Not sure that I follow that this move makes live music any cheaper. It may mean that the total pub running costs will be a little less perhaps, at least for next year for Samuel Smiths and others who may follow their example. However, this fee (apart from perhaps buying the CDs) is all it costs to provide bckground recorded music.

To provide live music, on top of all the other costs to run the pub and the PRS fee - pubs still need to find the money to pay live performers.

This move by Samuel Smiths - not to pay the current fee for a year, looks to be a protest and probably will be an effective one. If others follow this example - PPL will certainly feel the pinch in 2005 and may have to re-think the £1,000 fee proposed for 2006.

It could be that Samuel Smiths may apply for the licence again - if the proposed increase does not happen - then again they may find that the majority of their customers prefer to drink and not to have to shout over background music, I know I do. PPL may prove to have shot themselves in the foot.

My concern is that no distinction is being made between recorded background music and live music in pubs. And that live music may suffer as a result of the general agreement I can foresee - that banning music in pubs is a good idea, or at least not a bad one.