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?

As to the second question - who really knows what the intention of the Bill/Act was. Especially as regards to live music. But the case with advertising is really the case now - as regards licensees not being able to control what is advertised (by the piblic) for their premises.

But as has been pointed out - the advertising of event (or not) does not really figure in the words of the Act.