The issue isn't that PRS shouldn't be licensing online performances, but that the fee they are charging is substantially higher than that for an equivalent live gig. Apparently this is because internet streaming is considered a "broadcast" and attracts a mechanical rights fee as well as performing rights.

I can see the logic of this for large shows, where the online audience may be many times larger than any live audience and where broadcasting (whether by internet or radio/TV) is bringing in substantial additional value. However for small scale gigs the online audience may be no different from those who would have attended the live gig, had this been possible. There is no additional value here from the gig being broadcast, and without the internet it couldn't happen at all, which benefits no one.

It must be particularly galling for those performing their own songs, who must still obtain a licence and then wait at least 6 months for it to be reimbursed through royalties.

It shows exceptional lack of sensitivity and awareness on the part of PRS to instroduce this at a time when the music industry is on its knees and many musicians have lost all their income, while not receiving government support. This affects songwriters too, and they deserve to be paid for their work, but the charges need to be reasonable and proportionate. There doesn't appear to have been any meaningful consultation with interested parties, including ordinary PRS members (I am one).