I'm even more puzzled why he took the gig on those terms. It's clearly unfair to the performer, and also very unclear - how do you determine which paying patrons are "directly attributable to the performer"? But is that a 'rip-off', when the terms are freely entered into by the performer?

Not getting paid even the miserable amount he was due under this arrangement is a different matter, but he already has a remedy under existing law for breach of contract.

I don't think he's got the faintest chance of getting the law he's asking for. If he did, I'm not sure that we in the folk world should support it - such a law would kill off folk clubs, if they were required to pay floor singers or residents supporting the main performer. Bearing in mind the experience with Licensing Act, I'd be very doubtful if we could get an exemption for folk clubs. But it's not going to happen - can't see any government, least of all a Tory-dominated one, interfering in freely entered into contracts unless there's an over-riding public interest.