Furthermore I have seen nothing to justify the suggestion that the original intent of the Bill was to strengthen recorded music and undermine live music. This was certainly a view that was circulated from the start, but has all of the signs of a negociating position rather than fact.

If the original Bill had been in any way what the Govenment claimed for it - there would have been no need for any negociating postion.

The fact that there was always to be an exemption for 'incidental' recorded music but not one for 'incidental' live music, clearly demonstrates that the effect of the original worded Bill would have enabled (most) recorded music without the rigmarole of obtaining advanced licensing permission. This permission was required for any live music. Whether this was an evil and intended design or just due to stupidity is hardly the point, to further damage all live music would have been the effect of it.

I would suggest that for no real reason, other than perhaps the powerful recorded music indusry lobby, the Bill was just carrying on the historical and reckless 'recorded music good' - 'live music bad' view, that has cause so much damage to all forms of live music. Due to the efforts of many of us (including the 110,000 who signed the online petition) - the Act that was passed is not the original Bill and there is now an exemption for incidental live music.

Rather than arguing now - we must ensure that we make to very most of this exemption and all of the other measures that cam be used to lessen the effects of the Act on all live music.