An intriguing point, which I have not seen discussed, is the suggestion that the legality or illegality of playing music may turn on the issue of whether it was or wasn't advertised.
A lot of advertisisng, particularly of acoustic sessions, is not done by the landlord. It is done by participants, via the internet, or specialist local magazines. Or even by non-participating enthusiasts. Which seems to suggest that a landlord's guilt or innocence will be established by actions of people totally beyond his control. Can that be the intention of the bill?