paid for by management.

  21. Painter says:

    A bit of recent info
    have a new report of a big “copyright industry” talkfest in Europe , in which Ms Cave (Ceo Viscopy) clearly links the Australian artist resale royaltys, with the push to get the americans to adopt a replay royalty on music, something that americans apparently dont have- a lot of management action.
    There is a general push by agencies to change royaltys into a sort of private transaction tax a- ‘re-‘ whatever ,’managed’ by the “industry”.
    The death of a ‘natural’ monopoly over publication and distribution caused by the ease of access to the web, has left a lot of , previously “naturaly’ powerful , industrys in need of enforcers to protect a now artificial monopoly.
    By ‘natural’ – :you used to need a lot of dosh and skills to do things that these days can be done on a $2 thou Mac, even the Iranian government with all their thugs cant control publishing and distribution of ‘ information’ about downtown tehran.
    When trading companies are in decline, they become empires .

  22. Geoffrey says:

    My main problem with the art resale royalty scheme is that the royalty is payable on the gross sale price of an artwork, not on the profit (or increase in value, if any). So if a dealer sells a painting for $3000 but actually makes a loss on the sale, he or she is still up for 5% of the gross sale price before removing any of his/her costs in aquiring the work in the first place. If an artist’s works increase in value over subsequent sales then fair enough (maybe) but to get royalties on declining resale prices is hardly an indicator of an artists increasing popularity or value. Many dealers (particularly ones who sell on eBay) buy speculatively at auction and do not always sell a painting for more than they paid, it’s the luck of the game. The legislators appear to have the rosy view that artwork always increases in value. But there are many cases of an artist whose works have decreased in value over the years, either because they were too expensive to start with, or because the artist has fallen out of favour, or both. Yet apparently even in these cases the artist or the artist’s estate will be entitled to a fee. Also the lifetime+70 years will include just about every Australian artist since before Federation even. How much money will be spent just trying to track down the estates of many of these artists? If the estate can not be found, what will happen to the royalty? I bet the seller won’t get it back. Who is going to fund the inevitable wrangles about who in a family group is entitled to the royalty? There are many more cons to this than pros, unless you are a living, already highly well paid artist, or are a descendant of a famous, big-ticket artist. My prediction is that the whole thing will cost more to administer than it is worth to anyone but this latter group, and a lot of small-time dealers will go out of business, it’s tough enough to make a crust already when you are in the $1000 to $3000 market. Geoff.

  23. john walker says:

    Geoff
    Minister Garrett’s scheme is not retrospective and therefore will not apply to people who died up to 70 years ago. Apart from that, I agree with you completely. For quite some time now, the ‘copyright industry’ has been moving towards flat transaction duties to replace individual royalty rights for much the same reason that governments have moved from tax to GST.

  24. Geoffrey says:

    John: I must be mis-understanding the ‘lifetime+70 years’ thing. I interpret it as meaning that it will apply, say, to any artist who died after 1939 as a starting point. If that is correct, it would include numerous artists who were born after (say) 1870. Like I say, I could be coming at this from an incorrect viewpoint. It wouldn’t be the first time. Does it only apply to the works of artists who are alive now, plus 70 years after they die? That would seem to argue against some of the examples I have seen of how the levy would be applied. Some correspondents have talked of artists who died 30 or 40 years ago as coming under the scheme when a painting is sold for maybe the 10th time at auction. That seems the case in Europe, where the main beneficiaries are the already well-filled coffers of people like the Picasso estate. The other part I find a bit confusing is that the levy applies to the ‘second’ sale of an artwork, presumably meaning its first appearance on the secondary market. Does that mean the second sale only, and not subsequent sales, ad infinitum? Can you clarify that one for me? I haven’t found anyone yet to do so (Garrett’s office does not reply to queries!)Geoff.

  25. john walker says:

    Geoff
    Yes, this is confusing. The royalty will not apply to the FIRST resale of an artwork initially sold PRIOR to the introduction of the scheme. If an artwork was first purchased prior to the introduction of the scheme, the royalty will NOT apply to the first resale of that work. It will apply to all subsequent resales, after that first resale. In the case of artworks purchased AFTER the introduction of the scheme, it will apply, subject to the artist’s right under Clause 22/23 to refuse to consent to the collection of that individual royalty payment. For me, as a practising artist, the right to say ‘NO’ to the whole scheme has been sufficient motivation for 6 years of actively fighting against it. It is technically true that, given enough time and enough resales, artworks from the likes of Brett Whiteley will be subject to a resale royalty. Artworks typically have a sale cycle of 20-40 years. Most collectors keep the work that they purchased until old age or circumstances force them to sell. Therefore it is going to be a long time before there is much action in the resale royalty business.

    The purpose of the non-retrospective quality is that no-one can say that they purchased an artwork and then subsequently discover that they will have to pay a 5% royalty on resale. The very generous tax concessions being offered for the purchase of art for your business (until 31 Dec 2009) may end up being continued and I hope will offset the negative impact of the royalty. The main drift of Access Economics and most other reputable economic analyses of the scheme is that it will definitely reduce incomes for younger artists, have neutral effects on established artists and possibly benefit dead artists. Access Economics, in a report commissioned by Viscopy in 2004, stated that the assumption behind the claim for net-benefit was misleading and possibly dangerous. The only clear winner would be the compulsory management fees sought after by the copyright collection agencies.

    The resale royalty was always a scheme pursued by various management organisations, principally copyright collection agencies, for expanded management fees. The fact that the most lucrative “clients” under these schemes are artists that are dead, and therefore have no way of objecting to being “serviced” is particularly attractive to these organisations. About 60-70% of Australia’s living artists avoid Viscopy like the plague. It is very keen on compulsion, servicing the dead and the unknown. The scheme got as far as it did because it is extremely difficult to understand and therefore it is easy for very dishonest people to manipulate and hide behind a fudge of sentimental waffle that conceals their very selfish and very bad intentions.

    It is hard to see how a free, civil society such as ours could in anything other than dire emergency, even think of retrospective seizure of property rights and the compulsory collectivisation of artists. The way these agencies carry on you’d think the royalty was in the same category as war or bushfire emergencies.

    Deeper reasons for this whole resale royalty go back to the increasingly dysfunctional and disconnected nature of the government funded visual arts field, without whom it would never have amounted to anything. Over the past 20 years or so, this field has almost totally disconnected from anything visible and become a hall of mirrors that produces almost nothing but management. To give one example: of the $15million in the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy funding allocated in 2005, $1.5million went to artists, the rest went to various forms of management. These arts managers typically talk about themselves as the “arts industry” . The term for these people and organisations is “rent seekers”.
    John

  26. john walker says:

    the bill passed its second reading basicaly unchanged, yesterday.
    What its for , ‘ is anybodys guess, but it is unlikely to give Viscopy and Nava the power they sought to regulate the real art industry.

  27. john walker says:

    this is a interesting read , canada has gone much further down the road to turning copyright into a openly titled privatized transaction tax, than any other common law country , the scale and complexity of it is ….
    the author writes well and dryly.
    CANADIAN COPYRIGHT COLLECTIVES AND
    THE COPYRIGHT BOARD:
    A SNAP SHOT IN 2008
    Howard P. Knopf
    Macera & Jarzyna, LLP
    Ottawa, Ontario

  28. john walker says:

    Hope you are well,( And hope I am not bothering you).
    I now believe that this whole biz gos back to the blank tapes ruling of 1992.
    The copyright lot have been trying to covertly get round the ‘problems’ of tax-like ever since.
    The artist resale push dates to the period of 1989-92 when the blank tapes levy issue was current. As I understand it the constitution dos not make tax-like levies illegal but it makes it near impossible for a copyright agency, operating under copyright law ,to have a ‘right’ that is tax-like. The artist resale ‘thing…’ was a chance to set a precedent that would have had wide implications – a re-use royalty on just about anything e.

  29. john walker says:

    Are you aware of the implications of the opt-out deadline for the google books settlement for All Australian Authors?
    Is it all that widely known about in Australia? The writers I know had not heard of it.
    This site has a fair bit of background.
    http://laboratorium.net/archive/2010/01/06/gbs_richard_epstein_weighs_in

    And http://wolfinthewood.dreamwidth.org/11969.html is a pretty good summary of this rather dodgy and definitely confusing contract .

  30. john walker says:

    Viscopy was an initiative resulting from a boozy lunch in the late 80s attended by the then chairman of the Copyright Agency limited and the then Chairman Of NAVA as well as the then director of NAVA.
    this is from the Oz 18 feb 2010
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/copyright-staff-get-more-than-they-give-to-authors-and-artists/story-e6frg8n6-1225831556653

    About $100 million, Mainly from school/ university libraries, is paid to CAL for it to distribute to authors and artists. CAL keeps about 10 million for ‘costs’, it then distributes about 9million directly to Authors and then passes the remaining %80 of the moneys *On to publishers to ‘distribute’*.
    It gives a good idea of the sort corporate mind set that thought up the resale royalty idea and then spent twenty years lobbying for its ” important benefits”

  31. Just found your Internet page via google and i contemplate this might be a disgrace that you’re not ranked higher as a result of the fact that which is a wonderful post. To change this i established to stay away from wasting your Internet website to my Rss reader and I’ll try to indicate you in 1 of my posts given that you truly deserv additional readers when publishing content material content of this top quality.

  32. home says:

    icfqmiumruiklmjizxufrgbwokolgppeolodbrdnmygvnqufnctcectrxoxmt

  33. This post is on 15 spot in google’s search results,
    if you want more visitors, you should build more backlinks to your content, there is one trick to
    get free, hidden backlinks from authority forums, search on youtube; how to get hidden backlinks from forums

  34. Hi! Someone in my Myspace . com group shared thijs web site with us so I came to give it a look.
    I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book-marking and will be
    tweeting this to my followers! Terrifi blog and superb design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *