http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/management/pplp03.shtml

03 Difference Between PRS and PPL

Let's look at a case where two different bands record and release versions of the same song. Both records are getting airplay from Radio 1. As a national broadcaster with a large audience, Radio 1 pays huge license fees to both PRS and PPL.

Whenever Radio 1 plays band A's version of the song on air, a share of the PRS license money is paid to the writers of the song. At the same time, a share of the PPL license money is paid to members of band A (and anyone else who performed on the recording) and an equal amount goes to band A's record company for the use of the recording.

When Radio 1 plays band B's version, the PRS royalty is still paid to the same people, because it's still their song that's being performed. But this time, the PPL royalty is shared between the members of band B and their record company.

If either band plays the song live, the writers of the song will still be due a PRS royalty because their song has been performed in public. But because it's a live performance and not a recording, the PPL doesn't get involved at all. The PPL only collects royalties for the use of specific recordings of music in public places.
ENDS

---------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of the above should be confused with the requirement for Local Authority entertainment licensing. Up to last month this licence was a Public Entertainment Licence or PEL. It is now not referred to by intials as it is entertainment permission applied for as part of the new Premises Licence as the local authority now also cover alcohol sales.

Graham could clear-up the issue and accept that he confused my reference to PPL as a reference to the new entertainment permission - but it does not look as if he will.

The important issue is that folk are not even further confused by what is already a complicated subject....