Hummingbird, some of what you're wondering about is touched on in Harvey Reid's essay, at http://www.woodpecker.com/articles/royalty-politics.html. Performance is ordinarily covered by a performance license paid for by the club or restaurant owner. The performer doesn't pay directly. Of course performers pay indirectly in at least two ways that I can think of. As members of the public they pay higher prices than otherwise for meals and drinks at the club or restaurant. As performers they pay because clubs and restaurants that can't afford licenses don't hire performers. All other things being equal, the more the licenses cost, the fewer places will buy them, and the fewer will be the opportunities for performers to perform, and for audiences to hear.

Certain performances (such as performance of religious music during worship if performed from bought-and-paid-for copies) are exempt from performance licenses. (Remember, I am not a lawyer, this is just private opinion, it isn't legal advice, it doesn't establish a lawyer-client relationship, etc. etc.) But so far as I know there are no exemptions for reprints of copyrighted works except the general "fair use" exemption, which by all accounts is a very tricky concept, some special provisions for libraires, and maybe a few special-case exemptions (I think Braille books are exempt). Even churches need to get permission (and sometimes pay a fee) to reprint music or hymn lyrics in the church leaflet, if the music or lyrics are copyrighted. Fortunately I think much of the DT is in the public domain, and the Mudcat has permissions for much or all of the rest.

So I think the Mudcat will get through this OK. Still I share your frustration. It sometimes seems as though the copyright system is like a net being closed ever tighter around us poor birdies.

T.