if premises do not apply for the required licenses

If pub owners choose not to allow music sessions in *their* premises, they have every right to do so. Moreover if we give a damn about protecting people's freedom to do what they want on their own property then we have to let them do it!!! Although you have rights to self-expression, do you have rights to walk into your neighbour's house uninvited and play music? Of course you don't. So why are pubs different? Yes, they allow the public in, but they have every right to dictate what their customers do while they're in there.

If pub owners choose to allow live music, they can tick the box and pay not one penny extra to do so. If pub owners choose not to allow live music so don't tick the box, and then later decide they messed up, then they can choose whether to pay the extra for changing their minds. Shame they have to pay extra - but if you make a decision then you accept the consequences of the decision, whether it's good or bad, and if they can't take that then tough titty.

As far as sessions go, our (unpublicised) club has had to move as a result of the change to the law. Where we moved to, we were requested to set up no publicity until after the new law had come in. Now it's all sorted, we're allowed to publicise our session (2nd and 4th Fridays, at the Carlton Arms in Cambridge) which we never were before. And things are looking up for it in a big way. Another positive example of the new law, to add to Dave's.

All of this has shifted the thread a long way from the original post, though. The resident legal eagles ;-) have said pretty clearly that we're not in any danger of losing our right to sing through copyright rules. The UK licensing laws were never intended to be used for enforcing copyright though (and nor do they have any provision for doing so), so why have you pulled them in when they're not connected with your original question?

Graham.