"It can be argued that any performance by unpaid performers, which was publicised with the expectation of bringing in extra customers and consequently extra revenue to the licensee would meet the definition of public performance."

Indeed who is making this 'argument' and for what possible reason?

I am reminded of this from Geoffery Robinson QC when talking of s3 (1) of the Human Right Act 1998, which states - So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

"...if it is possible to give statutory language an interpretation which accords with the Convention, that interpretation must prevail. Now this is not a power to be underrated. When your barrister tells you that your case is 'arguable', that decodes as meaning that he's inviting you to pay him a lot of money so he can have the pleasure of making an argument which is bound to fail. But s 3 turns that which is mearly arguable into an argument which must succeed, if it is the only plausable argument which can make a statute conform to the Convention."

Locally and under current legislation, my council's officers have adopted their interpretation of S 182, ('two in a bar'). This automatically makes sessions (with more two customers), in pubs a criminal offence. Officers must threaten licensees unless they pay a fee. But unless the council can demonstrate that the public safety or noise risks were greater than satellite TV, which does not require a PEL, it is endorsing a policy that is manifestly incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention, and unlawful under s 3 of the HRA 1998.

Not that anyone seems to care.............